BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 1235 (Steinberg) - Pupil Suspensions.
Amended: May 14, 2012 Policy Vote: Education 7-2
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 24, 2012 Consultant: Jacqueline
Wong-Hernandez
SUSPENSE FILE.
Bill Summary: SB 1235 requires schools that have suspended more
than 25% of the school's enrollment or 25% of any numerically
significant subgroup in the prior school year to implement at
least one specified strategy to reduce the suspension rate or
disproportionality. The bill would require a school at which one
of the strategies is implemented to report to the superintendent
of the school district, the county superintendent of schools,
and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) on the rate
of reduction in the school's suspensions and the strategy used
to address the matter.
Fiscal Impact:
Mandate: Potentially significant reimbursable state
mandate, to the extent that certain schools have to create
and implement new disciplinary processes required by the
bill.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA): This bill will likely
result in decreased suspensions state-wide, which will
increase student attendance and related state ADA payments
to schools.
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 (for which
suspension is mandated), and gives schools the discretion to
take action for most offenses. (Education Code � 48900)
Current law states that suspension shall be imposed only when
other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct.
(EC � 48900.5)
Suspension by the principal must be preceded by an informal
SB 1235 (Steinberg)
Page 1
conference between the principal, pupil and whenever
practicable, the teacher, supervisor or school employee who
referred the pupil to the principal. School principals may
suspend a pupil without first holding an informal conference
with the pupil if an emergency situation exists. A school
employee is required to make a reasonable effort to contact the
pupil's parents at the time of suspension; however, whenever a
pupil is suspended from school, the parent must be notified in
writing. (EC � 48911)
School district superintendents and school principals are
authorized to use discretion to provide alternatives to
suspension or expulsion, including counseling and an anger
management program. School principals are also authorized to
assign a suspended pupil to a supervised suspension classroom
for the entire period of suspension if the pupil poses no
imminent danger or threat to the campus, pupils, or staff, or if
an action to expel the pupil has not been initiated. (EC �
48911.1)
Current law further states that schools should consider
implementing at least one of the following if the number of
pupils suspended during the prior school year exceeded 30% of
the school's enrollment: (1) a supervised suspension program;
(2) a progressive discipline approach during the school day on
campus (as an alternative to off-campus suspension), using any
of the following activities: (a) Conferences between the school
staff, parents and pupils; (b) Referral to the school counselor,
psychologist, child welfare attendance personnel, or other
school support service staff; (c) Detention; (d) Study teams,
guidance teams, resource panel teams, or other
assessment-related teams. (EC � 48911.2)
Proposed Law: This bill declares the Legislature's intent to
encourage the use of alternatives to pupil suspension, and
requires schools that have suspended more than 25% of the
school's enrollment or 25% of the population of any numerically
significant subgroup, as defined in the bill, in the prior
school year to implement, for at least 3 years, at least one
specified strategies to reduce the suspension rate or
disproportionality. The bill would require a school at which one
of the strategies is implemented to report on the rate of
reduction in the school's suspensions and the strategy used to
address the matter.
SB 1235 (Steinberg)
Page 2
Related Legislation: SB 1088 (Price) requires school districts
to, upon request of a parent, conduct a second review for the
readmission of pupils who have been expelled and denied
readmission; it also prohibits a school from denying enrollment
or readmission to pupils solely on the basis that he or she has
had contact with the juvenile justice system. SB 1088 is
currently on this Committee's Suspense File.
Staff Comments: This bill requires that beginning in school year
2013-14, any school that has suspended more than 25% of the
school's enrollment or 25% of any numerically significant
subgroup in the prior school year be subject to new disciplinary
procedure and reporting requirements, as specified. The full
cost of the bill will be determined by several prospective
factors, including: (a) the number of schools that will be
subject to the new requirements; (b) the strategies those
schools employ to reduce suspensions; (c) the success of those
strategies at reducing suspensions; (d) the activities related
to this bill that are deemed by the Commission on State Mandates
to be reimbursable to school districts.
The costs triggered by the requirements of this bill are likely
to begin in school year 2012-13. Schools with high suspension
rates may be inclined try to reduce suspensions in that year, in
order to avoid being subject to the mandates of this bill. To
the extent that they are successful in reducing suspensions
during the 2012-13 school year, ADA funding will increase as
attendance increases.
Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, schools which meet the
suspension thresholds are required to implement new discipline
strategies for at least 3 years. This requirement is likely to
be considered a new reimbursable mandate on schools;
reimbursable activities may include developing new discipline
policies, training staff, retaining additional staff to monitor
students on modified (in-house) suspensions, etc.
The author has indicated that schools currently implementing
non-suspension behavior interventions have been successful in
reducing suspensions, and have seen an increase in ADA because
students have higher attendance rates. To the extent that this
mandate is successful at reducing the number of suspension
absences, the state will pay more to the schools due to
SB 1235 (Steinberg)
Page 3
increased attendance.