Senators reject amendments to LB653 on suspensions for pre-K–2; arguments over data, safety and local control

Senators on Feb. 11 engaged in an extended floor debate over LB653, the measure that restricts suspension and expulsion of students in prekindergarten through second grade. Two floor amendments intended to add definitions, reporting and limited options for schools were defeated in roll-call votes.

Sen. McKinney's amendment (AM19 47) would have allowed school districts to "may utilize purposeful in‑school suspension" as an option for pre‑K through second‑grade students, and it would have defined "violent behavior" and "chronic disruptive behavior" and required follow-up planning with families. Sen. Spivey's amendment (AM20 98) would have required each school district to compile and publish an annual suspension report (number of students suspended, aggregate infractions and demographic disaggregation) on the district website.

Proponents, including Senators McKinney, Spivey, Duncan and Conrad, said the amendments added clarity, guardrails and transparency. McKinney argued the amendments do not force suspension: "It is a may, not a shall," he said, and described the changes as tools and definitions to ensure suspensions are used only when necessary and in a way that leads to a plan for the student. Spivey said the reporting amendment would make data already collected available to the public, enabling policymakers and advocates to identify disparities.

Opponents, including Senators Hughes, Kaut and Jacobson, said the amendments would interfere with local control and that schools need tools to protect classroom learning and safety. Hughes said in rare but extreme cases removal is necessary to protect students and teachers and described violent classroom behavior that requires immediate action. Others cautioned about additional reporting burdens on districts and the effect on rural schools with limited staff and facilities.

Floor managers and supporters repeatedly framed the measures as narrowly tailored: AM19 47 would have been permissive language allowing an option for purposeful in‑school suspension with defined thresholds; AM20 98 would have required annual public reporting that districts already collect. Opponents disagreed about the likely practical effects. The Omaha Public Schools (OPS) district was mentioned repeatedly as an example in the debate; proponents cited data pointing to racial disproportionality in prior suspension rates in OPS as a reason to require public reporting.

Both amendments were put to roll-call votes after a call of the house. AM20 98 (Spivey) failed on a roll call by 16 ayes to 29 nays; later AM19 47 (McKinney) also failed by the same recorded margin. The transcript records the roll-call tallies but does not show that either amendment was incorporated into LB653. After further committee and motion items, the body adjourned for the day.

What it means: The house rejected narrowly written amendments to add local reporting and a permissive in‑school suspension option; LB653 as amended on select remains the vehicle before the Legislature and further action could follow in later session days.

Votes and procedural note: The transcript records final roll-call results on the two amendments as 16 ayes and 29 nays for each amendment; the body later adjourned and printed committee items for the record.