BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 1088 (Price) - Pupil Readmission
Amended: April 24, 2012 Policy Vote: Education 8-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: April 30, 2012
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: This bill prohibits schools from denying
enrollment to a student solely on the basis that he or she has
had contact with the juvenile justice system. This bill also
requires school districts to conduct an automatic second review
for the readmission of students who have been expelled and
denied readmission, at the request of a parent.
Fiscal Impact:
Readmission after expulsion: Increased annual mandate costs
of $500,000 - $1.4 million for existing suspension/expulsion
reimbursable mandate.
Readmission after incarceration: Unknown costs /
off-setting savings, depending on the choices of affected
students and their families.
Background:
Current law prohibits a pupil from being suspended or
recommended for expulsion unless the principal of the school
determines that the pupil has committed certain acts, and gives
schools the discretion to take action for most offenses.
(Education Code � 48900)
The governing board of a school district, upon recommendation by
the principal, may order a pupil expelled for various offenses,
including damaging school property, committing an obscene act,
possession of drug paraphernalia, disruption and defiance, upon
finding either of the following: (1) Other means of correction
are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper
conduct; or (2) Due to the nature of the violation, the presence
of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety
of the pupil or others. (EC � 48915(e))
SB 1088 (Price)
Page 1
State law requires school principals to immediately suspend, and
recommend expulsion of, a pupil who has committed any of the
following acts: (1) Possessing, selling, or furnishing a
firearm; (2) Brandishing a knife at another person; (3)
Unlawfully selling a controlled substance; (4) Committing or
attempting to commit a sexual assault; or (5) Possession of an
explosive. (EC � 48915(c))
Order to expel: Governing boards of school districts are
required to conduct a hearing to consider the expulsion of a
pupil in a closed session, and may meet in closed session to
deliberate and determine whether the pupil should be expelled.
The decision of the governing board must be based upon
substantial evidence relevant to the charges. Final action to
expel a pupil must be taken in a public session. (EC � 48918)
The governing board of the school district, at the time
expulsion is ordered, must ensure that an educational program is
provided to the pupil. The district or county program (community
day schools or community schools) is the only program required
to be provided to expelled pupils. Each school district
governing board may decide to provide additional programmatic
options. (EC � 48916.1)
Pupils expelled from school for serious offenses such as
possessing a firearm, brandishing a knife, causing serious
physical injury, selling a controlled substance or committing a
sexual assault are prohibited from enrolling in any school other
than a community school, community day school, or juvenile court
school. (EC � 48915.2)
Rehabilitation plan: The governing board is required to
recommend a plan of rehabilitation for the pupil at the time of
the expulsion order, which may include periodic review as well
as assessment at the time of review for readmission. The plan
may also include recommendations for improved academic
performance, tutoring, special education assessments, job
training, counseling, employment, community service, or other
programs. (EC 48916(b))
Readmission after expulsion: Governing boards are required to
set a date to review a pupil for readmission, not later than the
last day of the semester following the semester in which the
expulsion occurred, or one year from the date the expulsion
SB 1088 (Price)
Page 2
occurred, depending on the reason for expulsion.
Proposed Law: This bill would place new requirements on schools
and school districts for which previously expelled and/or
previously incarcerated youth seek to re-enroll. This bill
prohibits schools from denying enrollment to a student solely on
the basis that he or she has had contact with the juvenile
justice system. This bill also requires school districts to
conduct a second review for the readmission of students who have
been expelled and denied readmission, at the request of a
parent.
Related Legislation:
SB 1235 (Steinberg) requires schools that have suspended more
than 25% of the school's enrollment or more than 25% of any
numerically significant racial or ethnic subgroup in the prior
school year to implement, for at least three years, at least one
of the bill's specified strategies to reduce the suspension rate
or disproportionality. SB 1235 is also scheduled to be heard in
this Committee on April 30, 2012.
AB 1729 (Ammiano) authorizes school districts or school
principals to provide alternatives to suspension or expulsion
that are designed to address and correct the root causes of the
pupil's behavior, requires IEP team meeting to be held within
three days to determine if a fundamental behavioral assessment
and behavioral intervention plan are needed, and describes other
means of corrective action.
Staff Comments: This bill is likely to result in significant
costs to the state, by expanding the duties already deemed by
the Commission on State Mandates to be reimbursable under the
suspensions and expulsions mandate.
Readmission after expulsion: As noted in the Background section,
students seeking readmission after having been expelled are
entitled to a hearing that meets statutory specifications.
Expulsion hearings required by statute are currently
reimbursable to school districts under an existing reasonable
reimbursement methodology, most recently updated in 2006. That
mandate reimbursement has ranged from $4 million - $7 million
annually, statewide, in recent years.
SB 1088 (Price)
Page 3
School districts specifically receive $587.16 per hearing to
reimburse the cost of hearing preparation, conducting the
hearing, producing recommendations, and producing record of the
hearing. In 2010-11, the last year for which complete data is
available, there were 18,649 expulsions in California. If half
of those expelled students are eligible for a readmission
hearing in a given year (based on the eligibility timeline
described in the Background), the result would be 9,325
readmission hearings. If just 10% of those hearing resulted in
denials and second hearings (as the bill requires, upon a
parent's request), the result would result in additional mandate
costs of $547,233; if 25% were denied, that cost would jump to
$1,368,743, annually.
There may be some amount of offsetting savings, to the extent
that students would otherwise be enrolled in a more expensive
program than a traditional public school. As previously noted,
upon expelling a student, the governing board of the school
district must ensure that an educational program is provided to
the pupil. Generally, that option is a community day school or
community school (which is the only program required to be
provided to expelled pupils). To the extent that a student would
otherwise continue to attend a community day school, it may
result in a cost savings to the state to have the student enroll
in traditional school.
Readmission after incarceration: Prohibiting a school from
denying readmission to a student solely on the basis that he or
she has had contact with the juvenile justice system could
result in costs or savings, depending on what individual
students in question would have done alternative to reenrolling
in traditional school. To the extent that a student would
otherwise attend a community day school or juvenile court
school, it may result in a cost savings to the state to have the
student enroll in traditional school. However, to the extent
that a student would otherwise have participated in a less
expensive program than traditional schools (e.g. a charter
school or independent study program) there would be net costs to
the state.