WV Senate passes elementary student discipline bill, state teachers union calls measure ‘great step'
Sen. Amy Grady, R-Mason, speaks on the Senate floor in Charleston, W.Va., March 10, 2025. (Will Price | West Virginia Legislative Photography)
The West Virginia Senate unanimously signed off on a high-profile education bill that would give elementary teachers more authority to remove disruptive or violent students from their classroom.
The measure would also mandate that school counselors and social workers work to determine any underlying cause of the child's behavior. Many educators have tied children's dangerous behavior or outbursts — occurring frequently in kindergarten classrooms — to the state's ongoing substance abuse crisis and high rate of kids in foster care.
Katherine Skidmore, president of American Federation of Teachers in West Virginia, said it was 'encouraging to see the legislative interest in addressing the root causes of this disruptive behavior.'
Addressing student discipline has been a top ask from teachers across the state as they say student behavior is worsening and data shows suspensions are increasing. Some lawmakers have said they must address the issue to protect teachers and boost the state's struggling test scores.
The bill is the brain child of Sen. Amy Grady, an elementary school teacher, who last year sponsored a similar measure that failed to pass in the final hours of the 2024 Legislative Session.
'I worked really hard on that bill. I was upset that it didn't pass,' said Grady, R-Mason. 'But, then, hindsight is 20/20, here we are, and this is much better. It gives a little more clarification in what we need to do with students in particular situations. It's not a cookie cutter approach.'
The measure, Senate Bill 199, would permit teachers in kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms to remove students who are violent, threatening or intimidating toward staff or peers or students' whose behavior is impeding on other students' ability to learn.
The removed student would be referred to a school counselor, social worker or behavioral interventionist to determine if there's an underlying cause of the student's behavior. Staff would be required to create a behavioral plan for the student for a two-week period. If the student is not making progress, then the behavioral plan could be changed and enacted for another two weeks.
'It kind of individualizes what they need before we move forward,' said Grady, who worked with the state Department of Education on the legislation.
Not every school has a full-time counselor or social worker, but Grady, who worked with the state Department of Education on the legislation, felt confident that schools would be able to carry out the bill's requirements by utilizing staff from central offices or state social workers when foster children are involved.
Removed elementary students would return to school on a provisional basis for five to 10 days. If another incident occurs in that time frame, the child would be subject to expulsion, including being placed in an alternative learning center.
Additionally, if students are removed from a classroom for disruptive or violent behaviors a total of three times in one month, the student would be subject to in- or out-of-school suspension or to be placed in alternative learning centers or with a licensed behavioral health agency if one is available within the school district.
Fewer than half of the state's 55 counties have alternate learning centers, and critics of the measure have said that it could result in too many children forced to learn through virtual school.
The House of Delegates approved its version of an elementary school discipline measure March 3. Grady is hopeful House members will accept her legislation, which made minor tweaks to their bill, including that a child's disruptive or violent behavior would have to occur more than once before expulsion.
'I'm very hopeful that it will be fine,' Grady said.
Skidmore said it was 'great to have both chambers focusing on student behavior.'
'While no bill is perfect, these bills are a great step in the right direction,' she said. 'Hopefully the two chambers can come together to pass a version that addresses the behavioral issues disrupting our classes and provides the mental health resources and funding needed for these students.'
If the House accepts Grady's version of the bill, the measure would next go to the governor's desk for approval.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. John Kennedy and Linda McMahon make significant math error in congressional hearing
On Tuesday, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon tested before the Senate on behalf of Trump's 2026 budget. During this hearing, McMahon and Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy were discussing federal spending for grant programs for disadvantaged students when the pair made a significant mathematical error. The math error occurred when the two spoke on how much the government has spent in the duration of ten years on TRIO and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). After McMahon confirmed to Kennedy that the government spends approximately $1.58 billion a year on TRIO and has been funding this program for over ten years, Kennedy said, "So that's over a trillion dollars that we've spent on this program..." "We give this money, as I appreciate it, to colleges and universities to encourage poor kids to go to college,' said Kennedy before he went on to imply that colleges have been stealing this grant money from the government for their own purposes, The New Republic reported. McMahon failed to catch and correct Kennedy's math error, however, Sen. John Reed spoke up and corrected the counting mistake. 'I'm not a great mathematician, but I think you were talking about a trillion dollars? I believe $1.5 billion times 10 is $15 billion, and that's a little bit off from a trillion dollars,' said Reed. McMahon said in response that the budget cuts $1.2 billion, to which Reed then replied, "Well that would be $12 billion, not a trillion dollars." Presley Bo Tyler is a reporter for the Louisiana Deep South Connect Team for Gannett/USA Today. Find her on X @PresleyTyler02 and email at PTyler@ This article originally appeared on Shreveport Times: Sen. John Kennedy math error. What he said education costs
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Josh Stein signs six NC bills into law
RALEIGH, N.C.(WNCN) — Before heading into the weekend, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein put his support behind six bills. House Bill 506 creates the North Carolina Investment Authority, which is tasked with overseeing state investments, taking some responsibility away from the state treasurer. The authority would be responsible for managing investments for retirement systems and the General Fund. 'We're changing the degrees that we're headed by a slight amount, but it will have profound differences for our state over long periods of time,' said State Treasurer Brad Briner. 'If we can deliver 1% more, we will able we will be able to deliver $2 billion a year more to our state budget, and that is why we're doing this.' The governor also signed Senate Bill 231, which is designed to lower barriers for social workers to practice in or out of the state. North Carolina now joins an agreement with 29 other states allowing licensed social workers to practice in any state included in the agreement. Social workers say that Hurricane Helene showed the need for change after the storm displaced patients out of state. 'Licensed clinical social workers couldn't legally continue therapy with their clients unless they were licensed in each of those states, disrupting care at a time when it was most needed,' said Valerie Arendt, executive director for the National Association of Social Workers NC. 'The compact helps ensure continuity of care no matter where life takes rural residents.' House Bill 50, also signed by the governor, aims to retain some of the state's most experienced law enforcement officers. Before this new law, after 30 years of service, an officer had the choice to retire or stay on the job and lose out on retirement fund dollars. The new law gives officers more options to stay on the job. 'If we make it hard to retain our most experienced law enforcement officers, we're doing ourselves a grave disservice,' said Stein. 'If we want to keep the best, we have to support them, and that's exactly what this legislation does.' Most notably the governor did not sign or address three controversial bills on this desk. Two are related to cracking down on illegal immigration, and the third would allow concealed carry without a permit for adults over 18. Governor Stein also signed the following bills into law: House Bill 477: Retirement Death Benefits Rewrite Senate Bill 248: Birth Certificates for Persons Adopted Senate Bill 477: DNCR Agency Bill Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy
Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground. 'Sir! Sir! Hands off!' Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. 'I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.' Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, 'Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.' Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference. What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla? What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem's security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it's safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way. This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn't identify himself at the briefing, even though, 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla' were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared. What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch? Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident. Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they're complying with laws that Congress has passed. As a Senate member from California, it's perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations. This is completely in line with Congress' oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents. Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution's speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress' oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here. Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he's focused on. But it's not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy. What other factors led to this moment? Something I've written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that 'we don't just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.' This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle. More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right. We have seen violence during Trump's campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump's encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump's subsequent pardons of those rioters. Does Padilla's removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically? We can't ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn't create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there's no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics. For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are 'sick' or 'nasty,' that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn't have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago. All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla. What will you be watching for as this situation plays out? My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for 'ambition to counteract ambition,' as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn't get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction. As Congress has been steadily torn apart by partisanship, it's given up lots of its power over the past half-century and no longer seems to see itself as a coequal branch of government with the executive. As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government. Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla's treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she's pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take? This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charlie Hunt, Boise State University Read more: Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent Politics based on grievance has a long and violent history in America Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
