CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 413

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:August 12, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Replaces the terms "at-risk" to describe youth with "at-promise" in multiple sections within the Education Code and the Penal Code.

The Senate Amendments:

Add a co-author and make other technical changes.

COMMENTS:

A 2006 research brief, published in Child Trends, notes that "the term 'at risk' is used frequently to describe children and youth and has a strong intuitive meaning. However, the term has no consistent definition and can be viewed as stigmatizing certain groups. Nevertheless, it is widely used. The positive side of this confusion is that program providers have some leeway in how they define 'at risk' for their programs."

According to the Faces for the Future Coalition, "as a nation and society, we often unfairly view youth from underserved communities through a deficit lens. Those of us who work with youth from difficult backgrounds prefer the term 'at-promise youth'. 'At Promise' references the extraordinary raw potential every young person possesses. The term views youth through a strength-based perspective. It also helps to fill in some of the details missing in the former labels, reminding us that youth have natural gifts and innate potential for greatness."

According to the Author:

"Our education and justice systems have adopted the term 'at-risk' to label youth living in difficult situations. This term comes from a mindset of deficit that focuses on these students' faults. As a state, we need to transition from a stigma-provoking label and move towards 'at-promise.' By using a more positive approach, we encourage individuals working with our most vulnerable youth to empower them and emphasize their immense potential to succeed."

Arguments in Support:

The Los Angeles County Office of Education states, "There is a shared understanding that the words we use to describe people can adversely affect the way we treat them, even if it is with the best of intentions. People-first language helps individuals feel respected and seen beyond their situation. AB 413 redirects our educational efforts toward recognition of the importance of eliminating the deficit mindset that is too pervasive in schools, agencies, and communities across the country. This bill supports California's work at addressing trauma, building meaningful relationships and hearing the cares and challenges of students and their families."

Arguments in Opposition:

The California Right to Life Committee states, "AB 413 assumes that a less threatening term would be welcome by counselors and students alike. Names are important and do signify concepts. Removing 'at risk' and 'high risk' for 'at promise' and 'high promise' signals that students should feel better about themselves and that their behavior will adapt to this feel good idea. Will voters and citizens and families experience better lives as a result?"

FISCAL COMMENTS:

The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as non-fiscal.

VOTES:

ASM EDUCATION: 5-1-0

YES: O'Donnell, Kalra, McCarty, Smith, Weber

NO: Kiley

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-1

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Diep, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-4-11

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO: Cunningham, Gallagher, Kiley, Melendez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel, Waldron

SENATE FLOOR: 34-2-4

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jones, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Dahle, Stone

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bates, Jackson, Moorlach, Morrell

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 12, 2019

CONSULTANT: Debbie Look / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0001419

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 413

Author: Jones-Sawyer (D), et al.

Amended: 8/12/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/5/19

AYES: Leyva, Wilk, Chang, Glazer, McGuire, Pan

NO VOTE RECORDED: Durazo

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/18/19

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Mitchell, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach, Jackson, Morrell

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-4, 5/9/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Education: at-promise youth

SOURCE: Los Angeles County Office of Education

SIATech

DIGEST:

This bill changes the term “at-risk” to “at-promise” in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/12/19 add a co-author and make other technical changes.

ANALYSIS: Existing law references at-risk students in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code, including, but not limited to:

1. Defines “at-risk” student as a student enrolled in high school who is at risk of dropping out of school, as indicated by specified criteria. (Education Code § 54690)
2. Defines “at-risk” youth as individuals from age five to 20 years of age and who fall into one or more specified categories. (Penal Code § 13825.4)

This bill:

1. Changes the term “at-risk” to “at-promise” in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code, relative to:
   1. The requirement that the California Department of Education (CDE) monitor adherence to statute and regulations regarding educational equity. (EC § 234.1)
   2. Reimbursement rates for child care and development programs. (EC § 8266.1)
   3. The selection of grantees to participate in the 21st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens program. (EC § 8423)
   4. The Healthy Start Support Services for Children Act. (EC § 8801)
   5. Middle college high schools. (EC § 11300)
   6. The California Youth Leadership Project. (EC § 33426)
   7. Foster Youth Services. (EC § 42920)
   8. A field experience program as part of a program of professional preparation for a teaching or services credential. (EC § 44324)
   9. Professional development training for classified school employees. (EC § 45391)
   10. Community day schools. (EC § 48660.1)
   11. Model gang violence suppression and substance abuse prevention curriculum. (EC § 51266)
   12. Partnership academies. (EC § 54690)
   13. California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System. (EC § 60901)
   14. Golden State Scholarshare College Savings Trust. (EC § 69981)
   15. The Robert Presley Institute of Corrections Research and Training. (PC § 5087)
   16. Board of State and Community Corrections. (PC § 6025 and § 6027)
   17. California Gang, Crime, and Violence Prevention Partnership Program. (PC § 13825.2, § 13825.4, and § 13825.5)
   18. Gang Violence Suppression Program. (PC § 13826.11)
   19. Comprehensive Alcohol and Drug Prevention Education component of the Suppression of Drug Abuse in Schools Program. (PC § 13864)
2. Provides that “at-promise” has the same meaning as “at-risk.”
3. Deletes obsolete references and makes other technical changes.

Comments

Need for this bill. According to the author, “Perception plays an important role in the success or failure of students. As a result of the stigma created through the use of ‘at-risk,’ these students are subjected to an expectation to fail and can be treated as such. Transitioning from ‘at-risk youth’ to ‘at-promise youth’ is an important step in eliminating the biased mindset that is too pervasive in schools and communities across the country.”

According to Reaching At-Promise Students Association, “Linguistic researchers, sociologists, and early child educators argue that labeling someone ‘at-risk,’ sends a message to the youth and others that the person is in a precarious situation, may engage in risky behavior, and lacks agency. We may feel bad for the youth, and we do not expect much of a youth that is ‘at-risk.’ However, in changing the discourse, we may change the outcome.”

Related/Prior Legislation

ACR 197 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 106, Statutes of 2018) encouraged the people of the State of California to recognize the potential and possibilities of our children, instead of focusing on their deficits.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/12/19)

Los Angeles County Office of Education (co-source)

SIATech (co-source)

California-Hawaii State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Multicultural America, Inc.

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

University of California Student Association

Several individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/12/19)

California Right to Life Committee, Inc.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, “Society uses ‘at-risk’ to describe students living in precarious situations that increase their chances of failure in academics, drug use, and involvement with gangs or the criminal justice system. There is a shared understanding that the words we use to describe people can adversely affect the way we treat them, even if it is with the best of intentions. People-first language helps individuals feel respected and seen beyond their situation. AB 413 redirects our educational efforts toward recognition of the importance of eliminating the deficit mindset that is too pervasive in schools, agencies, and communities across the country.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Right to Life Committee, Inc., “Removing ‘at risk’ and ‘high risk’ for ‘at promise’ and ‘high promise’ signals that students should feel better about themselves and that their behavior will adapt to this feel good idea. Will voters and citizens and families experience better lives as a result? … However, many of these social issue bills/enacted laws are actually providing an expansion of the workforce with different levels of new employees. AB 413 creates a number of new programs and committees to receive public dollars in an effort to benefit the students. This appears to be another attempt to surround issues with more dollars and more government. … It is a camouflage to cover for the fact that this is, once again, an attempt to fatten the funding of a workforce development program.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-4, 5/9/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Cunningham, Gallagher, Kiley, Melendez

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel, Waldron

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. /

8/14/19 15:14:24

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 413

Author: Jones-Sawyer (D), et al.

Amended: 4/1/19 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/5/19

AYES: Leyva, Wilk, Chang, Glazer, McGuire, Pan

NO VOTE RECORDED: Durazo

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/18/19

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Mitchell, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach, Jackson, Morrell

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-4, 5/9/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Education: at-promise youth

SOURCE: Los Angeles County Office of Education

SIATech

DIGEST:

This bill changes the term “at-risk” to “at-promise” in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code.

ANALYSIS: Existing law references at-risk students in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code, including, but not limited to:

1. Defines “at-risk” student as a student enrolled in high school who is at risk of dropping out of school, as indicated by specified criteria. (Education Code § 54690)
2. Defines “at-risk” youth as individuals from age five to 20 years of age and who fall into one or more specified categories. (Penal Code § 13825.4)

This bill:

1. Changes the term “at-risk” to “at-promise” in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code, relative to:
   1. The requirement that the California Department of Education (CDE) monitor adherence to statute and regulations regarding educational equity. (EC § 234.1)
   2. Reimbursement rates for child care and development programs. (EC § 8266.1)
   3. The selection of grantees to participate in the 21st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens program. (EC § 8423)
   4. The Healthy Start Support Services for Children Act. (EC § 8801)
   5. Middle college high schools. (EC § 11300)
   6. The California Youth Leadership Project. (EC § 33426)
   7. Foster Youth Services. (EC § 42920)
   8. A field experience program as part of a program of professional preparation for a teaching or services credential. (EC § 44324)
   9. Professional development training for classified school employees. (EC § 45391)
   10. Community day schools. (EC § 48660.1)
   11. Model gang violence suppression and substance abuse prevention curriculum. (EC § 51266)
   12. Partnership academies. (EC § 54690)
   13. California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System. (EC § 60901)
   14. Golden State Scholarshare College Savings Trust. (EC § 69981)
   15. The Robert Presley Institute of Corrections Research and Training. (PC § 5087)
   16. Board of State and Community Corrections. (PC § 6025 and § 6027)
   17. California Gang, Crime, and Violence Prevention Partnership Program. (PC § 13825.2, § 13825.4, and § 13825.5)
   18. Gang Violence Suppression Program. (PC § 13826.11)
   19. Comprehensive Alcohol and Drug Prevention Education component of the Suppression of Drug Abuse in Schools Program. (PC § 13864)
2. Provides that “at-promise” has the same meaning as “at-risk.”
3. Deletes obsolete references and makes other technical changes.

Comments

Need for this bill. According to the author, “Perception plays an important role in the success or failure of students. As a result of the stigma created through the use of ‘at-risk,’ these students are subjected to an expectation to fail and can be treated as such. Transitioning from ‘at-risk youth’ to ‘at-promise youth’ is an important step in eliminating the biased mindset that is too pervasive in schools and communities across the country.”

According to Reaching At-Promise Students Association, “Linguistic researchers, sociologists, and early child educators argue that labeling someone ‘at-risk,’ sends a message to the youth and others that the person is in a precarious situation, may engage in risky behavior, and lacks agency. We may feel bad for the youth, and we do not expect much of a youth that is ‘at-risk.’ However, in changing the discourse, we may change the outcome.”

Related/Prior Legislation

ACR 197 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 106, Statutes of 2018) encouraged the people of the State of California to recognize the potential and possibilities of our children, instead of focusing on their deficits.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/18/19)

Los Angeles County Office of Education (co-source)

SIATech (co-source)

California-Hawaii State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

University of California Student Association

Several individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/18/19)

California Right to Life Committee, Inc.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, “Society uses ‘at-risk’ to describe students living in precarious situations that increase their chances of failure in academics, drug use, and involvement with gangs or the criminal justice system. There is a shared understanding that the words we use to describe people can adversely affect the way we treat them, even if it is with the best of intentions. People-first language helps individuals feel respected and seen beyond their situation. AB 413 redirects our educational efforts toward recognition of the importance of eliminating the deficit mindset that is too pervasive in schools, agencies, and communities across the country.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Right to Life Committee, Inc., “Removing ‘at risk’ and ‘high risk’ for ‘at promise’ and ‘high promise’ signals that students should feel better about themselves and that their behavior will adapt to this feel good idea. Will voters and citizens and families experience better lives as a result? … However, many of these social issue bills/enacted laws are actually providing an expansion of the workforce with different levels of new employees. AB 413 creates a number of new programs and committees to receive public dollars in an effort to benefit the students. This appears to be another attempt to surround issues with more dollars and more government. … It is a camouflage to cover for the fact that this is, once again, an attempt to fatten the funding of a workforce development program.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-4, 5/9/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Cunningham, Gallagher, Kiley, Melendez

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel, Waldron

Prepared by: Lynn Lorber / ED. /

6/19/19 16:38:12

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 413 Hearing Date: June 18, 2019

Subject: Education: At-Promise Youth

HISTORY

Source: Schools for Integrated Academics & Technology (SIATech)

Los Angeles County of Education

Prior Legislation: ACR 197 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 106, Stats. 2018

Support: Riverside County Superintendent of Schools; University of California Students Association; 2 individuals

Opposition: California Right to Life Committee, INC.

Assembly Floor Vote: 65 - 4

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to delete the term “at-risk” to describe youth and replace it with the term “at-promise” for purposes of various sections of the Education and Penal Codes.

Existing law establishes that services and activities provided with funds under this chapter shall be used for at-risk youth who are defined as persons from age 5 to 20 years of age and who fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. Living in a high-crime or high-violence neighborhood as identified by local or federal law enforcement agencies.
2. Live in a low-economic neighborhood as identified by the U.S. Census or come from an impoverished family.
3. Are excessively absent from school or are doing poorly in school as identified by personnel from the youth’s school.
4. Come from a socially dysfunctional family as identified by local or state social service agencies.
5. Have had one or more contacts with the police.
6. Have entered the juvenile justice system.
7. Are identified by the juvenile justice system as being at risk.
8. Are current or former gang members.
9. Have one or more family members living at home who are current or former members of a gang.
10. Are identified as wards of the court, as defined in Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Pen. Code, § 13825.4 (c) (1)-(10).)

Existing law states that the chancellor of the Riverside campus may appoint an advisory committee to assist in establishing research priorities. These projects shall be related to at-risk youth and street gang activity. (Pen. Code, § 5087 (f).)

Existing law establishes the California Gang, Crime, and Violence Prevention Partnership Program, administered by the Department of Justice for the purposes of reducing gang, criminal activity, and youth violence in communities with a disproportionate at-risk youth population and defines “at-risk youth” as youth who live in a high-crime or high-violence neighborhood; live in a low-economic neighborhood; are excessively absent from school or are doing poorly in school; come from a socially dysfunctional family; have had one or more contacts with the police; have entered the juvenile justice system; are current or former gang members; have one or more family members living at home who are current or former members of a gang; or are identified as wards of the court. (Pen. Code, § 13825.2.)

Existing law states the Legislature hereby finds and declares that young people, especially at-risk youth, are more vulnerable to gang- and drug-related activity during the potentially unsupervised hours between the end of school and the time their parents or guardians return home from work and Los Angeles currently leads the nation in the number of gang members and gang sites, the consumption of drugs, the amount of drugs confiscated, drug-related violent crimes, and has the greatest number of young people between 6 and 18 years of age who are “at risk.”

This bill changes all usage of the term “at-risk” to “at-promise”.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This bill

According to the author:

Perception plays an important role in the success or failure of students. “At-risk youth” is a deficit-focused label used to describe children living in difficult situations. This is a term that spotlights the youths that are predicted to become just another statistic of high dropout rates or drug use, rather than looking at their potential to succeed. As a result of the stigma created through the use of “at-risk,” these students are subjected to an expectation to fail and can be treated as such. Educators and community leaders across the country are instead pushing for the strength-based approach of “at-promise youth” in order to better foster growth and empower these students. These groups recognize that a growth mindset must replace the current mindset that stymies the opportunities for California’s low-income and minority students.

Transitioning from “at-risk youth” to “at-promise youth” is an important step in eliminating the biased mindset that is too pervasive in schools and communities across the country. Larry Bell, a leading education consultant and co-chair of the Reaching At-Promise Students Association (RAPSA) wrote, “What we say to students matter. How we as educators refer to our students matter. When teachers consistently and intentionally call their students encouraging names, the students begin to believe. They believe their teacher believes in them and this in turn makes them believe in themselves.” By improving the educational outcomes of students and believing in their capacity to succeed, these youth are being encouraged to stay in school and continue their education, a crucial step in ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline.

AB 413 targets the “at-risk” term throughout the Education and Penal codes, and transitions the State of California to recognizing the potential and possibilities of our children, instead of focusing on their deficits.

1. Usage of at-promise vs. at-risk

The use of the term “at-promise” vs. “at-risk” has been in youth development discourse for over two decades. Many scholars and youth activists have promoted the term for its self-identifying, positive outlook towards youth in difficult environments. The term “at-promise”, although it does not have a universal definition, follows this general premise, “‘At Promise’ references the extraordinary raw potential every young person possesses. The term views youth through a strength-based perspective. It also helps to fill in some of the details missing in the former labels, reminding us that youth have natural gifts and innate potential for greatness.”^[1]

Educators have shied away from the term “at-risk” due to its negative characterization that can often be seen as stigmatizing. According to Reaching At-Promise Students Association (RAPSA), “Linguistic researchers, sociologists, and early child educators argue that labeling someone “at-risk,” sends a message to the youth and others that the person is in a precarious situation, may engage in risky behavior, and lacks agency. We may feel bad for the youth, and we do not expect much of a youth that is “at-risk.” However, in changing the discourse, we may change the outcome.”^[2]

AB 413 contributes to these initiatives by changing the term “at-risk” to “at-promise” in the education and penal code.

1. Argument in Support

According to the University of California Student Association:

AB 413 would replace the term “at-risk” with “at-promise.” Speaking about youth as being “at-promise” takes into account each child’s potential for success. The words we use to describe people has an impact on the way we treat them. The term “at-promise” youth invokes notions of these young people being able to work hard, be empowered, and uplift themselves and their peers.

The UC Student Association has made efforts to support members of underserved communities on their path towards higher education. We believe in the potential of “at-promise” youth and all that they can contribute to our state. Thus, it is imperative that we take this step in reshaping how our society views these young people.

The University of California Student Association is proud to support AB 413 because it would positively impact our society’s perception of “at-promise” youth. We appreciate your consideration of the UC students’ views and encourage your ‘aye’ vote on this bill in committee.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the California Right to Life Committee, INC.:

AB 413 assumes that a less threatening term would be welcome by counselors and students alike. Names are important and do signify concepts. Removing “at risk” and “high risk” for “at promise” and “high promise” signals that students should feel better about themselves and that their behavior will adapt to this feel good idea. Will voters and citizens and families experience better lives as a result?

Our elected representatives propose plans each legislative session to solve social problems. We voters are not observing much success with such bills and laws. CRLC does believe that these legislative endeavors are giving false hope to Californians.

However, many of these social issue bills/enacted laws are actually providing an expansion of the workforce with different levels of new employees. Generally, this happens at the expense of the schools and captive students.

CRLC urges a NO vote as AB 413 is another feel good measure and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars.

-- END –

1. http://facesforthefuture.org/why-at-promise-youth-are-good-for-global-health/ ↑

2. https://rapsa.org/2018/05/14/why-does-rapsa-carry-the-at-promise-mantle/ ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Connie Leyva, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 413 Hearing Date: June 5, 2019

Subject: Education: at-promise youth.

NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Public Safety. A "do pass" motion should include referral to the Committee on Public Safety.

SUMMARY

This bill changes the term “at-risk” to “at-promise” in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code.

BACKGROUND

Existing law references at-risk students in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code, including but not limited to:

1. Defines “at-risk” student as a student enrolled in high school who is at risk of dropping out of school, as indicated by specified criteria. (Education Code § 54690)
   
2. Defines “at-risk” youth as individuals from age 5 to 20 years of age and who fall into one or more specified categories. (Penal Code § 13825.4)

ANALYSIS

This bill changes the term “at-risk” to “at-promise” in various sections of the Education Code and Penal Code, relative to:

1. The requirement that the California Department of Education (CDE) monitor adherence to statute and regulations regarding educational equity. (EC § 234.1)
   
2. Reimbursement rates for child care and development programs. (EC § 8266.1)
   
3. The selection of grantees to participate in the 21^st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens program. (EC § 8423)
   
4. The Health Start Support Services for Children Act. (EC § 8801)
   
5. Middle college high schools. (EC § 11300)
   
6. The California Youth Leadership Project. (EC § 33426)
   
7. Foster Youth Services. (EC § 42920)
   
8. A field experience program as part of a program of professional preparation for a teaching or services credential. (EC § 44324)
   
9. Professional development training for classified school employees. (EC § 45391)
   
10. Community day schools. (EC § 48660.1)
    
11. Model gang violence suppression and substance abuse prevention curriculum. (EC § 51266)
    
12. Partnership academies. (EC § 54690)
    
13. California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System. (EC § 60901)
    
14. Golden State Scholarshare College Savings Trust. (EC § 69981)
    
15. The Robert Presley Institute of Corrections Research and Training. (PC § 5087)
    
16. Board of State and Community Corrections. (PC § 6025 and § 6027)
    
17. California Gang, Crime, and Violence Prevention Partnership Program. (PC § 13825.2, § 13825.4, and § 13825.5)
    
18. Gang Violence Suppression Program. (PC § 13826.11)
    
19. Comprehensive Alcohol and Drug Prevention Education component of the Suppression of Drug Abuse in Schools Program. (PC § 13864)
    
20. Provides that “at-promise” has the same meaning as “at-risk.”
    
21. Deletes obsolete references and makes other technical changes.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “Perception plays an important role in the success or failure of students. As a result of the stigma created through the use of ‘at-risk,’ these students are subjected to an expectation to fail and can be treated as such. Transitioning from ‘at-risk youth’ to ‘at-promise youth’ is an important step in eliminating the biased mindset that is too pervasive in schools and communities across the country.”
   
2. Double-referred. This bill has been double-referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee, as this bill also amends the Penal Code.
   
3. Prior legislation. ACR 197 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 106, 2018) encourages the people of the State of California to recognize the potential and possibilities of our children, instead of focusing on their deficits.

SUPPORT

Los Angeles County Office of Education (co-sponsor)

SIATech (co-sponsor)

OPPOSITION

California Right to Life Committee, Inc.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 413

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:April 1, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Replaces the terms "at-risk" to describe youth with "at-promise" within various sections of the Education Code and the Penal Code.

Major Provisions

1. Defines "at-promise" as having the same definition as "at-risk," as that term is generally understood and consistent with federal law.
2. Replaces the terms "at-risk" in numerous sections of the Education Code and the Penal Code.

COMMENTS:

A 2006 research brief, published in Child Trends, notes that "the term 'at risk' is used frequently to describe children and youth and has a strong intuitive meaning. However, the term has no consistent definition and can be viewed as stigmatizing certain groups. Nevertheless, it is widely used. The positive side of this confusion is that program providers have some leeway in how they define 'at risk' for their programs."

According to the Faces for the Future Coalition, "as a nation and society, we often unfairly view youth from underserved communities through a deficit lens. Frequent terms used to describe these young people include 'at risk' and 'marginalized,' referring generally to young people who face situational circumstances that we believe will inevitably lead to their personal and professional failures. Labeling youth as 'at-risk' presumes that these children will have poor outcomes, despite never having been given a chance to prove otherwise. Moreover, these terms perpetuate destructive stereotypes of young people in our country, missing the mark completely in defining who these young people truly are and what they can contribute to our world. Those of us who work with youth from difficult backgrounds prefer the term 'at-promise youth.' 'At Promise' references the extraordinary raw potential every young person possesses. The term views youth through a strength-based perspective. It also helps to fill in some of the details missing in the former labels, reminding us that youth have natural gifts and innate potential for greatness."

According to the Author:

"Our education and justice systems have adopted the term 'at-risk' to label youth living in difficult situations. This term comes from a mindset of deficit that focuses on these students' faults. As a state, we need to transition from a stigma-provoking label and move towards 'at-promise.' By using a more positive approach, we encourage individuals working with our most vulnerable youth to empower them and emphasize their immense potential to succeed."

Arguments in Support:

According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, "Society uses 'at risk' to describe students living in precarious situations that increases their chances of failure in academics, drug use, and involvement with gangs or the criminal justice system. For decades, this term has been reserved for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, which includes single-parent households, low-income communities, English learners, and children in foster care.

"There is a shared understanding that the words we use to describe people can adversely affect the way we treat them, even if it is with the best of intentions. People-first language helps individuals feel respected and seen beyond their situation. AB 413 redirects our educational efforts toward recognition of the importance of eliminating the deficit mindset that is too pervasive in schools, agencies, and communities across the country. This bill supports California's work at addressing trauma, building meaningful relationships and hearing the cares and challenges of students and their families."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the California Right to Life Committee (CRLC), this bill assumes that a less threatening term would be welcome by students and alike. Names are important and do signify concepts. Removing 'at risk' and 'high risk' for 'at promise' and 'high promise' signals that students should feel better about themselves and that their behavior will adapt to this feel good idea. Will voters and citizens and families experience a better life as a result? Our elected representatives propose plans each legislative session to solve social problems. We voters are not observing much success with such bills and law. CRLC does believe that these legislative endeavors are giving false hope to Californians."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

None

VOTES:

ASM EDUCATION: 5-1-0

YES: O'Donnell, Kalra, McCarty, Smith, Weber

NO: Kiley

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-1

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Diep, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 1, 2019

CONSULTANT: Debbie Look / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000274

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2019

Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 413

Author:(Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2019

SUMMARY:

Deletes the term “at-risk” to describe youth and replace it with the term “at-promise” for purposes of various sections of the Education and Penal Codes, and makes other non-substantive technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Governor’s Mentoring Partnership, and for the purposes of this chapter, defines “at-risk youth” as an individual under 21 years of age whose environment increases their chance of academic failure, alcohol and other drug use, involvement in the criminal justice system, or teen pregnancy. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 2104.)
   
2. Establishes the California Gang, Crime, and Violence Prevention Partnership Program, administered by the Department of Justice for the purposes of reducing gang, criminal activity, and youth violence in communities with a disproportionate at-risk youth population and defines “at-risk youth” as youth who live in a high-crime or high-violence neighborhood; live in a low-economic neighborhood; are excessively absent from school or are doing poorly in school; come from a socially dysfunctional family; have had one or more contacts with the police; have entered the juvenile justice system; are current or former gang members; have one or more family members living at home who are current or former members of a gang; or are identified as wards of the court. (Pen. Code, § 13825.2.)
3. Authorizes counties to establish an At-Risk Youth Early Intervention Program, designed to assess and serve families with children who have chronic behavioral problems that place the child at risk of becoming a ward of the juvenile court and allows a minor to be referred to the program if at risk of justice system involvement due to chronic disobedience to parents, curfew violations, repeat truancy, incidents of running away from home, experimentation with drugs or alcohol, or other serious behavior problem. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601.5.)
4. Establishes the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Grant Program, provides that not less than 20 percent of the funds shall be available for development of at risk youth recreational facilities, and defines “at-risk youth” as persons who have not attained the age of 21 years and are at high risk of being involved in, or are involved in, one or more of the following: gangs, juvenile delinquency, criminal activity, substance abuse, adolescent pregnancy, or school failure or dropout. (Pub. Res. Code, § 5096.334.)
   
   
   
5. Expresses the purpose of Part D of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, the Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk, and includes numerous provisions which use the term “at risk” to refer to students. (Section 1401, 20 U.S.C. 6421).

FISCAL EFFECT:

None

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Our education and justice systems have adopted the term ‘at-risk’ to label youth living in difficult situations. This term comes from a mindset of deficit that focuses on these students’ faults. As a state, we need to transition from a stigma-provoking label and move towards ‘at-promise.’ By using a more positive approach, we encourage individuals working with our most vulnerable youth to empower them and emphasize their immense potential to succeed.”
   
2. Defining “At-Promise: A 2006 research brief, published in Child Trends, notes that “the term ‘at risk’ is used frequently to describe children and youth and has a strong intuitive meaning. However, the term has no consistent definition and can be viewed as stigmatizing certain groups. Nevertheless, it is widely used. The positive side of this confusion is that program providers have some leeway in how they define ‘at risk’ for their programs.”

According to the Faces for the Future Coalition, “as a nation and society, we often unfairly view youth from underserved communities through a deficit lens. Frequent terms used to describe these young people include ‘at risk’ and ‘marginalized,’ referring generally to young people who face situational circumstances that we believe will inevitably lead to their personal and professional failures. Labeling youth as ‘at-risk’ presumes that these children will have poor outcomes, despite never having been given a chance to prove otherwise. Moreover, these terms perpetuate destructive stereotypes of young people in our country, missing the mark completely in defining who these young people truly are and what they can contribute to our world.

Those of us who work with youth from difficult backgrounds prefer the term ‘at-promise youth.’ ‘At Promise’ references the extraordinary raw potential every young person possesses. The term views youth through a strength-based perspective. It also helps to fill in some of the details missing in the former labels, reminding us that youth have natural gifts and innate potential for greatness.”

1. Argument in Support: According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, “Society uses ‘at risk’ to describe students living in precarious situations that increases their chances of failure in academics, drug use, and involvement with gangs or the criminal justice system. For decades, this term has been reserved for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, which includes single-parent households, low-income communities, English learners, and children in foster care.
   
   “There is a shared understanding that the words we use to describe people can adversely affect the way we treat them, even if it is with the best of intentions. People-first language helps individuals feel respected and seen beyond their situation. AB 413 redirects our educational efforts toward recognition of the importance of eliminating the deficit mindset that is too pervasive in schools, agencies, and communities across the country. This bill supports California’s work at addressing trauma, building meaningful relationships and hearing the cares and challenges of students and their families.”
2. Argument in Opposition: According to the California Right to Life Committee, INC.,”AB 413 assume that a less threatening term would be welcome by students and alike. Names are important and do signify concepts. Removing ‘at risk’ and ‘high risk’ for ‘at promise’ and ‘high promise’ signals that students should feel better about themselves and that their behavior will adapt to this feel good idea. Will voters and citizens and families experience a better life as a result?
   
   “Our elected representatives propose plans each legislative session to solve social problems. We voters are not observing much success with such bills and law. CRLC does believe that these legislative endeavors are giving false hope to Californians.”
3. Prior Legislation: ACR 197 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 106, Statutes of 2018, encourages the people of the State of California to recognize the potential possibilities of our children, instead of focusing on their deficits.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

SIATech (Sponsor)
Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools (Co-Sponsor)
Office of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

1 Private Individual

Oppose

California Right to Life Committee, Inc.

Analysis Prepared by:

Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 413 (

Author:Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended, Ver:April 1, 2019

[Note: This bill is doubled referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Education: at-promise youth

SUMMARY: Replaces the terms “at-risk” to describe youth with “at-promise” within the Education Code and the Penal Code. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “at-promise” as having the same definition as “at-risk,” as that term is generally understood and consistent with federal law.
2. Replaces the terms “at-risk” in the following sections of Education Code:
3. Requires that CDE monitor, as a part of its regular monitoring process, whether a local education agency (LEA) has provided schoolsite or community resources to schoolsite employees to support pupils who may face bias or bullying on the basis of religious affiliation, or perceived religious affiliation, to include peer support or affinity clubs and organizations, safe spaces for LGBTQ or other at-promise pupils, counseling services, staff who have received anti-bias training, health and other curriculum materials that are inclusive of, and relevant to these pupils, online training, and other policies including related complaint procedures.
4. Removes an outdated reference to the At Risk Child Care Program.
5. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), in awarding grants under the 21^st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens program, to include a description of plans to attract pupils, particularly pupils considered at-promise or in need of academic support, on a regular basis.
6. Expresses findings and declarations related to the “Healthy Start Support Services for Children Act” to address the need for schools’ support services to more effectively service a large enough percentage of at-promise children, among other needs.
7. Expresses findings and declarations that the goal of middle college high schools is to select at-promise high school students who are performing below their academic potential and place them in an alternative high school located on a community college campus.
8. Requires that priority for awarding scholarships under the California Youth Leadership Project be given to at-promise or disadvantaged youth between 14 and 18 years of age.
9. Expresses findings and declarations that pupils in foster care represent one of the most vulnerable and academically at-promise pupil groups enrolled in California schools.
10. Encourages programs of professional preparation for teaching or services credential to operate a “field experience program,” defined as a program under which students work with truant, habitual truant, or other at-promise pupils enrolled in any public elementary or secondary school.
11. Specifies that professional development training for classified school employees to update their skills and to learn best practices may include training on the best practices in the appropriate interventions and assistance for at-promise pupils.
12. Expresses the intent of the Legislature that school districts operating community day schools, to the extent possible, include as a program component: school district cooperation with the county office of education, law enforcement, probation, and human services agencies personnel who work with at-promise pupils.
13. Requires that the model gang violence suppression and substance abuse prevention curriculum, to be developed for grades 2, 4, and 6, to include instructional resources that address issues of ethnic diversity and at-promise pupils.
14. States the intent of the Legislature to broaden the availability of learning experiences within the California Partnership Academies to interested pupils who do not meet the criteria of at-promise pupils, and defines at-promise pupils, for this purpose as a pupil enrolled in high school who is at risk of dropping out of school, as indicated by at least three of the following criteria:
    1. Past record of irregular attendance, defined as absence from school 20 percent or more of the school year.
    2. Past record of underachievement in which the pupil is at least one-third of a year behind the coursework for the respective grade level, or as demonstrated by credits achieved.
    3. Past record of low motivation or disinterest in the regular school program.
    4. Disadvantaged economically.
    5. Scoring below basic or far below basic in mathematics or English language arts on the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress standardized tests.
    6. Maintaining a grade point average of 2.2 or below, or the equivalent of a C minus.

States that up to one-half of the pupils enrolled at a partnership academy may be pupils who do not meet the criteria of at-promise pupils.

1. Requires the CDE to notify LEAs of the benefits of reporting pupil attendance and chronic absenteeism in fostering the development of effective supports and interventions for at-promise pupils.
2. Establishes with the Scholarshare trust, the California Scholarshare Advancement Vehicle for Education to fund scholarships for beneficiaries to include, foster youth, youth in at-promise categories, individuals with demonstrated economic need, former and active members of the California National Guard, individuals seeking undergraduate or post baccalaureate courses in disciplines in which the state faces shortages, including nursing and teaching.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Expresses the purpose of Part D of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, the Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk, and includes numerous provisions which use the term “at risk” to refer to students. (Section 1401, 20 U.S.C. 6421).

FISCAL EFFECT: The Office of Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as non-fiscal.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “Our education and justice systems have adopted the term ‘at-risk’ to label youth living in difficult situations. This term comes from a mindset of deficit that focuses on these students’ faults. As a state, we need to transition from a stigma-provoking label and move towards ‘at-promise.’ By using a more positive approach, we encourage individuals working with our most vulnerable youth to empower them and emphasize their immense potential to succeed.”

Defining at-promise. A 2006 research brief, published in Child Trends, notes that “the term ‘at risk’ is used frequently to describe children and youth and has a strong intuitive meaning. However, the term has no consistent definition and can be viewed as stigmatizing certain groups. Nevertheless, it is widely used. The positive side of this confusion is that program providers have some leeway in how they define ‘at risk’ for their programs.”

According to the Faces for the Future Coalition, “as a nation and society, we often unfairly view youth from underserved communities through a deficit lens. Frequent terms used to describe these young people include ‘at risk’ and ‘marginalized,’ referring generally to young people who face situational circumstances that we believe will inevitably lead to their personal and professional failures. Labeling youth as ‘at-risk’ presumes that these children will have poor outcomes, despite never having been given a chance to prove otherwise. Moreover, these terms perpetuate destructive stereotypes of young people in our country, missing the mark completely in defining who these young people truly are and what they can contribute to our world.

Those of us who work with youth from difficult backgrounds prefer the term ‘at-promise youth.’ ‘At Promise’ references the extraordinary raw potential every young person possesses. The term views youth through a strength-based perspective. It also helps to fill in some of the details missing in the former labels, reminding us that youth have natural gifts and innate potential for greatness.”

Arguments in support. Sponsors note that the words used to describe people can adversely affect the way they are treated, even if it is with the best of intentions. They go on to say that this bill redirects educational efforts toward recognition of the importance of eliminating the deficit mindset that is too pervasive in schools, agencies, and communities across the country.

Prior and related legislation. ACR 197 (Jones-Sawyer) Chapter 106, Statutes of 2018, encourages the people of the State of California to recognize the potential possibilities of our children, instead of focusing on their deficits.

SCR 40 (Chesbro) Chapter 133, Statutes of 2003, encourages the Legislature to establish March 28 as an annual day of recognition for those entities that have successfully developed youth participation and involvement programs and for the youth participating, and encourages the Legislature to support programs that address problem behaviors in high-risk youth.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Los Angeles County Office Of Education

Los Angeles County Superintendent Of Schools

Riverside County Superintendent Of Schools

SIATech, Inc.

Oppose

California Right To Life Committee, Inc.

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