AB 1851 requires the California Department of Education to establish a statewide Tier 1 Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), behavioral health, and restorative justice education program for pupils in kindergarten and grades 1–12. The statute directs program alignment with the department’s existing SEL Guiding Principles and enumerates Tier 1 components such as SEL instruction, coping and stress-management, positive behavior development, restorative practices, and early identification/referral pathways.
The bill makes program rollout the responsibility of local educational agencies (school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools) under department guidance but conditions implementation on funding availability and legislative approval; it also ties support to funds already earmarked for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative in the 2025 Budget Act. Practically, AB 1851 standardizes prevention-focused supports statewide while leaving key implementation decisions—allocation, timelines, and operational details—to the department and the annual budget process.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes a statewide Tier 1 SEL, behavioral health, and restorative justice program for K–12 and requires local educational agencies to implement it consistent with Department of Education guidance. It specifies examples of Tier 1 supports and directs that program support come from the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative funds as allocated in the 2025 Budget Act.
Who It Affects
School districts, county offices of education, and charter schools are the primary implementers; school administrators, district SEL coordinators, school counselors, certificated staff, and community behavioral-health partners will be operationally affected. State budget and education officials will decide allocation and guidance details.
Why It Matters
By creating a single statewide Tier 1 framework, the bill pushes toward consistent, prevention-focused interventions across districts and elevates restorative practices in school discipline. Because the statute ties support to previously appropriated behavioral-health dollars and conditions rollout on budget action, it creates policy direction without creating an open-ended entitlement—shifting the debate to funding, guidance, and implementation mechanics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1851 instructs the California Department of Education to design a statewide Tier 1 program that brings social-emotional learning, trauma-informed behavioral health practices, and restorative-justice education into regular K–12 schooling. The department must align the program with its existing SEL Guiding Principles and build it around evidence-based, trauma-aware strategies rather than prescribing a single curriculum or vendor.
The statute defines Tier 1 supports broadly: classroom SEL instruction, teaching coping and stress-management skills, building positive behavioral and relationship development, instituting restorative justice practices as part of discipline and community-building, and establishing early identification plus referral pathways to more intensive services. Those elements create a scope of services that districts will need to translate into lesson plans, staff development, referral protocols, and partnerships with community providers.Responsibility for on-the-ground implementation sits with local educational agencies, which must follow department guidance.
But the bill conditions rollout on money and legislative approval—implementation proceeds only to the extent funds are made available in the state budget. The statute names an existing funding stream—the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, as allocated in the 2025 Budget Act—as the source for supporting implementation, leaving the state budget process to determine timing and scale.Operationally, AB 1851 will require districts to make practical decisions about staffing (coaches, counselors, coaches for restorative practices), professional development, curriculum selection, and referral arrangements with community mental-health providers.
The bill does not set reporting metrics, distribution formulas, or mandatory timelines, so much of the program’s shape will depend on the department’s guidance and subsequent budget allocations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Article 15 to the Education Code and names the program the Shaw–Scott Children and Youth Behavioral Health and Social Emotional Learning Program (new Section 49591).
Section 49591(c) lists five example Tier 1 supports: SEL instruction; coping and stress-management skills; positive behavior and relationship development; restorative justice practices; and early identification and referral pathways.
The department must align the program with the California Department of Education’s SEL Guiding Principles and incorporate evidence‑based, trauma‑informed practices rather than prescribing a single model.
Local educational agencies are required to implement the program consistent with department guidance, but implementation is expressly conditioned on available funding and legislative approval.
The statute directs that implementation be supported using funds appropriated for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative under the 2025 Budget Act and adds a reimbursement pathway if the Commission on State Mandates finds this creates state‑mandated costs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings establishing the policy rationale
This section sets the bill’s policy foundation: SEL supports are tied to student well‑being, academic success, and reduced later system involvement. Those findings matter because they will guide the department’s interpretation of program goals and justify prioritizing prevention and restorative approaches in guidance.
Legislative intent on scope and funding
The intent clauses direct the department to create a statewide Tier 1 framework, promote early intervention, reduce disciplinary disparities, and use existing behavioral-health funds without creating a new entitlement. Practically, the intent signals the Legislature wants standardization but expects budget constraints to limit reach unless additional appropriations are made.
Creates the statewide Tier 1 SEL and behavioral-health program and alignment requirement
Subsections (a)–(b) require the Department of Education to establish the program for K–12 and to align it with the department’s SEL Guiding Principles, emphasizing evidence‑based and trauma‑informed practices. This centralizes program design at the state level while requiring alignment with existing state guidance rather than an open menu of disparate local approaches.
Enumerates Tier 1 supports
Subsection (c) names specific components—SEL instruction, coping skills, positive behavior development, restorative justice, and early identification/referral—that define the program’s scope. Because the list is illustrative rather than exhaustive, the department and districts retain flexibility to adapt supports to local needs, but the inclusion of restorative justice explicitly expands the behavioral interventions the state expects schools to consider.
Implementation mechanics and funding linkage
These clauses require local educational agencies to implement the program consistent with department guidance but make implementation contingent on funding availability and legislative approval; they also direct that support come from funds appropriated for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative pursuant to the 2025 Budget Act. The practical implications: the state shapes the program via guidance, while budget decisions determine pace and scale—no statutory distribution formula or timeline is provided.
State mandate and reimbursement mechanism
If the Commission on State Mandates finds the act imposes costs on local agencies, Section 4 requires reimbursement per the Government Code procedures. That clause preserves the statutory route for districts to claim reimbursements for mandated costs, framing this as potentially a state‑mandated local program rather than a fully funded state initiative.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students — all K–12 pupils, particularly those in high‑need schools: early, universal supports aim to build coping skills, improve classroom climate, and reduce escalation to more intensive services.
- Students of color and other groups facing disciplinary disparities: the bill explicitly targets reduction in disciplinary disparities through Tier 1 and restorative approaches.
- School mental‑health professionals and counselors: clearer statewide frameworks and funding tied to the CYBHI could expand partnerships and resources for referrals and preventative programming.
- Community behavioral‑health providers: expanded early‑identification and referral pathways can create new, contractable work with schools and increase demand for outpatient services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local educational agencies (school districts, county offices, charter schools): while the department issues guidance, districts carry implementation logistics—staffing, PD, materials—and may face unfunded expenses if state funds lag or are insufficient.
- Teachers and certificated staff: time and training to integrate SEL curricula and restorative practices into the school day will impose workload and professional development demands.
- State budget/CYBHI allocations: the use of the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative to support this program redirects existing appropriations and creates opportunity costs for other initiatives funded from the same pool.
- Community providers and county systems: increased referrals can strain capacity if additional state funds or contracting mechanisms don’t accompany program expansion.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between the goal of a uniform, prevention‑focused statewide framework that can reduce disparities and the reality of limited, pre‑earmarked funding plus strong local variation: standardizing expectations without guaranteeing sufficient, targeted funding risks inconsistent implementation and potential unfunded mandates for districts.
AB 1851 creates a statewide framework while deliberately avoiding an open‑ended fiscal commitment. That design reduces the risk of an immediate entitlement but shifts the central implementation questions into the hands of the Department of Education and the annual budget process.
Because the statute ties support to funds previously appropriated in the 2025 Budget Act, districts may find program rollout uneven: some LEAs could move quickly with available local or partner support, while others wait for state allocations. The bill does not include a formula or timeline for distributing funds, nor does it require local matching or specify priority populations, which raises questions about equitable roll‑out.
The law also leaves several operational gaps. It mandates department guidance but does not set reporting requirements, outcome metrics, or oversight mechanisms to ensure fidelity or measure impact.
Inclusion of restorative justice explicitly implicates school discipline policies and collective bargaining considerations; implementing restorative practices at scale requires sustained training, staff time, and changes to discipline procedures that the statute does not fund in detail. Finally, by leaning on existing behavioral‑health appropriations, the bill risks creating trade‑offs between school‑based prevention and other behavioral‑health spending priorities unless the Legislature approves additional resources.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.