BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2242
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2242 (Dickinson)
As Amended May 25, 2012
Majority vote
EDUCATION 7-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Butler, Carter, Eng, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Halderman, Williams | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Grove, Wagner |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits pupils who are found to have disrupted
school activities or otherwise willfully defied the authority of
school or school district officials from being subject to
extended suspension, or recommended for expulsion or expelled.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that a pupil may be subject to other means of
correction, community service during nonschool hours, or
in-school suspension in a supervised suspension classroom, but
may not be subject to extended suspension, or recommended for
expulsion, or expelled, if the superintendent of the school
district or the principal of the school in which the pupil is
enrolled determines that the pupil has disrupted school
activities or otherwise willfully defied the valid authority
of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or
other school personnel engaged in the performance of their
duties.
2)Relocates the provision authorizing a principal or
superintendent to suspend or recommend expulsion of a pupil
enrolled in grades 4 to 12 if the principal or superintendent
determines that the pupil has intentionally engaged in
harassment, threats, or intimidation, to the provision
specifying the acts for which a principal or superintendent
may suspend or recommend expulsion of a pupil.
AB 2242
Page 2
3)Strikes obsolete provisions defining "local educational
agency," "a change in placement," and "individualized
education program team."
4)Makes non-substantive, conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative
Counsel. However, according to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there are General Fund/Proposition 98 costs, likely
less than $250,000, to the state to provide increased revenue
limit funding to school districts that are prohibited from
extending a pupil's suspension or expelling a pupil pursuant to
this measure. This cost may be offset by potential savings a
district will occur by not having to conduct mandated
requirements related to the suspension or expulsion of a pupil
due to willful defiance.
COMMENTS : This bill is one of several bills attempting to
reduce the use of punitive, zero-tolerance measures and focus,
instead, on alternatives to address the causes of a pupil's
behavior. A University of California, Los Angeles' Civil Rights
Project October 2011 brief titled "Discipline Policies,
Successful Schools, and Racial Justice," report that data
gathered by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights shows disparity in suspensions and expulsions for Black
students, especially males, and students with disabilities. An
analysis of data collected in 2006 shows that 28% of Black male
middle school students were suspended at least once, while the
rate was 10% for white males. The report argues that
disciplinary actions that result in exclusion from school cause
students to miss important instructional time and may result in
a "greater risk of disengagement and diminished educational
opportunities."
Research also shows that students with frequent suspensions are
at greater risk of becoming involved in gangs, dropping out of
school and becoming a part of the juvenile justice system.
Efforts undertaken by districts in California, including the Los
Angeles Unified School District, San Francisco Unified School
District, and Alhambra Unified School District, and in other
states are beginning to see positive results of less punitive
measures such as alternative practices that emphasize
restorative justice (reflections of one's behavior), counseling,
AB 2242
Page 3
referrals to drug treatment and other social services, within
the school setting.
According to the author, this bill addresses the overuse of
out-of-school suspensions under the category of "disrupting
school activities or otherwise willfully defying the authority
of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials or
other school personnel." This bill prohibits extended
suspensions or expulsions due to disruption of school activities
and willfully defying the authority of school officials.
Earlier versions of the bill prohibited out-of-school
suspensions.
Under existing law, a principal or a superintendent may suspend
or expel a pupil for committing any of a number of specified
acts, including "disruption of school activities or willful
defiance." The California Department of Education (CDE) reports
that in 2010-11, of a total enrollment of 6,174,717, there were
700,884 suspensions and 18,649 expulsions. Unfortunately, the
CDE does not currently report disaggregated data that show the
causes for suspensions and expulsions and only provides the
categories that are required for federal reporting purposes,
which includes the categories of "violent drug expulsion,"
"non-student firearm incidents," and "persistently dangerous
expulsions."
The author estimates that 42% of suspensions are due to willful
defiance, based on a review of school-level data provided by the
CDE. This is consistent with national estimates. Public
Counsel, one of the sponsors of the bill, states that
nationally, from 2005 to 2007, school disciplinary exclusions
for insubordination accounted for roughly 43% of the total,
whereas only 0.7% were for use or possession of a firearm or
explosive.
This category is broad and can encompass a number of offenses,
from not following a teacher's direction, talking back to a
teacher, not turning in homework, to throwing furniture.
Compared with offenses that require expulsion, such as bringing
a knife or firearm to school, these types of offenses could be
considered minor, although teachers would argue that these
behaviors can cause major interference to students' learning
environment in the classroom. The issue is how to address these
types of behaviors. Those who advocate for anti-punitive
AB 2242
Page 4
measures would argue that these students can be reformed through
personal reflections and requiring a student to spend lunch time
with the Dean. Others would argue that not having the ability
to impose out-of-school suspensions would send the message that
these types of behaviors are not serious.
Current law requires that suspensions be imposed only when other
means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Current
law also authorizes a principal to assign a pupil to a
supervised suspension classroom for the entire period of
suspension if the pupil poses no imminent danger or threat to
the campus, pupils, or staff. Pupils must be placed in a
classroom separated from other pupils at the schoolsite, which
could be in a separate classroom, building or site. Earlier
versions of this bill prohibited out-of-school suspensions.
The author states, "AB 2242 was introduced as a result of
testimony and recommendations offered at a hearing of the Select
Committee on Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development held
in December, 2011. The hearing, which focused on School Climate
and Positive Youth Development - Perspectives, Possibilities and
Potential, heard from nationally recognized experts who reported
that out-of-school suspensions and expulsions had risen at an
alarming rate during the last ten years, due in part to overused
grounds that students were being "willfully defiant." The
Select Committee also heard that expelled students who had run
afoul of the law and were cycling through the juvenile justice
system, were much more likely to return to incarceration unless
they were successfully transitioned back into mainstream
educational programs and schools."
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003896