The Joint Education Committee on Aug. 22 debated two working drafts on K‑12 student discipline and a separate "teacher bill of rights," ultimately voting to advance a streamlined draft (26 LSO 0088) with amendments and administrative changes for further work.

Tanya Hytrick, operations administrator for the Legislative Service Office, told members that 26 LSO 0088 "establishes requirements for school . . . student punishment, and discipline" and noted it would convert some permissive district authority into mandates while directing the State Board of Education and districts to adopt implementing policies. Hytrick reviewed provisions that include rules on reasonable force, required district training on classroom management and violence prevention, referral pathways for criminal conduct on school property, and deadlines for districts to adopt new policies.

Why this matters: Committee members and witnesses said the bills touch on core classroom operations — who may remove a disruptive student, what due process and training must accompany removals, and how districts report incidents to the Wyoming Department of Education (WDE). Those decisions affect teachers’ day‑to‑day authority, student due‑process protections, school safety, and how rural and small districts can implement changes.

Most important provisions and differences
- 26 LSO 0088 (presented as the streamlined vehicle) directs districts to adopt discipline policies and clarifies where employees may act to "enforce classroom management rules," creates training duties and reporting timelines, and removes language authorizing withholding a diploma over unpaid fees. LSO staff noted parts that could overlap or conflict with existing statutes and recommended cross‑walks. Hytrick summarized the bill and flagged policy choices throughout the draft.
- 26 LSO 0091, described by LSO as the "teacher bill of rights," creates a new teacher‑focused article that would give teachers specific classroom authorities, require classroom management plans from teachers with enrolled students, create a formal "discipline dialogue" process involving teachers, counselors, principals and parents, mandate additional reporting, and establish a rebuttable presumption in legal or employment proceedings for staff who act under the statute.

Central questions raised
- Who may remove a student: Committee members pressed whether language in 0088 or 0091 makes "all school district employees" able to remove students, potentially including noninstructional staff. Hytrick said that, as drafted in 0088, "all school district employees have this authority," a drafting choice that differs from 0091 where authority is narrower. Several lawmakers and WDE staff suggested narrowing or clarifying which employees should have removal authority.

- Immunity and the Governmental Claims Act: LSO noted the bill’s civil/criminal immunity language may overlap or conflict with the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (Wyoming Statutes 1‑39‑101 through 1‑39‑124). Senator Scott and others asked not to rewrite the claims act inside education statute; LSO recommended cross‑referencing the Governmental Claims Act rather than restating it.

- Definition and scope of "classroom": The drafts use different space definitions. 0091’s narrower "classroom" definition raised questions about playgrounds, cafeterias and buses. WEA and K‑12 administrators urged the committee to ensure school locations commonly identified as discipline flashpoints are covered or that districts have a clear, consistent local policy.

- Due process, training and reporting: 0091 includes detailed procedures for removal, readmission, required behavior plans and reporting up a chain (school → board of trustees → WDE → Joint Education Committee). WDE recommended keeping reporting requirements but urged careful drafting to avoid duplicative or infeasible obligations.

What witnesses told the committee
- Dickie Schaner and Nate Tijeski of the Wyoming Department of Education said the department favors using the streamlined draft (0088) as the vehicle and suggested folding limited language from 0091 into 0088, such as clearer administrative support language and a teacher planning period provision. Schaner cautioned against giving the State Board of Education unnecessary rulemaking duties and recommended clarifying who may exercise disciplinary authority.

- Tate Mullen, government relations director for the Wyoming Education Association, said the union’s 0091 drafting intent was to give classroom teachers more agency and administrative support and to avoid "excluding students for subjective behaviors." Mullen urged use of objective disciplinary matrices (he shared Laramie County School District No. 1 examples) to reduce subjective, disparate exclusions.

- District leaders including Jeff Jones (Sheridan County), Chase Christiansen (Sheridan County 3) and Brian Farmer (Wyoming School Boards Association) urged caution about overly prescriptive state mandates. Superintendents said many districts already have discipline matrices and alternatives (day programs, alternative schools, stipulated agreements for expelled students), but they expressed concern that rigid statutory demands could create compliance burdens, especially in small districts without counselors or behavioral specialists.

- Parent and community testimony split along expectations. Jennifer Hopkins (Natrona County School Board trustee) and Patricia McCoy (Moms for Liberty, Laramie County) urged strong teacher protections and parental rights. Other residents urged local control and made the practical point that schools need workable support to return removed students to instruction.

Committee action and next steps
The committee adopted a package of staff and WDE edits and voted to advance the streamlined draft as the vehicle for further work: members moved to incorporate WDE recommendations (deleting certain language and replacing parts of 0088 with targeted text from 0091) and to remove the term "punishment" from the draft in favor of discipline‑oriented language. The committee also approved an approach to strip or clarify the portions that would give "all school district employees" broad removal authority and asked LSO and staff to redraft those sections to reflect the committee’s policy choices.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to adopt WDE deletions/replacements in 26 LSO 0088 and to send the amended draft forward for additional work — approved by voice vote. (Details of counts were not recorded in the transcript.)
- Motion to remove the word "punishment" throughout the draft — approved.
- Motion to delete the clause giving "all school district employees" blanket authority and to have LSO redraft that portion for clarity — approved.

What remains unresolved
Committee members asked staff to: (1) reconcile immunity language with the Governmental Claims Act (cross‑reference instead of restating), (2) clarify who may remove students and under what supervision, (3) decide whether some training and reporting duties should be mandatory or permissive for districts, and (4) consider how the discipline policy would apply in small districts that lack counselors or alternate placements. Lawmakers asked staff to return with consolidated language and with specific recommended amendments for committee review.

The committee scheduled further consideration at a subsequent meeting; members and witnesses said they expect more drafting work and at least one more public comment opportunity before final passage.

Ending note: Committee members repeatedly emphasized balancing teacher authority and support with parental rights and district flexibility. As LSO staff and WDE refine the text, the committee will decide how prescriptive state statute should be versus leaving detail to local policy and model guidance.