Funding an Issue for State's School Discipline Law

A law that requires schools to continue learning for suspended or expelled students comes with a cost—but no certainty it will be funded by the state.

A new Massachusetts law that requires schools to ensure students can still learn when they're suspended or expelled has raised questions about the cost it'll take to do so. 

According to Chapter 222, "Any school district that suspends or expels a student under this section shall continue to provide educational services to the student during the period of suspension or expulsion." 

The Lowell Sun noted that the law followed a state report looking into connections between suspensions and dropout rates, and it also had the support of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents. 

But, according to Education Week , "many districts are citing the law as an unfunded mandate." That's because the state hasn't indicated whether funds will be allocated to cover the costs associated with the law. 

"Superintendents are very supportive of the intent of the law, they believe that youngsters should not be excluded from a continuation of education," said Tom Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, in an interview with Education Week. "The obvious concern is what is going to be the ultimate cost and who bears that cost?"

TELL US: What do you think about the new law, and should the state allocate funding for it? 
Steven Sadowski February 26, 2014 at 04:38 PM
Bob: You are wrong in this regard with Bush, while he, and many others tried to warn about the toxic debts, it was done while at the same time, contributing to the crisis/problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8
Bob February 26, 2014 at 05:18 PM
SS - He made a speech about home ownership and building affordable housing. He was right on that. He asked for investment to QUALIFIED buyers. That You tube video is in 2002. He warned about F and F in 2003. Again not a big fan as POTUS (I believe he is a good man) but he saw the problem and raised the alert.
Sunny February 26, 2014 at 05:43 PM
I don't want anymore 40B housing in Chelmsford on Littleton Rd. There are too apartment dwellings (one burnt down to ground even though the fire station was less than a mile away), condos, and trailer park (sorry that taxes as permanent housing). Now, Chelmsford Crossing (40B) is in the future. Who's going to live there? Not Chelmsford senior citizens on the waiting list or layoff Chelmsford citizens but outsiders? Problem families with troubled kids. Chelmsford should get assigned social worker. Note: Westford / Chelmsford town line is another 40B, Princeton Apartments.
Steven Sadowski February 27, 2014 at 08:09 AM
Bob: I think this is a fair article that takes in both of our POV's: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
John f caruso February 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM
Does this mean that if any kid feels like he is bullied he can get suspended and we pay them to go to school even at home. Does this that the total of kids say 100 in a district the school get the monies for their education but if the kids drop out of this also who gets the monies. Sounds like unfounded and back door tax payers tax on the monies. Sounds like say a school in boston that is mismanaged by management could reap profits when and if the students rebel and don't go to school. This sounds great but seems just another way to tax the taxpayer after all the poor people do not have the monies to tax so it is another middle class sham.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »