BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Leroy F. Greene, Chairman
1997-98 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 187
AUTHOR: Hughes
AMENDED: April 10, 1997
FISCAL COMM.: Yes HEARING DATE: April
16, 1997
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Nancy Anton
NOTE
This bill was heard by the Senate Education Committee on
March 12, 1997 but no vote was taken. The bill has been
amended since that hearing.
SUMMARY
This bill requires school districts and county offices of
education (COE's) to establish school safety planning
committees, as specified, and to develop a comprehensive
school safety plan, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Current law expresses the Legislature's intent that all
public schools develop comprehensive school safety plans
that address the safety concerns identified by the site
through a systematic planning process. Current law
identifies a number of items these plans may contain
including (1) a current assessment of school crime, (2)
strategies and programs that will provide a high level of
school safety, and (3) specified actions to be taken in
conjunction with local law enforcement as specified.
Current law also expresses the Legislature's intent that,
in developing these plans, school sites use existing
resources including the materials, services and matching
grant funds of the School Safety Partnership, which is
elsewhere provided for in statute. Existing school site
councils are expressly authorized to be responsible for
developing these plans.
ANALYSIS
This bill revises, expands and makes mandatory provisions
of existing law relating to comprehensive safety plans for
school sites. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires each school site, by September 1, 1998, to
develop a school safety plan, as specified, to be
evaluated annually and amended, if needed. The bill
provides that these plans include, but not be limited
to, a number of specified components; current law
only authorizes that safety plans include these
components. The bill requires school sites to submit
their completed plans to their districts or COE, and
for the districts or COE's to notify the State
Department of Education by October 15, 1998 of any
school sites which have not so complied.
2) Requires each school site to establish a school safety
planning committee to develop its plan. The bill
provides that these committees may be composed of
members of an existing committee as long as at a
minimum, the following are included as members: the
principal (or designee), the teacher who is the
representative of the recognized certificated employee
organization, the classified employee who is the
representative of the recognized classified employee
organization and a parent elected specifically for
this purpose. The bill authorizes the committee, by
majority vote, to authorize others, as specified, to
assist it.
3) Specifies that the collective bargaining process be
used to establish the length of time members shall
serve on this committee and the process for removing
members.
4) Requires this committee to consult in writing with law
enforcement agencies.
5) Prohibits the committee from contracting with private
consultants to develop its safety plan.
6) Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
withhold from a school district's apportionment an
amount up to half of the district superintendent's
annual salary if the district does not establish
school safety plans as provided in this bill. These
funds would be held in trust until the school safety
plan has been established and then released.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Penalty Provisions . The bill provides for up to half
of a district superintendent's salary to be withheld
if a school site fails to develop a school safety plan
in accordance with this bill. The bill also specifies
the membership of the site committee responsible for
developing the plan. Accordingly, if this committee
fails, or refuses to act, the superintendent's salary
is jeopardized yet the superintendent cannot change
the composition of the site committee. Does this make
sense?
2) Another Committee ? This bill, in essence, requires
that a committee be created to carry out the
provisions of this bill. Where it allows an existing
committee to carry out the duties, it requires how
that committee be constituted, thereby essentially
necessitating the creation of an additional committee.
Current law already provides for a School Site
Council; in addition, there are numerous other site
and district committees. Should more flexibility be
given to sites to use existing committees or create a
committee composed of members as they see fit rather
than create a new committee?
3) Do It Yourself . The bill prohibits the school safety
committees established by this bill from contracting
with private consultants to develop their
comprehensive school safety plans. Does this make
sense? Given that teachers and principal's primary
training and focus is in educating students -- and
should be in educating students -- are they
necessarily the best qualified to develop safety
plans? It may make more sense to free them to spend
time developing curriculum and preparing lesson plans
rather than safety plans. Also, it may be more
expeditious and less costly for a district to contract
with an agency specializing in safety and have them
work with all of the district's sites in developing
such plans. Accordingly, staff recommends that the
bill be amended to delete this prohibition.
4) Limit Scope of Bill ? This bill is sponsored by the
United Teacher of Los Angeles apparently in response
to safety concerns within the Los Angeles Unified
School District. Since current law expresses the
Legislature's intent that all public schools develop
comprehensive school safety plans, perhaps a statewide
mandate is not necessary and, therefore, the
provisions of this bill should be limited to that
district which is allegedly unable to comply with the
intent of existing law? In this case, the bill could
be limited to apply only to district's with an ADA of
greater than 500,000.
SUPPORT
None received on current version of the bill.
OPPOSITION
None received on current version of the bill.