HB 1637
In CommitteeHouse
School safety
Concerning nonfirearm measures to increase school safety for students and staff.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a statewide school safety dashboard to track and publicly report incidents by severity, establishes grants for physical security upgrades, mandates funding for school resource officers at every school, and reforms student discipline policies to reduce suspensions and ensure continued educational access. It also requires evaluation and auditing of existing safety programs.
- Establish a publicly accessible school safety dashboard that collects and displays incident data by severity level (e.g., firearm, assault, bullying), school, and district, and assigns safety ratings to schools and districts.
- Create a school safety capital grant program to fund physical security improvements—including key card access, panic buttons, fencing, and lighting—for eligible public schools and charter schools, with grants capped at $1 million per project.
- Require the state to fund one full-time school resource officer per school campus, with a baseline allocation of $85,000 per officer (adjusted for inflation and regional salary factors), plus fringe benefits.
- Amend student discipline laws to prohibit long-term suspension or expulsion as discretionary discipline, require continued educational services during any suspension/expulsion, and strengthen teacher authority to remove disruptive students from classrooms.
- Require an evaluation of the 2019 bipartisan school safety reforms and mandate a joint legislative committee audit of school safety programs (safe school plans, threat assessments, and student distress response plans) by November 1, 2030.
- Amend funding equity rules for charter schools to include state funding for school resource officers and ensure categorical program funding (e.g., special education, English language learners) is distributed equitably.
Who is affected
- Public school students and staff — Public school students and staff will benefit from improved physical security measures, access to school resource officers, and revised discipline policies aimed at reducing suspensions and ensuring continued educational access during disciplinary actions.
- School districts and charter schools — School districts and charter schools will be required to report safety incident data, apply for grants for security upgrades, and adjust discipline policies to comply with new legal standards.
- State-tribal education compact schools — State-tribal education compact schools will receive updated funding formulas that include allocation for school resource officers and must report enrollment data to receive state and federal funding.
- Teachers and school administrators — Teachers and school administrators gain clearer authority to manage classroom disruptions and discipline students, while being protected from indefinite suspensions and required to follow updated due process procedures.
- Families of students in public schools — Families of students in public schools will gain access to publicly available safety data and ratings, helping them make informed decisions about school choice and hold schools accountable for safety.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The publicly accessible school safety dashboard with severity-tiered incident data and school/district ratings will empower families, researchers, and policymakers to identify unsafe schools and target interventions—especially benefiting historically underserved districts with higher incident rates but lower prior transparency.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2), (3)Mandating one full-time SRO per campus—funded at $85K + fringe benefits—will increase physical security and de-escalation capacity, especially in high-risk schools; SROs are trained to build relationships and prevent violence, not just respond to emergencies.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5(1)(a), (c)Prohibiting suspension of *educational services* during any suspension or expulsion ensures continued academic access—critical for low-income and foster students who are disproportionately affected by exclusionary discipline and at risk of falling behind.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 8(8)Equitable charter school funding—including state apportionment for SROs and categorical programs—helps close long-standing gaps in per-pupil funding between charter and traditional public schools, supporting more equitable resource distribution.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 6(2)(a)Strengthening teacher authority to remove disruptive students and requiring continued educational services during exclusions balances classroom safety with student rights—reducing teacher burnout while protecting student learning continuity.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 9(2), (6)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill mandates state-funded school resource officers (SROs) at $85,000+ per officer per school, requiring significant new state spending (~$85K × ~1,400 public schools = ~$119M annually), which will increase state budget pressure and may divert funds from other priorities like K-12 base funding, special education, or higher education.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 5(1)(a), (b)The capital grant program requires grantees to demonstrate 10+ years of control over the site (via ownership or long-term lease) and hold improvements for a “specified period appropriate to the grant amount”—a barrier for charter schools and smaller districts without long-term real estate control, potentially excluding newer or smaller schools from accessing security upgrades.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 4(5)(c), (d)Prohibiting long-term suspension or expulsion as *discretionary* discipline may reduce schools’ ability to remove chronically violent or dangerous students, potentially increasing risk to peers and staff in cases where alternative placements are unavailable or under-resourced.
Public SafetyLean industryRef: Sec. 8(4)The dashboard’s lowest severity category (Type 1) includes minor infractions like “defiance,” “disrespect,” and “academic dishonesty,” which may over-inflate safety concerns and stigmatize schools with high rates of low-severity incidents—often in under-resourced schools—without distinguishing safety threats from behavioral discipline.
Public SafetyLean industryRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(vi)The bill expires August 1, 2031, and the joint committee audit is due November 1, 2030—creating a short evaluation window before sunset, which may limit the ability to assess long-term impacts and could lead to rushed legislative decisions or underfunded continuation efforts.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 12(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Students in high-incident or under-resourced schools benefit most from improved SRO presence, safety data transparency, and continued educational access during discipline—but may face reduced discretionary discipline options in cases of chronic disruption. Low-income and students of color, who are disproportionately disciplined, gain stronger due process protections but may see less flexibility in handling severe behavioral issues.
Teachers gain clearer authority to manage disruptions and protection from indefinite suspensions, reducing burnout and improving job safety—but may face increased pressure to document incidents for the dashboard and navigate new discipline limitations, especially in chronically disruptive classrooms.
School districts receive state funding for SROs and security grants, but must absorb administrative costs for data reporting, grant applications, and compliance. Smaller or rural districts may struggle with implementation capacity, while districts with high incident rates may benefit most from targeted support and transparency.
Families gain access to safety ratings and incident data to make informed school choices and hold schools accountable—but may face anxiety from public safety ratings, and low-income families may lack resources to relocate based on ratings or respond to increased discipline expectations.
State-tribal education compact schools gain equitable SRO funding and categorical program support, improving access to security and special education services—but must comply with new reporting and grant requirements that may strain limited administrative capacity.