BILL ANALYSIS SB 187 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 9, 1997 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Kerry Mazzoni, Chair SB 187 (Hughes) - As Amended: June 19, 1997 SENATE VOTE : 24-6 SUBJECT : School safety plans. SUMMARY : Requires schools to develop comprehensive school safety plans. Specifically, this bill : 1) Requires the schoolsite council at each public school to develop and adopt a comprehensive school safety plan by September 1, 1998, and forward it to its corresponding school district or county office of education. Requires the schoolsite council to consult with local law enforcement in developing the plan. (Allows a school safety planning committee to develop the plan instead of the schoolsite council, provided the committee meets certain membership requirements.) Allows schools to submit existing safety plans to comply with this requirement, as long as the plans are in existence by December 31, 1997 and contain the required information. 2) Requires that each school safety plan include the following: an assessment of school crime committed on school campus, child abuse reporting procedures, disaster procedures, school discipline policies, procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils, a sexual harassment policy, any schoolwide dress code, and programs and strategies to provide a safe and orderly environment. Requires schools to update the plans on an annual basis. 3) Requires that a majority of the employees at each school vote their approval of the school safety plan. 4) Exempts schools in small school districts (with fewer than 2501 units of average daily attendance) from the requirement to develop plans, if the small school district develops a districtwide comprehensive school safety plan that is applicable to each school in the district. 5) Requires school districts and county offices of education to notify the State Department of Education (SDE) by October 15, 1998, of any schools that do not submit plans. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to notify and subsequently levy a $500 fine against any district housing a SB 187 Page 2 school that does not submit a school safety plan. 6) Establishes that all the above requirements, except the updating requirement, shall remain in effect until January 1, 2000, after which time existing law language governing school safety plans shall be reinstated. Establishes that schools must continue to update their school safety plans on an annual basis, after January 1, 2000, and must maintain an updated file of safety-related plans and materials for public viewing. EXISTING LAW : 1) Expresses legislative intent that schools develop school safety plans. Expresses intent that schools use existing resources to develop plans. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. The Senate Appropriations Committee specified that the bill may contain mandated costs, but that actual costs "depend upon the number of schools which have not prepared plans under the permissive provisions of current law and the extent to which existing resources can be used." COMMENTS : All schools . This bill affects all schools run by school districts (with more than 2500 ADA) and county offices of education, including county-run community schools and juvenile court schools. Planned amendments . The author plans to amend the bill to address some of the concerns of opponents, as follows: a) specify that nothing in the bill shall diminish the authority of school district governing boards, b) require that school safety plans be approved by school districts, c) require the school site council or school safety committee to hold a public meeting at the school site to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed school safety plan, before it is approved. Arguments in Support . According to the author, this bill is important to ensure a safe and orderly school environment, by requiring all schools to develop and update comprehensive school safety plans. Current law is permissive, and therefore does not ensure that each school have a plan. It is important that each school develop a plan at the site level, given the unique features and circumstances of each school and the importance of involving school employees and parents. According to the author, the new requirement will not constitute an undue burden on schools, given that some of the items required in the plan are already required by current law. Arguments in Opposition . According to opponents, current law is SB 187 Page 3 effective in ensuring that all schools have school safety plans, and therefore this bill is unnecessary. In addition, there are concerns that this bill gives the schoolsite council a responsibility that really pertains to the school district. Opponents also argue that the existence of numerous different school plans may create a bureaucratic nightmare for large districts. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Federation of Teachers United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO California School Employees Association Berkeley Federation of Teachers California Peace Officers Association California Association of Supervisors of Child Welfare and Attendance San Jose Teachers Association Poway Federation of Teachers Montebello Teachers Association Los Angeles Unified School District Police Officers Association California Congress of Parents, Teachers, and Students, Inc. Attorney General Dan Lungren Opposition California School Boards Association Fresno County Office of Education Riverside County Advocacy Association Long Beach Unified School District Imperial County Schools Advocacy Association Analysis prepared by : Leonor Ehling / aed / (916) 445-9431