Beloit School District board reviews how expulsions and administrative hearings are handled, including triggers, timelines and early-return conditions

The Beloit School District board convened a workshop to review the district's administrative hearing and student expulsion process, hear how cases are referred, and discuss alternatives to long expulsions.

Board President Tia Johnson opened the session saying the meeting was intended "to provide the board insight as to the various components of the current administrative hearing and expulsion process and provide perspective as to alternative mechanisms that may be utilized by districts around the state." She emphasized the workshop was for information-sharing rather than deciding policy.

Administrative hearing officers Kelsey McCarthy and Bryce Becker told the board that referrals for administrative hearings come from school administrators ' typically a principal or assistant principal ' who send a request with basic facts. "We schedule an administrative hearing during that suspension period," McCarthy said, and the hearing can end with a recommendation to return to school under conditions, a recommendation for an alternative placement, or a referral for expulsion.

Building principals described that, in practice, most hearing referrals carry an intended outcome of expulsion when they are submitted. Principals said they typically use tiered interventions first: a student safety or support plan, behavior contracts and MLSS (multi-tiered) interventions. "An objective concrete one would be number of 200-level referrals... For us that's been 10 200s," said Joe Box, principal at Aldridge, describing one trigger that leads to a "last chance" behavior contract and a possible hearing.

The independent hearing officer, Mark, explained his role is to determine whether the facts alleged are supported by evidence, whether the conduct endangered the safety or welfare of others, and what an appropriate expulsion duration and return conditions should be. "My role is to administer justice... to act on behalf of the board to ensure that students' due process rights are upheld," Mark said. He said he generally defers to administration's proximity to students but must weigh evidence and public-safety considerations.

Officials reviewed timelines: a student typically may be suspended for up to five consecutive days while an administrative hearing occurs; if expulsion is recommended, an expulsion hearing must be scheduled within the next 10 days. After an IHO issues an order, the board typically has 30 days to approve, modify or reject the recommended order.

Several speakers described a common practice of recommending expulsions "through the 21st birthday" while simultaneously specifying early-return conditions that allow a student to re-enter sooner if they meet prescribed requirements. Mark said the longer nominal expulsion period gives the district a clear set of conditions for reentry and allows administrators to reinstate or remove a student without repeating a full hearing when return conditions are violated.

A consequential point raised in the discussion: participants noted that for regular education students the district is not automatically obligated to provide educational services once a student has been expelled; by contrast, reinstatement often carries conditions that the student or family must meet. Participants framed long expulsion periods and early-return conditions as both an accountability mechanism and a tool to encourage families to obtain services for the student prior to reentry.

Board members pressed for clarity on whether delegating expulsions to an independent hearing officer had increased the number of expulsions. Administrators said they track referrals and that increases in referral volume reflect a range of factors, including greater willingness by building staff to pursue hearings after exhausting interventions and differences in local behavior patterns; they did not attribute changes solely to the use of an IHO.

The workshop closed after board members asked for follow-up data on referral counts and for suggestions about policy or practice changes that would better support buildings and preventive interventions.

The board took a procedural motion at the start to approve the agenda; no substantive policy votes were taken during the workshop. The district said it will follow up with administration and legal counsel if the board seeks future policy changes.