Relates to suspension procedures for disruptive students

Title of bill

An act to amend the education law, in relation to suspension procedures for disruptive pupils

Purpose

Requires schools to develop a plan of intervention that would address strategies to identify and modify repeatedly disruptive student behavior.

Summary of provisions

This bill amends paragraph 1 of subdivision 2 of Section 2801 of the education law, to require a minimum suspension period for students who have been removed from the classroom by a teacher(s) three times during the school year. A new paragraph n is added that would add provisions to a district's code of conduct that require the principal (or his or her designee) to devise and implement a plan of intervention to address the student's disruptive behavior. The intent of the bill is to streamline the disciplinary process for repeatedly disruptive students. In addition, the bill provides for a plan of intervention to address the underlying causes of the student's behavior and to stipulate consequences as well as corrective measures.

Existing law

Law allows for students to be removed from a classroom by a teacher four times a semester before triggering a minimum suspension.

Justification

A year and a half has already passed since the adoption of the historic school Safety Legislation in 2001. Since that time, several deficiencies in the law have been identified that this bill seeks to address. This proposal seeks to address the revolving door of repeatedly disruptive students who are removed from the classroom by a teacher(s) only to return without any clear consequences to the student or plan to address the underlying causes of the student's disruptive behavior. This bill requires that a minimum suspension period be set for disruptive students who have been removed from the classroom by a teacher(s), pursuant to the SAVE legislation (subdivision 3-a of section 3214 of the Education Law), at least three previous times during the school year. Under existing law, the Commissioner is given wide discretion in setting the criteria for triggering a suspension. Current regulations allow a student to be removed from the classroom by a teacher four times a semester before triggering a minimum suspension. This amount of disruption should not be tolerated and the penalty for such behavior should be unequivocal.

This legislation also requires that each school district's Code of Conduct contain provisions that requires the principal, or their desig- nee, to develop and implement a plan of intervention that would address in a comprehensive manner the underlying causes of a student's disruptive behavior. This plan of intervention would involve administrators, teachers, parents and other professionals with needed expertise. The plan would describe the causes of the behavior, strategies to address the behavior and identify those responsible for carrying it out. The plan would be delivered to the student's parents or legal guardians and teachers and put into effect within fifteen school days of the completion of the suspension period.

In this way, both the consequences of the student's repeated disruptive behavior is definitive as well as the strategy to address the causes of the behavior to prevent further disruption and disciplinary actions.

Legislative history

None

Fiscal implications

None

Local fiscal implications

None

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the first of September after is has become law.