Vermont is poised to ban most suspensions and expulsions for kids under 8 in public schools.
S.16, a school discipline bill that would also form a task force to propose additional reforms, has passed the House and Senate and now awaits Gov. Phil Scott’s signature.
The bill prohibits public schools from kicking kids under 8 out of school unless “the student poses an imminent threat of harm or danger to others in the school.” And it also assigns a new task force to recommend ways “to end suspensions and expulsions for all but the most serious student behaviors.” The task force must complete its work between August of this year and April 2022.
Much like the criminal justice system, schools are increasingly reevaluating the way they mete out punishments — especially in the face of both national and state data that shows more marginalized students are far more likely to be subject to discipline.
Such data in Vermont is inconsistently reported and collected. But all recent analyses, including by Vermont Legal Aid and the Agency of Education, have found that students of color, students with disabilities, and low-income students are disproportionately excluded from class.
Suspensions and expulsions in the younger grades, in particular, have grown increasingly controversial, and several states and districts have enacted bans or are considering them. Similar bans to the one contemplated in S.16 have significantly tamped down the practice in other states — but not exactly eradicated it. Recent analyses in Connecticut and Texas, for example, found suspensions were still happening in relatively high numbers, despite bans in place.
Students in older grades are far more likely to be expelled than younger students. But exclusionary discipline for young kids in Vermont is not rare. More than 300 students in grades 1 through 3 were suspended during the 2018-19 school year, according to data provided by the state to VTDigger last year.
Sen. Kesha Ram, D-Chittenden, who co-sponsored S.16, introduced legislation when she was a member of the House a half-decade ago to ban expulsion of the youngest students. But she said she ran into headwinds from the education community.
This time around, the organization representing the state’s superintendents, school boards and principals did not object to the ban — and even encouraged lawmakers to expand it to include private schools. (They did not.)
“It’s really encouraging and heartening. I think people’s perceptions and sympathies are changing quickly,” Ram said. “Six or seven years ago, I could not get people to agree on even banning expulsion for children under 8. So this is a really big moment in education reform and criminal justice reform.”
Critics of exclusionary discipline argue that it only further alienates children who are struggling in school. A policy statement from the U.S. Department of Education notes that young children who are suspended or expelled are 10 times more likely to drop out of high school, experience academic failure, hold negative attitudes toward school and face incarceration than those who are not.
“Behavior is communication,” said Rep. Erin Brady, D-Williston, a working teacher who reported the bill on the floor on behalf of the House Education Committee.
“Student behavior — although it can be very challenging and frustrating at times, and I can vouch for that as a teacher — is usually communicating something about a kid’s needs or experiences or trauma. And so excluding students from school doesn’t change that behavior. It only exacerbates that feeling that ‘I don’t belong here,’” she said.
The bill also requires new data collection on discipline. For instance, school districts must begin reporting to the state every instance in which they refer truancy cases to the state’s attorney.
Jason Maulucci, a spokesperson for the governor, telegraphed that Scott was likely to sign the measure, although he stopped short of saying so outright.
“The concept behind the bill was one of the recommendations of the Governor’s Racial Equity Task Force, and the governor is supportive of the goals,” he wrote in an email. “We still have not received the bill yet, and when we do it will go through the standard final review process, but we are pleased the Legislature worked on this initiative collaboratively.”
