BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 58 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 8, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Patrick O'Donnell, Chair AB 58 (Rodriguez) - As Amended March 26, 2015 SUBJECT: School safety plans SUMMARY: Makes each county office of education (COE) the entity responsible for the overall development of all comprehensive school safety plans and requires school safety plans to include procedures in response to individuals with guns on school campuses. Specifically, this bill: 1)Strikes references to school districts in the following provisions related to school safety plans: a) In the provision requiring a school district or COE to be responsible for the overall development of school safety plans. b) In the provision authorizing a school district or COE to allow the portions of the school safety plan that include tactical responses to criminal incidents to be developed by administrators of the school district or COE instead of by the schoolsite council. AB 58 Page 2 c) In the provision authorizing a governing board of a school district or COE to confer in closed session with law enforcement officials to approve a tactical response plan. d) In the provision authorizing a school district or COE to work with the Office of Emergency Services and the Seismic Safety Commission. e) In the provision requiring a school district or COE to cooperate with a public agency in establishing a procedure to allow a public agency to use school buildings, grounds and equipment during disasters or other emergencies. f) In the provision requiring each school to forward its school safety plan to the school district or COE for approval. 2)Adds nongovernmental organizations to the provision requiring the school safety plan to include a procedure to allow specified entities to use school buildings, grounds, and equipment for mass care and welfare shelters during disasters or other emergencies. 3)Adds as a required component of the school safety plan procedures related to individuals with guns on school campuses and at school-related functions, including but not limited to, training programs related to active shooters and active terrorists. Requires training programs and drills to prepare for active shooters or other armed assailants to be based on the specific needs and context of each school and community. Requires schools to consider the most cost-effective method of preparing students and staff for an active shooter situation while balancing the physical and psychological risks associated with these drills. Requires the school resource officer and school-employed mental health professionals to be AB 58 Page 3 integrally involved in the planning and evaluation process to ensure appropriate implementation, regardless of the nature of the drills a school chooses. 4)Defines "active shooter" as an individual who is actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area. 5)Expresses the intent of the Legislature that schools use the report by the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of School Resource Officers on "Best Practice Considerations for Schools in Active Shooter and Other Armed Assailant Drills" in the development of their school safety plan. 6)Requires an updated file of all safety-related plans and materials to be readily available for inspection by law enforcement and school employees, in addition to the public. 7)Requires the school accountability report card (SARC) to include the date the school safety plan was adopted and a description of the safety plan's elements. 8)Requires each principal to provide a written or electronic notice to each teacher and classified employee of that school that the adopted school safety plan is readily available for inspection. 9)Deletes the provision requiring each school district or COE to annually notify the California Department of Education (CDE) by October 15 of any schools that have not complied with the development of the school safety plan, and instead requires, no later than October 15, 2016, and each year thereafter, each COE to provide written notification to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) identifying each school within the AB 58 Page 4 county that has not complied with the requirement to develop a comprehensive school safety plan or included the information about the school safety plan on the SARC. 10)Specifies that confidential information relating to tactical responses to criminal incidents shall not be included at a public meeting. 11)Requires each principal to keep and maintain a copy of the most recent school safety plan for that school, and each COE to keep a copy of the most recent school safety plan submitted to the COE and every notification made to the SPI identifying each school within the district or county that has not complied with the requirement to develop a school safety plan. 12)Requires all books, documents, records, and other papers kept and maintained to be open for inspection and copying during business hours at the district office or during school hours at a school, on business days, excluding legal holidays, within 48 hours of a written, verbal, or electronic request by a law enforcement agency. Specifies that an electronic version of a book, document, record or other paper is sufficient to meet the requirements of this provision. 13)Strikes the provision authorizing a complaint of noncompliance with the school safety planning requirement of Title IV of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to be filed with the CDE under the Uniform Complaint Procedures. 14)Requires the CDE to monitor compliance using an existing monitoring framework. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires each school district or COE to be responsible for the overall development of all comprehensive school safety plans for its schools operating kindergarten or any of grades 1 AB 58 Page 5 through 12. (Education Code Section (EC) Section 32281) 2)Specifies that the schoolsite council or a school safety planning committee is responsible for developing the comprehensive school safety plan. (EC Section 32281) 3)Specifies that the comprehensive school safety plan shall include an assessment of the current status of school crime committed on school campuses and at school-related functions and identification of appropriate strategies and programs that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school's procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety, including child abuse reporting procedures; disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion; procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; a discrimination and harassment policy; the provisions of any schoolwide dress code; procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; rules and procedures on school discipline; and hate crime reporting procedures. (EC 32282) 4)Requires the comprehensive school safety plan to be evaluated at least once a year. (EC 32282) 5)Requires each school to include a description of key elements of the school safety plan in the annual SARC. (EC 32286) 6)Requires the schoolsite council or school safety planning committee to hold a public meeting to allow public comment. Requires the comprehensive school safety plan to be submitted to the school district or COE for approval and requires a school district or COE to notify the CDE by October 15 of every year of any school that is not in compliance. (EC 32288) 7)Provides that if the SPI determines that there has been a AB 58 Page 6 willful failure to make any report, the SPI shall notify and assess no more than $2,000 against that school district or COE. (EC 32287) 8)Authorizes the portions of a school safety plan that include tactical responses to criminal incidents to be developed by school district or COE administrators in consultation with law enforcement officials and with a representative of an exclusive bargaining unit of school district or COE employees, if he or she chooses to participate. Authorizes the school district or COE to elect not to disclose those portions of the comprehensive school safety plan that include tactical responses to criminal incidents. (EC 32281) FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a state-mandated local program. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee of a similar bill introduced in 2013, SB 49 (Lieu), potential annual General Fund/Proposition 98 state reimbursable mandated costs of at least $165,000 to school districts and COEs to include additional information in the school safety plans, notify school employees of the completion of the plan, and copy/make available plans for inspection by law enforcement. COMMENTS: Background. Existing law specifies that school districts and COEs are responsible for the overall development of school safety plans. Each school is required to develop a school safety plan that includes processes, procedures, and policies to ensure student and staff safety at a school site. The components of the plan range from daily processes, such as procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents and school employees; to disaster and emergency procedures such as those during and after earthquakes; to behavioral policies such as discrimination and harassment policies. The school safety plan is developed by a school site council or a school safety planning committee. Current law requires a school to submit the school safety plan to the school district or COE for approval and requires the school district or COE to annually notify the AB 58 Page 7 CDE of any schools that have not complied with the requirement to develop a school safety plan. The SPI is authorized to impose a fine of not more than $2,000 against a school district or COE for any willful failure to make any required report. According to the CDE, there has been no report of noncompliance by schools and no district or COE has been fined for willfully failing to report a school that has not developed a school safety plan. It is unclear whether this is because there have been no violations and every school in the state has developed its school safety plan, or whether districts or COEs have not reported schools that have not developed their school safety plans. Who should be responsible for ensuring that school safety plans are developed? This bill makes a number of changes to the school safety plan, including striking the requirement that school districts are responsible for the overall development of school safety plans, thereby requiring COEs to ensure that each school has developed its school safety plan. The bill also strikes references to school districts throughout the school safety plan provisions. According to the author's office, designating one entity to be responsible will make it easier for schools to comply with reporting requirements. While it may seem simpler to put the responsibility on one entity, requiring 58 COEs to be responsible for almost 10,000 schools in California may not be practical. In addition, throughout the provisions governing school safety plans, schools districts have requirements that are appropriately placed with school districts. For example, current law authorizes a school district governing board to allow district administrators, instead of the schoolsite council, to develop a tactical response to criminal incidents and to approve the response in closed session. This is to prevent would be criminals from using the information gleaned from the school safety plan to carry out an attack. The school district is more familiar with the schools in its district; this authority should remain with the school district. Similarly, current law specifies that a school district or COE shall cooperate with a public agency in AB 58 Page 8 furnishing and maintaining the services the school district or COE may deem necessary to meet the needs of the community during disasters or other emergencies (e.g., allowing school buildings to be used as shelters). COEs do not have authority over school district facilities and grounds. This requirement should keep the reference to school district. School districts should also retain the authority to work with state agencies in developing and establishing earthquake emergency procedures. Staff recommends restoring the references to school districts in the provisions regarding the development of the school safety plan and restoring the responsibility for schools to submit their school safety plans to their school districts. Should the requirement for reporting to the SPI be strengthened? There is a belief that not all schools have developed school safety plans, but there is no data to confirm that. Current law requires each school district or COE to annually notify the CDE by October 15 of any schools that have not complied with the requirements to develop a school safety plan and incorporate a description in the school's SARC. This bill requires COEs to provide written notification to the SPI identifying the schools within the county that have not complied. Staff recommends restoring the responsibility with school districts for their schools and COE for county schools. Staff also recommends strengthening the reporting requirement to the SPI by requiring school districts or COEs to certify that the schools in their jurisdiction have complied with the requirements for developing the school safety plan. New procedure to respond to armed assailants. This bill expands the components in the school safety plan to include procedures in situations where there are active shooters or armed assailants on school campuses. The procedures shall include training programs and drills using the most cost-effective method, but must include school resource officers and AB 58 Page 9 school-employed mental health professionals in the planning and evaluation of the training programs and drills. The author states, "Lessons learned from school emergencies highlight the importance of preparing school officials and first responders to implement emergency operations plans. Law enforcement officers may not be present when a shooting begins. The first law enforcement officers on the scene may arrive after the shooting has ended. Making sure staff knows how to respond and instruct their students can prevent and reduce the loss of life." The school safety plan already must include procedures related to tactical responses to criminal incidents that school districts are authorized to have school administrators develop and approved by the governing board in closed session. Active shooters and armed assailants can be incorporated in this provision. Staff recommends relocating this provision as a component of tactical responses to criminal incidents. Other major provisions. The bill's other major changes include clarifying that a principal is responsible for reporting the status of the school safety plan and requiring the posting of the school safety plan on the SARC to include the date the school safety plan was adopted; clarifying that information relating to tactical responses to criminal incidents shall not be included at a public meeting; requiring principals to provide written or electronic notice to each school staff that the school safety plan is available for inspection; requiring principals and COEs to keep and maintain a copy of the most recent plan and any notification to the SPI; requiring all documents be available for inspection and copying at the request of a law enforcement agency; and requiring the CDE to monitor compliance using existing monitoring framework. Should charters be required to develop school safety plans? Charter schools are not required to comply with most of the provisions in the Education Code. Existing law requires the AB 58 Page 10 petition to establish a charter school to indicate the procedures that the school will follow to ensure the health and safety of pupils and staff. There are no specific requirements regarding what the procedures must cover and how extensively they are developed. Staff recommends extending the requirement to develop school safety plans to charter schools. Related legislation. SB 592 (Leyva), pending in the Senate Education Committee, requires the school safety plan to include procedures and policies to prevent and respond to adolescent relationship abuse in middle and high schools serving pupils in grades 6 through 12. Prior related legislation. SB 49 (Lieu), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2013, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 549 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 422, Statutes of 2013, encourages all school safety plans, to the extent that resources are available, to include clear guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of mental health professionals, community intervention professionals, school counselors, school resource officers, and police officers on school campus, if the school district uses these people. AB 680 (Block), Chapter 438, Statutes of 2011, authorizes a school district or COE, in consultation with law enforcement officials, to choose not to have its schoolsite council develop and write those portions of its comprehensive school safety plan that include tactical responses to criminal incidents that may result in death or serious bodily injury at the schoolsite and authorizes, instead, school district and COE administrators to write those portions of the school safety plan. AB 58 Page 11 AB 519 (Hernández) authorizes the comprehensive school safety plan to include rules and procedures regarding the use of restraint and seclusion, prohibits an educational provider from using chemical and mechanical restraint, and limits the use of physical restraint and seclusion. The bill was held in this Committee by the author in 2011. SB 755 (Lieu) makes a number of changes to the comprehensive school safety plan, including extending the requirement to develop a school safety plan to charter schools and imposing a fine of between $250 and $1,000 on any principal, administrator at a school without a principal, and any superintendent of a school district or COE for failing to develop a school safety plan or failing to make specified reporting requirements. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2011. AB 2501 (Lieu) makes a number of changes to comprehensive school safety plan, including extending the requirement to develop a school safety plan to charter schools and imposing a fine of between $250 and $1,000 on any principal, administrator at a school without a principal, and any superintendent of a school district or county office of education for failing to develop a school safety plan or failing to make specified reporting requirements. The bill was held in this Committee by the author in 2010. AB 2639 (Lieu), held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2008, requires each school district or COE to annually submit to the CDE by October 15 a report that includes a list of schools within its jurisdiction that have and have not developed a school safety plan. AB 810 (Lieu), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee's AB 58 Page 12 suspense file in 2007, requires the SPI to notify the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) of a principal or schoolsite administrator's failure to comply with requirements related to the development and adoption of the school safety plan by October 15 of each year and requires the CTC to suspend the principal or administrator's credential for one year if he or she does not correct the noncompliance within 30 days of receiving the notice from the SPI. AB 115 (J. Horton), Chapter 423, Statutes of 2003, increased the fine to school districts for a willful failure to report a noncompliant school to the SPI from $500 to $2000. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support None on file Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 AB 58 Page 13