Below is the official testimony originally submitted to the Senate Education Committee on December 11, 2024.
To Chairman Brenner, Vice Chair O’Brien, Ranking Member Ingram, and members of the Senate Education Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony on Substitute House Bill 206.
HB 206 creates a new framework for school expulsions, separate from Ohio’s current law and policies for student expulsion, for students deemed to pose “imminent and severe endangerment to the health and safety of other pupils or school employees.”
Essentially, proponents of HB 206 believe the best way to address such issues is to give Ohio superintendents essentially unlimited discretion to remove and reinstate students. Under HB 206, here are examples of that immense superintendent discretion:
- Determining if a student poses “imminent and severe endangerment to the health and safety of other pupils or school employees” (Lines #164-168, 175-178);
- Creating additional conditions, beyond what HB 206 specifically mandates, for pupils to satisfy prior to their reinstatement (Lines #168-170);
- Assessing the student to determine whether they have “shown sufficient rehabilitation” to be reinstated to school (Lines #196-198);
- Deciding if a student will even be reinstated if they have otherwise met the necessary conditions for reinstatement (Lines #210-213);
- Deciding whether or not to continue an expulsion period, in 90-day intervals, and potentially indefinitely (Lines #214-218, 226-234);
- Deciding whether or not to reduce an expulsion period on a case-by-case basis, pursuant to policy (Lines #235-239);
- Creating yet more, additional conditions, if desired by the superintendent, for students to satisfy if they are expelled more than once under the HB 206 framework (Lines #219-223, 256-264);
- Revoking a pupil’s reinstatement if the superintendent determines a student has not complied with contingent conditions for the reinstatement (Lines #268-272)
I do realize HB 206 provides an avenue for appeal, the same as current law (Lines #291-294). However, the ACLU of Ohio has represented students in such appeals, and we are aware of many other such appeals without our involvement. We are not convinced this current process typically results in meaningful consideration of school discipline and its impact on the student. Rather, in our direct experience and knowledge, these appeals act more as a rubber stamp for the original decision, leaving the discipline penalties unchanged.
If this committee is intent on rushing HB 206 through the legislature at this late date, we do believe there is at least one way it can be improved. That is via data collection and reporting. This would allow stakeholders and everyone else interested in the effects of HB 206 to learn how it is being applied. At a minimum, any such requirement should include:
- The number of times the authority and actions granted by HB 206 have been used;
- The exact situations, disciplinary infractions, lengths of expulsion, etc. regarding how HB 206’s powers have been utilized;
- The schools and school districts that have applied HB 206’s provisions;
- Demographic information (not including names) of students subjected to HB 206’s provisions. At a minimum, this should include a student’s age, gender, race, grade level, and such information as whether or not they are on an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) or similar support measures.
Indeed, HB 206 already anticipates and requires some level of data collection and reporting. But it is not transparent. Instead, it appears meant only for schools, districts, and the Department of Education & Workforce to share data regarding the implementation of HB 206.
What the ACLU of Ohio suggests is the reporting of this data to a central authority, such as the Department of Education and Workforce. They would then issue a (for example) yearly report, make it publicly available on their website (among any other helpful means of dissemination), and also submit that report to the General Assembly and the governor.
With such information and data readily available to the General Assembly, governor, and stakeholders, HB 206 can then be revisited, if and when necessary, for improvements, tweaks, and more.
Again, this suggestion is not an endorsement of HB 206. We offer it as an improvement to what we believe is a deeply flawed bill. Other stakeholders surely have additional suggestions, and we hope the committee will listen to and consider those, as well.
HB 206 provides superintendents with sole authority to expel students, to decide what criteria will be used for their reinstatement, or whether they will be reinstated at all, even if they have complied with all conditions.
The ACLU of Ohio submits HB 206 grants far too much authority to a single individual, and we are concerned these powers will be abused and unevenly applied. For the reasons mentioned and more, we encourage your rejection of Substitute House Bill 206.
