An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 22.1-279.6:1, relating to public elementary or secondary school students; evidence-based restorative disciplinary practices.
HB298 adds a new section to the Code of Virginia requiring public elementary and secondary schools to consider at least one evidence-based restorative disciplinary practice before suspending, expelling, or otherwise excluding a student from attendance, unless the offense falls within specified serious misconduct categories or aggravating circumstances are present. The bill defines restorative practices broadly to include approaches such as community conferencing, mediation, restorative circles, mentoring, peer juries, and other collaborative interventions intended to repair harm, strengthen relationships, and keep students in school.
The bill also directs the Department of Education to collect and analyze data on the use of these practices through the Student Behavior and Administrative Response survey and to publish an annual public report evaluating their effectiveness. In addition, the Department must issue guidelines, support materials, professional development, and technical assistance to help schools implement and monitor these practices. The requirement that schools consider restorative practices before exclusionary discipline takes effect on July 1, 2027.
HB298 changes Virginia school discipline law by creating a new statewide procedural requirement for public schools to document consideration of restorative alternatives before imposing suspension, expulsion, or exclusion, with exceptions for certain serious offenses and aggravating circumstances. It affects school divisions, administrators, students, and families by making restorative discipline a required step in the disciplinary process and by increasing documentation obligations when exclusionary discipline is used instead. It also expands the Department of Education’s responsibilities for guidance, training, data collection, and public reporting on discipline practices.
The bill’s overall direction is supportive of restorative justice and alternatives to suspension, reflecting a policy preference for keeping students connected to school and reducing exclusionary discipline. Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate divided sentiment, but the statutory design suggests a reform-oriented approach that is likely to have been framed as student-supportive and discipline-reform focused. The inclusion of exceptions for serious offenses and aggravating circumstances also indicates an effort to balance restorative goals with school safety concerns.
The main points of contention likely center on whether schools should be required to consider restorative practices before exclusionary discipline and how much discretion administrators retain in serious cases. Supporters would emphasize reduced suspensions, improved school climate, and better outcomes for students, while critics may argue the mandate could limit local control, add administrative burden, or be difficult to apply consistently. The bill addresses some of these concerns by carving out serious offenses and aggravating circumstances and by requiring documentation rather than an absolute prohibition on suspension or expulsion.