Existing law requires suspension to be imposed on a pupil only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, and specifies that other means of correction may include, among other things, participation in a restorative justice program.

This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop a standard model to implement restorative justice practices on a school campus and to make the standard model available on the departments Internet Web site for use by any school district that chooses to implement restorative justice practices as part of its campus culture. The bill would require the department to take specified actions to implement the bills provisions, including consulting consult with school-based restorative justice practitioners and others to identify best practices, as specified. practices to evaluate the implementation of restorative justice practices in school districts, to develop standard models or recommendations for effective implementation, and to post the standard model or models or recommendations on the departments Internet Web site.

Existing law requires suspension to be imposed on a pupil only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, and specifies that other means of correction may include, among other things, participation in a restorative justice program.

This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop a standard model to implement restorative justice practices on a school campus and to make the standard model available on the departments Internet Web site for use by any school district that chooses to implement restorative justice practices as part of its campus culture. The bill would require the department to take specified actions to implement the bills provisions, including consulting with school-based restorative justice practitioners and others to identify best practices, as specified.

Existing law requires suspension to be imposed on a pupil only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, and specifies that other means of correction may include, among other things, participation in a restorative justice program.

This bill would require the State Department of Education to develop a standard model to implement restorative justice practices on a school campus and to make the standard model available on the departments Internet Web site for use by any school district that chooses to implement restorative justice practices as part of its campus culture.

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2489

Author:(McCarty) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2016

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to evaluate the implementation of restorative justice practices in school districts, in consultation with specified stakeholders, and develop standard models or develop recommendations for effective implementation. Specifically, this bill:

1. Expresses Legislative intent to evaluate existing restorative justice practices to determine if there are common effective strategies that can be shared with school districts that have not implemented restorative justice practices.
2. Requires CDE to consult with school-based restorative justice practitioners, educators, pupils, community stakeholders, and nonprofit and public entities to identify best practices for effective, evidence-based restorative justice in elementary and secondary schools.
3. Requires the CDE to post the standard model or models or recommendations developed on the CDE website.

FISCAL EFFECT:

General Fund administrative costs to the CDE of approximately $1.5 million over three years. This estimate provides support for three staff over three years and covers costs such as consulting with stakeholders, evaluating the implementation of restorative justice practices in schools, and developing a model or best practices.  The department recommends a three year study to ensure data is comprehensive.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. A number of school districts have implemented alternative disciplinary programs. Restorative justice practices and Schoolwide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support programs are examples of such programs. Restorative justice is a set of principles and practices grounded in the values of showing respect, taking responsibility, and strengthening relationships. Restorative practices, applied on a schoolwide context, are used to build a sense of school community and resolve conflict by repairing harm and restoring positive relationships. School districts that have restorative justice programs have seen reductions in the number of out-of-school suspensions.

While a number of districts have implemented restorative justice practices, it is unclear whether the districts have the same implementation. This bill will look at how these practices are being implemented at the local level and establish a model framework for restorative justice practices that may be used by local education agencies.

1. Related budget actions. The 2015 California Statewide Special Education Task Force Report made a number of recommendations for improving the effectiveness of not only special education, but the education system as a whole. One of the task force recommendations included implementing a Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) for students who struggle either academically or behaviorally. MTSS is an integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on the common core state standards (CCSS), core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all students’ academic, behavioral, and social success. The idea is that these systems would serve as an alternative to identifying struggling students for special education or addressing behavioral issues through disciplinary action.

The 2015-16 Budget Act provided $10 million (one-time Proposition 98/GF) for the CDE to award one or two county office(s) of education (COEs) to identify strategies for implementing schoolwide, data-driven systems of learning and behavioral supports. These systems of support could include: positive behavior interventions and support, restorative justice, bullying prevention, social and emotional learning, trauma-informed practice, and cultural competency.

The CDE recently selected the Orange County Office of Education (OCOE) to administer this program. The OCOE intends to use $2.5 million of the $10 million to provide subgrants to LEAs to implement academic and behavioral support programs. The OCOE proposes to use the remaining $7.5 million mainly on developing and disseminating resources, technical assistance and training for LEAs.

The Governor's budget proposes an additional $30 million (one-time Proposition 98/GF) for the OCOE to support LEAs in implementing MTSS and other academic and behavioral support systems. The Administration would like to see the additional $30 million dedicated to more subgrants for LEAs to implement these systems of support. The LAO recommends rejecting this proposal. The Legislative Budget subcommittees have not yet taken action on this issue.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 6, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2489 (

Author:McCarty) – As Amended Ver:March 30, 2016

SUBJECT: Pupil rights: restorative justice practices

SUMMARY: Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop a standard model to implement restorative justice practices on a school campus and make the standard model available on the CDE's Internet Web site for use by any school district that chooses to implement restorative justice practices as part of its campus culture. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CDE to do all of the following:
   1. Consult with school-based restorative justice practitioners, educators, pupils, community stakeholders, and nonprofit and public entities to identify best practices for effective, evidence-based restorative justice in elementary and secondary schools.
   2. Select an advisory committee made up of stakeholders and professionals who have participated in the development and expansion of restorative justice programs to assist in the planning and implementation of the standard model.
   3. Collect and disseminate evidence-based best practices.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes or requires a principal or a superintendent of schools to suspend or expel a student committing any of a number of specified acts. (Education Code (EC) Sections 48900, 48900.2, 48900.3, 48900.4, 48900.7, 48915)
2. Specifies that suspensions shall be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Specifies that other means of correction include, but are not limited to, a conference between school personnel, the pupil's parent or guardian, and pupil; referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social worker, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school support services personnel; study teams or other intervention-related teams; referral for a psychosocial or psychoeducational assessment; participation in a restorative justice program; a positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions; after school programs that address behavior issues; or other alternatives involving community service. (EC Section 48900.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Suspensions and Expulsions. Under existing law, a principal or a superintendent may suspend or recommend expulsion of a pupil for committing any of a number of specified acts. Over the last several years, a number of bills have been introduced and enacted attempting to reduce the use of punitive, zero-tolerance measures and focus, instead, on alternatives to address the causes of a pupil's behavior. The belief is that keeping students in school and addressing the causes for bad behavior will be more effective than students sitting at home watching television or engaging in harmful activities on the streets. AB 1729 (Ammiano), Chapter 425, Statutes of 2012, requires all forms of suspension to be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Other means of corrections includes the following: a conference between the school staff, pupil, and pupil's parents or guardian; referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social worker, or other school support services personnel; implementation of positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions

that occur during the schoolday on campus; and participation in restorative justice programs. While these bills are one component in changing pupil and staff behavior, changing the culture of a school from a less punitive environment to a more positive one and to implement positive behavioral programs require training and support from all school staff.

Alternative disciplinary practices. A number of school districts have implemented alternative disciplinary programs. Restorative justice practices and Schoolwide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support programs are examples of such programs. A number of districts have implemented one of those models, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Ana, Oakland, Elk Grove, and Irvine Unified School Districts. Restorative justice is a set of principles and practices grounded in the values of showing respect, taking responsibility, and strengthening relationships. Restorative practices, applied on a schoolwide context, are used to build a sense of school community and resolve conflict by repairing harm and restoring positive relationships. School districts that have restorative justice programs have seen reductions in the number of out-of-school suspensions. For example, in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), suspensions have decreased by 92% between 2007-08 and the 2014-15. LAUSD plans to implement restorative justice programs at all schoolsites by 2020. Oakland Unified School District reports that suspensions of African Americans students for disruption of school activities decreased by 40% over three years. Despite reports of success, there have also been reports of challenges to management of classrooms as a result of reduction in suspensions.

Existing efforts. According to the Restorative Schools Vision Project, the sponsor of the bill, the California Endowment awarded a grant in March 2015 to bring together practitioners, educators, and partners with expertise in school-based restorative justice practice in an effort to develop consensus on best practices and strategies to implement restorative justice throughout K-12 schools. A group of approximately 25 individuals have met several times to share ideas. The group has also developed a survey instrument to solicit information. A number of focus groups taking place in several parts of the state will solicit input from teachers, school administrators, and district staff in the upcoming months.

What does this bill do? This bill requires the CDE to develop a standard model for implementing restorative justice practices on a school campus and to post the model on the CDE's Internet Web site. This bill requires the CDE to consult with practitioners, educators, students, community stakeholders, nonprofit and public agencies to identify best practices for effective evidence-based restorative justice in K-12 schools. The bill also requires CDE to select an advisory committee.

Model or guidelines for successful implementation? While a number of districts have implemented restorative justice practices, it is unclear whether the districts have the same implementation. Staff recommends requiring CDE to first evaluate existing district practices. Secondly, require CDE, in consultation with stakeholders, to either develop a standard model if implementation is consistent and determined effective or identify best practices and guidelines for successful implementation. Staff also recommends striking the requirement to convene an advisory committee as the bill also directs CDE to consult with stakeholders.

The author states, "Data from the United States Department of Education show that black students are suspended from school at more than three times the rates of white students. This disparity is at the heart of the school-to-prison pipeline. Suspended students are more likely to drop out of school, and even a single suspension triples the likelihood that the student will be engaged with the juvenile justice system within a year…By allowing youth the opportunity to explore how their disruptive actions impact their learning experience and that of their peers, they are more likely to take action to repair the harm, and make the behavioral changes necessary to avoid such behavior in the future."

Related legislation and funding. The 2015-16 budget provides $10 million to provide training and professional development activities and for the implementation of schoolwide, data-driven systems of learning and behavioral supports.

SB 463 (Hancock), pending in the Assembly Education Committee, establishes the Safe and Supportive Schools Train the Trainer Program and requires a designated county office of education to be responsible for the development or identification of professional development activities that are available as a statewide training resource.

AB 1025 (Thurmond), held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2015, establishes a three-year pilot program in school districts to encourage inclusive practices that integrate mental health, special education, and school climate interventions following a multi-tiered framework.

SB 1396 (Hancock), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2014, would have provided funding to a designated county office of education for the purposes of establishing a multitiered intervention and support program that includes, but is not limited, the Schoolwide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support program.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

San Francisco Unified School District

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087