Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Protecting our Students in Schools Act of 2025
A Democratic bill with 21 Democratic cosponsors · See all 21 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Protecting our Students in Schools Act of 2025 prohibits corporal punishment for students in any program receiving Federal financial assistance. It allows students and parents to file civil actions for violations and authorizes the Attorney General to take legal action. The bill establishes an enforcement process through the Office for Civil Rights, which may include withholding funds from non-compliant programs. It requires states to provide school climate reports and mandates notifications to parents and authorities when corporal punishment occurs. Additionally, the Act provides grant funding to help schools implement positive behavioral interventions and supports.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +10
Would students be better off under this?
Directly prohibits physical punishment and funds positive behavioral support systems.
- Scored +9
Would children be better off under this?
Protects children from physical pain and corporal punishment in educational settings.
- Scored +9
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Strong protections and mandatory notifications to protection and advocacy systems for students with disabilities.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Imposes federal mandates on states and threatens to withhold funds for non-compliance.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes appropriations for grants and administrative costs, slightly increasing government spending.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes new spending for grants to state educational agencies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection from Physical Pain: The bill prohibits program personnel, law enforcement officers, and school security guards from using corporal punishment, which is defined as acts causing physical pain for discipline, such as striking, spanking, or paddling (Section 101(a)).
-
Legal Recourse for Families: Students or parents who experience corporal punishment can file civil actions in Federal or State court for compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and fees (Section 101(b)).
-
Increased Transparency: Programs must notify parents, state educational agencies, and local law enforcement in writing within 24 hours if a student is subjected to corporal punishment (Section 104(a)).
-
Additional Protections for Students with Disabilities: For students with disabilities, programs must also notify the relevant protection and advocacy system within 24 hours of the use of force (Section 104(b)).
-
Support for Better School Environments: The bill provides grants to help states and local agencies implement positive behavioral interventions, restorative justice, trauma-informed care, and implicit bias training to improve school culture (Section 202(a), (c)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of School Funding: The Secretary of Education can withhold Federal payments from programs or state educational agencies that fail to comply with the Act (Section 103(c), Section 201(e)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Directly prohibits physical punishment and funds positive behavioral support systems. Would children be better off under this? — Protects children from physical pain and corporal punishment in educational settings. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Strong protections and mandatory notifications to protection and advocacy systems for students with disabilities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate disciplinary impacts on students of color through targeted grant priorities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate disciplinary impacts on students of color through targeted grant priorities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate disciplinary impacts on students of color through targeted grant priorities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Addresses disproportionate disciplinary impacts on students of color and includes specific provisions for outlying areas. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases protections for children and legal recourse for parents. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Explicitly protects students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income students often attend schools where corporal punishment is more prevalent. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases protections for children and legal recourse for parents. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Includes funding for outlying areas and addresses schools in those regions. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Protects children from corporal punishment and provides legal recourse.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Provides specific notification requirements for protection and advocacy systems for students with disabilities. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill prioritizes grants for schools with disproportionate disciplinary impacts on students of color. Does this change how police departments operate? — Prohibits law enforcement officers in schools from using corporal punishment. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill ensures safety regardless of sex and gender identity. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The bill explicitly aims to ensure safety regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides students and parents a private right of action to sue for violations. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight and enforcement over state and local school discipline policies. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires states to provide and make public school climate reports on discipline practices. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Imposes federal mandates on states and threatens to withhold funds for non-compliance.
- Healthcare
- Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Funding for trauma-informed care and positive behavioral interventions supports student mental health. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill provides funding for researching and evaluating models to reduce aversive discipline.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into public schools? — Provides grant funding for schools to implement positive behavioral interventions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes new spending for grants to state educational agencies. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes appropriations for grants and administrative costs, slightly increasing government spending.
- 5/15/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/13/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/8/2025
- Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 19 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
6 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Donald BeyerDemocrat · Virginia
Joe CourtneyDemocrat · Connecticut
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Sheila Cherfilus-McCormickDemocrat · Florida
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
Jahana HayesDemocrat · Connecticut
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
William KeatingDemocrat · Massachusetts
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Gwen MooreDemocrat · Wisconsin
Lucy McBathDemocrat · Georgia
Jennifer McClellanDemocrat · Virginia
Ilhan OmarDemocrat · Minnesota
Chellie PingreeDemocrat · Maine
Mark PocanDemocrat · Wisconsin
Darren SotoDemocrat · Florida
Mary Gay ScanlonDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Mark TakanoDemocrat · California
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey