BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1309 (Leyva) - Pupil discipline: expulsion hearings: county
schools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 27, 2016 |Policy Vote: ED. 9 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 16, 2016 |Consultant: Jillian Kissee |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: This bill establishes a new process for county
offices of education to consider the expulsion of a student who
attends a school operated by a county office of education.
Fiscal Summary:
If a county office of education chooses to contract with
the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to conduct an
expulsion hearing, estimated costs for a one-day hearing
could be approximately $4,500 including costs for the
administrative law judge to prepare and conduct the hearing
as well as to write the decision. It is unknown how many
hearings the OAH would conduct. If the OAH was contracted
for 15 hearings statewide in a given year, costs incurred
would be about $68,000. Revenues from the hearings would
be deposited into the Service Revolving Fund.
This bill could result in reimbursable state mandate
costs to conduct expulsion hearings appeals. Statewide
reimbursable mandate costs could be in excess of $50,000 in
SB 1309 (Leyva) Page 1 of
?
a given year. Actual costs would depend upon the number of
appeals that occur, which is currently unknown. Other
activities for county offices of education included in the
bill are unlikely to be determined a reimbursable state
mandate as the activities are triggered by a decision to
recommend a student for expulsion. Previous decisions made
by the Commission on State Mandates (Commission) when
considering whether school district expulsion processes
constitute a reimbursable state mandate align with this
rationale. (Proposition 98)
Background: Existing law establishes a process for a governing
board of a school district to consider the expulsion of a
student. This bill would create a similar process for students
recommended for expulsions at a schools operated by a county
offices of education. While county offices of education may not
encounter many situations where they desire to expel a student,
this bill establishes a process by which the potential expulsion
of a student is considered by a body that is not affiliated with
the school in which the student is enrolled.
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school
district, instead of conducting an expulsion hearing itself, to
contract with the county hearing officer, or with the Office of
Administrative Hearings for a hearing officer to conduct the
hearing. It authorizes the governing board of a school district
to also appoint an impartial administrative panel. If
recommending expulsion, the hearing officer or administrative
panel must prepare and submit to the governing board findings of
fact in support of the recommendation. It also authorizes a
student or parent to file an appeal of an expulsion to the
county board of education. Existing law requires a county board
of education to adopt rules and regulations establishing
procedures for expulsion appeal hearings. It requires the
county board to then hold a hearing and render a decision on the
appeal. It authorizes a county with at least 180,000 average
daily attendance, to have a hearing officer or an impartial
administrative panel hear the appeals.
County offices of education typically operate county community
schools for students who have been expelled from a school
district, juvenile court schools for students who are in
juvenile detention facilities, and provide some career technical
education and special education and related services. Existing
SB 1309 (Leyva) Page 2 of
?
law does not provide for a process by which a county office of
education may expel a student.
Proposed Law: This bill establishes a new process for county
offices of education to consider the expulsion of a student who
attends a school operated by a county office of education.
Specifically, it provides that:
If a principal, or designee, recommends expulsion after
determining a student committed a certain act, the county
board of education must either: (1) contract with the
Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing officer to
conduct the expulsion hearing; or (2) appoint an impartial
administrative panel, as specified, to conduct the
expulsion hearing.
The hearing officer or panel, whichever one is used, is
required to prepare and submit to the county board of
education findings of fact in support of the decision to
expel, if that is the decision made.
A student that has been expelled from a school operated
by a county office of education may, or his or her parent
or guardian may, file an appeal within 30 days of the
hearing officer's or the panel's decision to the county
board of education, which must hold a hearing on the matter
and render a decision.
Staff Comments: This bill establishes a requirement similar to
the one for school districts that the county board of education
hold a hearing upon the filing of an appeal. The Commission has
decided on these provisions and determined that costs mandated
by the state related to student expulsion appeals include
conducting an initial hearing on an appeal and rendering a
decision. Therefore, it is possible for county offices of
education to submit a test claim for reimbursement to the
Commission for this activity. However, it is unclear how many
appeals may materialize.
Staff notes that the most recent data available for expulsions
of students from county offices of education is 15 students in
2010-11. Though only 15 hearings resulted in an expulsion, it
is possible that more hearings were conducted that did not
result in expulsion. However, it is also possible that in a
given year no expulsions may occur.
SB 1309 (Leyva) Page 3 of
?
-- END --