Teacher concerns about modifications made to the state’s student suspension law -- scheduled to become effective July 1 – prompted the legislature’s Education Committee to recently approve a substitute bill that addresses some of those issues and delays implementation of changes made during the 2007 legislative session.

The school suspension law amendments require that all students be kept in school when suspended, unless the student is deemed too dangerous or disruptive to remain in school. The amended law also extended the maximum period of in-school suspensions from five consecutive school days to 10.

However, at an informational hearing in early March to gather input on how schools plan to comply with the changes, Education Committee members heard testimony that the law -- as amended in 2007 -- would create more problems than it would solve.

Donna Vignalli and Karen Pappas were among a number of teachers who testified before the committee that the 2007 amendments have a number of problems – from funding to clearly defining the difference between an in-school suspension and an out-of-school suspension – that must be corrected.

Vignalli, who teaches in Waterbury and is the current president of the Waterbury Teachers Association, said the amendments made in 2007 do not ensure continuity of instruction because the length of in-school suspensions for students will vary, diminishing the academic value of the education those students will receive.

She called the 2007 amendments “a band-aid approach” to the root cause of disruptive behavior and also warned of possible legal ramifications as well. “Making in-school suspensions a statute under law, with only vague references to what constitutes validity for an out-of-school suspension, opens up districts to lawsuits, forcing districts to justify each and every out-of-school suspension,” she said.

Pappas, who runs one of two special education alternative programs at Berlin High School, said her district had proposed an in-school suspension program every year for the past decade, but only received funding in the 2005-06 school year.

With the 2007 amendments, “every school will need an in-school-suspension program – and this is not something that can be effectively run without additional money allocated to cover additional space and resources needed,” she said.

Pappas added that while the intent of the 2007 amendments were admirable, the goal to keep students in school when suspended may not be achieved without clear or broader criteria for when administrators can place students for in- or out-of-school suspensions.

Following the informational hearing, the Education Committee voted Proposed Substitute Bill # 5826 out of committee in mid-March. If approved by the full General Assembly, the proposed legislation would make three significant and new amendments to the school suspension law:

• The effective date of in-school suspensions would be extended from July 1, 2008 to January 1, 2009.
• The in-school suspension location would be more broadly defined to include any building in the school system.
• The commissioner of education would be required to issue guidelines by October 1, 2008 that would aid districts in defining whether or not a suspension should be in or out of school.

“Once again, teachers have shown that they can be effective advocates for public schools and students,” said CEA President Phil Apruzzese. “The Education Committee listened to the concerns raised by teachers and CEA about the impact of amendments made in 2007 to the student suspension law. We will continue to monitor this legislation as it moves through the General Assembly in the coming weeks.”