By Rev. Donald L. Perryman, Ph.D.
The Truth Contributor
We must move beyond punishment to prevention, beyond exclusion to engagement. – Pedro Noguera
Ohioans Beware!
Legislation known as Ohio House Bill 206 proposes granting school superintendents the authority to expel students in indefinite 90-day increments when deemed a “severe and imminent danger to other students or school officials.”
On the surface, the policy seems like a straightforward and conscientious solution to school safety concerns. However, the bill has a “lot of problems, a lot of holes, and allows way too much opportunity for bias and power for superintendents to generate arbitrary reasons to keep children out of school while placing hurdles in place that make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for that student to come back to school if that’s what the superintendent chooses to do,” according to Tim Johnson of the Ohio Poverty Law Center.
Tragically, the implications of the legislation sponsored by State Representative Gary Click reach far beyond the classroom.
HB 206 harms students, overburdens public systems, potentially igniting cross-system strain and conflict and destabilizes communities in ways that legislative policymakers must not overlook.
Research shows that when students are expelled without clear, structured pathways for reentry, their educational journeys are often irreparably disrupted. This separation from the school environment frequently kicks them to the curb of society, increasing the likelihood of academic failure and permanent disengagement.
For example, students removed from educational settings are more likely to encounter the criminal justice system or what scholars term the school-to-prison pipeline when their time outside school exposes them to negative influences.
Clayton County, Georgia, however, reduced referrals to the juvenile justice system by incorporating restorative practices. This strategy not only kept students in school but also alleviated costs associated with processing juvenile cases, providing a model that Ohio should consider.
Moreover, schools serve crucial roles outside of teaching reading, writing, and math. The schoolhouse is also a critical interaction point for monitoring student well-being. When school systems expel students, this oversight disappears, leaving children more vulnerable to neglect, abuse, exploitation, and financial struggle as families struggle to provide the supervision and support that schools once offered.
This strain frequently results in increased reliance on safety net programs like SNAP and Medicaid, further burdening already stretched-thin social systems. In response, schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, collaborated with child welfare agencies to intervene proactively, reducing the need for foster care placements costing $20,000 to $30,000 per child and helping families stay intact. Partnerships like that in Philadelphia demonstrate the potential for schools to serve as stabilizing forces rather than contributors to family and cross-system strain.
Also of particular concern is the disparate impact on marginalized students. A study by the Center of Court Innovation found that NYC students who faced school discipline were more likely to encounter further disciplinary actions or justice-system involvement if they were male, Black, Hispanic, disabled or from low-income families.
Research by the American Psychological Association added that African American students are three times more likely than their white peers to face expulsion for similar offenses, a disparity that policies like HB 206 risk exacerbating.
These students, primarily from vulnerable communities of color, are thus the population more likely to fail to complete school. Without a high school diploma, these young people face limited job opportunities. They are often relegated to low-wage positions with little stability or upward mobility. This reality perpetuates cycles of poverty and dependency on public assistance programs.
For these communities, the effects are stark: higher unemployment, economic stagnation, and diminished social cohesion. Massachusetts provides a hopeful contrast. By reallocating funds from juvenile detention to community-based services, the state not only saved millions annually but also reduced recidivism rates, proving that proactive investment in youth pays dividends far beyond the immediate crisis.
So, the evidence is clear: While the safety of students and staff is a priority, Ohio House Bill 206 misses the mark.
Its reliance on indefinite expulsions not only threatens the well-being of vulnerable students but also places undue strain on child protection, welfare and justice systems. Scores of successful programs throughout the nation offer proven models for addressing safety concerns while keeping students engaged and supported.
Therefore, our legislative representatives must reject exclusionary policies like HB 206, which do more harm than good. Instead, they must embrace proactive practices, prioritizing investment and practices that promote the future of all our youth.
Doing so can build a safer, more inclusive, and prosperous society for everyone.
Contact Rev. Donald Perryman, PhD, at drdlperryman@enterofhopebaptist.org