EXPULSION RULES IN SCHOOLS
House Bill 5618 (proposed substitute H-5)
Sponsor: Rep. Andy Schor
House Bill 5619 (proposed substitute H-1)
Sponsor: Rep. Al Pscholka
House Bill 5620 (proposed substitute H-1)
Sponsor: Rep. Adam F. Zemke
House Bill 5621 (proposed substitute H-1) Sponsor: Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons
House Bill 5693 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Martin Howrylak
House Bill 5694 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. David LaGrand
House Bill 5695 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Peter J. Lucido
Committee: Education
Complete to 6-1-16
BRIEF SUMMARY: House Bills 5618 to 5621 would amend the Revised School Code to require schools to consider other factors and options before suspending or expelling a student. The package of bills would make restorative practices one of those options to consider, and also would encourage schools to include restorative practices in their school bullying policies. Finally, they would require school boards to report information required in the statewide school safety information policy to the appropriate state or local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. House Bills 5693 to 5695 would incorporate the changes presented in HBs 5618 to 5621 into other sections of the Revised School Code, and make other technical changes.
Restorative practices: practices that emphasize repairing the harm to the victim and the school community caused by a student's misconduct. (House Bill 5619)
FISCAL IMPACT: House Bills 5618 to 5621, as well as House Bills 5693 to 5695, would have no fiscal impact on the state or local entities.
THE APPARENT PROBLEM:
Zero tolerance measures at schools, enacted in the mid- to late-1990s, and especially after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, required suspension or expulsion for various offenses, and were intended to keep schools safe. However, those measures leave little flexibility or discretion for schools and have resulted in unintended consequences. According to committee testimony, with no ability to consider a student's age, developmental abilities, or intent, the discipline often does not fit the crime. This has led to a substantial increase in out-of-school suspension and expulsion in the past few decades.
This bill package attempts to address those issues, by giving schools a list of factors to consider before taking disciplinary action.
THE CONTENT OF THE BILL:
House Bill 5618 (proposed MCL 380.1310d)
Considerations before suspension or expulsion: House Bill 5618 would require that, before suspending or expelling a student for certain offenses (in chart, below), the board of a school district or intermediate school district (ISD) or board of directors of a public school academy (charter school), or a superintendent, school principal or other designee, must consider the following factors:
· The student's age,
· The student's disciplinary history,
· Whether the student has a disability, [Section 1311(1) does provide that if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the student has a disability and has not been evaluated, that evaluation will take place immediately]
· The seriousness of the violation or behavior,
· Whether the violation or behavior committed by the student threatened the safety of any student or staff member,
· Whether restorative practices will be used to address the violation or behavior, and
· Whether a lesser intervention would properly address the violation or behavior.
|
Section |
Triggering offense |
Current discipline |
Proposed discipline |
|
MCL 380.1310 |
Pupil enrolled in grade 6 or above commits a physical assault against another student at school |
School shall suspend or expel the pupil from the school district for up to 180 school days |
Before suspension or expulsion, school shall consider factors above |
|
MCL 380.1311(2) |
Pupil possesses a dangerous weapon at school; or commits arson at school; or commits criminal sexual conduct at school |
School shall expel the pupil from the school district permanently (subject to successful petition for reinstatement) |
Before expulsion, school shall consider factors above. These considerations do not apply when a student possesses a firearm in a weapon free school zone. |
|
MCL 380.1311A |
Pupil enrolled in grade 6 or above commits a physical assault against an employee, volunteer, or contractor of the school |
School shall expel the pupil from the school district permanently (subject to successful petition for reinstatement) |
Before expulsion, school shall consider factors above |
|
MCL 380.1311(1) |
Pupil is guilty of gross misdemeanor or persistent disobedience, and school officials believe suspension or expulsion is in the interest of the school |
School may suspend or expel |
Before expulsion, or suspension of more than 10 days, school shall consider factors above. Before suspension of 10 days or fewer, school is encouraged to consider factors above. |
Intent of bill: increased discretion for school board or board of directors: The bill states that this section is intended to give a board or board of directors, or its designee, discretion over whether or not to suspend or expel a student under sections 1310, 1311(2), or 1311A that would otherwise mandate a suspension or expulsion. As before, if a student possesses a firearm in a weapon free school zone, the student will be permanently expelled without considering the factors, unless the student can establish mitigating factors by clear and convincing evidence.
Definitions: Finally, the bill defines several terms, or refers to applicable definitions elsewhere in state or federal law.
· Expel: to exclude a student from school for disciplinary reasons for a period of 60 or more days.
· Firearm: (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. (defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USC 921)
· Suspend: to exclude a student from school for disciplinary reasons for a period of fewer than 60 days.
· Weapon free school zone: school property and a vehicle used by a school to transport students to or from school property (defined in the Michigan penal code, MCL 750.237a)
House Bill 5619: Restorative practices (proposed MCL 380.1310c)
The bill would require that a school board or its designee consider using restorative practices as an alternative or in addition to suspension or expulsion. It should be the first consideration for offenses such as interpersonal conflicts, bullying, verbal and physical conflicts, thefts, damage to property, class disruption, harassment, and cyberbullying. Restorative practices may include victim-offender conferences that:
· Are initiated by the victim;
· Are approved by the victim's parent or legal guardian or, if the victim is at least 15, by the victim;
· Are attended voluntarily by the victim, a victim advocate, the offender, members of the school community, and supporters of the victim and the offender; and
· Would provide an opportunity for the offender to accept responsibility for the harm caused to those affected, and to participate in setting consequences to repair the harm.
The attendees of the conference would be called a restorative practices team, and may require the student to apologize; participate in community service, restoration of emotional or material losses, or counseling; pay restitution; or any combination of these. The selected consequences and time limits for their completion will be incorporated into an agreement to be signed by all participants.
House Bill 5620: Restorative practices in school bullying policy (MCL 380.1310b)
In addition to several technical changes, this bill would encourage the board of directors of a school district or ISD or board of directors of a charter school to include provisions for using restorative practices, as described above, in its required policy prohibiting school bullying. House Bill 5620 is tie-barred to House Bill 5619, meaning that it could not take effect unless HB 5619 is also enacted.
House Bill 5621: Reporting of serious incidents (MCL 380.1308)
The bill simplifies the reporting requirements under the statewide school safety information policy. Currently, the policy identifies the types of incidents which must be reported to law enforcement, as well as procedures to be followed when an incident occurs. House Bill 5621 clarifies that reporting of that information required by the statewide school safety information policy must be done by a school board or its designee, to appropriate state or local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. This change is an attempt to address concerns about duplicative or conflicting reporting requirements.
In addition to the incidents which currently must be reported immediately by the superintendent to law enforcement, the bill would also require the superintendent of the school district to report information required by the statewide school safety information policy to appropriate state and local law enforcement agencies.
House Bill 5693 (MCL 380.1311), House Bill 5694 (MCL 380.1310), & House Bill 5695 (MCL 380.1311A): Incorporation of proposed changes in Code and technical changes
House Bills 5693, 5694, and 5695 update their respective sections of the Revised School Code to incorporate the requirement in HB 5618 that the factors in that bill be considered before suspending or expelling a student for the offenses described in those sections. (See chart, above). The bills also make several technical updates to the statute.
House Bills 5693 to 5695 are tie-barred to House Bill 5618, meaning they would not take effect unless HB 5618 is also enacted, and HB 5618 would not take effect unless HBs 5693 to 5695 are also enacted.
As the bills are currently drafted, House Bill 5618 would take effect on August 1, 2016; House Bills 5619 and 5620 would take effect 90 days after they are enacted; and House Bills 5693 to 5695 would take effect on August 1, 2017.
POSITIONS:
The following organizations support the bill package:
Michigan Department of Education (5-12-16)
Student Advocacy Center (5-19-16)
Michigan School Justice Partnership (5-26-16)
Michigan Probate Judges Association (5-26-16)
American Civil Liberties Union (5-26-16)
Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals (5-26-16)
Michigan Education Association (5-26-16)
American Federation of Teachers-Michigan (5-26-16)
Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency (5-26-16)
The following organizations support House Bills 5618-5620
Washtenaw Intermediate School District (5-12-16)
Michigan Association of School Boards (5-12-16) (also support HBs 5693-5695)
Michigan League for Public Policy (5-19-16)
National Association of Social Workers-Michigan (5-19-16)
Legislative Analyst: Jennifer McInerney
Fiscal Analysts: Bethany Wicksall
Samuel Christensen
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.