BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1088
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1088 (Price) - As Amended: July 3, 2012
Policy Committee: Education Vote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a pupil from being denied enrollment or
readmission to a public school based solely on contact with the
juvenile justice system, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies "having contact with the juvenile justice system" as
including, but not limited to, the following: arrest,
adjudication by a juvenile court, formal/informal supervision
by a probation officer, and detention for any length of time
in a juvenile facility or enrollment in a juvenile court
school.
2)Requires the governing board of a school district, at the
request of the pupil or his or her parent/guardian and after
the pupil was denied readmission, to set a date to reevaluate
the pupil for readmission to a regular school district program
or to the school the pupil last attended before his or her
expulsion. Further requires the reevaluation to occur no
later than the last day of the semester following the semester
in which the readmission was denied.
3)Requires the re-evaluation of a pupil for readmission to be
conducted in the same manner as the initial readmission
procedures, as specified.
4)Requires the pupil, before he or she is reevaluated for
readmission, to provide the governing board of the school
district with written documentation detailing how the pupil
has addressed the reasons given by the governing board for the
initial denial of readmission.
SB 1088
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)GF/98 state reimbursable state mandated costs, likely between
$220,000 and $440,000, to local education agencies (LEAs) to
reevaluate a pupil for readmission to a regular school (after
he or she has been denied by the governing board), upon the
pupil or parent's request. This assumes 40% of expelled
pupils are initially denied readmission and of this
percentage, between 5% and 10% request an additional
revaluation pursuant to this bill.
This cost may be offset if the pupil is able to attend a
regular public school as opposed to his or her alternative
education placement. The state cost for an alternative
education placement, such as a community day or juvenile court
school, is significantly higher than a regular public school
placement.
2)GF/98 state reimbursement mandated costs, likely between
$25,000 and $75,000, to LEAs to require additional readmission
information be included in an existing written notice to the
expelled pupil and his or her parent/guardian.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The author contends pupils who are expelled should
have the opportunity to return to their original public
schools. He further contends too many of the state's expelled
youth are "funneled into dropout recovery schools, county and
community day schools, independent study, and continuation
high schools, which graduate far fewer students than
traditional institutions." Specifically, the author cites the
following data: 63% of students attending continuation high
schools dropout and 81% dropout of community day schools.
2)Background . Federal law requires the state to report the
number of expulsions and suspensions. There were 700,844
pupils (11% of enrollment) suspended and 18,649 pupils (0.03%
of enrollment) expelled from California schools in 2010-11.
Also, 1.8 million pupils (29% of enrollment) were classified
as truants.
Existing law prohibits a pupil from being suspended from
school or recommended for expulsion, unless the superintendent
or the principal of the school determines the pupil has
SB 1088
Page 3
committed specified acts, including possession of a firearm or
a controlled substance and willful defiance.
Statue also requires the governing board of a school district
to conduct a hearing to consider the expulsion and to 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.
The governing board of the school district, at the time
expulsion is ordered, must ensure 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.
Current law also requires the governing board of a school
district, at the time of the non-mandatory expulsions, to set
a date (no later than the last day of the semester following
the semester in which the expulsion occurred) to review
readmission of the pupil to the school he or she last
attended. Statute further requires the governing board to set
a date of one year at the time of specified mandatory
expulsions (i.e., brandishing a knife, sexual assault,
possession of a firearm, etc.) to consider readmission for the
pupil, as specified.
The governing board of each district is also required to
recommend a plan for rehabilitation for the pupil at the time
of the expulsion order. This plan is required to include, but
not be limited to, periodic reviews as well as assessment at
the time of review for readmission. It may also include
recommendations for improved academic performance, tutoring,
special education, job training, etc.
Statute also requires the governing board to readmit the
pupil, unless the board determines the pupil has not met the
conditions of the rehabilitation plan or continues to pose a
danger to campus safety or to other pupils/employees of the
district. Current law also requires a description of the
procedure to be made available to the pupil and pupil's
parent/guardian at the time of the expulsion order is entered.
SB 1088
Page 4
If the governing board denies readmission to the expelled
pupil, the board is required to either continue the placement
of the pupil in the alternative education program initially
selected for the pupil during the expulsion (e.g., community
day or court schools) or place the pupil in another program,
as specified.
3)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. All K-12 pupil suspension and
expulsion mandates total approximately $10.7 million GF/98
annually. Of this amount, the mandate related to the appeals
process for pupil suspension and expulsion is approximately $4
million GF/98.
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.
4)2012 Budget Act established the K-12 Education Mandate Block
Grant . The 2012 Budget Act allocated $166.6 million for this
block grant. Essentially, a school district, charter school,
or county office of education (COE) may choose to receive a
per-pupil allocation to conduct existing K-12 mandated
activities. If the district, charter school, or COE chooses
to receive this allocation it forfeits its ability to claim
mandate reimbursement via the existing state process.
School districts will receive approximately $28 per pupil;
charter schools approximately $14 per pupil; and COEs
approximately $29 per pupil. The advantage of this block
grant is school districts will receive annual funding now
versus waiting to receive payment under the existing claims
process, which the state has deferred paying for a number of
years.
Presumably if this bill is determined to be a state mandated
program, its requirements would be added to the block grant.
SB 1088
Page 5
5)Related legislation .
a) SB 1235 (Steinberg), pending in this committee, requires
schools to implement evidence based schoolwide strategies
to reduce suspension rates, as specified.
b) AB 1729 (Ammiano), pending on the Senate Floor, recasts
provisions relative to the suspension of a pupil upon a
first offense, and authorizes the use and documentation of
other means of correction.
c) AB 2242 (Dickenson), pending on the Senate Floor,
prohibits pupils who are found to have disrupted school
activities or otherwise willfully defied the authority of
school officials from being subject to extended suspension,
or recommended for expulsion.
d) AB 2537 (V.M. Perez), pending on the Senate Floor,
grants discretion to school principals to make a
determination of the appropriateness of the expulsion of a
pupil who has unlawfully sold a controlled substance, and
makes other changes relative to mandatory expulsion
provisions.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081