BILL NUMBER: SB 463 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 23, 2015
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 6, 2015
INTRODUCED BY Senator Hancock
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
An act to add Chapter 18.5 (commencing with Section
53320) 53305) 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 in charge of
establishing specific responsible for the development
or identification of professional development activities that
will are intended to lead to the
establishment of 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 2011-2014 2011 to 2014, inclusive,
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 53320)
53305) 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
53320. 53305. (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
of education that apply for designation under this chapter.
The designated county office of education shall identify
existing professional development activities and train-the-trainer
models. The designated county office of education shall be
in charge of establishing specific
responsible for the development or identification of
professional development activities that will lead to
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 th
e establishment of 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), UCSF the University of
California, San Francisco, 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.