Senate Education panel sends HB 236 to 14th order after debate on disclosing juvenile adjudications

The Idaho Senate Education Committee on a voice vote sent House Bill 236 to the 14th order for amendment after a multi-part hearing that included the bill sponsor, parents and disability advocates, and classroom teachers.

Representative Sean Dygert, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure would add specific, listed offenses to existing code about denial of school attendance and require disclosure of convictions or juvenile adjudications “at the time they are registering for school.” He said the proposal preserves local control by leaving enrollment decisions to school boards and retains the due-process steps that already exist in current law.

The bill’s language, as explained by the sponsor, lists categories such as students who are “habitually truant” or whose “presence is detrimental to the health and safety of other pupils,” and adds a provision requiring disclosure of certain adjudications or convictions during enrollment or transfer. Rep. Dygert said the proposal uses the term “adjudication” to match juvenile proceedings and that the intent is not to target minor misconduct: “We’re not after just mild troublemakers here,” he said when reading a statutory list of serious juvenile offenses discussed in committee.

Several people who testified urged caution or opposed the bill. Britney Shipley identified herself as a social worker, child and family advocate and parent and said she “respect[s] what the representative has said, but I also respectfully significantly disagree.” Shipley told the committee she works with families whose children have serious co-occurring disabilities and said some children charged while on individualized education plans (IEPs) or while receiving treatment could be harmed by a disclosure requirement. “These children don't deserve to be on those lists when they have behaviors that are out of their control due to their disability,” she said, arguing that rural families often lack the services needed to avoid criminalized outcomes.

Laura Wallace, a testifier who said she has previously helped draft Idaho law, raised a drafting concern: she argued that language in the bill referencing federal protections (Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) appears in a subsection that, as written, would apply only to students found with firearms. Wallace urged that the IDEA/504 sentence be made a separate subsection so those federal protections clearly apply to all parts of the section, not only the firearm provision.

A third testifier, who identified during remarks as Ida Sumia (also referred to as Adi Moore in the committee’s introduction and who said she prefers “Sam”), opposed the bill on policy grounds. She said removing access to regular schooling would increase juvenile justice involvement and urged investment in restorative programs and alternatives to exclusionary discipline. “If this bill passes, who is to say that schools won't deny admission based on trauma history arguing they lack resources to support these children,” she told the committee.

Lori Ballade, a national board‑certified teacher, described classroom strains from severe behaviors and teacher burnout; she said some students with very high needs may require alternative placements and greater resourcing, not simply placement in general classrooms.

Committee members asked a series of procedural and policy questions. Senators on the panel asked whether the bill would affect students with IEPs or 504 plans and whether it would duplicate or alter existing special-education protections. Several members noted that the sponsor had discussed using disclosure checkboxes similar to a Boise School District practice for open-enrollment applications. The sponsor said the bill targets older juveniles (roughly middle- and high‑school ages), focuses on convictions/adjudications for serious offenses, and preserves existing district discipline processes. He said school boards would still notify families in writing and provide hearings under current code.

During floor of committee discussion a substitute motion was offered to send HB 236 to the 14th order for amendment so the language about federal protections could be rewritten to apply across the section; that substitute motion passed on a voice vote. Representative Dygert agreed to work with Senator Ward Engelking on the amendment.

Next steps: the bill will return to the committee calendar (fourteenth order) for amendment; the committee did not take a final up-or-down vote on the substance of the bill during this meeting.

Votes at a glance: - Substitute motion to send House Bill 236 to the 14th order for amendment — moved and seconded in committee; voice vote in favor; outcome: sent to 14th order for amendment.