BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 919
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 919 (Lieu) - As Amended: July 12, 2011
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill adds sexting, as defined in this measure, as an
offense for which a pupil can be suspended from school or
recommended for expulsion. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines sexting as the dissemination of, or the solicitation
or incitement to disseminate, a photograph or other visual
recording by a pupil to another pupil or to school personnel
by means of an electronic act with the intent to humiliate or
harass.
2)Requires a photograph or other visual recording, specified
above, to include a sexually explicit photograph or other
visual recording of a minor where the minor is identifiable
from the photo or recording.
3)Amends an existing training requirement that assists local
education agencies (LEAs) and schoolsite personnel in
developing their school safety plans to include training in
the prevention of sexting, as specified.
4)Encourages school districts to provide grade-level appropriate
instruction, counseling, and other conflict resolution
practices for pupils on the potential risks of creating and
disseminating sexually suggestive or explicit materials.
5)Encourages school districts to provide professional
SB 919
Page 2
development training to school personnel and to adopt district
policies to prevent and discourage sexting that can be shared
with parents and children advocacy organizations or posted on
the district's Internet website.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potential GF/98 increased state mandated costs, likely between
$76,000 and $152,000, to school districts to conduct processes
associated with suspending pupils for sexting. If pupils are
expelled, these costs will increase slightly due to costs
associated with conducting an appeals process. According to
the State Department of Education, there were a total of
21,039 expulsions and 757,045 suspensions in 2009-10. The
state currently pays approximately $10.8 million GF/98
annually for pupil suspension and expulsion mandates.
2)GF/98 cost pressure, likely between $100,000 and $200,000, to
school districts to provide grade-level appropriate
instruction and training to school personnel, as specified.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Existing law prohibits a pupil from being suspended
from school or recommended for expulsion, unless the
superintendent or principal of the school is enrolled
determines the pupil has committed specified acts. There are
21 acts specified in code that are grounds for pupil
suspension or expulsion, including threatening to cause injury
to a person; possession of a firearm or knife; possession of a
controlled substance; attempted robbery; causing damage to
school property; bullying; sexual assault; and committing an
obscene act or engaging in habitual profanity or vulgarity.
According to the author, "While our advanced technology has
brought us closer together as a society, it also has left our
children susceptible to the dissemination of their image.
Research shows that children are spending substantial amounts
of time on the Internet and cell phones, both for educational
and social purposes. It is critical that steps be taken to
teach students safe practices while online and the dangers of
sexting. Additionally, sexting is now becoming a form of
relationship currency for many young Californians - as many
feel pressured to send these images in order to get closer to
SB 919
Page 3
the other person.
"Sexting has become a difficult problem for school districts
to deal with due to the alarming number of participating
students. SB 919 seeks to provide school administrators and
principals with a specified enforcement tool to address
sexting."
2)Suspension and expulsion state mandates . Existing law
establishes state mandated provisions related to the
notification and appeal of pupil suspension and expulsions.
The following chart details the current state mandates related
to these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Mandate | Description | Annual |
| | | Cost |
|-------------+--------------------------------------+----------|
|Pupil |Automatically suspend students for |$4 |
|suspension, |certain offenses and recommend |million |
|expulsion, |students for expulsion for certain | |
|and appeals |offenses. Hold expulsion appeals and | |
| |follow due process. Perform all | |
| |related administrative activities. | |
|-------------+--------------------------------------+----------|
|Notification |Document and maintain information on |$6.8 |
|to teachers |all students in the past three years |million |
|of mandatory |who have committed suspendable or | |
|pupil |expellable offenses. Inform teachers | |
|suspension |of students who have engaged in such | |
|and |activities. | |
|expulsions | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Until the 2010-11 fiscal year (FY), the state had been deferring
annual K-12 mandate payments to schools, including all pupil
suspension and expulsion related mandates. The annual cost of
these deferments totaled approximately $90 million GF/98. In
both the 2010-11 and 2011-12 Budget Acts, the majority of K-12
mandate allocations were provided.
Prior to the 2010-11 FY, the state had deferred annual K-12
mandate payments for several FYs. As a result of deferring
payments, the state currently owes approximately $3.4 billion
SB 919
Page 4
GF/98 in K-12 prior year mandate costs, including costs related
to pupil suspension and expulsion mandates.
The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) released a report in
February 2010 recommending the above mentioned pupil suspension
and expulsion mandates be eliminated or modified. In reference
to the overall suspension and expulsion mandate, the LAO
recommended "Leaving suspension and expulsion decisions to local
discretion-most serious offenses likely would still result in
suspension or expulsion."
With regard to the pupil and suspension notification mandate,
the LAO recommended eliminating this mandate for the following
reason: "Keeping teachers and students safe is one of the
primary responsibilities of any principal. Moreover, compelling
liability concerns provide a stronger incentive than a mandate
to inform teachers."
The committee may wish to consider whether or not it is
appropriate to expand existing state mandate related to pupil
suspension and expulsions given the current discussion regarding
the modification or elimination of these mandates and the
significant prior year mandated costs owed to K-12 school
districts.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081