This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.
Illinois School Board Journal
May-June 2000
The Safe Schools Act: An alternative to expulsion
by Shayne L. Aldridge
Shayne L. Aldridge is an attorney in the Decatur office of the school law firm of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., where he focuses on student and special education issues. He conducted the Decatur school district expulsion hearings which were the subject of a federal lawsuit in which the district ultimately prevailed.
What is Public Act 89-383, otherwise known as the Safe Schools Act. See "Safe Schools Act" below.
Since last year's highly publicized case involving six high school students expelled from the Decatur School District (Fuller et al. v. Decatur School District No. 61) placement of students in Safe Schools programs has come to the forefront among the issues facing school boards. In the Decatur case, the Rainbow/ PUSH Coalition argued that the expelled students had a "right" to attend the Safe Schools program and that the Decatur School District violated that right by not immediately transferring the students to that program.
Rainbow/PUSH hinged its argument on the legislative declaration in the Safe Schools Act (Act) which reads, "the first, but not the only, step school districts must take to achieve [a safe educational environment] is to administratively transfer disruptive students from the schools they currently attend."
The Act, however, does not give a student a "right" to attend a Safe School, rather it allows a school board to decide whether or not it will transfer the student. The statement relied upon by Rainbow/PUSH is not a substantive provision in the Act.
The Decatur expulsions highlighted the provision of the Act which allows the school board--not the parent or student--to choose whether the student will attend a Safe Schools program. The Act provides that a student who a school board determines to be subject to suspension or expulsion may be immediately transferred to the alternative program. The School Code is clear that boards of education have the authority to expel a student for gross disobedience and misconduct for up to two calendar years.
Board authority
A board of education may then decide whether or not to administratively transfer the student to a Safe Schools program. The Act vests the authority to recommend an administrative transfer in local boards and not with the parents or student. While a school board has the authority to transfer a student to a Safe School, not every student is eligible to attend.
The Act allows only those students who are "subject to suspension and expulsion" to attend Safe Schools. The School Code does not define "subject to suspension or expulsion." Presumably however, this phrase contemplates at least the provision of some due process rights to the student prior to a transfer to a Safe School. The best practice is to provide the full suspension or expulsion procedures provided by section 10-22.6 of the School Code before removing the student completely from public schools. A school board may then transfer to a Safe School a student who has received his or her due process rights and was found to have committed a disciplinary infraction which would result in a suspension or expulsion.
The student cannot, however, receive an administrative transfer if he or she is already expelled. The Illinois State Board of Education has stated that Safe Schools should not accept any student who is expelled prior to the transfer.
Once a school board has heard the evidence or reviewed its hearing officer's fact-finding report it must decide whether or not to expel the student. If the board finds the student has violated its disciplinary policies, it may expel the student for up to two years. Alternatively, the board may find that the student would benefit from the Safe Schools program and direct the superintendent to administratively transfer the student.
If the board decides to transfer the student to, and pay for, the alternative school, it should include some language within its resolution to expel the student which indicates:
There was a finding based upon the evidence and/or stipulations that the student is eligible for and subject to expulsion for engaging in gross disobedience or misconduct, in violation of board policy (specify policy).
The length of the expulsion.
The board will stay the expulsion upon the condition that the student attends the alternative school and does not engage in disruptive or other unacceptable behavior while attending the Safe School.
The Illinois State Board of Education has advised at least one alternative school that it may not accept students who have been expelled from a public school district unless the expulsion was stayed or was not fully implemented. The reason is that a school board cannot administratively transfer a student over whom it does not have control, including a student it previously expelled from the district. Thus, a board resolution expelling a student should include language regarding the stay of the expulsion if the student is to attend a Safe Schools program.
When a school board suspends or expels a student found guilty of gross disobedience or misconduct, it is not required to provide any educational services during the period of suspension or expulsion. There are certain exceptions and extra considerations for special education students subject to expulsion who may attend a Safe Schools program. Thus, the district may, but need not, pay for the alternative school education of a student who it determined is subject to suspension or expulsion. Most districts and regional offices of education have agreements in place which apportion the cost of the Safe Schools program on a tuition or a per capita basis, although some programs have no cost as they receive grant funding.
Discretion
Contrary to the arguments raised by the students and Rainbow/PUSH in the Decatur case, the Safe Schools Act does not limit local school boards' authority to exclude students totally from public school programs. The Act, however, allows school boards to temper discipline in those cases they believe warrant special consideration. A board must, however, use the same rational judgment used in deciding the expulsion in deciding which students it will and will not transfer to a Safe Schools program. A board must have some sound basis for its decision in order to stave off a challenge that its decision was arbitrary and capricious, or discriminatory in nature.
The Safe Schools Act
In 1995 the Illinois General Assembly proposed and the governor enacted Article 13A, entitled "Alternative Public Schools," by Public Act 89-383. The Safe Schools Act (Act) created a statewide system of alternative school education programs whereby regional superintendents operate alternative schools in their respective regions. The Act also sets forth procedures for transferring disruptive public school students to these alternative schools.
The General Assembly determined that public school children learn best in safe environments with minimum disruptions to the educational process. A major public policy behind the Act, therefore, is to provide a safe environment conducive to learning, so that non-disruptive students may obtain the maximum benefit from their educational careers. Secondarily, the Act provides an alternative educational setting to allow students who are "determined to be subject to suspension or expulsion" to continue their educational careers, rather than being removed from the public educational system altogether. The General Assembly also stated its belief that administrative transfers could prove more effective in dealing with disruptive students than out-of-school expulsions, as those schools are to provide optional educational programs to best fit the transferred student.
The Act allows a school board to administratively transfer a student who is subject to a suspension or expulsion to a Safe Schools program. The relevant portion of the Act provides:
A student who is determined to be subject to suspension or expulsion in the manner provided by Section 10-22.6 may be immediately transferred to the alternative program. At the earliest time following that transfer, appropriate personnel from the sending school district and appropriate personnel of the alternative program shall meet to develop an alternative educational plan for the student. The student's parent or guardian shall be invited to this meeting.
This section gives school boards the discretion as to whether or not to allow a student to attend a Safe Schools program. This is not a mandatory provision. A school board is not required or even obligated to offer an administrative transfer to a student. It provides a vehicle for the alternative placement of students who a school board has decided should be excluded from the regular educational program.