Senate Education Committee Hears Opposition to House Bill 206 Over Expanded Expulsion Powers

Opponents of House Bill 206 told the Ohio Senate Education Committee that the bill would hand superintendents sweeping authority to expel and indefinitely extend expulsions, risking disproportionate harms to students with disabilities and students of color.

Gary Daniels, offering opponent testimony, said HB 206 ‘‘creates examples of immense superintendent discretion’’ including determining imminent and severe endangerment, setting conditions for reinstatement, and extending expulsions in 90‑day intervals potentially indefinitely. He urged mandatory, transparent data collection — including counts, incident descriptions, lengths of expulsions, district application, and non‑identifying demographic information — so policymakers and the public could assess how the law is used.

Timothy Johnson of the Ohio Poverty Law Center said the bill ‘‘would allow students to be expelled for up to a 180 days initially, followed by the ability to extend the expulsion in 90 day increments’’ and warned that the lack of limits could lead to indefinite exclusions. Johnson and other witnesses said the bill’s required mental‑health assessments may be impossible to fulfill in many areas because Ohio has far fewer child‑and‑adolescent psychiatrists and school counselors than recommended, which could delay or prevent reinstatement in practice.

Renee Murphy of Advocates for Basic Legal Equality said the measure lacks sufficient due‑process protections for additional 90‑day expulsions and risks federal constitutional and disability‑law challenges. ‘‘It is my opinion that it actually would need to be a trial like procedure where there’s a right to an attorney,’’ she testified, describing concerns about notice, an opportunity to be heard, and neutral decision‑makers for prolonged deprivations of education.

Committee members pressed witnesses on possible incentives to remove students from classrooms to improve school metrics, on how home instruction would be monitored, and on whether multidisciplinary teams (created by superintendents under the bill) would include parents or advocates. Witnesses said the bill allows superintendents to form teams without mandated parental involvement and noted that superintendents would not be required to follow those teams’ recommendations.

Chair Brenner recited the bill’s examples of ‘‘imminent and severe endangerment’’ — including bringing a firearm to school, bringing a knife capable of causing serious bodily injury, committing an adult criminal offense that causes serious physical harm, making a bomb threat, or making an articulated threat or hit list — and said such acts could warrant expulsion. Witnesses replied that while some listed acts are clearly severe, the bill’s broader language leaves ‘‘wiggle room’’ for expansive application.

The committee did not take a final vote. Chair Brenner said he was open to receiving suggested amendments on due process and data reporting as the legislature moves through the session. The second hearing on House Bill 206 concluded without a committee vote.