Protecting our Students in Schools Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to eliminate corporal punishment nationwide in federally funded schools and promote positive, evidence-based disciplinary alternatives through federal mandates, oversight, and financial incentives.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits corporal punishment in all schools receiving federal financial assistance, including by law enforcement and security personnel. It establishes multiple enforcement mechanisms, including private rights of action, Attorney General civil actions, and Department of Education oversight. The bill also mandates state reporting on school discipline practices and authorizes a grant program to help states and local educational agencies implement positive behavioral interventions and supports.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that corporal punishment is an outdated, harmful, and often discriminatory practice that disproportionately affects students of color and students with disabilities. They contend that this bill provides essential federal protections, promotes safer and more positive school environments, and offers critical resources for schools to adopt effective, evidence-based disciplinary approaches that foster student well-being and academic success.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that school discipline policies should remain under local and state control, viewing federal intervention as an overreach into educational governance. Some may contend that prohibiting all forms of corporal punishment removes a necessary disciplinary tool for certain schools or communities, potentially leading to other behavioral challenges or increased reliance on alternative exclusionary practices.
The bill is moderately detailed but clearly structured, allowing a diligent reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Title I, Sec. 101
Prohibition of Corporal Punishment and Private Right of Action
This section explicitly bans the use of corporal punishment by school personnel, law enforcement officers, or school security guards in any program receiving Federal financial assistance. It defines corporal punishment broadly to include striking, painful physical positions, chemical sprays, electroshock weapons, or stun guns. Crucially, it creates a private right of action, allowing students or their parents to file a civil lawsuit against a program for attorneys' fees, expert fees, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages if this prohibition is violated.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting children from harmful and often discriminatory disciplinary practices, ensuring a safe learning environment, and aligning with modern educational best practices that prioritize student well-being.
Critics contend
Some might argue that this is an overreach of federal authority into local school governance, removing a disciplinary tool that some local communities or educators believe is effective or necessary for maintaining order.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the federal government's role in protecting student rights and safety with traditional state and local control over school discipline policies.
Title I, Sec. 102
Attorney General Enforcement Authority
This section authorizes the Attorney General to initiate civil actions in federal court against programs that violate the corporal punishment prohibition. This action can be taken based on a written complaint from a parent or group of parents, provided the Attorney General deems the complaint meritorious. Before filing suit, the Attorney General must notify the program and certify that it has had a reasonable time to address the alleged conditions.
Title I, Sec. 103
Department of Education Enforcement by Office for Civil Rights
This section requires the Secretary of Education to refer any complaint alleging a violation of the corporal punishment prohibition to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education for investigation. If a program is found non-compliant, the Secretary can take action by withholding federal payments, entering into a compliance agreement, or issuing a cease and desist order, leveraging existing authority under the General Education Provisions Act.
Title I, Sec. 104
Parent Notification and Protection for Students with Disabilities
This section mandates that if a student is subjected to corporal punishment, the program (school) must notify the student's parents, the State educational agency, and local law enforcement in writing within 24 hours. For students with disabilities, the relevant protection and advocacy system must also be notified within the same timeframe and provided with any requested information, reinforcing their existing advocacy authority.
Title II, Sec. 201
State Reporting and Compliance Requirements
This section requires State educational agencies (SEAs) receiving federal financial assistance to submit annual or biennial reports to the Secretary of Education. These reports must include assurances of compliance with the Act, descriptions of state policies on exclusionary and aversive discipline, plans for implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), and efforts to train personnel. Non-compliant SEAs face potential withholding of federal funds by the Secretary.
Title II, Sec. 202
Grant Program for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
This section authorizes the Secretary of Education to award 3-year grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) to improve school climate and culture. Funds are specifically for implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and other evidence-based models (e.g., restorative justice, trauma-informed care) to address student behavior and reduce exclusionary discipline. Grants prioritize SEAs with high rates of exclusionary discipline and those lacking PBIS. SEAs can then award subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs). The program includes data collection and reporting requirements, disaggregated by race, gender, disability, and English learner status.
The definition of "corporal punishment" is expanded beyond traditional striking to include "requiring a student to assume a painful physical position, or the use of chemical sprays, electroshock weapons, or stun guns on a student's body."
Sec. 3(1)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the breadth of this definition is substantively important, as it closes potential loopholes and prevents the use of other harmful physical disciplinary methods not traditionally considered 'corporal punishment.'
Case for: Proponents argue this comprehensive definition is necessary to ensure full protection for students, preventing schools from circumventing the prohibition by using alternative forms of physical pain for discipline.
Case against: Some might argue that including certain actions, like 'painful physical positions,' could be overly broad and difficult to enforce consistently, potentially leading to misinterpretations or unintended consequences for minor disciplinary actions.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of prohibited actions, affecting disciplinary practices and requiring policy adjustments in all federally funded schools.
Law enforcement officers and school security guards are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'program personnel' in Section 3(7)(B), but Section 101(a) explicitly includes them in the prohibition against subjecting students to corporal punishment.
Sec. 3(7)(B) and Sec. 101(a)
Why it matters:This drafting clarifies that while law enforcement and security personnel may not be considered 'school staff' in a general sense, they are still bound by the core prohibition against corporal punishment when operating within a school setting. This prevents a potential loophole.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that all adults interacting with students in a disciplinary capacity within a school setting are subject to the same prohibition, providing comprehensive protection and preventing law enforcement or security from claiming exemption.
Case against: No strong case against this specific drafting, as it ensures comprehensive coverage. Some might argue it blurs the lines between school discipline and law enforcement actions, but the intent is clearly focused on physical punishment.
Estimated impact: Ensures a consistent standard for all individuals involved in student discipline within schools, regardless of their specific employment category, thereby broadening student protections.
The definition of 'program' (Sec. 3(6)(C)) includes private elementary or secondary schools that enroll students receiving special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, Section 304(a) clarifies that the Act does not apply to private schools that do not receive, or do not serve students who receive, support from any federally funded program or activity.
Sec. 3(6)(C) and Sec. 304(a)
Why it matters:This precise delineation of scope is intended to align federal authority with the receipt of federal funds, respecting the autonomy of truly private institutions while ensuring protections for vulnerable students in private settings where federal funds are involved.
Case for: Proponents argue this strikes the right balance, extending protections to vulnerable students in private settings where federal funds are involved (e.g., for special education services), while respecting the independence of private schools that operate without federal assistance.
Case against: Some private school advocates might argue against any federal intrusion, even when federal funds are present, viewing it as an erosion of their autonomy and a precedent for further federal oversight.
Estimated impact: Extends the prohibition to a specific subset of private schools, ensuring consistent protections for students with disabilities who receive federal support, thereby affecting their disciplinary policies.
This section authorizes the appropriation of 'such sums as may be necessary' to carry out the Act for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter.
Sec. 306
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice for authorizing bills, deferring specific dollar amounts to future appropriations acts. It allows the policy to be established without immediately committing to a fixed budget, providing flexibility but also less transparency on immediate fiscal impact.
Case for: Supporters argue that this open-ended authorization ensures the flexibility to fund the critical programs and enforcement mechanisms established by the Act adequately, adapting to future needs and ensuring the bill's long-term effectiveness.
Case against: Critics often raise concerns about 'such sums as may be necessary' authorizations, as they do not set a fiscal cap and can lead to unpredictable future spending without specific congressional review and debate on the actual dollar amounts.
Estimated impact: Authorizes potential future federal spending of an undetermined amount, which could be significant depending on the scale of the grant program and enforcement activities.