Lawyers for Racial Justice: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) - Research Review Instructions

Project Overview:

For over two years, Lawyers for Good Government’s policy team has been building alliances with nonprofit organizations at the crossroads of racial justice and children’s rights.  We work with these partners to identify their legal research needs, work with you, our pro bono partners to conduct legal research to meet those needs.  So far, we have partnered on three separate issues — Corporal Punishment in Schools, Police in Schools, and are now working on a third on School Pushouts  — to the great appreciation of our nonprofit partners.  Each of these topics are key parts of “the school-to-prison pipeline”, a phrase describing how school policies often lead Black and Brown students into the criminal justice system.  See e.g. a 3-minute primer video on the issue by Vox.

We were recently approached by another nonprofit partner requesting assistance on the other side of this issue.  The response of the civil rights movement against the school-to-prison pipeline, in calling for an end to corporal punishment and exclusionary discipline, has been “Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports” aka PBIS. But even civil rights experts in the field are uncertain about how PBIS has been implemented at the state level nationwide. Which states attempt to implement it? If they do, how well do they implement it? Is there required training?

This project aims to conduct a 50 state analysis of state laws around PBIS in K-12 public schools, to help allies fighting for reform at the state and national levels.

Tools:

• When conducting this research, we request your assistance to ensure that the law is accurate, up-to-date, and based on all applicable state law – all relevant statutes, any relevant regulations implementing that statute, and any relevant caselaw that might affect the meaning of the statute.  We also separately request public versions of these laws, regulations, and cases so that readers of our reports (advocates, legislators, and the public) may freely and easily access the sources we cite. Please use the tools we describe below:

  • Your Westlaw or Lexis Account.  We request that you do all research in your Westlaw or Lexis Account.  These are the most accurate and up-to-date, and importantly include references to the relevant case law and often regulations.

  • Casetext.com.  Upon review of all the free services, this is our preferred publicly available resource of the state codes of each jurisdiction, so that advocates, legislators, and the public can quickly view the state code without hitting a Westlaw or Lexis paywall.  Please provide a hyperlink citation to casetext.com for each statute cited unless it is, for some reason, unavailable.  A simple google search with the relevant statutory provision and casetext.com, nearly always returns the relevant code provision.  

  • For instance, a google search of Maryland Education Code § 7–306 casetext.com, returns an up-to-date version of Md. Code, Educ. § 7-306.

  • Justia. This is another publicly available resource of the state codes of each jurisdiction. It is often a year, out of date in comparison to Casetext.com, but includes something Casetext.com does not include, previous versions of state codes by year.  If for some reason a statute is not available at casetext.com, or if you need to cite to a historical version of a state statute, please provide a Justia.com hyperlink citation to the most recent version of the statute or the relevant historical version of the statute as appropriate.

  • For instance, if you needed to demonstrate that a version of Maryland Education Code § 7–306 that was used in a 2017 case, but the code provision had since been amended in 2018, please provide us with Md. Code, Educ. § 7-306 (2017) via Justia.

  • Cornell Legal Information Institute.  This is a publicly available resource of state regulations, maintained by Cornell law school.

  • For instance, Md. R. § 13A.08.04.02 (B)(12). 

  • Google Scholar.  This is a publicly available resource of case law.  While it is developed and maintained by Google, it is separate from a standard google search and must be conducted from scholar.google.com, and then clicking on the “case law” button.

  • For instance, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

  • Google Chrome Web Browser (optional).  We understand that not all firms are able to use the Google Chrome Web Browser, but if you can, we do request that you use it.  Google Chrome has a feature where if you right click on text in a webpage (not a PDF) you can see an option “copy link to highlight” and when someone clicks that link in the future, they are brought to the exact text you highlighted, what we call a hyperlink pinsite, which allows readers to see exactly what the researcher intended in large documents.

  • For instance, if opened in the Google Chrome web browser (or some other web browsers) the following link to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954) highlights text on page 493 that reads “Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.”

Instructions for Participating DLA PIPER Attorneys:

Questions? Email probono@L4GG.org.

1. Review the three submissions for your assigned state using the interface linked here.

   As you review, please confirm that all relevant law is included and that any law cited is correct by clicking on the citation links included with each submission.

2. Draft an updated research submission.

   We recommend that during this process, you initially gather your findings in a Word or Google document. As you draft your updated research submission, make sure:

   • The submission follows the instructions in the Tools section above.

   • Any citations with links are included throughout the body of the text, not as footnotes.

   • Any statute links are from Casetext.com. (See Tools section above.)

3. Submit your updated research by copying/pasting your draft updated research submission into the corresponding fields using this online form.  

In the form, you will be asked the following questions.

• 1. State/Territory. Please insert the state/territory that you have been assigned.

• 2. Summary with Citations. 

• Please provide all relevant statutory provisions defining PBIS, 

• the administrative rules and procedures for PBIS, and 

• any relevant case law. 

• Please provide a brief summary, using bluebook citations to all relevant laws, and provide hyperlinks to those laws as described above. 

• If a state has different rules for PBIS by grade range, please describe these rules separately.

For instance, in Maryland you could provide the following: 

Md. Code Educ. § 7-301 et seq. contains all provisions in the Maryland code pertaining to school discipline in K-12 public schools.  These are implemented in Md. Code R. § 13A.08.01.11. (According to Westlaw, there is no major case law interpreting either the Maryland code or rules regarding suspension and expulsion.)

Maryland statutory law defines “restorative approaches” to mean “a relationship-focused student discipline model that: (i) Is preventive and proactive; (ii) Emphasizes building strong relationships and setting clear behavioral expectations that contribute to the well-being of the school community; (iii) In response to behavior that violates the clear behavioral expectations that contribute to the well-being of the school community, focuses on accountability for any harm done by the problem behavior; and (iv) Addresses ways to repair the relationships affected by the problem behavior with the voluntary participation of an individual who was harmed.” Md. Code, Educ. § 7-306 (a). It further explains, in a non-exclusive list that restorative approaches may include “(i) Conflict resolution; (ii) Mediation; (iii) Peer mediation; (iv) Circle processes; (v) Restorative conferences; (vi) Social emotional learning; (vii) Trauma-informed care; (viii) Positive behavioral intervention supports; and (ix) Rehabilitation.” Md. Code, Educ. § 7-306 (b).

Maryland regulations require local school boards to develop, review, and revise their student discipline policies.  They state that school boards “shall: (1) Reflect a discipline philosophy based on the goals of fostering, teaching, and acknowledging positive behavior; (2) Be designed to keep students connected to school so that they may graduate college and career ready; (3) Describe the conduct that may lead to in-school and out-of-school suspension or expulsion; (4) Allow for discretion in imposing discipline; (5) Address the ways the educational and counseling needs of suspended students will be met; and (6) Explain why and how long-term suspensions or expulsions are last-resort options.”

Md. Code R. § 13A.08.01.11 (A). 

Furthermore Maryland regulations expressly require that local school systems to “develop and implement a behavioral program of positive interventions to address the causes of misbehavior” to address in school suspension. Md. Code R. § 13A.08.01.11 (C)(2)(g).  When a student who commits an offense that would be subject to suspension, but for the student’s grade being in kindergarten, first, or second grade, it requires that school personnel “provide intervention and support … [including] (a) Positive behavior interventions and supports; (b) A behavior intervention plan; (c) A referral to a student support team; (d) A referral to an individualized education program team; and (e) A referral for appropriate community-based services. (3) The school system, to the best of its ability, shall remedy the impact of a student's behavior on school climate through appropriate intervention methods including restorative practices.” Md. Code R. § 13A.08.01.11 (H). 

Questions? Email probono@L4GG.org.

Once you have completed your research, please submit your responses (with citations/links) using this online form. Thank you for contributing to this important project.