PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 4, 2015
Keep Kids in School Act
Amends the school improvement program under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to require state school improvement plans to contain assurances that the state will work with other education stakeholders to reduce suspensions and expulsions in public preschool programs and public elementary and secondary schools.
Requires the school improvement plans of local educational agencies (LEAs) to include:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
a description of the actions the LEA will take to reduce suspensions and expulsions and how the LEA will measure their success in doing so;
an assurance that the LEA will report on the training provided to school staff to reduce suspensions and expulsions and how suspended students will receive ongoing educational services that enable them to resume their previous studies upon returning to school;
an assurance that each of the LEA's schools will make publicly available its suspension and expulsion policy or the LEA's policy if the policy operates on the LEA level; and
an assurance that each of the LEA's schools will make available, upon request, information about the behavior that resulted in each suspension or expulsion.
Requires the annual state and local report cards to include specified information concerning school suspensions and expulsions, including the training and support provided to school staff to reduce those disciplinary actions.
Reserves a portion of the funds under part A (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities) of title IV of the ESEA for grants to the 50 LEAs with an approved application that have the highest suspension and expulsion rates and the greatest disparity in those rates for specified student subgroups and the student body as a whole. Allows those grants to be used for:
training on developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate prevention and de-escalation strategies;
positive behavioral intervention systems;
tiered disciplinary systems;
training on conflict resolution and restorative justice;
hiring additional school-based mental health services providers; and
other evidence-based approaches to reducing school suspensions and expulsions.
Authorizes LEAs to use their subgrants under part A (Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund) of title II of the ESEA to provide school personnel with training on ways to reduce the use of suspensions and expulsions, especially when those actions result in disparities between the suspension and expulsion rates for specified student subgroups and the student body as a whole.
People & committees
Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.672 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.672 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.672 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.672 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.