The Education Committee spent the second half of its meeting hearing extensive testimony and asking detailed questions about a consolidated school discipline bill, 26LSO0088. LSO presented the draft as a consolidation of prior committee work and Department of Education suggested amendments; the measure would require districts to adopt specific discipline policies, authorize specified enforcement mechanisms (including removal of students from classrooms), require teacher professional development and planning time, and create a reporting pipeline from districts to the Department of Education and to the committee.

LSO attorney Tanya Heitrich walked members through the draft and highlighted several structural points: (1) the bill amends statutory language governing disciplinary measures (referred to in the presentation as "21 4 3 0 8"); (2) it enumerates enforcement options including classroom removal, referral, suspension and expulsion, and possible exclusion from co‑curricular activities; (3) it prescribes reporting requirements to WDE and requires WDE to report back to the committee; (4) it includes a compliance deadline (08/01/2026) and repeals older statutory provisions, including language on corporal punishment immunity and diploma withholding.

Members and witnesses focused on several recurring concerns:

- Broad enforcement authority: The draft gives "all school district employees" authority to enforce policies and, in some provisions, to remove students by reasonable force. Multiple committee members and witnesses said that language could permit custodians, bus drivers or grounds staff to exercise significant discretion in using force; LSO confirmed the drafts language, as written, prescribes that districts must adopt policies extending authority broadly. Critics urged narrowing the class of employees to those "responsible for supervision of students" or explicitly excluding certain job categories.

- Due process and FERPA: School boards and administrators warned that some notification and disclosure provisions could conflict with FERPA or lack a "need to know" basis; LSO and WDE said federal law controls disciplinary procedures for special education students (IDEA) and that WDE already maintains rules on seclusion/restraint and reviews district policies.

- Reporting burden and privacy: WDE staff said the department would collect the legislatively required reports but suggested narrowing the data set to "major disciplinary actions" to reduce reporting burden and to ensure compliance with FERPA de‑identification requirements. Several witnesses asked that any statewide reporting be de‑identified and mapped to existing data collections.

- Operational capacity and alternative placements: School associations and superintendents said statute already provides several authorities, and that the core barriers are local capacity, training and available alternative placements (day schools, in‑district alternative programs, or virtual/homebound options). They recommended model policies, more behavioral resources in buildings, and clearer administrative workflows rather than a highly prescriptive statewide mandate.

- Teacher protections and notification: Teachers and parent‑advocacy witnesses urged legal protections for staff enforcing school policies (for example, clearer authority to confiscate cell phones and protection from litigation) and immediate parental notification when students are physically removed. Teachers described a "culture of fear" and said clearer statutory protections would offer them legal assurance in chaotic situations.

There were technical and content suggestions from multiple stakeholders: narrow subjective descriptors (for example, limiting "disrespectful" or "disruptive" to specific, escalated behaviors), clarifying "reasonable force" language, preserving or modifying immunity protections, and ensuring workable timelines for "immediate assistance" and planning time requirements.

The committee did not take final action. Members agreed to recess for lunch, reflect on the testimony and proposed technical fixes, and reconvene later to consider whether to amend and move the bill. LSO highlighted existing statutory overlays and rules (including state rules on seclusion/restraint and district obligations to submit discipline policies to WDE) as guardrails that would interact with the proposed draft.

Sources: LSO presentation; testimony from WDE (Dickey Shaner, Nathan Tijeski), Wyoming School Boards Association, Wyoming Association of School Administrators, teacher witnesses, and parent advocates. No vote or formal motion recorded on 26LSO0088 during this meeting.