School districts must balance meaningful outcomes with community safety
Legal guidelines are certainly instructive in responding to students’ in-school behavioral incidents, but school districts must have frequent opportunities to openly discuss other effective strategies and responses while maintaining community safety, suggests contributor Jennifer F. King.
July 14, 2025
PHOTO CREDIT: LITTLENY/STOCK.ADOBE.COM
All too often, school districts are faced with real-life situations like this scenario: Sam is an academically progressing and well-behaved sixth grader who does not have an IEP or 504. The preteen lives at home with three younger siblings and their mother. The family has no contact with Sam’s father, who was verbally and physically abusive before he abandoned them. While Sam is introverted and has few friends in school, multiplayer video games have provided an avenue for socialization.
One day, Sam arrives at school after a sleepless night caring for a sick sibling while mom worked an overtime night shift. Some classmates begin to pick on him during art class. Exhausted and on edge, Sam grabs a metal sculpting tool and threatens the teasing group of students.
Fortunately, the art teacher diffuses the situation before anyone is hurt.
Sam is removed from school on an emergency basis while the administration investigates the matter further. Students in the class who witnessed the altercation tell their friends and parents what happened. Community members discuss the incident in social media groups. Many of their posts express the sentiment that Sam should be expelled from school.
The school is left to contemplate how to respond to the incident in a way that benefits Sam’s well-being and ensures safety in the school building. As administrators consider next steps regarding Sam’s education, they learn more about the family’s personal circumstances and must weigh them as well.
If Sam is suspended, days will be spent at home watching TV, playing video games, and engaging in one hour of virtual tutoring a day. If the school returns Sam to school, classmates will be fearful, and the community will respond with their strong disapproval. For many students like Sam, school is a safe haven. What happens when their actions compromise the safety of that place? How do schools measure the effectiveness of school removal when students remain out of school unsupervised with little to no opportunities for academic progress? What steps can be taken to ensure that when students enter school every day, they are safe from harm?
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION
In 2022, Massachusetts attempted to address these dilemmas as part of broad legislation addressing mental health needs. That year, the Massachusetts Legislature amended one of its student discipline laws to require that school administrators give stronger consideration to alternative remedies to suspension. The law, codified as M.G.L. c. 71, § 37H3/4, defines alternative remedies as including mediation, conflict resolution, restorative justice, and collaborative problem solving.
In practice, many school districts have identified other methods that serve as alternative remedies to school removal depending on the nature of the conduct. These methods have included social probation and loss of social privileges (such as recess or after-school activities), restitution, satisfactory risk assessments, and educational reflection assignments. If the conduct would otherwise trigger a responsibility to have the student evaluated for special education services, that could be considered an alternative remedy as well.
School districts facing these situations may also find guidance in identifying the root of the behavior. Is this a manifestation of a disability or symptom of crisis? Alternatively, has the student made a deliberate choice knowing the behavior was unacceptable? Would changes in home life benefit the students, and are caretakers willing to make those changes? One of the biggest questions school administrators find themselves tasked with answering is the extent to which a lengthy school removal will address the basis of a student’s behavior.
Within the lens of the new law, Massachusetts school districts have responded in situations like Sam’s in some of the following ways that could be considered by other school administrations:
- Using all emergency removal procedures consistent with the law.
- Setting up access to counseling, identified check-in persons, and safety plans for Sam and the classmates.
- In lieu of imposing a lengthy school removal, asking Sam to remain home and providing tutoring services until a satisfactory risk assessment is completed.
- Facilitating a restorative conversation between Sam and the affected peers if they are willing to participate.
- Conducting a special education evaluation for Sam and potentially considering a 45-day extended evaluation for this purpose. This may be the first time Sam is displaying this type of behavior. However, the timeframe may allow classmates to safely process the incident while the preteen has access to a therapeutic environment to process long-standing trauma that is beginning to manifest outwardly.
These strategies are certainly dependent on responses from affected peers and their caregivers. For example, if the target of Sam’s behavior obtains a court order prohibiting contact and setting a distance requirement between them, the school will need to factor that into re-entry to school.
As school districts navigate these incidents more frequently and aim to maintain safe school environments, it is imperative that frequent opportunities are made available for districts to engage in transparent dialogues about effective strategies and responses. While laws are certainly instructive in responding to behavioral incidents, there is no bar on resourcefulness—especially when it comes to supporting children and making them feel safe coming to school every day.
Jennifer F. King (jennifer.king@vdhboston.com) is an attorney with Valerio Dominello & Hillman, LLC in Westwood, Massachusetts.