BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2242
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 2242 (Dickinson)
As Amended August 8, 2012
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |46-25|(May 31, 2012) |SENATE: |21-14|(August 29, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |49-29|(August 30, | | | |
| | |2012) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
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
AB 2242
Page 2
harassment, threats, or intimidation, to the provision
specifying the acts for which a principal or superintendent
may suspend or recommend expulsion of a pupil.
The Senate amendments renumber the Education Code (EC) provision
specifying that a pupil may be subject to other means of
corrections but may not be subject to extended suspension, or
recommended for expulsion or expelled; delete conforming changes
that are no longer necessary due to the renumbering of the EC
section; delete the provisions striking obsolete definitions,
and add double jointing provisions to avoid chaptering out
conflicts with AB 1729 (Ammiano) and AB 1732 (Campos).
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. 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
AB 2242
Page 3
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,
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
AB 2242
Page 4
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 lead to immediate suspension and
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 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
AB 2242
Page 5
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."
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
This bill limits the authority of school officials to
suspend a student for "willful defiance or disruption
of school activities."
I cannot support limiting the authority of local
school leaders, especially at a time when budget cuts
have greatly increased class sizes and reduced the
number of school personnel. It is important that
teachers and school officials retain broad discretion
to manage and set the tone in the classroom.
The principle of subsidiarity calls for greater, not
less, deference to our elected school boards which are
directly accountable to the citizenry.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0005924