View this post on the web at [link removed]

HB1100: This bill establishes a Mississippi Teachers’ Bill of Rights that expands teacher authority over classroom discipline, strengthens due-process-style procedures for handling disruptive students, and adds limited liability protections and reporting requirements.
Full Analysis
Vote Statement
A vote for this bill is a vote to reinforce teacher authority and classroom order through clearer removal procedures and protections, while imposing some additional policy, training and reporting mandates on districts.
Key Provisions & Tradeoffs
Creates a statutory Teachers’ Bill of Rights that designates teachers as the primary authority in classroom matters and authorizes immediate removal of disruptive or threatening students under defined conditions.
Requires principals and districts to follow structured documentation, parental notification, conferences and escalating discipline steps for repeatedly removed students, with specific protections and appeal rights for teachers.
Provides presumptive immunity and optional fee reimbursement for teachers acting in good faith within policy, while requiring new district policies, annual trainings, and aggregate discipline data reporting to the state Department of Education.
Liberty Analysis
Economically, the bill does not create a new statewide spending program or entitlement, but it does impose some unfunded mandates on districts and charter schools: annual teacher/administrator trainings, policy revisions, and new recordkeeping and aggregate data reporting to the Mississippi Department of Education. These are ongoing compliance costs and a modest expansion of bureaucratic paperwork and state-level data collection. On the other hand, the bill does not mandate specific new services or staff positions; districts retain discretion over how to meet the requirements, so the fiscal hit is likely limited rather than major.
From a limited-government and decentralization perspective, the bill is mixed but leans pro-liberty in practice. It codifies that teachers, not central office administrators, are the primary authority in classroom matters and sharply limits principals’ ability to override a teacher’s removal decision. Procedures for parental notice, conferences, and behavior plans introduce some additional process, but they largely formalize what many districts already do, rather than creating a new layer of state control over curriculum or instruction. There is some centralization through mandatory policies, training, and reporting to MDE; that is a mild negative, but it is not accompanied by major new enforcement power or penalties.
On civil liberties and due process, the bill mostly operates within the existing suspension/expulsion framework and explicitly distinguishes short-term classroom removal from formal suspension and expulsion, which preserves current due process standards for the latter. It includes explicit protections and federal-law alignment for students with disabilities, and it requires parental notice, conferences, and written behavior plans after repeated removals. Teacher immunity is narrowed by exceptions for excessive force, criminal intent, bad faith, or violations of law, which helps prevent blanket shielding of misconduct. Overall, the bill tends to clarify authority and process rather than strip rights.
For parental rights and school choice, the bill modestly strengthens transparency and parental involvement by requiring that parents receive the code of student conduct and notice of teacher removal authority, plus conference and notification requirements after repeated incidents. It does not curtail any school choice mechanism or increase state control over private education. The biggest liberty tradeoff is the added top-down procedural and reporting mandates. Weighing that against the clearer empowerment of teachers to maintain order, protection from retaliation, and a more orderly learning environment—which is a precondition for any effective education system—the balance tilts toward a modestly positive, not transformative, pro-liberty reform.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?