Ending PUSHOUT Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 8, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to reform school discipline by banning punitive measures, promoting supportive alternatives, and enhancing data transparency to combat discriminatory practices and the criminalization of students.
What it actually does
This bill aims to reform school discipline by strengthening data collection on exclusionary practices, prohibiting specific punitive measures like corporal punishment and certain suspensions, establishing a grant program for schools to implement supportive alternatives, and creating a joint task force to address the disproportionate 'pushout' of girls of color from schools. It mandates detailed reporting on disciplinary actions disaggregated by various student demographics.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current exclusionary discipline practices disproportionately harm students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQI+ students, contributing to a 'school-to-prison pipeline.' They contend that this bill will create safer, more equitable, and trauma-informed school environments, improve academic outcomes, and prevent the criminalization of marginalized youth by focusing on restorative justice and mental health support.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to reducing discriminatory practices is rare, critics might argue that some of the prohibited disciplinary actions, like out-of-school suspensions for certain grades or offenses, are necessary tools for maintaining order and safety in schools. They might express concerns that limiting these tools could empower disruptive students, compromise the learning environment for others, or place undue burden on school staff to manage severe behavioral issues without adequate resources.
The bill is moderately detailed, and the estimated reading time of 15-20 minutes provides sufficient time for an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 2
Statement of Purpose
This section outlines the bill's goals: to improve data collection on exclusionary discipline, eliminate discriminatory application of such practices, reduce instructional time lost to disciplinary removals, and prevent the criminalization and 'pushout' of students, especially Black and Brown girls, due to discrimination, punitive policies, and unmet mental health needs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clearly stating the purpose helps align all subsequent provisions with the goal of equity and trauma-informed care, ensuring a holistic approach to school discipline reform.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against a purpose statement itself, though critics of the bill's overall approach might view the stated purpose as overly broad or misdirected.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for school order with the imperative to protect students from discriminatory and harmful disciplinary practices.
Section 3
Key Definitions for Discipline Practices
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, such as 'exclusionary discipline,' 'informal removal,' 'corporal punishment,' 'seclusion,' 'mechanical restraint,' 'chemical restraint,' 'physical restraint,' 'pushout,' 'zero-tolerance policy,' and 'culturally sustaining.' It also defines 'act of insubordination' and 'appearance or grooming policy' as specific reasons for discipline that the bill later restricts.
Section 4
Enhanced Data Collection on Exclusionary Discipline
This section mandates annual data collection by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights on various disciplinary actions (suspensions, expulsions, law enforcement referrals, arrests, placements in residential/juvenile facilities). The data must be disaggregated and cross-tabulated by numerous demographic categories, including race, ethnicity, sex (with sexual orientation/gender identity), disability, low-income, English learner, foster care, housing, Tribal citizenship, and pregnant/parenting status, and include reasons for discipline (e.g., zero-tolerance, appearance policy violations, insubordination).
Section 5(d)
Prohibitions on Exclusionary and Punitive Discipline
This subsection outlines specific disciplinary practices that eligible entities receiving 'Healing School Climate Grants' must prohibit. These include out-of-school suspension or expulsion for K-5 students for non-serious physical injury incidents; out-of-school suspension/expulsion for any student (K-12) for insubordination, willful defiance, vulgarity, truancy, tardiness, chronic absenteeism, or appearance policy violations; corporal punishment; seclusion; mechanical/chemical restraints; and life-threatening physical restraints (with strict exceptions for imminent danger and trained personnel).
Section 5(e)(1)
Funding for Alternative Discipline and Support Systems
Grant recipients must use funds to evaluate and revise discipline policies, provide professional development for school officials (including trauma-informed care, restorative practices, culturally sustaining practices, social-emotional learning), implement evidence-based alternatives to suspension/expulsion (e.g., multi-tiered systems of support, positive behavioral interventions), improve school climate (e.g., restorative practices, mentors, extracurriculars, mental health services, culturally responsive curricula), hire social workers/counselors/mental health personnel, and support school climate surveys.
Section 5(e)(2)
Restrictions on Funding for School Policing and Surveillance
Grant funds cannot be used to hire or retain school-based law enforcement (e.g., school resource officers), purchase surveillance equipment (e.g., metal detectors, social media monitoring software), arm school personnel, or enter into data/information sharing agreements with Homeland Security (including ICE/CBP) or other law enforcement agencies for hiring school-based law enforcement.
Section 6
Establishment of Joint Task Force to End School Pushout of Girls of Color
This section establishes a Joint Task Force, co-chaired by the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services, to study and make recommendations on ending school pushout, specifically focusing on girls of color. The task force will include students (including Black, Brown, and Indigenous girls), educators, parents, school officials, civil rights representatives, mental health professionals, and researchers, explicitly excluding law enforcement officers. It will identify causes for disparities, best practices, interventions, and the extent to which exclusionary practices contribute to criminalization.
The bill defines 'act of insubordination' and 'appearance or grooming policy' and then explicitly prohibits out-of-school suspension or expulsion for any student (preschool through grade 12) for violations related to these definitions, as well as for willful defiance, vulgarity, truancy, tardiness, or chronic absenteeism.
Section 3(1) and 3(2) in conjunction with Section 5(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms early and apply them later, but a casual reader might not immediately connect the definitions to the specific disciplinary prohibitions.
Case for: Proponents argue that these specific prohibitions target common, often subjective, reasons for discipline that disproportionately affect marginalized students and contribute to lost instructional time without addressing underlying issues.
Case against: Critics might argue that these prohibitions remove essential tools for school administrators to address disruptive behavior, potentially undermining authority and classroom management if not adequately replaced by effective alternatives.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the grounds for out-of-school suspensions and expulsions, particularly for non-violent, subjective infractions, for schools receiving federal grants.
The data collection requirements mandate disaggregation and cross-tabulation by numerous specific demographic categories, including 'Tribal citizenship or descent, in the first or second degree, of an Indian Tribe' and 'pregnant and parenting student status,' in addition to standard categories like race, ethnicity, and disability.
Section 4(a) and 4(b)(2)
Why it matters:The detailed nature of data collection is often placed in technical sections. However, the inclusion of these specific categories reflects a deliberate effort to identify disparities affecting often-overlooked student populations.
Case for: Proponents argue that collecting data on these specific intersections of identity is crucial for identifying and addressing unique patterns of discrimination and pushout that might otherwise be obscured in broader categories.
Case against: Some might raise concerns about the administrative burden of collecting and reporting data for such granular categories, or potential privacy implications, even with de-identification, for very small subgroups.
Estimated impact: Significantly enhances the ability to identify and analyze highly specific disparities in school discipline, providing a more nuanced understanding of who is affected and how.
The bill prohibits life-threatening physical restraints (like prone and supine restraint) but includes a detailed set of seven specific requirements that must be met for any physical restraint or physical escort to be permissible, even in cases of imminent danger.
Section 5(d)(6)
Why it matters:This level of detail is necessary for legal precision regarding permissible actions in high-stakes situations, but its technical nature can make it less immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue that these strict conditions are essential safeguards to prevent abuse, ensure student safety, and limit physical restraint to only the most necessary and carefully managed circumstances, emphasizing de-escalation and trained personnel.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a detailed and restrictive set of conditions could make it difficult for school staff to respond effectively and quickly in genuine emergency situations, potentially putting students or staff at greater risk if they hesitate due to fear of non-compliance.
Estimated impact: Significantly restricts and regulates the use of physical restraint in schools receiving grants, requiring extensive training and adherence to strict protocols.