Bills would restore suspension option for youngest students

Nebraska schools could once again suspend students in pre-K through second grade under two proposals considered March 17 by the Education Committee.

Both LB149, as introduced by Blair Sen. Ben Hansen, and LB430, sponsored by Glenvil Sen. Dave Murman, would amend the Nebraska Student Discipline Act and repeal a 2023 law prohibiting schools from suspending students in pre-K through second grade.

Hansen said his proposal would provide students and teachers with a safe classroom environment free from disruptions. He brought an amendment to the hearing to narrow the bill to repeal only the portion of existing law prohibiting suspension while maintaining a requirement that schools establish policies that outline alternative disciplinary measures to suspension.

“I’m confident that with LB149 and [the amendment], we can foster a classroom environment that benefits all the students, shows our trust and support for teachers and prioritizes the individual needs of students who are experiencing difficulties,” Hansen said.

Under Murman’s LB430, schools would be required to provide a child’s parent or guardian with written notice that includes available student resources when a child is suspended. The notice also would include steps the school took to address the student’s behavior before suspension and a strategy to keep the student in school in the future.

Murman said suspension is necessary in some instances, such as when student or staff safety is at risk. Suspension also can serve as a “pause” for school staff, he said, who may need time to develop a plan for a student.

“That pause can then allow the school and parents to discuss and work together to figure out a better learning environment and, once complete, get the student back in the classroom with both the educator and parents equipped with some goals on how to move forward,” Murman said.

Chuck Hughes, director of student services and safety at Norfolk Public Schools, testified in support of both bills. He said the current suspension prohibition requires elementary school principals in his district to be responsible for students who are removed from the classroom due to disruptive or unsafe behavior.

This responsibility detracts from a principal’s ability to fulfill other duties, he said, such as being present in classrooms or providing teacher feedback.

“While it is essential to provide a supportive environment for our youngest learners, there are instances where a student’s behavior poses a significant risk to the safety and well-being of our students and staff,” Hughes said. “In such cases, having the option to implement suspension … is a necessary tool [for] maintaining a safe learning environment for all.”

Jeremiah Wilson testified in opposition to both proposals, which he said provide no exceptions for special education students or those with individualized education programs or behavioral intervention plans.

Wilson, whose 8-year-old daughter has autism and is on an IEP, said she was suspended twice before the 2023 law was enacted. Special education students should not be excluded or suspended due to their known disabilities or behavior that is out of their control, he said.

“[Children] in the second grade and under are just learning to understand emotional regulation, and it is the duty of the adult – the provider, the educator – to protect that child and to teach them,” Wilson said.

Kristen Larsen also opposed both proposals on behalf of the Nebraska Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Both LB149 and LB430 would contradict the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, she said, which outlines specific guidelines for disciplining students with disabilities. Larsen said Nebraska could face costly litigation for violating IDEA if either proposal was passed and implemented.

“School districts can maintain discipline without violating the federal law or the needs and rights of children,” she said.

Representing the ACLU of Nebraska, Voices for Children in Nebraska and Education Rights Counsel, Spike Eickholt opposed both bills and echoed concerns that children with IEPs would be disproportionately impacted.

The committee took no immediate action on either proposal.