BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 2276 (Bocanegra) - Transfers from Juvenile Court Schools
Amended: June 17, 2014 Policy Vote: Education 6-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 14, 2014
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: AB 2276 makes various changes to requirements
relative to the transfer of pupils from juvenile court schools
to district schools. AB 2276 also requires the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) and the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC) to convene a statewide stakeholder group to
develop a model for the immediate transfer of educational
records, uniform systems for calculating and awarding credits,
transition planning, and the immediate enrollment of pupils who
are being transferred from juvenile court schools, and to report
recommendations for state action to the Legislature by January
1, 2016.
Fiscal Impact:
Stakeholder process: Significant costs in 2015-16 to the
California Department of Education (CDE) to convene the
stakeholder group, to staff its meetings and work, and to
write the report. Staff costs are likely to be $100,000
(General Fund) for 1 PY; costs for the actual stakeholder
meetings (including travel expenses and meeting space) will
depend on the size of the group and the location of its
members, but would likely be in the tens of thousands of
dollars (General Fund).
Report recommendations: Significant ongoing General Fund
cost pressure for the state to implement the group's
recommendations.
Mandate: Potentially significant reimbursable state
mandate on county offices of education (COEs) and county
probation departments to have joint transition planning
policies, as specified.
Local cost pressure: This bill "strongly encourages" local
educational agencies (LEAs) to enter into memoranda of
understanding (MOUs) and create joint policies, systems,
AB 2276 (Bocanegra)
Page 1
including data sharing systems, transition centers, and
other joint structures that will allow for the immediate
transfer of educational records, create uniform systems for
calculating and awarding course credit, and allow for the
immediate enrollment of pupils transferring from juvenile
court schools. To the extent that LEAs consider the state's
"strong encouragement," the bill creates cost pressure to
take on that additional workload.
Background: Existing law provides that public school or classes
in any juvenile hall or home, day center, juvenile ranch or
camp, regional youth educational facility, or Orange County
youth correctional center, or in any group home housing 25 or
more children and operating one or more additional sites under a
central administration, with acceptable school structures at one
or more centrally located sites to serve the single or composite
populations of juvenile court school pupils shall be known as
juvenile court schools.
(Education Code � 48645.1)
Existing law requires the county board of education to provide
for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools
by the county superintendent of schools or by contract with the
respective governing boards of the elementary, high school, or
unified school district in which the juvenile court school is
located. It further specifies that juvenile court schools shall
be conducted in a manner prescribed by the county board of
education and requires the schooldays to be 240 minutes. (EC �
48645.2 et seq.)
Existing law further requires that 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)
The governing board of a school district that receives a request
for enrollment from a pupil who has been expelled from another
school district, for acts other than the most serious offenses,
must hold a hearing to determine whether the individual poses a
continuing danger to pupils or employees. If the board finds the
pupil does not pose a danger, the pupil must be permitted to
enroll if the pupil has established residence in the district or
AB 2276 (Bocanegra)
Page 2
enrolled pursuant to an interdistrict agreement. (EC �
48915.1(a)(e))
Existing law prohibits a pupil from being denied enrollment or
readmission to a public school solely on the basis that he or
she has had contact with the juvenile justice system, including
arrest, adjudication by a juvenile court, supervision by a
probation officer, detention in a juvenile facility, or
enrollment in a juvenile court school.
(EC � 48645.5)
A school district governing board, upon voting to expel a pupil,
may suspend the enforcement of the expulsion order for up to one
calendar year and may, as a condition of the suspension of the
enforcement, assign the pupil to a school, class or program that
is deemed appropriate for the rehabilitation of the pupil. Upon
satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation assignment, the
governing board must reinstate the pupil in a school within the
district and may also order the expungement of any or all
records of the expulsion proceedings. (EC � 48917)
Proposed Law: This bill makes various changes to requirements
relative to the transfer of pupils from juvenile court schools
to district schools. Specifically, this bill:
1) "Strongly encourages" LEAs to enter into MOUs and create
joint policies, systems, including data sharing systems,
transition centers, and other joint structures that will
allow for the immediate transfer of educational records,
create uniform systems for calculating and awarding course
credit, and allow for the immediate enrollment of pupils
transferring from juvenile court schools.
2) Requires that a COE and county probation department have
a joint transition planning policy that includes
collaboration with LEAs to improve communication regarding
dates of release and the educational needs of pupils who
have had contact with the juvenile justice system; to
coordinate immediate school placement and enrollment; and
to ensure that probation officers have the information they
need to support the return of pupils who are being
transferred from juvenile court schools to public schools.
3) Requires the SPI and the BSCC to convene a statewide
AB 2276 (Bocanegra)
Page 3
group with stakeholders from the community, advocacy
organizations, and education and probation department
leaders to develop a model and study existing successful
county programs and policies for the immediate transfer of
educational records, uniform systems for calculating and
awarding credits, transition planning, and the immediate
enrollment of pupils who are being transferred from
juvenile court schools.
4) Requires the statewide group to report its findings and
provide recommendations for state action to the Legislature
on or before January 1, 2016.
Related Legislation: SB 1111 (Lara) amends the process for
referrals to a county community school and also establish the
right of a student to reenroll in his or her former school or
another school upon completion of the term of involuntary
transfer to a county community school. SB 1111 is pending in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 744 (Lara), introduced in 2013, was substantially similar to
SB 1111 and vetoed by the Governor with the following message:
"This bill imposes new and rather specific requirements on
the way local schools handle disruptive students.
The recently enacted Local Control Funding Formula has
created a new regime of greater equity and increased
accountability at the local level. I'm putting my trust in
the skill and good faith of local educators to manage the
issues that are the subject of this bill in a caring and
responsible way."
SB 1088 (Price) Ch. 381/2012 enacted a prohibition against
denying a pupil from being enrolled or readmitted to a public
school solely on the basis that he or she has had contact with
the juvenile justice system.
Staff Comments: This bill places new requirements on state and
local agencies, relative to the transfer of pupils from juvenile
court schools to district schools. At the state level, it
requires the CDE and BSCC to convene a statewide stakeholder
group including individuals from "the community", advocacy
organizations, and education and probation department leaders,
AB 2276 (Bocanegra)
Page 4
and tasks them with developing a model and studying existing
successful county programs and policies for the immediate
transfer of educational records, uniform systems for calculating
and awarding credits, transition planning, and the immediate
enrollment of pupils who are being transferred from juvenile
court schools. This is a significant undertaking, especially
with such a broad stakeholder group. It is likely that the CDE
and BSCC will require 1 PY each to staff this process throughout
the state, and prepare the report.
At the local level, this bill requires that, "as part of their
existing responsibilities for coordinating education and
services for youth in the juvenile justice system," the COE and
county probation department have a joint transition planning
policy that includes collaboration with "relevant local
educational agencies" to improve communication and coordination
of transfers from juvenile court schools. COEs and county
probation departments do have responsibilities to coordinate
around juvenile transfers, but it is unclear whether having
joint policies would be considered by the Commission on State
Mandates to be a higher level of service than what is required
in their existing responsibilities. At a minimum, the
requirements to have policies that also include communication
with relevant LEAs (however interpreted) will likely be deemed a
reimbursable state mandate. If every COE and county probation
department spent just 10 hours developing policies and
communicating them to appropriate staff, reimbursable costs
would exceed $100,000.
This bill also "strongly encourages" LEAs to enter into MOUs
and create joint policies, systems, including data sharing
systems, transition centers, and other joint structures to
create uniform systems for calculating and awarding course
credit, and allow for the immediate enrollment of pupils
transferring from juvenile court schools. This requirement does
not have the force of law, but it does create cost pressure on
LEAs to do extensive local work strongly encouraged by the
Legislature.
Committee Amendments make the stakeholder group (convening and
recommendations) the responsibility of the SPI, in consultation
with the BSCC.
AB 2276 (Bocanegra)
Page 5