In A.A. v. Board of Education of Summit School District No. 104, a school administrator found a loaded pellet gun, with the orange safety tip spray painted back, in the backpack of a middle school student. Accordingly, the District suspended the student and recommended the student be expelled for one year. At the expulsion hearing, a hearing officer found that the District met its burden of demonstrating the student had engaged in gross misconduct and issued a hearing decision consistent with this finding. The school board upheld the hearing officer’s decision and expelled the student for one year.
The parent appealed the expulsion in court, arguing: (1) the District had not exhausted all appropriate and available behavioral interventions before recommending expulsion, (2) the school board failed to demonstrate how the student’s continuing presence at school was a safety threat or was likely to cause a substantial disruption to school operations; and (3) the expulsion constituted an abuse of discretion of the Robinson factors, a set of five factors Illinois courts considered when reviewing student discipline cases.[1] Robinson v. Oak Park & River Forest High School, 213 Ill. App. 3d 77 (1991). The lower court agreed with the parent, finding that the District did not exhaust its behavioral intervention options, and overturned the school board’s decision; the lower court did not address the parent’s second and third arguments.
The school board appealed. On appeal, the Illinois appellate court first held the District had in fact exhausted appropriate and behavioral interventions by instructing the student on school safety and prohibiting weapons at school. The court noted that the School Code allows expulsions when school officials decide that no other appropriate interventions were available. Next, the appellate court found that school administrators sufficiently explained how the student’s continued presence at school would disrupt the operation of the school, specifically noting how the relevant facts to consider are the statements and reasoning of the school officials.
Finally, concerning the parent’s argument that the District failed to consider the five factors established in Robinson, the court determined that, by passing SB100, the legislature incorporated explicit standards for exclusionary discipline, thus obviating the need for courts to consider the Robinson factors. Specifically, Section 10-22.6(b-20) says exclusionary discipline, such as expulsions, can only be used “if other appropriate and available behavioral and disciplinary interventions have been exhausted and the student’s continuing presence in school would either (1) pose a threat to the safety of other students, staff, or members of the school community or (ii) substantially disrupt, impede, or interfere with the operation of the school.” Therefore, reviewing courts no longer need to consider the Robinson factors when evaluating student discipline.
Although this decision reverses the appellate court’s own case law, this largely will not impact how administrators evaluate students’ misconduct and how school boards issue exclusionary discipline, given what is explicitly written in SB100 and the School Code regarding exclusionary discipline. If you have a potential student expulsion, contact an attorney from our Students/Special Education Practice Group.
Source: A.A. v. Board of Education of Summit School District No. 104, 2024 IL App (1st) 232451
[1] The five Robinson factors are: (1) the egregiousness of the student’s conduct; (2) the history or record of the student’s conduct; (3) the likelihood that such conduct will affect the delivery of educational services to other students; (4) the severity of the punishment; and (5) the interest in the student.
