Pupils: bullying.
Summary
(1) Existing law establishes the public school system in this state, and, among other things, provides for the establishment of school districts throughout the state and for their provision of instruction at the public elementary and secondary schools they operate and maintain. Existing law, the Interagency School Safety Demonstration Act of 1985, among other things, requires school districts and county offices of education to be responsible for the overall development of comprehensive school safety plans for schools operating kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and further requires the Department of Justice and the State Department of Education to contract with one or more professional trainers to coordinate statewide workshops for school districts, county offices of education, and schoolsite personnel to assist them in the development of school safety and crisis response plans. This bill, as of July 1, 2012, would encourage the inclusion of policies and procedures aimed at the prevention of bullying in comprehensive school safety plans. The bill also would require the Department of Justice and the State Department of Education to contract to provide training in the prevention of bullying, as defined in the bill. (2) Existing law requires each person between 6 and 18 years of age, inclusive, who is not otherwise exempt, to attend the public full-time day school in the school district in which his or her parent or guardian is a resident. Existing law authorizes the governing boards of 2 or more school districts to enter into an agreement, for a term not to exceed 5 school years, for the interdistrict attendance of pupils who are residents of the districts. Existing law requires the supervisor of attendance of the school district of residence to issue an individual permit verifying the district's approval, pursuant to policies of the governing board of the school district and terms of the agreement, for the transfer. Existing law establishes an appeal process for pupils whose permits are denied, or, in the absence of an agreement between the school districts, if the school districts fail or refuse to enter into an agreement. This bill, as of July 1, 2012, would require that a pupil who has been determined by personnel of either the school district of residence or the school district of proposed enrollment to have been the victim of an act of bullying, as defined, committed by a pupil of the school district of residence be given priority for interdistrict attendance under any existing interdistrict attendance agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, be given additional consideration for the creation of an interdistrict attendance agreement, at the request of the person having legal custody of the pupil. To the extent this provision would impose new or additional duties on school districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law prohibits the suspension, or recommendation for expulsion, of a pupil from school unless the school district superintendent or the school principal determines that the pupil has committed any of various specified acts, including, but not limited to, bullying, as defined to include sexual harassment, hate violence, or harassment, threats, or intimidation. This bill, as of July 1, 2012, would amend the definition of bullying in this provision by specifying that bullying means any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or by means of an electronic act, as defined, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, hate violence, or harassment, threats, or intimidation, that has the effect or can reasonably be predicted to have the effect of placing a reasonable pupil, as defined, in fear of harm to that pupil's or those pupils' person or property, causing a reasonable pupil to experience a substantially detrimental effect on his or her physical or mental health, causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her academic performance, or causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school. (4) The bill would also make various technical and conforming changes. (5) 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 these statutory provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Sep 2011
Assembly Passage
Jun 2011
Senate Passage
Sep 2011
Signed into Law
Oct 2011
Introduced Feb 18, 2011
Signed Oct 9, 2011
Floor votes · Senate Sep 7, 2011 · Assembly Jun 2, 2011
How they voted
20–7
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 31
Sep 7, 2011
D
Democratic20
95% Yea
R
Republican11
63% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
29
Key actions
10
Committee
7
Amendments
6
Oct 9, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 8, 2011
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 52. Noes 27. Page 3091.).
lower
Sep 7, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (20-7-4)
senate
Sep 7, 2011
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Aug 30, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (August 25).
upper
Jul 5, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 29).
upper
Jun 16, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
upper
Jun 2, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (42-25-3)
assembly
May 27, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 27).
lower
May 23, 2011
Lower · Passed
Measure version as amended on May 18 corrected.
lower
May 19, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 11, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 4, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 2, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (April 27).
lower
Mar 17, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Feb 20, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
lower
1 primary · 10 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
ME
Mike Eng
DDemocratic
Co
CL
Carol Liu
DDemocratic
Co
DW
Das Williams
DDemocratic
Co
EA
Elaine Alquist
DDemocratic
Co
Isadore Hall
DDemocratic
Co
JV
Juan Vargas
DDemocratic
Co
Loni Hancock
DDemocratic
Co
MY
Mariko Yamada
DDemocratic
Co
SB
Sam Blakeslee Ph.D.
RRepublican
Co
SS
Sandré Swanson
DDemocratic
Co
WT
Warren T Furutani
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1156
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1156. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline