FAQ | Violence-Free Schools Alliance

What the Law Covers

The Educator's Bill of Rights is deliberately narrow and specific — it targets physical violence, not every kind of misbehavior.

The law targets acts of physical violence — the intentional use of physical force against another person that causes or is intended to cause bodily harm. Two kids jostling on the playground, a push during tag, or students talking tough without throwing a punch does not meet the threshold. The definition explicitly excludes incidental physical contact in the normal course of school activities. The bright line: did a student intentionally use physical force against another person in a way that caused or was intended to cause bodily harm? If yes, removal. If no, existing school discipline applies.

Verbal abuse is a serious problem, but this law does not cover verbal misconduct. Physical violence has a clear, objective definition — everyone knows what a punch is. Verbal abuse is harder to define consistently and invites legal challenges. A broad standard would lose bipartisan support. Our position: we're starting with the most clear-cut behavior. Once this law is established, it creates a foundation for future legislation addressing verbal abuse and threats. That said, verbal threats that rise to criminal threats should already trigger existing criminal statutes and school safety protocols.

Many states already have anti-bullying statutes. This law targets acts of physical violence specifically. Bullying can be verbal, social, or cyber — much of it doesn't involve physical contact. But when bullying becomes physical — when a bully punches, kicks, or assaults someone — then it does trigger this law. Think of it this way: if the behavior would get you arrested as an adult, it should get you removed from school as a student.

The law explicitly recognizes self-defense. The definition excludes acts of reasonable self-defense as defined by state law. The Violence Review Panel hearing exists precisely to sort out these situations. Both the accused student and the victim can present evidence and witnesses. If the Panel finds the student was acting in legitimate self-defense, the student is returned immediately with no record. Key nuance: self-defense must be proportionate. A disproportionate response (e.g., beating someone unconscious after being shoved) is retaliation, not self-defense.

If the conduct meets the definition of an Act of Physical Violence, yes. Age does not determine whether an assault occurred — it determines what the alternative education setting looks like. Normal developmental behavior (a toddler pushing during play) is excluded under the incidental contact clause. But when a young child's conduct rises to genuine violence, the message must be the same. For elementary-age students, the alternative setting will typically be a virtual learning program supervised by parents at home, placing accountability where it belongs.

Alternative Education & Parent Responsibility

For most students, it means virtual school — a district-approved online learning program with assignments, deadlines, and grades. For students needing more structure, districts may place them in a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP). For students with IEPs, all special education services continue. The student's education does not stop. Their access to the building where they committed violence does.

The school district bears the cost, as they do today for alternative placements. The Educator's Bill of Rights creates a Violence-Free Schools Fund at the state level to reimburse districts. Virtual learning programs are significantly less expensive per pupil than traditional instruction. The real cost savings come from avoided workers' compensation claims, substitute teacher costs, litigation, and the incalculable cost of losing experienced educators who quit.

Parents are the linchpin. They must ensure the student logs in and completes virtual coursework, supervise the student during school hours, enroll the student in a behavioral intervention program (anger management, conflict resolution, or violence prevention), and participate in the re-entry conference and co-sign the Behavioral Contract. When schools absorb all consequences and parents face none, there's no incentive for families to address the behavior. This law places responsibility where it belongs.

We understand the hardship, but the hardship was created by the student's violent act, not by the law. Many virtual programs are asynchronous with flexible schedules. Extended family, community organizations, and after-school programs can provide supervision. Districts can connect families with social services. What we will not do is use logistical inconvenience as a reason to return a violent student to the classroom where they assaulted someone.

Special Education & Disability

IDEA provides procedural protections, not a license to assault people. The law preserves FAPE — students continue receiving all educational services in the alternative setting. IDEA requires a manifestation determination review, and this law preserves that review. But even if the behavior IS a manifestation of the disability, the student is still removed. The manifestation determination affects services in the alternative setting, not whether removal occurs. IDEA already allows 45-day removals for serious bodily injury — this extends that principle.

No. The law requires that alternative settings provide all IEP services, behavioral intervention, and counseling. The IEP team must reconvene within fifteen days to revise the student's plan. Many students with behavioral disabilities are actually poorly served by being kept in general education after committing violence. They need more intensive intervention than a general education teacher can provide while teaching 25 other students. A well-designed alternative program can deliver better behavioral supports.

We believe this law is legally defensible. It preserves FAPE, as students continue education and IEP services. IDEA already allows 45-day removals for serious bodily injury — the same principle applies here. The state has a compelling interest in physical safety. The federal provisions include an IDEA clarification resolving the question. Will it be challenged? Almost certainly. But the law is designed to withstand challenge because it does not deny education — it changes the setting.

Equity, Fairness & Civil Rights

This is a serious concern we take seriously. But the current system disproportionately harms Black and brown educators, who are more likely to work in schools with higher violence rates. Disparate impact in school discipline often comes from subjective standards like "defiance." This law uses an objective standard: physical violence. You either punched someone or you didn't. The due process protections — a three-member Panel, right to evidence and an advocate — prevent arbitrary application. Every student deserves a school free from violence, and victims are themselves disproportionately from marginalized communities.

Restorative justice has value, and nothing in this law prevents it. Behavioral intervention programs can and should include restorative components. But restorative justice requires the willingness of both parties — an assaulted educator should not be forced into a circle with their attacker. Restorative justice works best for relational harms, not physical assault. In many districts, it has become a euphemism for "no consequences." Our position: restoration happens after safety. First, stop the bleeding. Then heal.

No. We're building a school-to-safety pipeline. Students are not expelled — they're placed in alternative education. They receive behavioral intervention services addressing root causes. There's a clear, defined pathway back. Law enforcement referral is only required when the act would be criminal if committed by an adult. Allowing violent behavior to escalate unchecked until it becomes criminal IS what feeds the pipeline. Early, firm consequences with rehabilitative support interrupt that trajectory.

Implementation & Practical Questions

Multiple safeguards: the trigger is objective (physical violence only), the Violence Review Panel is independent (administrator from different school, educator rep, community member), students have full due process rights including counsel, false referrals face consequences, and mandatory reporting creates a detectable paper trail. An administrator cannot invoke this law because a student is defiant or annoying — only if the student physically attacked someone.

Because progressive discipline for violence sends the wrong message: that the first assault is free. If a customer punches a store employee, the store calls the police — no warning. If an employee punches a coworker, they're fired — not put on a plan. Schools are the only workplace where you're expected to absorb the first assault before anything happens. One strike means exactly what it says. The notice provisions ensure it's not a surprise — every student and parent is told on Day One.

The anti-retaliation provision (Section 501) makes it illegal to discipline or take any adverse action against an educator for reporting violence. Administrators who retaliate face termination and potential license revocation. Section 504 makes underreporting a violation of law — districts must publicly report violence data quarterly. The state education agency has investigative authority. We know educators are pressured to "handle it internally." This law makes that behavior illegal and enforceable.

The Gun-Free Schools Act (1994) requires at least a one-year expulsion for students bringing firearms to school. The Educator's Bill of Rights extends that same logic to physical violence. The structure is parallel: a defined prohibited act, mandatory removal, due process protections, and alternative education. Nobody argues the Gun-Free Schools Act is unfair or too harsh. The same standard should apply to physical violence.

Three critical differences. Scope: failed zero-tolerance covered everything; this covers only physical violence. Due process: zero-tolerance often had no hearings; this requires an independent panel with full rights. A path back: zero-tolerance led to permanent expulsion; this mandates a one-year removal with a clear re-enrollment pathway. This is not zero tolerance. It's one-strike accountability with due process, alternative education, and a road back.

Quick Responses

Common Criticisms, Answered

Concise responses for conversations with legislators, media, and skeptics.

"You're criminalizing childhood."

Children can be children without punching their teachers. We're not removing kids for being kids — we're removing them for acts of violence that would be crimes in any other setting.

"This will increase dropout rates."

Students aren't dropping out — they're in alternative education, continuing coursework. Meanwhile, educators are dropping out of the profession because they don't feel safe.

"Schools should be therapeutic, not punitive."

Schools should be safe. You can't do therapy in a war zone. Remove the violence first, provide therapeutic intervention in the alternative setting, then bring the student back ready to learn.

"What about trauma-informed approaches?"

Being trauma-informed doesn't mean being assault-tolerant. An educator who gets punched also experiences trauma. The most trauma-informed thing we can do is ensure nobody gets assaulted.

"This will hurt low-income schools."

Low-income schools are where educators are MOST likely to be assaulted and LEAST likely to receive support. This law protects those who need it most. The Violence-Free Schools Fund provides financial support.

"Teachers should be trained to de-escalate."

De-escalation training is not body armor. No amount of training makes it acceptable to be assaulted at work. We don't tell bank tellers to de-escalate robbers. Educators deserve the same protection.

Frequently Asked Questions