BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1343
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1343 (Wolk)
As Amended May 4, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 35-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Education |7-0 |O'Donnell, Olsen, | |
| | |Kim, McCarty, | |
| | |Santiago, Thurmond, | |
| | |Weber | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Authorizes a school district to transfer a pupil
convicted of a violent felony or a specified misdemeanor to
another school in the school district if the pupil and the
victim of the crime are enrolled at the same school.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the governing board of a school district to do the
SB 1343
Page 2
following prior to transferring a pupil:
a) Adopt a policy at a regularly scheduled meeting that
contains all of the following provisions:
i) A requirement that the pupil and pupil's parent or
guardian be notified of the right to request a meeting
with the school principal or designee of the school or
school district.
ii) A requirement that the school first attempt to
resolve the conflict before transferring a pupil,
including, but not limited to, using restorative justice,
counseling, or other services.
iii) Whether the decision to transfer a pupil is subject
to periodic review and the procedure for conducting the
review.
iv) The process to be used by the governing board of the
school district to consider and approve or disapprove of
the recommendation of the school principal or other
school or school district designee to transfer the pupil.
b) Provide notice of the policy to parents or guardians as
part of the annual parent notification.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: Purpose of the bill. The author states, "Recently a
SB 1343
Page 3
student was convicted of an off-campus violent felony against
another student and the local school board was advised not to
transfer the perpetrator to a different high school because the
incident occurred off-campus and the district had only one
comprehensive high school. The victim obtained a temporary
restraining order but schools aren't enforcement agencies. As a
result, the victim had to change his classes to avoid direct
daily contact with his attacker. Because they were students at
the same school the perpetrator wasn't restricted in his access
to the victim or to school activities thus violating the
victim's constitutional right to attend a safe school."
This bill authorizes a school district to transfer a pupil who
has been convicted of a specified violent felony, including
murder, rape, great bodily injury, threats to a victim or
witness, robbery, and burglary, or a misdemeanor associated with
possession of a fire arm, if the pupil and the victim are
enrolled at the same school. The bill requires the governing
board of a school district that chooses to exercise this
authority to first adopt a policy with specified requirements,
including the process that will be used to determine whether to
approve or disapprove a transfer and the requirement to first
attempt to resolve the conflict, such as through counseling or
restorative justice. The bill also requires the school district
to include notification of the policy in the annual parent
notification.
Transfers to alternative programs. Existing law allows a school
district to transfer a pupil involuntarily to a continuation
high school if a pupil has committed an act that may lead to a
suspension or expulsion and the principal determines that the
pupil's presence causes a danger to persons or property or
threatens to disrupt the instructional process.
Existing law prohibits a student from being assigned to a
community day school unless the student has been expelled or
SB 1343
Page 4
referred by probation, a school attendance review board, or
other district level referral process. Any route of referral to
a community day school requires a process to determine if the
student should be transferred. Existing law requires school
districts to adopt procedures for the involuntary transfer of
students to continuation schools, including a determination
based on specific findings.
Existing law prohibits a school district from preventing
enrollment or readmission to a public school solely because the
pupil was involved in the juvenile justice system. Is the
involuntary transfer of a pupil who was convicted of a crime
inconsistent with this law? The Senate Floor analysis cites the
following related case law:
1)In Danielle S. v. Ezra C. (Westlaw 2840340, 2005), the Court
ruled that "Appellant's right to attend school is neither
absolute nor unilateral. He is not constitutionally entitled
to attend a specific school, particularly where his presence
on school grounds may interfere with the peaceful conduct of
the activities of the school or disrupt the school, its
students, its teachers or its other employees. ?Schools have
the obligation to protect pupils from violence and
mistreatment by other children. Only a total deprivation of a
state-given right to education would violate the United States
Constitution."
2)In Nathan G. v. Clovis Unified School District (224
Cal.App.4th 1393 (2014), the Court held that "a school or
district is not required to exhaust all other means prior to
involuntary transfer to a continuation school, and involuntary
transfer to a continuation school did not substantially affect
the student's fundamental interest in access to public
education."
Public Advocates, writing in opposition of the bill, states,
"Codifying the district's ability to transfer a student who has
SB 1343
Page 5
been convicted of an offense, even after the student has served
a sentence for the offense, is not necessary. The criminal and
justice court systems already provide existing legal tools every
day to protect student victims, including for example
restraining orders and 'stay away' orders. These orders can be
and are utilized to prevent a student from attending a certain
school in a situation in which a judge - who has the benefit of
a full understanding of all of the facts at play - determines
that is necessary to separate students in this way, whether from
the person of a victim or from an entire school site. Judicial
oversight of this type is critical because every interaction
between a victim and perpetrator is different, and careful
consideration of the facts underlying an offense is necessary
before a determination is made to remove a student from his or
her school."
Analysis Prepared by:
Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0003533