BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 58
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 58
(Rodriguez) - As Amended March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: School safety plans
SUMMARY: Makes each county office of education (COE) the entity
responsible for the overall development of all comprehensive
school safety plans and requires school safety plans to include
procedures in response to individuals with guns on school
campuses. Specifically, this bill:
1)Strikes references to school districts in the following
provisions related to school safety plans:
a) In the provision requiring a school district or COE to
be responsible for the overall development of school safety
plans.
b) In the provision authorizing a school district or COE to
allow the portions of the school safety plan that include
tactical responses to criminal incidents to be developed by
administrators of the school district or COE instead of by
the schoolsite council.
AB 58
Page 2
c) In the provision authorizing a governing board of a
school district or COE to confer in closed session with law
enforcement officials to approve a tactical response plan.
d) In the provision authorizing a school district or COE to
work with the Office of Emergency Services and the Seismic
Safety Commission.
e) In the provision requiring a school district or COE to
cooperate with a public agency in establishing a procedure
to allow a public agency to use school buildings, grounds
and equipment during disasters or other emergencies.
f) In the provision requiring each school to forward its
school safety plan to the school district or COE for
approval.
2)Adds nongovernmental organizations to the provision requiring
the school safety plan to include a procedure to allow
specified entities to use school buildings, grounds, and
equipment for mass care and welfare shelters during disasters
or other emergencies.
3)Adds as a required component of the school safety plan
procedures related to individuals with guns on school campuses
and at school-related functions, including but not limited to,
training programs related to active shooters and active
terrorists. Requires training programs and drills to prepare
for active shooters or other armed assailants to be based on
the specific needs and context of each school and community.
Requires schools to consider the most cost-effective method of
preparing students and staff for an active shooter situation
while balancing the physical and psychological risks
associated with these drills. Requires the school resource
officer and school-employed mental health professionals to be
AB 58
Page 3
integrally involved in the planning and evaluation process to
ensure appropriate implementation, regardless of the nature of
the drills a school chooses.
4)Defines "active shooter" as an individual who is actively
engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined
and populated area.
5)Expresses the intent of the Legislature that schools use the
report by the National Association of School Psychologists and
the National Association of School Resource Officers on "Best
Practice Considerations for Schools in Active Shooter and
Other Armed Assailant Drills" in the development of their
school safety plan.
6)Requires an updated file of all safety-related plans and
materials to be readily available for inspection by law
enforcement and school employees, in addition to the public.
7)Requires the school accountability report card (SARC) to
include the date the school safety plan was adopted and a
description of the safety plan's elements.
8)Requires each principal to provide a written or electronic
notice to each teacher and classified employee of that school
that the adopted school safety plan is readily available for
inspection.
9)Deletes the provision requiring each school district or COE to
annually notify the California Department of Education (CDE)
by October 15 of any schools that have not complied with the
development of the school safety plan, and instead requires,
no later than October 15, 2016, and each year thereafter, each
COE to provide written notification to the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) identifying each school within the
AB 58
Page 4
county that has not complied with the requirement to develop a
comprehensive school safety plan or included the information
about the school safety plan on the SARC.
10)Specifies that confidential information relating to tactical
responses to criminal incidents shall not be included at a
public meeting.
11)Requires each principal to keep and maintain a copy of the
most recent school safety plan for that school, and each COE
to keep a copy of the most recent school safety plan submitted
to the COE and every notification made to the SPI identifying
each school within the district or county that has not
complied with the requirement to develop a school safety plan.
12)Requires all books, documents, records, and other papers kept
and maintained to be open for inspection and copying during
business hours at the district office or during school hours
at a school, on business days, excluding legal holidays,
within 48 hours of a written, verbal, or electronic request by
a law enforcement agency. Specifies that an electronic
version of a book, document, record or other paper is
sufficient to meet the requirements of this provision.
13)Strikes the provision authorizing a complaint of
noncompliance with the school safety planning requirement of
Title IV of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to be
filed with the CDE under the Uniform Complaint Procedures.
14)Requires the CDE to monitor compliance using an existing
monitoring framework.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires each school district or COE to be responsible for the
overall development of all comprehensive school safety plans
for its schools operating kindergarten or any of grades 1
AB 58
Page 5
through 12. (Education Code Section (EC) Section 32281)
2)Specifies that the schoolsite council or a school safety
planning committee is responsible for developing the
comprehensive school safety plan. (EC Section 32281)
3)Specifies that the comprehensive school safety plan shall
include an assessment of the current status of school crime
committed on school campuses and at school-related functions
and identification of appropriate strategies and programs that
will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and
address the school's procedures for complying with existing
laws related to school safety, including child abuse reporting
procedures; disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency
procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit
specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion;
procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; a
discrimination and harassment policy; the provisions of any
schoolwide dress code; procedures for safe ingress and egress
of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a
safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; rules and
procedures on school discipline; and hate crime reporting
procedures. (EC 32282)
4)Requires the comprehensive school safety plan to be evaluated
at least once a year. (EC 32282)
5)Requires each school to include a description of key elements
of the school safety plan in the annual SARC. (EC 32286)
6)Requires the schoolsite council or school safety planning
committee to hold a public meeting to allow public comment.
Requires the comprehensive school safety plan to be submitted
to the school district or COE for approval and requires a
school district or COE to notify the CDE by October 15 of
every year of any school that is not in compliance. (EC
32288)
7)Provides that if the SPI determines that there has been a
AB 58
Page 6
willful failure to make any report, the SPI shall notify and
assess no more than $2,000 against that school district or
COE. (EC 32287)
8)Authorizes the portions of a school safety plan that include
tactical responses to criminal incidents to be developed by
school district or COE administrators in consultation with law
enforcement officials and with a representative of an
exclusive bargaining unit of school district or COE employees,
if he or she chooses to participate. Authorizes the school
district or COE to elect not to disclose those portions of the
comprehensive school safety plan that include tactical
responses to criminal incidents. (EC 32281)
FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a
state-mandated local program. According to the Assembly
Appropriations Committee of a similar bill introduced in 2013,
SB 49 (Lieu), potential annual General Fund/Proposition 98 state
reimbursable mandated costs of at least $165,000 to school
districts and COEs to include additional information in the
school safety plans, notify school employees of the completion
of the plan, and copy/make available plans for inspection by law
enforcement.
COMMENTS: Background. Existing law specifies that school
districts and COEs are responsible for the overall development
of school safety plans. Each school is required to develop a
school safety plan that includes processes, procedures, and
policies to ensure student and staff safety at a school site.
The components of the plan range from daily processes, such as
procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents and
school employees; to disaster and emergency procedures such as
those during and after earthquakes; to behavioral policies such
as discrimination and harassment policies. The school safety
plan is developed by a school site council or a school safety
planning committee. Current law requires a school to submit the
school safety plan to the school district or COE for approval
and requires the school district or COE to annually notify the
AB 58
Page 7
CDE of any schools that have not complied with the requirement
to develop a school safety plan. The SPI is authorized to
impose a fine of not more than $2,000 against a school district
or COE for any willful failure to make any required report.
According to the CDE, there has been no report of noncompliance
by schools and no district or COE has been fined for willfully
failing to report a school that has not developed a school
safety plan. It is unclear whether this is because there have
been no violations and every school in the state has developed
its school safety plan, or whether districts or COEs have not
reported schools that have not developed their school safety
plans.
Who should be responsible for ensuring that school safety plans
are developed? This bill makes a number of changes to the
school safety plan, including striking the requirement that
school districts are responsible for the overall development of
school safety plans, thereby requiring COEs to ensure that each
school has developed its school safety plan. The bill also
strikes references to school districts throughout the school
safety plan provisions. According to the author's office,
designating one entity to be responsible will make it easier for
schools to comply with reporting requirements. While it may
seem simpler to put the responsibility on one entity, requiring
58 COEs to be responsible for almost 10,000 schools in
California may not be practical. In addition, throughout the
provisions governing school safety plans, schools districts have
requirements that are appropriately placed with school
districts. For example, current law authorizes a school
district governing board to allow district administrators,
instead of the schoolsite council, to develop a tactical
response to criminal incidents and to approve the response in
closed session. This is to prevent would be criminals from
using the information gleaned from the school safety plan to
carry out an attack. The school district is more familiar with
the schools in its district; this authority should remain with
the school district. Similarly, current law specifies that a
school district or COE shall cooperate with a public agency in
AB 58
Page 8
furnishing and maintaining the services the school district or
COE may deem necessary to meet the needs of the community during
disasters or other emergencies (e.g., allowing school buildings
to be used as shelters). COEs do not have authority over school
district facilities and grounds. This requirement should keep
the reference to school district. School districts should also
retain the authority to work with state agencies in developing
and establishing earthquake emergency procedures.
Staff recommends restoring the references to school districts in
the provisions regarding the development of the school safety
plan and restoring the responsibility for schools to submit
their school safety plans to their school districts.
Should the requirement for reporting to the SPI be strengthened?
There is a belief that not all schools have developed school
safety plans, but there is no data to confirm that. Current law
requires each school district or COE to annually notify the CDE
by October 15 of any schools that have not complied with the
requirements to develop a school safety plan and incorporate a
description in the school's SARC. This bill requires COEs to
provide written notification to the SPI identifying the schools
within the county that have not complied. Staff recommends
restoring the responsibility with school districts for their
schools and COE for county schools. Staff also recommends
strengthening the reporting requirement to the SPI by requiring
school districts or COEs to certify that the schools in their
jurisdiction have complied with the requirements for developing
the school safety plan.
New procedure to respond to armed assailants. This bill expands
the components in the school safety plan to include procedures
in situations where there are active shooters or armed
assailants on school campuses. The procedures shall include
training programs and drills using the most cost-effective
method, but must include school resource officers and
AB 58
Page 9
school-employed mental health professionals in the planning and
evaluation of the training programs and drills. The author
states, "Lessons learned from school emergencies highlight the
importance of preparing school officials and first responders to
implement emergency operations plans. Law enforcement officers
may not be present when a shooting begins. The first law
enforcement officers on the scene may arrive after the shooting
has ended. Making sure staff knows how to respond and instruct
their students can prevent and reduce the loss of life."
The school safety plan already must include procedures related
to tactical responses to criminal incidents that school
districts are authorized to have school administrators develop
and approved by the governing board in closed session. Active
shooters and armed assailants can be incorporated in this
provision. Staff recommends relocating this provision as a
component of tactical responses to criminal incidents.
Other major provisions. The bill's other major changes include
clarifying that a principal is responsible for reporting the
status of the school safety plan and requiring the posting of
the school safety plan on the SARC to include the date the
school safety plan was adopted; clarifying that information
relating to tactical responses to criminal incidents shall not
be included at a public meeting; requiring principals to provide
written or electronic notice to each school staff that the
school safety plan is available for inspection; requiring
principals and COEs to keep and maintain a copy of the most
recent plan and any notification to the SPI; requiring all
documents be available for inspection and copying at the request
of a law enforcement agency; and requiring the CDE to monitor
compliance using existing monitoring framework.
Should charters be required to develop school safety plans?
Charter schools are not required to comply with most of the
provisions in the Education Code. Existing law requires the
AB 58
Page 10
petition to establish a charter school to indicate the
procedures that the school will follow to ensure the
health and safety of pupils and staff. There are no specific
requirements regarding what the procedures must cover and how
extensively they are developed. Staff recommends extending the
requirement to develop school safety plans to charter schools.
Related legislation. SB 592 (Leyva), pending in the Senate
Education Committee, requires the school safety plan to include
procedures and policies to prevent and respond to adolescent
relationship abuse in middle and high schools serving pupils in
grades 6 through 12.
Prior related legislation. SB 49 (Lieu), held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee in 2013, was substantially similar to
this bill.
AB 549 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 422, Statutes of 2013, encourages
all school safety plans, to the extent that resources are
available, to include clear guidelines for the roles and
responsibilities of mental health professionals, community
intervention professionals, school counselors, school resource
officers, and police officers on school campus, if the school
district uses these people.
AB 680 (Block), Chapter 438, Statutes of 2011, authorizes a
school district or COE, in consultation with law enforcement
officials, to choose not to have its schoolsite council develop
and write those portions of its comprehensive school safety plan
that include tactical responses to criminal incidents that may
result in death or serious bodily injury at the schoolsite and
authorizes, instead, school district and COE administrators to
write those portions of the school safety plan.
AB 58
Page 11
AB 519 (Hernández) authorizes the comprehensive school safety
plan to include rules and procedures regarding the use of
restraint and seclusion, prohibits an educational provider from
using chemical and mechanical restraint, and limits the use of
physical restraint and seclusion. The bill was held in this
Committee by the author in 2011.
SB 755 (Lieu) makes a number of changes to the comprehensive
school safety plan, including extending the requirement to
develop a school safety plan to charter schools and imposing a
fine of between $250 and $1,000 on any principal, administrator
at a school without a principal, and any superintendent of a
school district or COE for failing to develop a school safety
plan or failing to make specified reporting requirements. The
bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense
file in 2011.
AB 2501 (Lieu) makes a number of changes to comprehensive school
safety plan, including extending the requirement to develop a
school safety plan to charter schools and imposing a fine of
between $250 and $1,000 on any principal, administrator at a
school without a principal, and any superintendent of a school
district or county office of education for failing to develop a
school safety plan or failing to make specified reporting
requirements. The bill was held in this Committee by the author
in 2010.
AB 2639 (Lieu), held in the Senate Appropriations Committee
suspense file in 2008, requires each school district or COE to
annually submit to the CDE by October 15 a report that includes
a list of schools within its jurisdiction that have and have not
developed a school safety plan.
AB 810 (Lieu), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee's
AB 58
Page 12
suspense file in 2007, requires the SPI to notify the Commission
on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) of a principal or schoolsite
administrator's failure to comply with requirements related to
the development and adoption of the school safety plan by
October 15 of each year and requires the CTC to suspend the
principal or administrator's credential for one year if he or
she does not correct the noncompliance within 30 days of
receiving the notice from the SPI.
AB 115 (J. Horton), Chapter 423, Statutes of 2003, increased the
fine to school districts for a willful failure to report a
noncompliant school to the SPI from $500 to $2000.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
AB 58
Page 13