BILL ANALYSIS
AB 606
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 606 (Levine)
As Amended August 28, 2006
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |45-32|(January 26, |SENATE: |23-16|(August 30, |
| | |2006) | | |2006) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |47-31|(August 31, | | | |
| | |2006) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Establishes the Safe Place to Learn Act to ensure that
all school districts and schools work to reduce discrimination,
harassment and violence based on specified characteristics,
including but not limited to, actual or perceived gender
identity and sexual orientation and requires the State
Department of Education (SDE) to develop a model
antidiscrimination and antiharassment policy and to post it on
its Web site.
The Senate amendments :
1)Require the SDE, by January 8, 2008, to develop a model
antidiscrimination and antiharassment policy that prohibits
discrimination and harassment based on specified
characteristics, including but not limited to, actual or
perceived gender identity and sexual orientation.
2)Require SDE to post the model policy on its Web site for
school districts to download.
3)Require districts to adopt the model policy but specify that
districts are not prohibited from voluntarily adopting
policies that provide additional protections for pupils beyond
AB 606
Page 2
those included in the model policy.
4)Define for purposes of this bill, "publicize" as posting on
the Internet Web site of the school district or making written
copies of the policy available upon request in the office of
the district.
5)Specify that districts are not prohibited from engaging in
other means of publication or distribution, including but not
limited to, the inclusion of antidiscrimination and
antiharassment policies in pupil handbooks.
6)Clarify that the phrase, "all applicable publications," which
this bill requires to be updated during the normal course of
reprinting and to include information on bias-related
discrimination and harassment, does not include instructional
materials.
7)Provide that during the normal course of offering trainings or
disseminating information related to discrimination and
harassment, a district shall include information on methods of
identifying and responding to bias-related discrimination and
harassment.
8)Allow a district to use trainings that include information
related to discrimination and harassment for purposes of the
professional development of teachers and other school staff.
9)Specify that nothing in the California Student Safety and
Violence Prevention Act (Prevention Act) of 2000 precludes the
inclusion of any curriculum, textbook, presentation, or other
material in any program or activity conducted by an
educational institution that furthers or supports the
obligation of schools to combat bias-related discrimination
and harassment.
AS PASSED BY THE SENATE , this bill was substantially similar to
the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, less than $50,000 for SDE to adopt a model policy and
AB 606
Page 3
minor mandate costs for districts to adopt the policy.
Additionally, minor costs to school districts to update existing
school safety publications.
COMMENTS :
AB 537 (Kuehl), Chapter 587, Statutes of 2000, the California
Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (Prevention
Act), which adds the following two new forms of discrimination
to the existing prohibitions against discrimination and
harassment in California public schools: actual or perceived
sexual orientation and actual or perceived gender.
In the Spring of 2000, former State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Delaine Eastin established an advisory task force to
identify research and recommend ways to implement the Prevention
Act.
In 2001 the task force released a report which contained 12
recommendations. The recommendations included, among others:
adopting and enforcing clear written policies; informing and
training all school personnel on the law's requirements;
providing guidance for students about their rights and
responsibilities; integrating methods to monitor compliance;
and, developing anti-bias education programs for students.
Several cases have been brought against school districts for
failing to protect students from discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation. One such case was Massey v. Banning Unified
School District, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (C.D. Cal 2003 ), in which
an eighth grade student, Ashly Massey, alleged she was
prohibited from attending physical education class on the basis
of her sexual orientation. The case was settled as the court
recognized that the student had an actionable Equal Protection
claim where she was barred from physical education class and
instead forced to sit in the principal's office during that
period. Under the settlement, the district was to put in place
an amended anti-discriminatory policy, provide training for
staff and students on issues of anti-discrimination and
diversity, and pay Massey $45,000.
On April 30, 2004, SDE's General Counsel issued a legal advisory
AB 606
Page 4
to all county and district superintendents explaining the laws
related to discrimination, specifically regarding the statutes
and regulations related to gender equity and discrimination.
According to this document, every local educational agency is
required to have a policy against discrimination that applies to
all the protected categories of students and a complaint
procedure that enforces that policy.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
This bill mandates that the State Department of
Education develop a "model" antidiscrimination policy
that prohibits discrimination based on specified
characteristics already in law. It also mandates
school districts adopt this model in their district.
I have spent most of my life committed to fighting
discrimination and teaching our children tolerance for
all persons, irrespective of race, gender,
nationality, ethnicity, religious creed, disability or
sexual orientation. However well intentioned, this
bill creates a new state mandate on schools at a time
when our state currently owes almost half a billion
dollars in unpaid mandates. Adding another unfunded
state mandate to our school districts when we have not
paid for existing mandates is irresponsible. The
mandates still unfunded include earthquake emergency
procedures, immunization programs, AIDS prevention
programs, criminal background checks on school
employees, removal and disposal of chemicals,
administering and reporting standardized test, among
others.
Additionally the California Student Safety and
Violence Prevention Act of 2000 already prohibits
discrimination and harassment in California Public
Schools. A task force created by the Department of
Education to recommend ways to implement this Act
released its report to school districts in 2001. On
AB 606
Page 5
April 30, 2004, the Department of Education's General
Counsel issued a legal advisory to all county and
district superintendents explaining the laws related
to discrimination. According to this document, every
local educational agency is required to have a policy
against discrimination and harassment that applies to
all the protected categories of students and a
complaint procedure that enforces that policy.
It is the responsibility and obligation of the
Department of Education to ensure that school
districts are complying with this important law and I
strongly encourage a zero tolerance for any violation
of these prohibitions against discrimination and
harassment in our schools.
Analysis Prepared by : Marisol Avi?a / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0017940