Two to Ponder from Sacramento

Nearing the Apocalyptic end to this year’s legislative session in Sacramento and here are two “Say What” items for your contemplation:

Assembly Bill 60 is a piece of legislation being carried by Luis Alejo. Assemblyman Alejo represents the 30th Assembly District  which  - take note of the following - consists of the Salinas Valley, Monterey County, San Benito County, South Santa Clara County and the city of Watsonville in Santa Cruz County.

It is euphemistically called “The Responsible Driver Act.” What SB 60 does is grant driver’s licenses to applicants "regardless of their immigration status." The bill is headed to the Senate floor for final consideration.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to require an applicant for an original driver's license or identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. AB 60 does away with that provision.

On the upside, AB 60 requires DMV to (among other things):  to get the applicant's true full name, age, sex, mailing address, residence address, and social security account number , federal individual taxpayer ID number, or a number associated with any document that the department finds clearly establishes the identity of the applicant; a legible print of the thumb or finger of the applicant; whether the applicant has ever previously been licensed as a driver and, if so, when and in what state or country and whether or not the license has been suspended or revoked and, if so, the date of and reason for the suspension or revocation; and, (get this) whether the applicant understands traffic signs and signals.

This will makes things all better on our roadways, right? 

-------------------------------

Threaten a teacher; go to study hall. Yes, you’re right... that doesn’t make any sense. Which is why Assembly Bill 420 by Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) is such a puzzler?

AB 420 would eliminate a student’s outright willful defiance as a reason to suspend students in grades K through 8. For grades 9 through 12, the bill would establish a tiered approach. Instead of suspensions, the bill seeks to make schools use alternative forms of correcting what is termed “mild forms of student misbehavior.” Some research has shown this helps students recognize the disruptive effect of their behavior (as if they can't figure out when they've done something wrong, but I digress) as well as deal with the underlying cause of their misbehavior.

These alternatives also allow the students to remain in class (even though they’ve told the teacher - doubtless as a 'mild form of student misbehavior' - to go “F” themselves) and continue their education without disruption. This is claimed to provide positive results for students over time. Well of course; if you know you can cuss out a teacher (or worse) and not get seriously penalized for it, then you’re whole approach to school changes.

AB 420 is sponsored by the ACLU and “co-sourced” by four groups called Brothers, Sons, Selves; Public Counsel; Children Now: Fight Crime; and, Invest in Kids. It's supported by more than 80 groups including the San Mateo County Office of Education.

Existing law provides that students can be suspended or recommended for expulsion from a school district for 24 different reasons. One of those reasons is “willful defiance,” defined as “disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of school staff.”  (No, really?)

According to the California Department of Education, it's estimated that “willful defiance” was identified as the grounds for 42% of all suspensions, which equals 2,200 students per school day – the highest rate in the nation!

Yet “willful defiance” is termed as a “highly subjective category” because students - it is claimed - are sent home and denied  instruction time for anything from supposedly failing to turn in homework, to not paying attention, to refusing to take off a coat or hat (can you say, ‘gang colors?’), or swearing in class. They can also be expelled from the district for these actions.

Of course what’s never mentioned is the student’s attitude and demeanor, but hey, what difference does that makes, right? To hear tell it, every student who is willfully defiant to a teacher, administrator, parent volunteer, crossing guard, cafeteria worker, etc. is just underprivileged or misunderstood and if they just had an opportunity, why they’d be on their way to becoming a Rhoades Scholar… and in the interest of full disclosure: this paragraph was written with as much sarcasm as I can muster.