Amended in Senate April 23, 2015

Amended in Senate April 6, 2015

Senate Bill No. 463

Introduced by Senator Hancock

February 25, 2015

An act to add Chapter 18.5 (commencing with Section begin delete 53320) end delete begin insert 53305) end insert to Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, relating to school climate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 463, as amended, Hancock. School climate: Safe and Supportive Schools Train the Trainer Program.

Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary schools in this state, and authorizes local educational agencies throughout the state to provide instruction to pupils.

This bill would establish the Safe and Supportive Schools Train the Trainer Program. The bill, to the extent that one-time funding is made available in the Budget Act of 2015, would require the State Department of Education to apportion funds to a designated county office of education, selected from applicant county offices of education, that would be the fiduciary agent for the program. The bill would require the designated county office of education to consult with specified organizations and to be begin delete in charge of establishing specific end delete begin insert responsible for the development or identification of end insert professional development activities that begin delete will end delete begin insert are intended to end insert lead to begin insert the establishment of end insert statewide professional development support structures and a network of trainers allowing for the development and expansion of the Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports programs, restorative justice, social and emotional learning, trauma-informed practice, and cultural competency professional development in each region of the state, as provided.

The bill would require the Legislative Analyst’s Office to review the impacts of this professional development effort and report to the Governor and the Legislature on or before June 30, 2019, on specified aspects of this training. The bill would require that any funding allocated for this program be expended on or before January 1, 2019.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.  

The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:

(a) California schools issued more than 500,000 suspensions in
the 2013-14 school year. In California, pupils of color are
disproportionately subjected to out-of-school suspensions. African
American pupils are three times more likely to be suspended than
all other groups. Native Americans have the second highest
suspension rate in the state. Studies have also shown that pupils
of color are disciplined more harshly than other pupils, resulting
in serious, negative educational consequences. Exclusionary school
removals cause a number of correlated negative educational,
economic, and social problems, including school avoidance,
increased likelihood of dropping out, and involvement with the
juvenile justice system. This civil rights in education crisis has
come to be known as the school-to-prison pipeline.

(b)  Unfortunately, too many youth, particularly pupils of color
and other vulnerable groups of pupils, such as foster youth, who
have been subjected to significant trauma are suspended from
school each year. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found
that suspension can increase stress and may predispose pupils to
antisocial behavior and even suicidal ideation. Psychologists have
similarly found that disciplinary exclusion policies can increase
pupil shame, alienation, rejection, and breaking of healthy adult
bonds, thereby exacerbating negative mental health outcomes for
young people. Removing pupils from school through disciplinary
exclusion also increases the risk that they will become victims of
violent crime.

(c) The local control funding formula identifies school climate
as a state priority. However, there are a number of school districts
in hard-to-serve locations in the state that do not have access to,
and are not served by, professionals who have training in
research-based, schoolwide strategies that can address pupil social,
emotional, and mental health learning needs. The demand for
trainers and training in these practices in California has exceeded
the supply.

(d) Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(SW-PBIS) programs, restorative justice, social and emotional
learning and trauma-informed practices have been shown to address
these needs while also significantly reducing suspension and
expulsion rates.

(e) SW-PBIS can provide a comprehensive and collaborative
prevention and intervention framework for schools to improve
academic and behavioral outcomes for all pupils. Recent research
from Orange County has shown that in school districts where
SW-PBIS has been implemented there has been a 26-percent drop
in in-school suspensions, a 55-percent drop in out-of-school
suspensions, and a 30-percent drop in expulsions. Schools that
have established and maintained SW-PBIS systems with integrity
have teaching and learning environments that are less reactive,
aversive, punitive, dangerous, and exclusionary, are more engaging,
responsive, preventive, productive, and participatory, address
classroom management and disciplinary issues such as attendance,
cooperation, participation, and meeting positive expectations,
improve support for pupils whose behavior requires more
specialized or intensive assistance for emotional and behavioral
disorders and mental health issues, and maximize academic
engagement and achievement for all pupils.

(f) Restorative justice or restorative practices are a set of
principles and practices grounded in the values of showing respect,
taking responsibility, and strengthening relationships. Restorative
justice is a healing practice that both prevents and responds to
harmful behaviors. When harm occurs at a schoolsite, restorative
justice focuses on repair of harm and prevention of reoccurrence.
Restorative practice, which builds upon restorative justice and
applies in the school context, is used to build a sense of school
community and resolve conflict by repairing harm and restoring
positive relationships through the use of regular restorative circles
where pupils and educators work together to set academic goals,
develop core values for the classroom community, and resolve
conflicts. Practices such as peacemaking circles and restorative
conferences are designed to help pupils take responsibility for their
actions and repair the harm they may have caused. Through this
process, pupils learn how to interact and manage their relationships.
A restorative justice approach enables school personnel to intervene
more effectively, increasing support without compromising
accountability. A recent study regarding implementation of
restorative justice in the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD)
from begin delete 2011-2014 end delete begin insert 2011 to 2014, inclusive, end insert found that, among other
things: (1) the discipline gap between white and African American
pupils decreased significantly for OUSD pupils who participated
in restorative justice programs, but stayed the same for pupils who
did not participate in these programs, (2) there was a 128-percent
increase in the reading levels of 9th graders at OUSD schools with
restorative justice programs, compared to an 11-percent increase
in schools without such programs, and (3) four-year graduation
rates increased by 60 percent at OUSD’s restorative justice schools
in the past three years, compared to 7 percent for other schools.

(g) Trauma-informed practices are strategies and professional
development for school staff integrated into a multitier intervention
and prevention framework to help increase school staff’s
understanding regarding the impact that trauma has on pupil
behavior and provide tools to address such behavior in a manner
that does not retraumatize the pupil, and to develop a multilevel
school-based prevention and intervention program for pupils with
the highest trauma needs. At El Dorado Elementary School, where
UCSF HEARTS -- Healthy Environments and Response to
Trauma in Schools, a trauma-informed practices model, has been
in operation for four years and where the school consistently
tracked office discipline referral data, staff reported a 32-percent
decrease in such referrals and a 42-percent decrease in violent
pupil incidents after the first year.

(h) Social and emotional learning (SEL), which is a process that
occurs through teaching in the classroom and reinforcement
throughout the schoolday to help pupils acquire and effectively
apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to recognize
and manage emotions, develop caring and concern for others, make
responsible decisions, establish positive relationships, and handle
challenging situations capably, has shown similar success. A
meta-analysis of 213 rigorous studies of SEL found that the
academic achievement scores of pupils receiving quality SEL
instruction were an average of 11 percentile points higher than
pupils who did not receive SEL instruction. In 2007-2008 in the
Los Angeles Unified School District, 58 percent of the model SEL
schools showed 43 percent fewer discipline referrals, a 45-percent
reduction in physically aggressive behavior, a 64-percent reduction
in disruptive behavior, and at least 30 points of growth in academic
performance. An in-depth study found that pupils who received
SEL instruction had more positive attitudes about school and
improved an average of 11 percentile points on standardized
achievement tests compared to pupils who did not receive that
instruction. Secondary benefits of SEL include improved
graduation rates, reduced violence, and lowered substance abuse.
SEL is a tier one universal SW-PBIS strategy for all pupils.

(i) In order to ensure that all pupils flourish academically, school
districts must establish equitable discipline practices and behavioral
interventions that promote positive social-emotional development
and that prevent and respond to negative behaviors in order to
reengage disconnected pupils. School psychologists, social
workers, and mental health counselors play a critical role in
implementing school-based educationally related counseling
services and positive behavior systems and supports that create
and reinforce positive school cultures of achievement for all pupils,
including those at risk of academic failure.

(j) The local control funding formula has been passed in an
effort to reform school finance and to direct funding directly to
at-risk pupil populations as outlined in Section 42238.07 of the
Education Code. This section states that the regulations shall
require a school district “to increase or improve services for
unduplicated pupils.” Research shows that efforts to improve
school climate, safety, and learning are not separate endeavors.
They must be designed, funded, and implemented as a
comprehensive schoolwide approach. School districts must work
to ensure through their local control and accountability plans that
pupils have access to universal, targeted, and individualized
psychological, behavioral, and counseling services and support
that will increase their chances for academic improvement.

(k) SW-PBIS, restorative justice, trauma-informed practices,
and SEL can support the local control and accountability plan
priority areas of school climate and pupil engagement by providing
local schools and school districts in hard-to-serve areas with the
research-based framework and strategies to produce targeted pupil
behavioral and academic outcomes.

(l) Restorative practices, trauma-informed practices, and social
and emotional learning can be incorporated into the tiered
framework of SW-PBIS to help pupils gain critical social and
emotional skills, receive support to help transform trauma-related
responses, and create places where pupils can understand the
impact of their actions and develop meaningful consequences for
repairing harm to the school community.

SEC. 2.  

Chapter 18.5 (commencing with Section begin delete 53320) end delete begin insert 53305) end insert
is added to Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code,
to read:

 

Chapter  18.5. Safe and Supportive Schools Train the
Trainer Program

 

begin delete 53320. end delete
begin insert 53305. end insert   

(a) To the extent that one-time funding is made
available in the Budget Act of 2015, the department shall apportion
funds to a designated county office of education to be the fiduciary
agent for the Safe and Supportive Schools Train the Trainer
Program. The designated county office of education shall be chosen
by the Superintendent from county offices begin insert of education end insert that apply
for designation under this chapter. begin insert The designated county office
of education shall identify existing professional development
activities and train-the-trainer models. end insert The designated county
office of education shall be begin delete in charge of establishing specific end delete
begin insert responsible for the development or identification of end insert professional
development activities that begin delete will lead to end delete begin insert are to be available as a
statewide training resource. It is the intent of the Legislature that
the development or identification of this statewide training resource
will lead to the establishment of end insert statewide professional
development support structures and a network of trainers allowing
for the development and expansion of the Schoolwide Positive
Behavior Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) programs,
restorative justice, social and emotional learning (SEL),
trauma-informed practice, and cultural competency professional
development in each region of the state, with a specific focus on
those regions that are underserved and do not have access to
trainers in these research-based approaches.

(b) The designated county office of education shall consult with
the Regional K-12 Student Mental Health Initiative, the National
Alliance on Mental Illness, the California Technical Assistance
Center on SW-PBIS, the California Association of School
Psychologists, the California County Superintendents Educational
Services Association, the California Mental Health Directors
Association, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL), begin delete UCSF end delete begin insert the University of California, San
Francisco, end insert Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in
Schools (HEARTS) project, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth,
the Restorative Schools Vision Project, the International Institute
for Restorative Practices, and other nonprofit and public agencies
to effectively implement these strategies throughout the state and
nationally. The designated county office of education shall also
select an advisory committee made up of stakeholders and
professionals who have participated in the development and
expansion of these programs to assist in the planning and
implementation of this program.

(c) Within the context of a state-level plan, funding shall be
targeted to all of the following critical activities:

(1) Explaining the importance of linking research-based
strategies with local control funding formula planning and local
control and accountability plans, specifically with respect to the
school climate and pupil engagement state priority areas.

(2) Creating regional conferences and workshops on
implementation that would provide free training for school and
school district teams.

(3) Establishing stipends for release time for school personnel
attending these conferences.

(4) Developing best practices of current district level systems
and ensuring that these best practices are widely disseminated.

(5) Establishing a cohort of free or low-cost trainers and coaches
who can be available to work directly with local school districts
in hard-to-serve areas that are seeking to implement research-based
strategies.

(6) Developing a network of educators who are effectively
implementing these practices and willing to provide coaching and
training to other schools and school districts, particularly in
hard-to-serve areas.

(7) Developing statewide methods for collecting and
disseminating best practices in implementing research-based
strategies.

(8) Developing evaluation tools to measure the effectiveness of
research-based strategies.

(9) Developing specific professional development and
professional learning communities for teachers utilizing these
practices in their classes.

(d) The Legislative Analyst’s Office shall review the impacts
of this professional development effort and shall report to the
Governor and the Legislature on or before June 30, 2019, on the
breadth and best practices of the training and any pupil outcomes
impacted by this training effort.

(e) Any funding allocated for this program shall be expended
on or before January 1, 2019.