Little Rock School District board upholds yearlong expulsions for multiple students after alleged assaults, weapon and mace incidents

The Little Rock School District board on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, voted to uphold the superintendent’s recommendation to expel five students for a full calendar year — May 6, 2026, through May 5, 2027 — after administrators described incidents ranging from an alleged physical attack on a school resource officer to a student displaying a handgun and a separate reported mace/pepper spray discharge.

Administrators opened the hearings by laying out each case. For two students identified in district materials as SH (376845) and TH (381812), administrators said the episode that led to an expulsion recommendation involved a confrontation that escalated outside the front office, SRO (school resource officer) involvement and a physical altercation in which staff reported an officer was struck; mace was reported found later when the students were restrained. The district’s hearing officer explained that the classroom fight alone did not drive the recommendation — rather, administration described a subsequent physical attack on an officer as the level‑six offense warranting an expulsion recommendation.

Family members of the students disputed that account. A father representing the family said the students did not initiate contact and told the board, “Officer Martin was the one that initiated the contact … SH and TH was not the ones that initiated the contact.” Family members asked to view school video and said they had additional footage; the board screened the administration’s video evidence during the hearing.

One board member, identified in the transcript as Director Bali, registered opposition during deliberations on at least one case, saying, “I’m voting against it because we’re at the end of our school year and I think that it is very harmful to say that a kid cannot be there for a whole calendar school year,” and adding that the board had not personally heard from the student before voting.

In a separate hearing, administrators presented the case against student JP (413513), saying staff observed JP display a handgun on campus and that officers later found a firearm under a rock near the school. Dr. Frankie James, identified as an assistant principal at Central High School, told the board officers were notified by school staff and that JP was arrested and charged with possession of a handgun on school property and related offenses. Board members questioned whether the police had completed their investigation and sought clarification about which camera footage and reports formed the basis for the recommendation; administrators said the police had charged the student and that school cameras and a TikTok video were referenced in investigative materials.

For student LJ (3802), the student’s parent requested that that hearing be closed; streaming was suspended and the board voted to accept the superintendent’s expulsion recommendation. For student LR (412236), Christy Strong, principal of Hamilton Learning Academy, described an incident where LR allegedly discharged a chemical irritant (described in the record as mace/pepper spray) toward another student, causing immediate eye and skin irritation. Strong said LR had a prior confiscation of mace the day before and had received interventions; LR was cited by police for third‑degree battery, according to the administrative presentation.

After administration closed its presentations and parties had an opportunity to ask questions, the board recessed to executive session to deliberate in several of the matters and then returned to open session to vote. On each of the cases described above the board accepted the superintendent’s recommendation to expel the student for one calendar year (May 6, 2026–May 5, 2027). The transcript records motions, seconds and that the motions carried; explicit vote tallies by member name or count are not consistently stated in the public transcript for each item.

The hearing officer advised that students subject to expulsions are offered district digital learning options during an expulsion period. Administrators said district offerings include on‑site, distance and hybrid digital learning platforms so expelled students could continue receiving educational services during the expulsion period.

The board adjourned after completing the scheduled expulsions.

What the board considered next: the transcript indicates administration relied on school camera footage, staff statements, police reports and, in JP’s case, a social media (TikTok) clip. Family members repeatedly requested access to all footage and records and asserted officers’ conduct and evidence chain of custody were contested. The board’s written decision pages were prepared for each student and the board followed its routine of allowing executive deliberation before public votes.

Next steps: Expelled students are routed to the district’s distance‑learning options for the period of expulsion; any active criminal cases proceed through law enforcement and the courts independently of the school disciplinary actions.