SCH CD-SUSPENSION/EXPULSION
SB2060 amends Section 10-22.6 of the Illinois School Code to narrow and clarify when schools may use out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and disciplinary removals to alternative schools. The bill states that these exclusionary discipline measures should be used only when a student’s presence poses a threat to the operation of the school, threatens the health or safety of students or school personnel, or disrupts other students’ learning opportunities. It also emphasizes that school officials should consider proactive, evidence-based interventions and non-exclusionary discipline before resorting to suspension or expulsion.
For short suspensions of three days or less, the bill requires that the student’s conduct meet the same threat-or-disruption standard and makes the school board responsible for deciding the issue on a case-by-case basis. For longer suspensions, expulsions, and removals to alternative schools, the bill changes the standard from requiring that other interventions be “exhausted” to requiring only that they have been “attempted,” while still requiring a threat or disruption finding. It also preserves and reinforces documentation requirements, support services for longer suspensions, re-engagement policies, make-up work opportunities, mental health consultation, professional development, and existing special rules for weapons, threats, and alternative placements.
The bill would revise Illinois School Code provisions governing student discipline by tightening the stated grounds for out-of-school suspension and expulsion and by reframing school exclusion as a last resort. It would affect school districts, school boards, principals, superintendents, and other school officials by requiring case-by-case determinations, documentation of interventions, and greater emphasis on proactive and non-exclusionary discipline. The bill would also continue to apply across elementary and secondary schools, charter schools, special charter districts, and Article 34 districts, while leaving in place existing provisions on weapons, threats, searches, alternative schools, support services, and re-engagement policies.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure reflects a reform-oriented, student-supportive approach to school discipline that favors limiting exclusionary punishment and encouraging behavioral interventions. The overall tone of the proposal is corrective and preventive rather than punitive.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s tighter limitation on when schools may suspend or expel students, especially the shift from requiring interventions to be “exhausted” to only “attempted,” and the emphasis on threat/disruption findings. Supporters would likely view these changes as reducing unnecessary exclusion and improving student outcomes, while opponents may argue that the bill constrains local discretion and could make it harder for schools to respond quickly to serious misconduct. Another likely issue is the bill’s reliance on school officials’ case-by-case judgment, which may raise concerns about consistency and implementation across districts.