BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2242
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2242 (Dickinson) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill removes a superintendent or principal's authority to
suspend or expel a pupil from school for disrupting school
activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of
supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or
other school personnel engaged in the performance of their
duties. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes a pupil to be subject to in-school suspension in a
supervised suspension classroom and subject to documentation
or other means of correction.
2)Prohibits the pupil from being subject to an off-campus or
extended suspension, or recommended for expulsion, or expelled
for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully
defying the valid authority of supervisors, teachers,
administrators, school officials, or other school personnel
engaged in the performance of their duties.
FISCAL EFFECT
GF/98 costs, likely in excess of $1 million, to school districts
to establish additional supervised suspension classrooms to
accommodate pupils no longer subject to off-campus or extended
suspension, as specified. This amount takes into account
additional revenue limit funding a school district will receive
for educating a student in a supervised classroom, which is a
direct increased GF/98 cost to the state. For example, a school
district loses approximately $150 per ADA for every pupil who is
suspended five days and is not attending school. Districts,
however, will incur the fixed costs of hiring a teacher and
AB 2242
Page 2
providing counseling services to suspended pupils under the
requirements of this measure.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Federal law requires the state to report the
number of expulsions and suspensions. There were 700,844
pupils (11% of enrollment) suspended and 18,649 pupils (0.03%
of enrollment) expelled from California schools in 2010-11.
Also, 1.8 million pupils (29% of enrollment) were classified
as truants.
2)Acts that constitute a suspension or expulsion . Existing law
prohibits a pupil from being suspended from school or
recommended for expulsion, unless the superintendent or the
principal of the school determines the pupil has committed any
following act:
a) Caused, attempted to cause, or threatened to cause
physical injury to another person.
b) Willfully used force or violence upon another person,
except in self-defense.
c) Possessed, sold, or furnished a firearm, knife,
explosive or other dangerous object, as specified.
d) Unlawfully possessed, used, sold, or furnished, or been
under the influence of, a controlled substance.
e) Unlawfully negotiated or arranged to sell a controlled
substance, as specified.
f) Committed or attempted to commit robbery or extortion.
g) Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property
or private property.
h) Stolen or attempted to steal school property or private
property.
i) Possessed or used tobacco or products containing
tobacco, as specified.
j) Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual
profanity or vulgarity.
aa) Disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully
defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers,
administrators, school officials, or other school personnel
engaged in their performance of their duties.
bb) Knowingly received stolen school property or private
property.
cc) Possessed an imitation firearm, as specified.
dd) Committed or attempted to commit sexual assault, as
AB 2242
Page 3
specified.
ee) Harassed, threatened, or intimidated a pupil who is a
complaining witness or a witness in a school disciplinary
preceding, as specified.
ff) Unlawfully offered, arranged/negotiated to sell, or sold
the prescription drug Soma.
gg) Engaged in, or attempted to engage in, hazing, as
specified.
hh) Engaged in the act of bullying, as specified.
ii) Committed sexual harassment, as specified.
Statute also authorizes a school district superintendent or
principal to use his or her discretion to provide alternatives
to suspension or expulsion, including, but not limited to, an
anger management program.
3)Supervised suspension classroom . Current law authorizes a
pupil suspended from school for committing any of the acts
delineated above to be assigned to a supervised suspension
classroom for the entire period of suspension if the pupil
poses no imminent danger or threat or if an action to expel
the pupil has not been initiated.
Statute also authorizes school districts to claim revenue
limit funding (general purpose) for these pupils, provided the
classroom is staffed by a certificated employee, the pupil has
access to appropriate counseling services, the classroom
promotes a completion of missed schoolwork, and the pupil
completes assignments provided by the teacher, as specified.
Existing law also specifies apportionments claimed by a school
district for pupils assigned to these classrooms must be used
to mitigate the cost of implementing these requirements.
4)Purpose . The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil
Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles
released a report in April 2012 entitled: Suspended Education
in California (Olsen, D; Martinez, T; Gillespie, J) which
revealed: "There are large numbers of students suspended from
every racial group, but the disparities between groups are
often profound. Across California, nearly 1 out of every 5
African American students (18%), 1 in 9 American Indian
students (11%), and 1 in 14 Latino students (7%) in the state
sample were suspended at least once in 2009-10, compared to 1
in 17 white students (6%) and 1 in 33 Asian American students
AB 2242
Page 4
(3%)."
This report also argues the frequent use of out-of-school
suspensions is neither effective in curbing bad behavior nor
academically beneficial for students. Specifically, the
report states: "Not only is it counterintuitive to punish a
disengaged student by giving them a day off school, but
research also suggests that such suspensions do not even act
as a deterrent to future misbehavior. Indeed, there is some
evidence that suspension may actually increase incidents of
misbehavior, effectively making the environment even less
productive. Researchers have found that students suspended
early in middle school are more likely to receive suspensions
by eighth grade, suggesting an increase as opposed to an
overall decrease in misbehavior."
"Moreover, the negative impact of a school's heavy reliance on
out-of-school suspension policy goes beyond just those
students who are suspended. Schools with higher suspension
rates tend to have lower ratings in terms of academic quality
and school climate. Researchers who controlled for race and
poverty found that high-suspending districts tend to have
worse outcomes overall on standardized tests."
According to the author, "Unofficial data obtained from SDE
�estimates] that 'willful defiance' was identified as the most
'severe' grounds for 42% of all suspensions in 2010-11. Under
this highly subjective category, students are sent home and
denied valuable instruction time for anything from failing to
turn in homework, not paying attention, or refusing to follow
directions, take off a coat or hat, or swearing in class.
They can also be potentially expelled from the district for
such offenses. AB 2242 addresses the overuse of out-of-school
suspensions for minor and subjectively imposed offenses by
limiting the grounds of 'willful defiance' to in-school
suspensions with appropriate instruction and access to
existing mental health providers."
5)Unpaid K-12 mandates . According to the Legislative Analyst's
Office, the state owes approximately $3.4 billion in K-12
mandate costs for prior years. Prior to the 2010 Budget Act,
the state deferred mandate payments for several years with the
promise of making the payments to school districts in future
years. As a result, districts did not received payment for
annual services they were required to conduct, including the
AB 2242
Page 5
school safety plan mandate. The K-12 pupil suspension and
expulsion mandates total approximately $10.7 million GF/98
annually.
SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7,
Statutes of 2011 allocated $80 million GF/98 to school
districts for annual K-12 mandate costs; the state, however,
still owes school districts for the prior year costs.
6)Governor's proposal to establish K-12 mandate block grant . The
January 2012-13 proposed budget eliminates approximately 25
(50%) of the 50 K-12 mandates and establishes a K-12 optional
mandate block grant as a mechanism for LEAs and charter
schools to receive state reimbursement for the remaining 25
mandates, including all mandates related to pupil suspension
and expulsion. The majority of the 25 mandates that are
proposed to be eliminated are already suspended in the current
year pursuant to 2011 Budget Act. Pupil suspension and
expulsion mandates are currently active; the governor's
proposal, however, eliminates these mandates.
The 2012-13 proposed budget provides $178 million for the new
optional, mandate block grant, which funds the remaining 25
mandates. This funding equates to approximately $30 per pupil
for school districts, $89 per pupil for COEs, and $26 per
pupil for charter schools. LEAs and charter schools can either
choose to participate or submit mandate claims directly to the
Commission on State Mandates, which is the current process for
reimbursement. If an LEA or a charter school receives the
block grant funding, they are required to meet all activities
associated with the 25 mandates funded in the block grant.
7)Non-fiscal bill . This bill is keyed non-fiscal; however, this
committee requested to hear this measure to determine any
potential costs or savings associated with establishing
alternative pupil suspension statute.
8)Related legislation .
a) AB 1729 (Ammiano), pending in this committee,
establishes alternative means of correction to be used
prior to the suspension or expulsion of any pupil.
b) AB 2537 (V. M. Perez), pending in the Assembly Education
Committee, limits the acts by which pupils are mandatorily
AB 2242
Page 6
expelled, as specified.
c) SB 1235 (Steinberg), pending in the Senate
Appropriations Committee, requires schools that have
suspended more than 25% of the school's enrollment or more
than 25% of any numerically significant racial or ethnic
subgroup of the school's enrollment in the prior school
year to implement, for at least three years, at least one
specified strategies to reduce the suspension rate or
disproportionality.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081