Bill would require school meeting with education decision maker before lengthy suspensions or expulsions for students in foster care or homelessness

Senator James Ohrenschall introduced Senate Bill 177, a measure aimed at clarifying and restoring protections for pupils in foster care and for homeless students when schools consider long suspensions or expulsions.

Sponsors and Legal Aid Center advocates told the Assembly Committee on Education that the bill grafts the discipline review process onto an IDEA-style framework and restores a formal meeting with the student’s educational decision maker (EDM) when a school seeks long-term removal. “For foster students, this meeting must include the student's court appointed educational decision maker,” the sponsor’s representative said while walking the committee through the conceptual amendment.

Advocates recounted how prior state law (SB 354, 2021) had presumed that a foster student's school behavior could be a manifestation of their foster or homeless status; that presumption was reversed in 2023. Legal Aid Center attorneys said that reversal caused confusion and harmed students. Ilka Fisher, lead education advocate, described a case in which a student placed at Childhaven resisted surrendering her backpack — her only possessions — during a tardy sweep and became physical when staff tried to take the backpack. Because the school held a meeting under SB 354 and included the child’s team, “they were able to hear Aaliyah's full story and immediately reversed the expulsion,” Fisher said; that reversal, advocates said, allowed the student to graduate.

Under the bill as filed and the posted conceptual amendment, a meeting would be required to determine whether a pupil's homelessness or foster care status was a factor in the behavior. If the team determines the behavior was related to the status, the bill directs that discipline must cease and appropriate supports be put in place. The conceptual amendment retains an exception: for serious infractions — possession of a weapon or controlled substances on campus or causing serious bodily injury — a principal may remove the student for up to 45 days, mirroring current IDEA protections for students with disabilities.

Committee members asked how the proposal balances student safety and continuity for other students; sponsors and district representatives said the meeting is intended to include safety planning and restorative supports. Legal Aid Center representatives described planning and transition meetings that include caseworkers, attorneys, therapists and school staff to plan a student's safe return and noted schools often already perform similar assessments for students with disabilities. The sponsor and advocates signaled openness to technical amendments to limit school liability when district staff are not aware a pupil is in foster care and to set a reasonable, accountable number of documented contact attempts for EDMs before a meeting proceeds without them.

Representatives of Clark County and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents testified in support. No opposition callers were recorded. The committee closed the hearing without a recorded vote; sponsors said they would refine language and work with stakeholders on timing and contact requirements.