Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oregon Senate Education Committee hears sharp division over bill letting teachers remove disruptive students
Summary
Sen. Christine Drazen told the committee that SB 15‑72 would let teachers immediately remove students who repeatedly disrupt instruction, require a placement review within three days and restore third‑grade reading proficiency rules. Disability advocates, teachers and parents sharply disagreed on whether the bill will protect classrooms or disproportionately harm students with disabilities and students of color.
Senate Bill 15‑72 drew sustained testimony and pointed questioning Feb. 12 as the Oregon Senate Education Committee considered proposals to expand teachers' authority to remove repeatedly disruptive students and to tighten reading standards.
Sponsor Sen. Christine Drazen (SD 26) framed the measure as a response to rising classroom disorder and threats to teacher and student safety. "Oregon classrooms are in crisis," Drazen said, citing reports of students biting, kicking and overturning furniture and saying "1 in 4 teachers are concerned for their own safety." She told the committee SB 15‑72 would allow teachers to immediately remove a student who repeatedly interferes with teaching or learning, create a placement review committee within three school days if the teacher does not consent to the student's return, and require third‑grade reading proficiency before advancement with specified exceptions. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, Drazen said.
The sponsor emphasized procedural safeguards in the bill, saying it explicitly requires compliance with federal disability laws and provides civil‑liability protection for teachers acting within state and federal law. "That is not unchecked power," Drazen told the committee, adding the placement review panel will include an administrator, a teacher and a parent and that rulemaking and Department of Education guidance would be part of implementation.
Opponents, including disability advocates and community groups, said the bill's language is vague and risks formalizing biased exclusion. Erin Frazier, executive director of the Center for Black Excellence, testified in deep opposition: "This bill gives one person with no defined standard, no required documentation and full legal immunity, unilateral authority to bar a child from the classroom. That is a permission slip for bias." Witnesses from FACT Oregon and the Oregon Developmental Disabilities Coalition warned the measure could violate federal requirements for students with IEPs and 504 plans, criticized proposed immunity from liability and said removal procedures lacked timelines and clear return protocols.
Teachers and other supporters described frequent, severe classroom disruptions and urged tools to protect instructional time. First‑grade teacher Stacy Fagan said, "This bill gives teachers the authority to act immediately when repeated disruption crosses the line," and asked the Legislature to fund trained staff, behavioral supports and alternative safe settings so removal is not abandonment but a step toward appropriate intervention.
Committee members pressed for detail on several fronts: how the bill defines "repeatedly interferes," safeguards against disproportionate removals of Black students and students with disabilities, whether additional funding would accompany new requirements (for high‑dosage tutoring and alternative placements), and what evidence supports retention of third graders who are not proficient readers. The sponsor said many of those specifics would be resolved in rulemaking and that the legislature should also consider funding priorities already available in the state budget.
The hearing produced no committee vote on SB 15‑72. Chair Frederick closed the testimony and asked participants to submit written comments; he noted a deadline given to submit written testimony. The bill remains under committee consideration.
