BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2616
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2616 (Carter) - As Amended: May 9, 2012
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill makes the following modifications to truancy
requirements:
1)Defines "valid excuse" as including, but not limited to, the
current reasons for which a pupil is excused from school.
Further authorizes other reasons that are within the
discretion of school administrators and based on the pupil's
circumstances.
2)Authorizes the parent/guardian, the first time the truancy
report is issued, to request a meeting with a school counselor
or other school designee to discuss the root causes of the
attendance issue and develop a joint plan to improve the
pupil's attendance.
3)Authorizes a peace officer, the second time a truancy report
is issued within the same school year, to give a pupil a
written warning, as specified under current law. Further
authorizes the school to assign a pupil to an afterschool or
weekend study program located within the same county as his or
her school.
4)Requires the pupil, if he or she fails to successfully
complete the assigned study program, to be classified as a
habitual truant, and authorizes the school to require the
pupil to attend an attendance review board or truancy
mediation program, as specified in current law.
5)Authorizes rather than requires a pupil to be within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court the fourth time a truancy
AB 2616
Page 2
report is issued within the same school year.
6)Reduces, from $100 to $50, the fine a pupil (the parent/legal
guardian is liable) must pay if he or she is adjudged a ward
of the juvenile court. Specifies the fine is not subject to
penalties and assessments.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)GF/98 cost pressure, likely between $2 million and $4 million,
for school districts to comply with a parent/guardian's
request to attend a meeting with a counselor, upon receipt of
the first truancy report, as specified. This assumes between
5% and 10% of pupils who were classified as truant in 2010-11
participate in this options.
2)Potential GF savings, likely in the tens of thousands of
dollars, to the court system to repeal the mandate that a
pupil a ward of the juvenile court upon a fourth truancy
report within the same school year.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "Effective school
attendance improvement methods involve assessing the pupil to
determine the primary cause of the attendance issue, involving
the parent early in the process, using incentives to improve
attendance, and targeting more intensive interventions, like
cognitive behavior therapy, for students who do not respond to
lower levels of intervention."
The author further states: "A County-wide task force convened
in 2011 by Los Angeles County Supervising Delinquency and
Dependency Judge Michael Nash, which involved local police and
the district attorney's office, among others, found that
'research on effective approaches overwhelmingly supports
school-based rather than law enforcement-based interventions
as the most effective for both improving attendance rates and
reducing rates of chronic absence.' In addition, studies have
shown that children referred to the Juvenile Court are four
times more likely to drop out of schools, such that juvenile
court involvement may not be the best strategy in all truancy
cases."
This bill modifies the existing statute regarding truancy
requirements.
AB 2616
Page 3
2)Background . Existing law requires each person between six and
18 years of age to attend public, full-time day school and
requires his or her parent/guardian to send them unless
legally exempt.
Current law defines a truant as a pupil missing more than 30
minutes of instruction without a valid excuse three times
during the school year. Likewise, statute defines a chronic
truant as any pupil who is absent from school without a valid
excuse for 10% or more of the school days in one school year,
as specified. According to the State Department of Education,
there were 1.84 million pupils classified as truants in the
2010-11 school year. The number equals a 29.76% truancy rate
in the state.
Statute also requires a school district to notify the pupil's
parent/guardian of the following information, using the most
effective method possible, including electronic mail or a
telephone call:
a) A pupil is a truant.
b) The parent/guardian is obligated to compel the pupil to
attend school and the parent/guardian who fails to meet
this obligation may be guilty of an infraction and subject
to prosecution.
c) There are alternative educational programs available in
the district.
d) The pupil may be subject to prosecution under existing
law.
e) The pupil may be subject to suspension, restriction, or
delay of the pupil's driving privilege.
f) The recommendation that the parent/guardian accompanies
the pupil and attends his or her classes for one day.
Under current law, a minor who is reported as a truant may be
required to attend make-up classes conducted on one day of a
weekend and is subject to the following:
a) A written warning by a peace officer, as part of the
first truancy report.
b) Assignment to an afterschool or weekend study program
located within the same county as the pupil, as part of the
second truancy report issued within the same school year.
AB 2616
Page 4
c) A pupil classified as a habitual truant may be required
to attend an attendance review board or truancy mediation
program, as part of the third truancy report issued within
the same school year.
d) A pupil becomes a ward of the juvenile court, as part of
the fourth truancy report issued within the same school
year.
1)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
school safety plan mandate. The K-12 pupil truancy mandates
total approximately $22.8 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081