BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 919
AUTHOR: Lieu
AMENDED: April 25, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 4, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : School Safety: Sexting
SUMMARY
This bill defines sexting, requires the School/Law
Enforcement Partnership to have the purpose of reducing
sexting, and adds sexting directed toward a pupil or school
personnel as an offense for which a student may be suspended
or expelled.
BACKGROUND
Existing law authorizes principals and superintendents to
suspend or recommend pupils for expulsion only for certain
acts as specified and then only when the acts are related to
school activity or school attendance occurring within a
school under the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the
district or principal or occurs within any other school
district including acts that occur: A pupil may be suspended
or expelled for acts that occur while on school grounds,
while going to or coming from school, during the lunch period
(on or off campus), or while going to or coming from a
school-sponsored activity. (EC � 48900 et. seq.)
Existing law, the Interagency School Safety Demonstration Act
of 1985, establishes the School/Law Enforcement Partnership
comprised of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
and the Attorney General for the development and
administration of safe school programs. (Education Code �
32260 et. seq.)
SB 4 (Chapter 12, 3rd Extraordinary Session, 2009), reduced
funding for various categorical programs including the School
Safety Consolidated Competitive Grant program, which funds
local School/Law Enforcement Partnerships, for the 2008-09
SB 919
Page 2
fiscal year through the 2012-13 fiscal year and authorized
school districts to use funding for those programs during
that time for any educational purpose to the extent permitted
by federal law. For the 2008-09 to the 2012-13, local
educational agencies that use the flexibility provisions are
deemed to be in compliance with the program and funding
requirements contained in statutory, regulatory, and
provisional language for those programs. (EC � 42605)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Defines sexting as the sending or receiving of sexually
explicit pictures or video images by means of an
electronic act.
2) Expands provisions of the Interagency School Safety
Demonstration Act to include sexting; adds sexting as a
topic that may be included in regnional conferences
sponsored by the School/Law Enforcement Partnership; and
encourages school districts, county offices of
education, law enforcement agencies, and agencies
serving youth are encouraged to reduce sexting through
interagency strategies, programs and activities.
3) Adds an act of sexting, directed specifically toward a
pupil or school personnel to the list of offenses for
which a pupil may be suspended or expelled.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author's office,
sexting has become a difficult problem for school
districts due to the alarming number of participating
students. According to the International Association
for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (CTIA),
there were approximately 187.7 billion text messages
sent each month in 2010. A recent survey conducted by
the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned
Pregnancy revealed that 20 percent of all surveyed teens
SB 919
Page 3
between the ages of 13 and 19 have sent or posted nude
or semi-nude pictures of videos of themselves. This
report also noted that sending and posting nude or
semi-nude photos or videos starts at a young age and can
become more frequent as teens become adults. According
to the author's office, SB 919 is intended to encourage
schools to implement programs and activities to curb
sexting and to help schools deter sexting by authorizing
the suspension or expulsion of pupils who engage in
sexting while under the school's jurisdiction.
2) Education campaign . The permissive nature of the
Education Code suggests that schools and other agencies
that work with students could implement an education
campaign about sexting without benefit of legislation.
To the extent that districts choose to spend funds for
this purpose, the bill could help districts become more
strategic in working with the School/Law Enforcement
Partnership program to incorporate information about the
effects and potential dangers of sexting into larger
discussions about establishing healthy relationships and
setting boundaries for electronic communication and
social networking.
3) Too broad ? Under the provisions of this bill, a pupil
who sends or receives sexually explicit pictures or
video directed specifically toward another pupil or
school personnel could be suspended or expelled.
Although the reported intent of the bill is to give
schools flexibility to consider individual
circumstances, the broad definition could create
confusion and may miss the opportunity to provide
schools the guidance they may need to identify problem
behaviors and determine the appropriate corrective
strategies. What constitutes "sexually explicit" may be
in the eyes of the beholder and influenced by cultural,
religious, or familial norms. Could the definition
encompass acts that should not be subject to school
discipline such as sending pictures of paintings or
sculptures from an art museum or sending or receiving of
pictures of swimsuit models? Where is the line between
obscene and freedom of expression?
Is there a difference between the student who sends a picture
of him or herself to another student and the student who
demeans another by forwarding explicit pictures to other
SB 919
Page 4
students? Could a student be disciplined for receiving
an explicit picture he or she did not solicit? Although
sexting that involves graphic or sadistic images may
have real implications for school safety, an argument
could be made that current law provides school districts
the authority to address problems of sexting, including
provisions that permit schools to discipline students
that have committed an obscene act, engaged in an act of
bullying, or committed sexual harassment. Even if a
fair and appropriate definition could be constructed,
should the penalty be in proportion to the act or
limited to students who habitually engage in sexting,
despite attempts by school personnel to remediate or
terminate the behavior? Notwithstanding the very real
problem sexting can cause for students, families, and
schools, it is unclear if the broad definition and the
associated penalty provisions would address the problem
without also having unintended outcomes. Would it be
more effective to concentrate on education rather than
consequences? If the Committee chooses to pass this
bill, staff recommends amendments to delete Section 4
from the bill.
4) Related and prior legislation .
SB 13 (Correa) requires schools that elect to provide teen
dating violence prevention education to ensure that the
instruction meets certain criteria, and requires the
State Board of Education to incorporate teen dating
violence and sexual violence curriculum into the health
curriculum framework. This bill is scheduled to be
heard by this Committee on May 4, 2011.
SB 755 (Lieu) - makes numerous changes to the requirement
that each school have a school safety plan, imposes new
penalties for schools and districts that fail to meet
these requirements, and requires school districts and
county offices of education to be responsible for the
development of school safety plans at any charter school
the district or county office has authorized. This bill
is scheduled to be heard by this Committee on May 4,
2011.
SB 453 (Correa) expands the definition of bullying to
include acts motivated by specified actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim, and adds bullying, as
SB 919
Page 5
specified, to the list of acts for which expulsion may
be recommended. This bill was heard and passed as
amended by this Committee on a 7-0 vote.
SUPPORT
None received.
OPPOSITION
American Civil Liberties Union