Currently Pending Disciplinary Law Revision

On Monday, June 29, 2015, the Illinois General Assembly sent Senate Bill 100 to the Governor’s Office for his signature.  If signed, Senate Bill 100 will result in broad and significant changes to Illinois school policies regarding student discipline and will take effect on September 15, 2016.  As a result, school districts and charter schools will be bound by these laws for the 2016/2017 school year.  It is important to note that until Governor Rauner signs this bill, Senate Bill 100 is not Illinois law.  Notably, both the House and Senate have approved these changes to Illinois student discipline policies.  Below please find a summary of the important reforms concerning school discipline as contained in Senate Bill 100.

First, Senate Bill 100 creates a new standard for out-of-school suspensions.  Out-of-school suspensions of 3 days or less may only be used if, “the student’s continuing presence in school would pose a threat to school safety or a disruption to other students’ learning opportunities.” While the determination of what is considered to be a threat to school safety or a disruption to other students’ learning opportunities is still within the discretion of the school board or its designee, and is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, it is our opinion that Senate Bill 100 places a higher burden on schools when deciding whether to suspend students than what is currently in place.

There is also an affirmative obligation on school officials to “make all reasonable efforts to resolve such threats, address such disruptions and minimize the length of suspensions to the greatest extent practicable.” Consequently, school officials cannot simply state that there is a threat to school safety to justify an out-of-school suspension; rather, school officials must also try to ameliorate that threat prior to suspending a student.

If a school district seeks to suspend a student out-of-school for longer than 3 days, expel a student, or remove a student to an alternative school, it may only do so if “other appropriate and available behavioral and disciplinary interventions have been exhausted and the student’s continuing presence in school will either (i) pose a threat to the safety of other students, staff or members of the school community, or (ii) substantially disrupt, impede or interfere with the operation of the school.” Although school officials are left with the discretion to determine whether the student’s continuing presence in school poses a safety threat or disrupts, impedes or interferes with the operation of the school, there remains an affirmative obligation to ameliorate the threat or disruption prior to removing the student from the school building. Further, “[s]chool officials shall make all reasonable efforts to . . . minimize the length of student exclusions to the greatest extent practicable.”

In addition to the higher burden placed on school districts when determining whether to issue out-of-school suspensions, Senate Bill 100 includes additional requirements concerning the process and documentation required in order to remove a student from the school building.  First, school officials must document whether other interventions were attempted prior to the removal of the student or whether it was determined that there were no other appropriate and available interventions. Second, if a student is suspended, the board of education (“board”), as opposed to a school official, is required to issue a written suspension decision.  As such, it appears that Senate Bill 100 places an additional burden on boards to meet and then approve (or deny) a written decision for each suspension of a student.  In that written suspension decision, the board must “detail the specific act of gross disobedience or misconduct resulting in the decision to suspend.  The board’s decision must also include “a rationale as to the specific duration of the suspension.” Any student who is suspended for more than 4 days must be “provided appropriate and available support services during the period of their suspension.” It should be noted that Senate Bill 100 will permit school officials to determine that there are no such appropriate and available services; however, it is hard to envision how this could be the case.  We believe that this provision would apply to students with disabilities, thus requiring IEP supports anytime a student with disabilities is suspended for four days or more.  Finally, if the board acts to expel a student, its decision must “detail the specific reasons why removing the pupil from the learning environment is in the best interest of the school.” Similar to a suspension decision, “the expulsion decision shall also include a rationale as to the specific duration of the expulsion.”

Moreover, Senate Bill 100 provides additional protections to students who are facing disciplinary removal.  Senate Bill 100 forbids boards from instituting a “Zero Tolerance” policy that requires school officials to suspend or expel students for particular behaviors, unless otherwise required by federal or State law. Consequently, all school disciplinary cases must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis unless there is an existing statute stating otherwise. For the vast majority of school discipline cases, this means that school districts may not apply zero tolerance policies.

In addition, Senate Bill 100 requires all schools to develop a policy stating that all suspended students, including those students who are suspended from the school bus and have no alternate transportation to school, will have the opportunity to make up work for equivalent academic credit.  As a result, students will no longer be forced to repeat a grade because they were suspended and not allowed to make up course work.

Additionally, Senate Bill 100 requires school districts and charter schools to implement several additional policies to further the goal of reforming disciplinary procedures.  It should be noted that charter schools will be required to develop policy guidelines on pupil discipline, including school searches and bullying prevention. Charter schools will also be required to inform all students of the contents of their policies.  All school boards and charter school governing boards will be required to annually review their pupil discipline policies, the implementation of those policies, and any other factors related to the safety of their school, as well as adopt policies consistent with the above substantive changes concerning student discipline.  Schools will also be required to create a policy to “facilitate the re-engagement of students who are suspended out-of-school, expelled, or returning from an alternative school setting.”  Finally, school districts will be required to make “reasonable efforts” to provide ongoing professional development to their staff on “the adverse consequences of school exclusion and justice-system involvement, effective classroom management strategies, culturally responsive discipline, and developmentally appropriate disciplinary methods that promote positive and health school climates.”

Senate Bill 100 reflects the Illinois legislature’s desire to provide students with more protections before being excluded from school, even though school officials still retain discretion to enforce disciplinary procedures.  Further, Senate Bill 100 provides clear legislative guidance that schools should move away from zero tolerance policies and address student discipline on a case-by-case basis, and also recognize the effectiveness of providing students alternatives to suspensions and expulsions.  While Senate Bill 100 is not yet law, we will continue to monitor the status of this legislation.