BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
John Vasconcellos, Chair
2001-2002 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 963
AUTHOR: Vincent
INTRODUCED: February 23, 2001
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 4, 2001
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Scott P. Plotkin
SUBJECT : Access to Pupil Records
SUMMARY
This bill provides that probation officers may receive
access to pupil records for the purposes of casework
planning and monitoring wards and probationers.
NEED FOR THE BILL
According to the sponsor, without current pupil
information, probation officers cannot develop the best
casework plans or accurately monitor the academic progress
of wards or probationers.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1) Prohibits a school district from permitting access to
student records to any person without written parental
consent or under judicial order, with the following
exceptions:
a) School officials and employees of the
district, members of a SARB, provided the person
has a legitimate educational interest to inspect
record;
b) Officials and employees of other public
schools or school systems where the student
intends to or is directed to enroll, subject to
specified parental rights to receive a copy of
the record and a right to a hearing to challenge
SB 963
Page 2
the content of the record;
c) Authorized representatives of the
Comptroller General of the United States, the
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and
administrative head of an education agency, state
education officials, or the United States Office
of Civil Rights, where the information is
necessary to audit or evaluate a state or
federally supported education program;
d) Other state and local officials to the
extent that information is specifically required
to be reported pursuant to state law adopted
prior to November 19, 1974;
e) Parents of a student 18 years or older who
is a dependent as defined by the Internal Revenue
Code;
f) A student 16 years or older or having
completed the 10th grade who requests access;
g) Any district attorney who is participating
in or conducting a truancy mediation program or
participating in the presentation of evidence in
a truancy petition;
h) A prosecuting agency for consideration
against a parent or guardian for failure to
comply with the Compulsory Education Law or with
Compulsory Continuation Education; or,
i) Any probation officer or district attorney
for the purposes of conducting a criminal
investigation or an investigation in regards to
declaring a person a ward of the court or
involving a violation of a condition of
probation.
j) Any judge or probation officer for the
purpose of conducting a truancy mediation program
for a pupil, or for purposes of presenting
evidence in a truancy petition (added by AB 42 -
Zettel; Chapter 222, Statutes of 2000).
SB 963
Page 3
ANALYSIS
This bill provides that probation officers may receive
access to pupil records for the purposes of casework
planning and monitoring wards and probationers. In
addition, the bill provides:
1) The probation officer shall certify in writing to the
school district that the information will be used only
for case planning and monitoring purposes.
2) The school district shall provide the requested
information to the probation officer within three
working days.
3) The school district shall inform, or provide written
notification to, the parent or guardian of the pupil
within 24 hours of the release of the information.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . The sponsors of this bill, the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, believe that
probation officers should have access to pupil records
because they cannot develop the best casework plans or
accurately monitor the academic progress of wards or
probationers. Pupil information would "let a
probation officer know whether a casework plan should
focus resources on academic needs or if focus should
be on areas outside of the school."
In addition, the sponsors believe that monitoring of pupil
information will allow probation officers to modify a
plan on a timely basis, if a ward or probationer
starts to decline academically.
1) Bill mirrors provisions of 2000 Act; but has a
deadline for compliance . The language of this bill is
similar to the language in AB 42 (Zettel - Chapter
222, Statutes of 2000), which authorized access to
pupil records to any judge or probation officer for
the purpose of conducting a truancy mediation program
for a pupil, or for purposes of presenting evidence in
a truancy petition.
The only difference is that this bill requires that school
SB 963
Page 4
districts provide the requested information to the
requesting probation officer within three working
days . Considering that pupil records are usually held
at the school sites, is it reasonable to expect a
pupil record to be made available through the district
chain of command in three days? Since the records are
being used in casework planning and monitoring, not as
part of a criminal investigation, a longer period may
be in order. Therefore, staff recommends that the
bill be amended to provide that the deadline for
compliance either be deleted , or that the request for
pupil records be within five working days .
2) Is this access to pupil records warranted ? As a
matter of policy and state law, access to pupil
records is carefully restricted. It is supposed to be
difficult to access these records, and only for
compelling reasons, as provided for in the exceptions
in current law. The law clearly provides that should
a probation officer or district attorney be
investigating a violation of a condition of probation
- which is a key element of the casework plan and
monitoring activity - then access to pupil records is
permitted (Section 49076 (a)(9)). Does this bill
permit an open-ended review of records without any
suspicion of violation being necessary?
3) How much further should the access be permitted ? In
view of the concerns raised in Staff Comment #3,
above, how much further access to pupil records be
permitted without some compelling, legal
justification?
For example, the Committee has received correspondence from
the County Welfare Directors Association of California
(CWDA), asking that the bill be amended to allow child
welfare workers access to pupil records, because they
also are responsible for case planning and monitoring.
The CWDA asserts that the "inability to access vital
education [records] makes educational case management
very difficult, contributing to the poor educational
outcomes of many wards and dependents."
4) Is access to pupil records helpful in addressing the
needs of the "whole" child ? Notwithstanding the
concerns raised above and by organizations that have
SB 963
Page 5
contacted the Committee, it has been noted over the
years that it sometimes requires the efforts of
multiple agencies to support at risk children, and
there can be no doubt that pupils who are wards of the
court or on probation are, by definition, at risk.
This bill may be an appropriate exception to the pupil
record confidentiality laws in order to insure that
these pupils are kept "on track."
SUPPORT
California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (sponsor)
OPPOSITION
None received