BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 1235
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 8, 2012

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                   SB 1235 (Steinberg) - As Amended:  July 5, 2012 

          Policy Committee:                             Education Vote:8-2

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          Yes    Reimbursable:              Yes

           SUMMARY  

          This bill, commencing with the 2013-14 school year and each year 
          thereafter, requires a school district to implement specific 
          strategies for a minimum of three years at a schoolsite where 
          the number of pupils receiving off-campus suspensions exceeds 
          25% of the school's enrollment or of any numerically significant 
          pupil subgroup in the prior year.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Annual GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs, likely between 
            $12 and $20 million, to school districts to implement 
            specified intervention/support strategies for a minimum of 
            three years at a schoolsite where the number of pupils 
            receiving off-campus suspensions exceeds 25% of the school's 
            enrollment, as specified.  There were 9,985 schools in the 
            2010-11 school year.  This estimate assumes between three and 
            five percent of these schools would be required to implement 
            these strategies, including partial employment of a counselor 
            at each schoolsite.  Per the bill, the district would make 
            available these support services to benefit all pupils at each 
            schoolsite.  

          2)Annual unknown GF/98 increased revenue limit (general purpose) 
            funding, likely in the hundreds of thousands to low millions, 
            to school districts.  School districts will receive this 
            amount, which may offset their costs to provide the support 
            services required in this measure.   For example, a school 
            district loses approximately $150 per average daily attendance 
            for every pupil who is suspended five days and is not 
            attending school.  Districts, however, will incur the fixed 
            costs of hiring additional staff to coordinate these services, 








                                                                  SB 1235
                                                                  Page  2

            including a counselor.    

          3)Annual GF administrative costs, likely less than $75,000, to 
            the State Department of Education to comply with the reporting 
            requirements of this measure.  

           SUMMARY CONTINUED
           
          1)Defines, for the purposes of this measure, "a numerically 
            significant subgroup" as the following: 

             a)   The subgroup consists of at least 100 pupils enrolled at 
               the school. 
             b)   The subgroup consists of at least 50 pupils and 
               constitutes at least 15% of the total population of pupils 
               enrolled at the schoolsite. 
             c)   The following racial and ethnic subgroups: 
               socioeconomically/disadvantaged pupils, English learners, 
               and pupils with disabilities.  

          2)Requires a school district that meets the above mentioned 
            criteria to implement at least one of the following strategies 
            at the school, for a minimum of three years, for the purpose 
            of reducing the suspension rate: 

             a)   An evidence-based system of schoolwide positive 
               behavioral interventions /supports that employs school 
               level information about the behavioral and academic history 
               of pupils to define and implement systems of 
               support/interventions at the school, classroom, and 
               individual levels aimed at improving social, emotional, and 
               academic success.
             
             b)   Other schoolwide strategies that are evidence based and 
               designed to address school climate to create learning 
               environments where teachers can teach and pupils can learn 
               and to reduce suspensions.  

          3)Requires, commencing with the 2014-15 school year, pupil 
            suspensions at the schoolsites identified for implementing the 
            strategies above to be reduced by two percent each year until 
            the suspension rate is 15% in the 2018-19 school year, as 
            specified. 

          4)Requires the school, at the end of the academic year, to 








                                                                  SB 1235
                                                                  Page  3

            report to the school district superintendent on the rate of 
            reduction in the school's off-campus suspensions and the 
            strategies used to comply with the requirements of this 
            measure.  Further requires the school district to report this 
            information on an annual basis at a regularly scheduled 
            governing board meeting and to the county superintendent of 
            schools.  

          5)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to publish, 
            on an annual basis, a list of schools that trigger the 
            implementation of strategies to reduce pupil suspensions and 
            include the annual rate of reduction in each school's 
            off-campus suspensions.  

          6)Authorizes a school district to use any appropriate state or 
            federal funding as sources to support the evidence-based 
            schoolwide strategies specified above.  

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  .  According to the author, "California has a higher 
            rate of suspension than most states - 7.5% of all students in 
            the most recent year for which suspension rates were reported. 
             More than two decades of research has confirmed that 
            out-of-school suspensions do not improve student behavior and, 
            in fact, often exacerbate it.  Students who are suspended lose 
            valuable instructional time, and are more likely to fall 
            behind in school, drop out, and enter the juvenile delinquency 
            system, at a great cost to the state.   The disproportional 
            use of suspension is a significant contributor to California's 
            high dropout rates, which are highest among student of color." 
             

           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 
            committed specified acts, including possession of a firearm or 
            a controlled substance and willful defiance.  








                                                                  SB 1235
                                                                  Page  4


            Current law authorizes a pupil suspended from school for 
            committing any of the acts delineated above to be assigned to 
            a supervised suspension classroom for the entire period of 
            suspension if the pupil poses no imminent danger or threat or 
            if an action to expel the pupil has not been initiated.  

            Statute also authorizes school districts to claim revenue 
            limit funding (general purpose) for these pupils, provided the 
            classroom is staffed by a certificated employee, the pupil has 
            access to appropriate counseling services, the classroom 
            promotes a completion of missed schoolwork, and the pupil 
            completes assignments provided by the teacher, as specified.  

           3)AB 2728 (Friedman), Chapter 1016, Statutes of 1994  , states a 
            school "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: 

             a)   A supervised suspension program (as referenced above).  
             b)   A progressive discipline approach during the school day 
               on campus (as an alternative to off-campus suspension), 
               using any of the following activities: 
               i)     Conferences between the school staff, parents and 
                 pupils.  
               ii)    Referral to the school counselor, psychologist, 
                 child welfare attendance personnel, or other school 
                 support service staff.  
               iii)   Detention.  
               iv)    Study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams, 
                 or other assessment-related teams.

            Chapter 1016 further authorizes a school to report to the 
            school district superintendent in charge of school support 
            services on the rate of reduction in the school's off-campus 
            suspensions, as specified.  Statute further expresses 
            legislative intent to encourage schools that implement these 
            requirements to examine alternatives to off-campus suspensions 
            that lead to resolution of pupil misconduct without sending 
            pupils off campus.  

           4)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 








                                                                  SB 1235
                                                                  Page  5

            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. The K-12 pupil suspension and 
            expulsion mandates total approximately $10.7 million GF/98 
            annually.

            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. 

           5)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.  

           6)Related legislation  .  

             a)   SB 1088 (Price), pending in this committee, prohibits a 
               pupil from being denied enrollment or readmission to a 
               public school based solely on contact with the juvenile 
               justice system, 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 








                                                                  SB 1235
                                                                  Page  6

               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