(1)Existing law requires that suspension of a pupil be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Existing law requires a suspension by the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools to be preceded by an informal conference conducted by the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools between the pupil and, whenever practicable, the teacher, supervisor, or school employee who referred the pupil to the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools. Existing law requires a pupil, at the conference, to be informed of the reason for the disciplinary action and the evidence against him or her, and given the opportunity to present his or her version and evidence in his or her defense.

This bill would require a pupil, at the conference, to also be informed of the other means of correction that were attempted before the suspension. Because the bill would impose additional duties on school districts in regards to the suspension of a pupil, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires that suspension of a pupil be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Existing law requires a suspension by the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools to be preceded by an informal conference conducted by the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools between the pupil and, whenever practicable, the teacher, supervisor, or school employee who referred the pupil to the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools. Existing law requires a pupil, at the conference, to be informed of the reason for the disciplinary action and the evidence against him or her, and given the opportunity to present his or her version and evidence in his or her defense.

This bill would require a pupil, at the conference, to also be informed of the other means of correction that were attempted before the suspension. Because the bill would impose additional duties on school districts in regards to the suspension of a pupil, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law requires that suspension of a pupil be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Existing law requires a suspension by the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools to be preceded by an informal conference conducted by the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools between the pupil and, whenever practicable, the teacher, supervisor, or school employee who referred the pupil to the principal, the principals designee, or the district superintendent of schools. Existing law requires a pupil, at the conference, to be informed of the reason for the disciplinary action and the evidence against him or her, and given the opportunity to present his or her version and evidence in his or her defense.

This bill would require a pupil, at the conference, to also be informed of the other means of correction that were attempted before the suspension. Because the bill would impose additional duties on school districts in regards to the suspension of a pupil, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 667

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/17

AYES: Allen, Wilk, Galgiani, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/17

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Children Now

DIGEST:

This bill requires that the principal, his or her designee, or the district superintendent of schools inform a pupil who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted prior to the suspension, during the mandatory informal conference.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits a pupil from being suspended or recommended for expulsion unless the superintendent of the school district or the principal of the school determines that the pupil has committed certain acts, including, among other acts, all of the following:
   1. Caused, attempted to cause, or threatened to cause physical injury to another person.
   2. Willfully used force or violence upon the person of another, except in self-defense.
   3. Possessed, sold, or otherwise furnished a firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object, except as specified.
   4. Unlawfully possessed, used, sold, or otherwise furnished, or been under the influence of, a controlled substance, an alcoholic beverage, or an intoxicant of any kind.
   5. Committed or attempted to commit robbery or extortion.
   6. Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property or private property.
   7. Stole or attempted to steal school property or private property.
   8. Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual profanity or vulgarity.
   9. Committed or attempted to commit a sexual assault or committed sexual battery.
   10. Disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties.
   11. Engaged in, or attempted to engage in, hazing.
   12. Engaged in an act of bullying. (Education Code § 48900)
2. Authorizes school district superintendents and school principals to use discretion to provide alternatives to suspension or expulsion that are age appropriate and designed to address and correct the pupil’s specific misbehavior, as specified. (EC § 48900(v))
3. Provides that suspension, including supervised suspension, shall be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, but authorizes a pupil, including a pupil with exceptional needs, to be suspended upon a first offense for certain acts or the pupil’s presence causes a danger to persons. (EC § 48900.5)
4. Authorizes, but does not require, school districts to document the other means of correction used and to place that documentation in the pupil’s record. (EC § 48900.5)
5. Specifies that other means of correction include, but are not limited to:
   1. A conference between school personnel, the pupil’s parent or guardian, and the pupil.
   2. Referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social worker, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school support service personnel for case management and counseling.
   3. Study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams, or other intervention-related teams that assess the behavior, and develop and implement individualized plans to address the behavior in partnership with the pupil and his or her parents.
   4. Referral for a comprehensive psychosocial or psychoeducational assessment, including for purposes of creating an individualized education program, or a 504 plan.
   5. Enrollment in a program for teaching prosocial behavior or anger management.
   6. Participation in a restorative justice program.
   7. A positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions that occur during the schoolday on campus.
   8. After-school programs that address specific behavioral issues or expose pupils to positive activities and behaviors, including, but not limited to, those operated in collaboration with local parent and community groups.
   9. Community service, as specified. (Education Code §48900.5)
6. 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 percent of the school's enrollment:
   1. A supervised suspension program.
   2. A progressive discipline approach during the schoolday on campus (as an alternative to off-campus suspension), using any of the following activities:
      1. Conferences between the school staff, parents, and pupils.
      2. Referral to the school counselor, psychologist, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school support service staff.
      3. Detention.
      4. Study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams, or other assessment-related teams. (EC § 48911.2)
7. Authorizes teachers to suspend pupils from class for the day and the following day. If the pupil is to remain on campus during that suspension, the pupil must be under appropriate supervision. Teachers must ask the parent to attend a parent-teacher conference regarding the suspension. Pupils are prohibited from returning to the class from which he or she was suspended, during the period of the suspension, without the concurrence of the teacher and principal. (EC§ 48910)

This bill requires that the principal, his or her designee, or the district superintendent of schools inform a pupil who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted prior to the suspension, during the mandatory informal conference.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “California currently is in the middle of a school attendance crisis with an estimated 210,000 K-5 students in California missing 10% of the school year in 2015-2016. Suspension of a pupil, when used as a primary tool for discipline only exacerbates this problem causing students to miss critical hours of instruction which has both immediate and long term impacts. According to the Attorney General’s In School + On Track report of 2016, suspensions have resulted in over 23,000 days of missed instruction for students. In addition 55% of pupils with more than one suspension are also chronically absent, making one of the primary drivers of the crisis.

Suspensions, according to data are also not dealt out equally. Not only are boys 3 times more likely to be suspended than girls, but students of color as well as foster youth and students of low-income are disproportionately suspended. Often these groups encompass the state’s most vulnerable, and can ill afford to miss hours of instruction.

Existing law requires that suspension of a pupil be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. These include but aren’t limited to; a conference including the pupil, positive behavioral support and enrollment in programs teaching prosocial behavior or anger management.

Despite the authorization of other means of correction, it is often unclear what if any methods were used in compliance with the law should before it.”

1. Rate of suspensions and expulsions declining but disparities persist. The California Department of Education (CDE) reported that 243,603 students were suspended statewide in 2014-15, representing a 13 percent drop from the prior year and a 34 percent drop over the three-year period since CDE began collecting suspension and expulsion data at the student level through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). A total of 6,611 students were expelled in 2014-15, representing a reduction of 14 percent from the prior year and 40 percent over the same three-year period.

CDE attributes a number of factors to the reduction in statewide suspension and expulsion rates, including a focus on successful alternatives to suspensions and expulsions, including restorative justice programs, as well as a variety of behavioral intervention strategies and supports. In addition, the passage of AB 420 (Dickinson, Chapter 660, Statutes of 2013) limited suspensions and expulsions for willful defiance-related offenses.

The disproportionate incidence of suspensions and expulsions among certain populations of students, including African American students, has gained nationwide attention in recent years. This holds true in California, where African American students make up 6 percent of total statewide enrollment, but made up 16% of students suspended in both 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Similarly, the Attorney General’s 2016 report, In School +On Track, notes that “African American students represent 22 percent of all suspensions and 28 percent of students suspended for more than three days, while only representing 5 percent of the overall K-5 student population.”

1. Growing trend to use alternatives to suspension and expulsion. According to the U.S. Department of Education, “teachers and students deserve school environments that are safe, supportive, and conducive to teaching and learning. Creating a supportive school climate—and decreasing suspensions and expulsions—requires close attention to the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of all students. Evidence does not show that discipline practices that remove students from instruction—such as suspensions and expulsions—help to improve either student behavior or school climate. Suspensions are associated with negative student outcomes such as lower academic performance, higher rates of dropout, failures to graduate on time, decreased academic engagement, and future disciplinary exclusion. Interventions, school-wide and individual, that use proactive, preventative approaches, address the underlying cause or purpose of the behavior, and reinforce positive behaviors, have been associated with increases in academic engagement, academic achievement, and reductions in suspensions and school dropouts.”
2. Pupil engagement state priority. One of the eight state priorities for purposes of local control and accountability plans (LCAPs) and the local control funding formula is pupil engagement, as measured by suspension and expulsion rates. In their LCAPs, school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools have to explain what actions they are taking to achieve the goals they’ve set for each state priority. Given that LCAPs were first implemented for the 2014-15 school year, the reduction in suspensions for disruption/willful defiance, and suspensions overall could also be linked to the pupil engagement priority.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 607 (Skinner, 2017) permanently eliminates the authority to suspend or recommend for expulsion any pupil in kindergarten or grades 1 to 5, inclusive, who disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties, and prohibits until July 1, 2023, the authority to suspend or recommend for expulsion any pupil or grades 6 to 12, inclusive, for that same act. SB 607 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 420 (Dickenson, Chapter 660, Statutes of 2014) eliminated, until July 1, 2018, the authority to suspend a pupil enrolled in grades K-3, inclusive, and the authority to recommend for expulsion a pupil enrolled in grades K-12, inclusive, for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of those school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties, as specified.

AB 2242 (Dickinson, 2012) would have prohibited 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. AB 2242 was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message read:

I cannot support limiting the authority of local school leaders, especially at a time when budget cuts have greatly increased class sizes and reduced the number of school personnel. It is important that teachers and school officials retain broad discretion to manage and set the tone in the classroom.

The principle of subsidiarity calls for greater, not less, deference to our elected school boards which are directly accountable to the citizenry.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, “The bill’s requirement for school districts to inform a student who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted could result in a reimbursable state mandate, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual Proposition 98 General Fund. These costs could be higher or lower, depending on the number of mandatory suspensions that require the additional information each year. Reimbursable activities include training of school personnel, documentation of the others means of correction for each student, and the provision of that information. There are approximately 240,000 students that are suspended each year.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/17)

Children Now (source)

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Asian Americans Advancing Justice

Black Parallel School Board

California School-Based Health Alliance

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Association

Children’s Defense Fund-California

Common Sense Kids Action

Dolores Huerta Foundation

Equal Justice Society

Fight Crime: Invest In Kids

Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network

Los Angeles County Office of Education

Legal Services for Children

National Center for Youth Law

Our Family Coalition

Promesa Boyle Heights

Public Counsel

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/17)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/11/17

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, O'Donnell, Patterson

Prepared by:

9/2/17 13:37:34

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 667 (Reyes) - Pupil discipline: suspension: informal conference

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

This bill requires that a school principal or district superintendent of schools inform a pupil who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted prior to the suspension, during the mandatory informal conference.

Fiscal Impact:

The bill’s requirement for school districts to inform a student who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted could result in a reimbursable state mandate, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual Proposition 98 General Fund. These costs could be higher or lower, depending on the number of mandatory suspensions that require the additional information each year. Reimbursable activities include training of school personnel, documentation of the others means of correction for each student, and the provision of that information. There are approximately 240,000 students that are suspended each year.

Background:

Existing law prohibits a pupil from being suspended or recommended for expulsion unless the superintendent of the school district or the principal of the school determines that the pupil has committed certain acts, including, physical injury to another person; the use of force or violence upon the person of another, except in self-defense; and possession, sale, or furnishing of a firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object.

School district superintendents and school principals are authorized to use discretion to provide alternatives to suspension or expulsion that are age appropriate and designed to address and correct the pupil’s specific misbehavior, as specified. Existing law provides that suspension, including supervised suspension, shall be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, but authorizes a pupil, including a pupil with exceptional needs, to be suspended upon a first offense for certain acts or the pupil’s presence causes a danger to persons.

Further, the law authorizes, but does not require, school districts to document the other means of correction used and to place that documentation in the pupil’s record.

The other means of correction include, but are not limited to, a conference between school personnel, the pupil’s parent or guardian, and the pupil, and referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social worker, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school support service personnel for case management and counseling.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires that the principal, his or her designee, or the district superintendent of schools, inform a pupil who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted prior to the suspension, during the mandatory informal conference.

Related Legislation:

SB 607 (Skinner, 2017) eliminates the authority to suspend or recommend for expulsion any pupil in kindergarten or grades 1 to 5, inclusive, who disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties, and prohibits until July 1, 2028, the authority to suspend or recommend for expulsion any pupil or grades 6 to 12, inclusive, for that same act.

AB 420 (Dickenson, Chapter 660, Statutes of 2014) eliminated, until July 1, 2018, the authority to suspend a pupil enrolled in grades K-3, inclusive, and the authority to recommend for expulsion a pupil enrolled in grades K-12, inclusive, for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of those school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties, as specified.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 667 Hearing Date: June 14, 2017

Subject: Pupil discipline: suspension: informal conference

SUMMARY

This bill requires that the principal, his or her designee, or the district superintendent of schools inform a pupil who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted prior to the suspension, during the mandatory informal conference.

BACKGROUND

1) Prohibits a pupil from being suspended or recommended for expulsion unless the superintendent of the school district or the principal of the school determines that the pupil has committed certain acts, including, among other acts, all of the following:

a) Caused, attempted to cause, or threatened to cause physical injury to another person.

b) Willfully used force or violence upon the person of another, except in self- defense.

c) Possessed, sold, or otherwise furnished a firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object, except as specified.

d) Unlawfully possessed, used, sold, or otherwise furnished, or been under the influence of, a controlled substance, an alcoholic beverage, or an intoxicant of any kind.

e) Committed or attempted to commit robbery or extortion.

f) Caused or attempted to cause damage to school property or private property.

g) Stole or attempted to steal school property or private property.

i) Committed an obscene act or engaged in habitual profanity or vulgarity.

j) Committed or attempted to commit a sexual assault or committed sexual battery.

k) Disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties.

l) Engaged in, or attempted to engage in, hazing.

m) Engaged in an act of bullying. (Education Code § 48900)

2) Authorizes school district superintendents and school principals to use discretion to provide alternatives to suspension or expulsion that are age appropriate and designed to address and correct the pupil’s specific misbehavior, as specified.

(EC § 48900(v))

3) Provides that suspension, including supervised suspension, shall be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct, but authorizes a pupil, including a pupil with exceptional needs, to be suspended upon a first offense for certain acts or the pupil’s presence causes a danger to persons. (EC § 48900.5)

4) Authorizes, but does not require, school districts to document the other means of correction used and to place that documentation in the pupil’s record.

(EC § 48900.5)

5) Specifies that other means of correction include, but are not limited to:

a) A conference between school personnel, the pupil’s parent or guardian, and the pupil.

b) Referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social worker, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school support service personnel for case management and counseling.

c) Study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams, or other intervention-related teams that assess the behavior, and develop and implement individualized plans to address the behavior in partnership with the pupil and his or her parents.

d) Referral for a comprehensive psychosocial or psychoeducational assessment, including for purposes of creating an individualized education program, or a 504 plan.

e) Enrollment in a program for teaching prosocial behavior or anger management.

f) Participation in a restorative justice program.

g) A positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions that occur during the schoolday on campus.

h) After-school programs that address specific behavioral issues or expose pupils to positive activities and behaviors, including, but not limited to, those operated in collaboration with local parent and community groups.

i) Community service, as specified. (Education Code §48900.5)

6) 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 percent of the school's enrollment:

a) A supervised suspension program.

b) A progressive discipline approach during the schoolday 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. (EC § 48911.2)

7) Authorizes teachers to suspend pupils from class for the day and the following day. If the pupil is to remain on campus during that suspension, the pupil must be under appropriate supervision. Teachers must ask the parent to attend a parent- teacher conference regarding the suspension. Pupils are prohibited from returning to the class from which he or she was suspended, during the period of the suspension, without the concurrence of the teacher and principal. (EC § 48910)

ANALYSIS

This bill requires that the principal, his or her designee, or the district superintendent of schools inform a pupil who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted prior to the suspension, during the mandatory informal conference.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “California currently is in the middle of a school attendance crisis with an estimated 210,000 K-5 students in California missing 10% of the school year in 2015-2016. Suspension of a pupil, when used as a primary tool for discipline only exacerbates this problem causing students to miss critical hours of instruction which has both immediate and long term impacts. According to the Attorney General’s In School + On Track report of 2016, suspensions have resulted in over 23,000 days of missed instruction for students. In addition 55% of pupils with more than one suspension are also chronically absent, making one of the primary drivers of the crisis.

Suspensions, according to data are also not dealt out equally. Not only are boys 3 times more likely to be suspended than girls, but students of color as well as foster youth and students of low-income are disproportionately suspended. Often these groups encompass the state’s most vulnerable, and can ill afford to miss hours of instruction.

Existing law requires that suspension of a pupil be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. These include but aren’t limited to; a conference including the pupil, positive behavioral support and enrollment in programs teaching prosocial behavior or anger management.

Despite the authorization of other means of correction, it is often unclear what if any methods were used in compliance with the law should before it.”

2) Rate of suspensions and expulsions declining but disparities persist. The California Department of Education (CDE) reported that 243,603 students were suspended statewide in 2014-15, representing a 13 percent drop from the prior year and a 34 percent drop over the three-year period since CDE began collecting suspension and expulsion data at the student level through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). A total of 6,611 students were expelled in 2014-15, representing a reduction of 14 percent from the prior year and 40 percent over the same three-year period.

CDE attributes a number of factors to the reduction in statewide suspension and expulsion rates, including a focus on successful alternatives to suspensions and expulsions, including restorative justice programs, as well as a variety of behavioral intervention strategies and supports. In addition, the passage of AB 420 (Dickinson) in 2013 limited suspensions and expulsions for willful defiance-related offenses.

The disproportionate incidence of suspensions and expulsions among certain populations of students, including African American students, has gained nationwide attention in recent years. This holds true in California, where African American students make up 6 percent of total statewide enrollment, but made up 16% of students suspended in both 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Similarly, the Attorney General’s 2016 report, In School +On Track, notes that “African American students represent 22 percent of all suspensions and 28 percent of students suspended for more than three days, while only representing 5 percent of the overall K-5 student population.”

3) Growing trend to use alternatives to suspension and expulsion. According to the U.S. Department of Education, “teachers and students deserve school environments that are safe, supportive, and conducive to teaching and learning. Creating a supportive school climate—and decreasing suspensions and expulsions—requires close attention to the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of all students. Evidence does not show that discipline practices that remove students from instruction—such as suspensions and expulsions—help to improve either student behavior or school climate. Suspensions are associated with negative student outcomes such as lower academic performance, higher rates of dropout, failures to graduate on time, decreased academic engagement, and future disciplinary exclusion. Interventions, school-wide and individual, that use proactive, preventative approaches, address the underlying cause or purpose of the behavior, and reinforce positive behaviors, have been associated with increases in academic engagement, academic achievement, and reductions in suspensions and school dropouts.”

3) Pupil engagement state priority. One of the eight state priorities for purposes of local control and accountability plans (LCAPs) and the local control funding formula (LCFF) is pupil engagement, as measured by suspension and expulsion rates. In their LCAPs, school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools have to explain what actions they are taking to achieve the goals they’ve set for each state priority. Given that LCAPs were first implemented for the 2014-15 school year, the reduction in suspensions for disruption/willful defiance, and suspensions overall could also be linked to the pupil engagement priority.

4) Related and previous legislation. SB 607 (Skinner, 2017) permanently eliminates the authority to suspend or recommend for expulsion any pupil in kindergarten or grades 1 to 5, inclusive, who disrupted school activities or otherwise willfully defied valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties, and prohibits until July 1, 2028, the authority to suspend or recommend for expulsion any pupil or grades 6 to 12, inclusive, for that same act.

AB 420 (Dickenson, Chapter 660, Statutes of 2014) Eliminated, until July 1, 2018, the authority to suspend a pupil enrolled in grades K-3, inclusive, and the authority to recommend for expulsion a pupil enrolled in grades K-12, inclusive, for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of those school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties, as specified.

AB 2242 (Dickinson, 2012) would have prohibited 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. AB 2242 was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message read:

I cannot support limiting the authority of local school leaders, especially at a time when budget cuts have greatly increased class sizes and reduced the number of school personnel. It is important that teachers and school officials retain broad discretion to manage and set the tone in the classroom.

The principle of subsidiarity calls for greater, not less, deference to our elected school boards which are directly accountable to the citizenry.

SUPPORT

Children Now

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Asian Americans Advancing Justice

Black Parallel School Board

California School-Based Health Alliance

California School Boards Association

California Teachers Association

Children’s Defense Fund-California

Common Sense Kids Action

Dolores Huerta Foundation

Equal Justice Society

Fight Crime: Invest In Kids

Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network

Los Angeles County Office of Education

Legal Services for Children

National Center for Youth Law

Our Family Coalition

Promesa Boyle Heights

Public Counsel

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 667

Author:(Reyes) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires that at the informal conference before a student is suspended from school, the pupil is informed of the other means of correction that were attempted before the suspension is imposed.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Potential reimbursable mandate costs could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, should the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) find that activities related to the informal conference are reimbursable. The CSM has found that many of the activities related to the informal conference are not reimbursable because they are an extension of the federal requirements of procedural due process under the 14^th Amendment. However, the cost of the mandated activity would depend on the number of mandatory suspensions that require additional information to be provided to a pupil by an LEA at an informal suspension conference and the cost for school personnel involved in the provision of the corrective activities to summarize and present that information to the pupil.

Currently, school districts are not required (only authorized) to document the other means of correction used. Some large districts have digital or paper-based documentation systems where they document other means of correction that were attempted in a centralized pupil file. Given local practices, it can be reasonably assumed that there will be minor cost to inform the pupil of the prior means of correction that were attempted before suspension. Assuming 10 districts incurred an average cost of $5,000 to provide the additional information, the cost could be $50,000 Proposition 98/General Fund.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “Suspension of a pupil, when used as a primary tool for discipline causes students to miss critical hours of instruction which has both immediate and long-term impacts. Suspensions are not dealt out equally, with boys being three times more likely to be suspended than girls. In addition, students of color, foster youth, and students of low-income are also disproportionately suspended.”
2. Background. Existing law requires that a suspension only be imposed when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct and authorizes, but does not require, school districts to document the other means of correction used and to place that documentation in the pupil’s record. Current law also requires that suspension of a pupil by the principal or the district superintendent of school, be preceded by an informal conference conducted by the principal, designee or district superintendent, between the pupil and, whenever practical, the teacher, supervisor, or school employee who referred the pupil. At the conference, the pupil must be informed of the reason for the disciplinary action and the evidence against him or her, and must be given the opportunity to present his or her version and evidence in his or her defense.

Existing law recognizes other means of correction before suspension to include: a conference between school personnel, pupil and parent/guardian; referral to a school counselor, psychologist, social worker, etc.; study teams; referral for a comprehensive psychosocial or psychoeducational assessment; enrollment in anger management; participation in a restorative justice program; or enrollment in an after-school program that addresses specific behavioral issues or exposes pupils to positive activities.

The California Department of Education (CDE) reported a 34% drop in suspension rates since it started collecting suspension and expulsion data at the student level in 2011. Statewide in the 2014-2015 school year, 243,603 students were suspended, representing a 13% drop from the prior year. CDE attributes the decline to a number of factors, including a focus on successful alternatives to suspensions and expulsions, including restorative justice programs, as well as a variety of behavioral intervention strategies and supports.

1. Related Legislation. AB 576 (Levine), of this session, is pending a hearing in Assembly Education. AB 576 requires that a school employee make a reasonable effort to contact the pupil’s parent or guardian to notify them that an informal conference has been scheduled prior to discuss the pupil’s pending suspension. The bill also requires that prior to consideration of suspension for a pupil that has been issued detention, the parent or guardian be informed of the detention and the possibility that the pupil may be considered for suspension if the action or behavior is repeated. The bill also amends the definition of detention.

Analysis Prepared by: Daisy Gonzales / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 22, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 667 (

Author:Reyes) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2017

SUBJECT: Pupil discipline: suspension: informal conference

SUMMARY: Requires that, at the informal conference required before a student is suspended from school, the pupil be informed of other means of correction that were attempted before the suspension was imposed. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that the principal, his or her designee, or the district superintendent of schools inform a pupil who is being suspended of the other means of correction that were attempted prior to the suspension, during the mandatory informal conference.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that a suspension only be imposed when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Specifies that other means of correction may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• a conference between school personnel, the pupil's parent or guardian, and the pupil;
• referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, social worker, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school support service personnel for case management and counseling;
• study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams, or other intervention-related teams that assess the behavior, and develop and implement individualized plans to address the behavior in partnership with the pupil and his or her parents;
• referral for a comprehensive psychosocial or psychoeducational assessment;
• enrollment in a program for teaching prosocial behavior or anger management;
• participation in a restorative justice program;
• a positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions that occur during the schoolday on campus; and,
• after school programs that address specific behavioral issues or expose pupils to positive activities and behaviors. (EC 48900.5)

1. Authorizes, but does not require, school districts to document the other means of correction used and to place that documentation in the pupil’s record (EC 48900.5).
2. Requires that suspension of a pupil by the principal or the district superintendent of school, be preceded by an informal conference conducted by the principal, designee or district superintendent, between the pupil and, whenever practicable, the teacher, supervisor, or school employee who referred the pupil. At the conference, the pupil must be informed of the reason for the disciplinary action and the evidence against him or her, and must be given the opportunity to present his or her version and evidence in his or her defense (ECS 48911).
3. Specifies that a pupil may be suspended without an informal conference prior to the suspension only if the principal or district superintendent determines that an emergency situation exists which constitutes a clear and present danger to the life, safety, or health of pupils or school personnel. If a pupil is suspended without a conference prior to the suspension, both the parent and the pupil must be notified of the pupil’s right to a conference. The conference must be held within two school days, unless the pupil waives the right or is physically unable to attend. The conference must then be held as soon as the pupil is physically able to attend (EC 48911).
4. Prohibits a pupil from being suspended from school or recommended for expulsion, unless the superintendent of the school district, or the principal of the school, determines that the pupil has committed any of the following offenses:

• causing, attempting to cause, or threatening to cause physical injury to another person; or willfully using force or violence upon another person, except in self-defense;
• possessing, selling, or otherwise furnishing a firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object, unless the student had obtained prior written permission to possess the item;
• unlawfully possessing, using, selling or otherwise furnishing a controlled substance;
• unlawfully offering, arranging or negotiating to sell a controlled substance, alcoholic beverage, or an intoxicant of any kind;
• committing or attempting to commit robbery or extortion;
• causing or attempting to cause damage to school property or private property;
• stealing or attempting to steal school property or private property;
• possessing or using tobacco, or products containing tobacco or nicotine products;
• committing an obscene act or engaging in habitual profanity or vulgarity;
• unlawfully possessing or unlawfully offering, arranging or negotiating to sell drug paraphernalia;
• disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials or other school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties;
• knowingly receive stolen school property or private property;
• possessing an imitation firearm;
• committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault or sexual battery;
• harassing, threatening or intimidating a pupil who is a complaining witness or a witness in a school disciplinary proceeding in order to prevent the pupil from being a witness or retaliating against that pupil for being a witness, or both;
• unlawfully offering, arranging to sell, or negotiating to sell the prescription drug Soma;
• engaging in or attempting to engage in hazing;
• engaging in the act of bullying, including, but not limited to, bullying committed by means of an electronic act (EC 48900).

1. Specifies that a pupil in kindergarten through 3^rd grade cannot be suspended for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of school personnel and that these acts shall not serve as grounds for any pupil from kindergarten through 12^th grade to be recommended for expulsion. This provision becomes inoperative on July 1, 2018 (EC 48900).
2. Specifies additional grounds for suspension or recommendations for expulsion:

• committing sexual harassment (grades 4 through 12 only);
• causing or attempting to cause, threatening to cause, or participating in an act of hate violence (grades 4 through 12 only);
• engaging in harassment, threats, or intimidation against school district personnel or pupils that have the effect of disrupting classwork, creating substantial disorder and invading the rights of either school personnel or pupils by creating an intimidating or hostile educational environment (grades 4 through 12 only); and,
• making a terroristic threat against school officials or school property, or both. (EC 48900.2, 48900.3, 48900.4, 48900.7)

1. Encourages a school which has demonstrated an expulsion rate over 30% for the prior year, to consider implementing alternatives to off-campus suspensions that lead to resolution of pupil misconduct without sending the pupil off campus, including in-school suspensions, a progressive discipline approach using conferences between school staff, pupils and parents; referral to the school counselor, school psychologist, child welfare attendance personnel, or other school support service staff; detention; or study teams, guidance teams, resource panel teams, or other assessment-related teams. Does not preclude schools from suspending pupils to an off-campus site (EC 48911.2).

FISCAL EFFECT: The Office of Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author:

“Suspension of a pupil, when used as a primary tool for discipline causes students to miss critical hours of instruction which has both immediate and long-term impacts. Suspensions are not dealt out equally, with boys being three times more likely to be suspended than girls. In addition, students of color, foster youth, and students of low-income are also disproportionately suspended. These vulnerable groups of students can ill afford to miss hours of instruction.

Existing law requires that suspension of a pupil be imposed only when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Despite this, it is often unclear what, if any, methods were used in compliance with this provision in law prior to suspension of a pupil. This bill ensures that other means of correction are actually being pursued in advance of a suspension by including, within the existing informal conference, an expectation that the student be informed of the other means of correction that failed to bring about proper conduct, before the suspension occurs. ”

Rate of suspensions and expulsions declining but disparities persist. The California Department of Education (CDE) reported that 243,603 students were suspended statewide in 2014-15, representing a 13% drop from the prior year and a 34% drop over the three year period since CDE began collecting suspension and expulsion data at the student level through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). A total of 6,611 students were expelled in 2014-15, representing a reduction of 14% from the prior year and 40% over the same three year period.

CDE attributes a number of factors to the reduction in statewide suspension and expulsion rates, including a focus on successful alternatives to suspensions and expulsions, including restorative justice programs, as well as a variety of behavioral intervention strategies and supports. In addition, the passage of AB 420 (Dickinson) in 2013 limited suspensions and expulsions for willful defiance-related offenses.

The disproportionate incidence of suspensions and expulsions among certain populations of students, including African American students, has gained nationwide attention in recent years. This holds true in California, where African American students make up 6% of total statewide enrollment, but made up 16% of students suspended in both 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Similarly, the Attorney General’s 2016 report, In School +On Track, notes that “African American students represent 22% of all suspensions and 28% of students suspended for more than three days, while only representing 5% of the overall K-5 student population.

Holding schools accountable for suspension and expulsion rates. California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) requirements include a focus on school climate as Priority 6. All California school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, are required to report and examine pupil suspension and expulsion rates on their LCAP and annual updates.

Growing trend to use alternatives to suspension and expulsion. According to the U.S. Department of Education:

“teachers and students deserve school environments that are safe, supportive, and conducive to teaching and learning. Creating a supportive school climate—and decreasing suspensions and expulsions—requires close attention to the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of all students. Evidence does not show that discipline practices that remove students from instruction—such as suspensions and expulsions—help to improve either student behavior or school climate. Suspensions are associated with negative student outcomes such as lower academic performance, higher rates of dropout, failures to graduate on time, decreased academic engagement, and future disciplinary exclusion. Interventions, school-wide and individual, that use proactive, preventative approaches, address the underlying cause or purpose of the behavior, and reinforce positive behaviors, have been associated with increases in academic engagement, academic achievement, and reductions in suspensions and school dropouts.”

Arguments in support. According to supporters, AB 667 will ensure that students are not being suspended before more productive and restorative alternatives are employed. When students are suspended or expelled for relatively minor incidents, the primary result is a missed opportunity for learning without addressing any underlying issues contributing to the misbehavior. Suspended students are more likely to fall behind, and putting troubled kids on the streets without constructive adult supervision can be a recipe for greater misbehavior and crime.

Supporters argue that simply by requiring that the pupil be informed of the alternatives that were attempted, schools will be more likely to adhere to current law and students will have the benefit of knowing the other means of correction that were attempted prior to their suspension. It is important for students and school staff to have a conversation and an understanding about how prevention and intervention could work better at addressing the root causes of behavior issues.

Question for the committee: The committee may wish to consider whether the requirement to inform the pupil of the alternative means of correction that were attempted prior to suspension, at the informal conference, will have any significant effect on the use of alternative means of correction or on the rates of suspension and expulsion, given that the requirement to utilize such alternative means exists in current law.

Prior and similar legislation: AB 576 (Levine) of this Session, would require that a school employee make a reasonable effort to contact the pupil’s parent or guardian to notify them that an informal conference has been scheduled prior to discuss the pupil’s pending suspension. Would also require that prior to consideration of suspension for a pupil that has been issued detention, the parent or guardian be informed of the detention and the possibility that the pupil may be considered for suspension if the action or behavior is repeated. The bill would also amend the definition of detention. The bill is pending in this Committee.

AB 420 (Dickinson), Chapter 660, Statutes of 2014 eliminated the authority to suspend a pupil enrolled in kindergarten through 3rd grade, and the authority to recommend for expulsion a pupil enrolled in grades kindergarten through 12^th grade, for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of school personnel engaged in the performance of their duties. The bill sunsets on July 1, 2018.

AB 1729 (Ammiano), Chapter 425, Statutes of 2012 reaffirmed that superintendents and school principals have the discretion to implement alternatives to suspension and expulsion and expanded the list of other means of correction that must be implemented prior to suspension or expulsion to address most student misbehavior.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Children Now (Sponsor)

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Asian Americans Advancing Justice

Black Parallel School Board

California School-Based Health Alliance

Children’s Defense Fund-California

Dolores Huerta Foundation

Equal Justice Society

Fight Crime: Invest In Kids

Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network

Legal Services for Children

National Center for Youth Law

Our Family Coalition

Promesa Boyle Heights

Public Counsel

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Look / ED. / (916) 319-2087