Position Statement: Opposition to Educator Safety and Classroom Authority Act S. 1060, H. 5483

April, 13, 2026

S. 1060, the Educator Safety and Classroom Authority Act, seeks to expand the authority of teachers and school staff in managing student behavior in South Carolina public schools. Specifically, the bill:

• Defines categories of student behavior such as “disruptive conduct,” “abusive language,” and “criminal conduct.”
• Grants educators explicit authority to permanently remove students from the classroom for such behavior
• Provides legal protections for educators and staff, limiting liability when acting under the law
• Allows use of “reasonable physical force” in certain situations and restricts disciplinary consequences for staff acting within the statute

Its companion bill, H. 5483, was introduced in the House.

Able South Carolina opposes this bill because it risks violating federal law and creating harmful barriers for students with disabilities. While educator safety is critically important and we agree it must be addressed—S. 1060 takes an overly punitive and insufficiently defined approach that will do more harm than good. As written, the bill does not ensure compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Without explicit alignment, schools are placed at real risk of violating federal law by removing or disciplining students for behavior that is directly tied to their disability.

Under IDEA, schools are required to determine whether a student’s behavior is a manifestation of their disability before changing placement or removing them for more than 10 days. This is not a suggestion but it is a legal requirement tied to a student’s right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The vague language in this bill undermines those protections and risks bypassing critical safeguards like Manifestation Determination Reviews.

The bill expands educator authority to remove students and use disciplinary measures ,including physical force, while relying on undefined terms like “reasonable physical force.” That combination is dangerous. It creates predictable inconsistency, opens the door for misuse, and significantly increases the risk of harm, particularly for students with disabilities, behavioral health needs, or trauma histories. When disability-related behavior is treated as misconduct, it is not discipline but it is discrimination under the ADA and Section 504. This bill fails to address that risk and, in doing so, exposes both students and schools to serious legal and human consequences.

South Carolina’s educators are already stretched beyond capacity. Data from the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement (CERRA) identifies Special Education as one of the state’s most critical shortage areas. The 2025 Teacher Exit Survey confirms that educators are leaving because they lack the support and resources needed to manage increasingly complex student needs. S. 1060 does not fix that problem, but it shifts it. It asks educators to take on more enforcement, more risk, and more responsibility without providing the training, staffing, or support required to do so effectively or legally.

Additionally, the bill shields educators and staff from civil or criminal liability when acting under the law. While intended as protection, this provision weakens accountability and risks leaving students and families without meaningful recourse when harm occurs.

At its core, this bill prioritizes removal and punishment over support and intervention. It does not address the root causes of student behavior, unmet disability-related needs, lack of behavioral supports, or insufficient access to services. For students with IEPs or 504 plans, increased reliance on exclusionary discipline directly conflicts with federal requirements to provide positive behavioral interventions and supports. At a time when schools already face shortages of qualified professionals to evaluate and support students, expanding removal authority raises a serious question: how do we ensure we are not punishing students for needs we have failed to meet?

The data is clear. Students with disabilities make up approximately 15% of enrollment but account for nearly one in four suspensions and expulsions. Expanding disciplinary authority without safeguards will only deepen these disparities.

For students with complex and often misunderstood disabilities, such as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD), this bill is especially dangerous. When neurological disabilities are misunderstood as defiance, discipline becomes harmful rather than corrective. In South Carolina—where there are virtually no formal services for FASD and limited educator training—these students are at even greater risk of being misidentified and excluded. Research consistently shows higher rates of school failure, justice system involvement, and poor long-term outcomes for individuals with FASD. These outcomes are not inevitable—they are the result of systems that respond to disability with punishment instead of support. This bill reinforces that failure.

FASD is just one example. Without proper safeguards, this legislation will disproportionately harm students whose needs are the least understood and the least supported.

S. 1060 and H. 5483 cannot move forward without clear, enforceable protections for students with disabilities. As written, this is not a safety bill, it is an exclusion bill.

At a minimum, the bill must:

• Require alignment with IDEA, ADA, and Section 504 to prevent unlawful exclusion and discrimination
• Mandate manifestation determinations prior to removal
• Require IEP team involvement in disciplinary decisions
• Require the use of positive behavioral supports and interventions
• Require reasonable modifications to discipline policies—because one size does not fit all
• Establish public reporting of discipline data disaggregated by disability status

As written, S. 1060 prioritizes control over compliance, punishment over support, and liability protection over accountability. It falls short of what students, families, and educators in South Carolina need.

For these reasons, Able South Carolina strongly opposes S. 1060 and H. 5483 unless they are amended to include meaningful protections that uphold the civil rights of students with disabilities and ensure equitable access to education.