Legislation granting Ohio school districts authority to expel students posing a severe threat passes during lame duck session.
In a significant move, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill that grants school districts the power to expel students who pose an “imminent and severe endangerment” to others within the school community. With the bill now heading to Governor Mike DeWine’s desk, the legislation could soon become law, potentially altering how schools handle violent or threatening behavior.
The Ohio Senate passed House Bill 206 with a 23-7 vote, and the Ohio House followed suit with a 61-25 vote to concur with changes made in the Senate. If DeWine signs the bill, it will become effective in the coming weeks, giving schools a more structured approach to expulsion and reinstatement of students involved in serious misconduct.
Defining “Imminent and Severe Endangerment”
Under the new bill, students who bring a firearm, a knife capable of causing serious harm, or make bomb threats to a school would fall under the category of those posing “imminent and severe endangerment.” The bill also includes provisions for expulsions related to making serious physical threats or verbal threats that may cause reasonable concern about a student’s potential for violence.
State Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, and Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel, R-Columbiana, introduced the bill, emphasizing that its intent is not to deprive students of their education but to ensure that schools do not inadvertently readmit students who continue to pose a significant threat.
“The goal is to stop unintentionally readmitting every student who may still pose an imminent threat to a school full of other students and faculty,” said State Senator Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, who supported the bill.
While the bill garnered widespread support from Republicans, it was met with some opposition from Democrats. State Sen. Louis W. Blessing, III, R-Colerain Township, voted against the bill, and State Sen. Catherine D. Ingram, D-Cincinnati, expressed concerns that the bill could lead to overreach in some cases.
Concerns Over Expulsion Criteria
One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is its broad language surrounding expulsions for behavior that might not necessarily be violent but could be interpreted as disruptive. Sen. Ingram voiced her concern about situations where a minor infraction, such as slamming a cell phone on the ground, could lead to expulsion under the new guidelines.
“Unfortunately, if a child goes across the room, takes somebody’s cell phone, slams it down, that actually could be justifiable for expulsion,” Ingram said. Her concerns reflect a broader debate over balancing school safety with fair treatment of students who might not pose a real threat but may still act out in ways that disrupt the school environment.
The bill, however, does allow for a system of checks and balances. Schools are required to implement policies that enable a superintendent to authorize a psychiatric or psychological evaluation of an expelled student. If the student shows signs of rehabilitation, they may be allowed to return to school before the end of their expulsion period.
The Potential for Extended Expulsions
Another notable provision of the bill is that expulsions could be extended indefinitely. A student’s expulsion can be extended in 90-day increments, with no cap on how many times the extension can occur. This means a student could face prolonged separation from their school if their behavior continues to pose a threat to others.
Although the bill specifies that the superintendent must outline alternative educational options for expelled students, the indefinite nature of the expulsions has raised questions about the long-term educational and social consequences for students removed from the school system.
As Ohio’s school year averages about 180 days, this provision means students could be expelled for an entire academic year or even longer if their behavior does not improve. Critics argue that this could disproportionately affect students who struggle with behavioral issues, further exacerbating the cycle of exclusion and failure.
Reporting and Accountability
In an effort to address potential racial and socioeconomic disparities in the expulsion process, an amendment to the bill requires schools to report demographic data on expelled students to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. This provision is aimed at monitoring whether certain groups, such as Black students or students with disabilities, are disproportionately impacted by expulsion policies.
According to a report from the Children’s Defense Fund Ohio, Black male students were 4.3 times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers. The same report also found that disabled students were more likely to face disciplinary action, as were students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
By requiring the collection of demographic data, the state hopes to ensure that expulsions are not being unfairly targeted at specific groups of students. This data will help lawmakers and education officials assess the effectiveness and fairness of the policy.
Charter School Changes and Other Amendments
In addition to the expulsion measures, the bill also included amendments affecting charter schools in Ohio. Under the bill, charter schools facing potential closure due to poor performance would be granted an additional two years to improve, as long as their performance remains close to the required threshold. This change aims to give charter schools more time to make necessary improvements before being shut down.
The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce also requested an increase in funding for school choice programs, seeking an appropriation increase from $4 million to $8.14 million in the upcoming fiscal year. This additional funding is intended to support the administration of programs that offer parents more options for their children’s education.
Comments