-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/370e51707c68ce83a871b8cd1d1af09d.pdf
5785cd08b1625ba0d140ba8933eba61b
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0466-F
FOIA
MARKER·
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staffo
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Jonathan Prince
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
10441
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
1994 Education- Guns and Schools
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
91
7
1
3
�.
\
.~ M~ MEMBERS:
MINOIVTY MEMBERS:
w.:LIAM 0. F,..-,l j, MICH;GAH.
(MAIIIMA"
WIWAM F. GOODLING. P'fNNSYLVANIA
THOMAS E. P£TRI. WISCONSIN
MARGE ROUKEMA. NEW JERSEY
STEVE GUNDERSON. WISCONSIN
RICHARD K. ARMEY. TEXAS
HARRIS W. FAWELL IUINOIS
CASS BALLENGER. NORTH CAROLINA
SUSAN MOLINARI. NEW YORK
BILL BARRffi. NEBRASKA
.IOHN A. BOEHNER. OHIO
RANDY -CUKE" CUNNINGHAM, CALIFORNIA
,
WILLIAM IBILLI (V~. MISSOURI
GEORGE MillER. (.;A.LIFOANIA
MURPHY. PENNSYLVANIA:
AUSTIN~·
OAl£ £. KILOEE. MICHIGAN
PAT WilliAMS. MONTANA
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA
MAJOR R. OWENS. NEW YORK
THOMAS C. SAWYER. OHIO
DONALD M. PAYNE. NEW JERSEY
JOlENE UNSOELO. WASHINGTON
PATSY T. MINK. HAWAII
ROBERT E. ANDREWS. NEW JERSEY
JACK REED. RHODE ISLAND
TIM ROEMER. INOIAfliA
ELIOT L ENGEL NEW YORK
Jc:AVIEA BECERRA, CALIFORNIA
ROBERT C. ''BOBBY" SCOTT. VIRGINIA
GENE GREEN. TEXAS
LYNN C. WOOLSEY. CALIFORNIA
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO. PUERTO RICO
AON KLINK. PENNSYLVANIA
KARAN ENGLISH, ARIZONA
TEO STRICKLAND. CHI~
RON OE LUGO. VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENI f. H. fAlEOMAVAEGA. AMERICAH S~.MOA
SCOTTY BAESLER. KENTUCKY
IIOBERT A. UNDERWOOD. GUAM
P'£TER HOEKSTRA. MICHIGAN
COMr~ITIEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
HOWARD -BUCK" McKEON. CALIFORNIA
DAN MILLER. FLORIDA
MICHAEL N. CA.STU. DELAWARE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2181 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6100
MAJDRITV-{202) 225~527
ITTYH202i 226-3372
MINORITV-{202) 22&-3725
ITTYH2021226-3113
November 18, 1994
The Honorable Richard W. Riley
The Secretary
DHit.Cli Si4Lts :Ut:panmem of education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
'Fashington, D.C. 20202-0100
Dear Mr. Secretary:
It has come to our attention that the President has issued a memorandum instructing you
to implement the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 ·in an expeditious manner
and to vigorously enforce its provisions. As you are no doubt aware, many Members on
both sides of the aisle had serious reservations about this legislation. While supportive of
removing guns and other weapons from our schools and keeping them out, we question the
need for Federal involvement in this area.
While this is neither the forum nor the time to continue a debate over the wisdom of this
policy, efforts to implement it do raise several concerns on our part. Attached to this letter
are a number of questions relating to implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994
that we would like you to address.
As is evident from the scope of these questions, we feel that there are a number of
significant issues raised by the implementation of this statute. Perhaps most significant are
tne aispanues m the treatment of students covered by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as compared to those
students who do not enjoy the same level of Federal protection. It is possible that this issue
alone could create an endless litany of litigation for local school districts.
We appreciate your timely attention to these questions and look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling
Ranking Repuhlican Memher
-74' 4/~..J
Pat Williams
Member of Congress
�The Honorable Richard W. Riley
Page 2
Member of Congress
Richard Anney
Member of Congress
Member of Congress
Cass Ballenger
Member of Congress
Steve Gunderson
Member of Congress
~
Member of Congress
r of Congress
Dan Miller
Member of Congress
�1.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended, allows a student with a
disability who brings a firearm to school to be placed in an alternative educational placement
up to 45 days, if the action is related to his or her disability. In addition, if there are legal
proceedings between the parent and the school over a proposed change in educational
pJacement, the student will remain in the alternative placement during the pendency of the
proceedings, and will not be returned to the original educational placement. This disparity in
discipline between students with disabilities and those who are noiHiisabled raises several
interesting questions that need to be addressed.
For a student who is disabled and brings a gun to school, but the action is determined to be
unrelated to the student's disability, the student will be subject to expulsion. How will the
school determine whether or not the action is related to the disability? If the school does
expel the student with a disability, will it still be required by the IDEA to provide educational
services to the student? If IDEA requires educational services to be provided to the student,
how will the requirement for education in the Least Restrictive Environment be applied?
2.
If a student not previously identified as disabled brings a firearm to school, he or she will be
subject to the one year expulsion policy. It is conceivable that a parent, in order to avoid the
student being subject to a one-year expulsion and possible loss of educational services, would
file a motion to determine that the student has a disability.
Under normal procedures for disabled students, during the pendency of due process hearings,
the student must be returned to the original educational placement after 10 days. Which
standards would apply for a student that had not previously been identified as disabled, the
return to the original placement after 10 days, or the 45-day alternative placement and
alternative placement during the pendency of hearings?
3.
The statute allows the chief administering officer of an LEA to "modify such expulsion
requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis." Is it not possible, despite Federal
requirements to institute a policy mandating a one-year expulsion, that this provision would
allow LEAs to maintain current policy regarding students who bring guns to school? Does
the Department anticipate limiting through regulation an LEAs ability to use this provision in
a way that preserves the status quo?
4.
During the Conference consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Act reauthorization,
the House voted 19 to 7 to retain House language on the guns in schools provision. This
language did not link loss of Federal funds with non-con1pliance with the guns in schools
provisions. The language ultimately accepted in Conference with the Senate also does not
link loss of Federal funds with non-compliance. Yet, the memorandum from the President
includes .a specific reference to loss of Federal funds for non-compliance. What is the
statutory basis for denying Federal funds to States or LEAs that do not comply with the GunFree Schools Act of 1994?
5.
The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 relies on the definition of "firearm" found in Sec. 921 of
Title 18 of the U. S. Code. This is a broad definition that also includes the term "destructive
device," which is defined in a way that could include certain firecrackers. What guidance
will the Department provide to States and LEAs regarding what weapons and destructive
devices fall under this definition?
�---------------------------------------
.
.
.
6.
If an expelled student is under a State compulsory age of attendance and alternative education
is required, are the child's parents, the school district or the State responsible for paying for
such child's alternative education and related costs if this issue is not addressed in State law?
If the financial burden for an alternative placement falls on the State or LEA, would this
violate the language on unfunded mandates also contained in H.R. 6?
7.
Do you assume a role for the federal government in providing funds for the alternativ~·
education of students who are expelled if such expulsion is the result of federal action and if
the lack of State action to adopt the one-year expulsion policy could result in the loss of
federal assistance?
8.
H.R. 6 as passed by Congress did not directly outline the penalty for failure to comply with
the one-year expulsion law. The President, however, bas ordered the Secretary to withhold
federal assistance from States which are not in compliance. He did not, however, specify
which "federal assistance" would be affected. Would it be limited to funds received by States
under H.R. 6 or would it include funds for special education, vocational education, higher
education, etc.?
9.
As enacted by Congress, H.R. 6 contains broad waiver provisions. Since the "Gun Free
Schools" provisions are not specifically exempt from the waiver provisions, will States and
local educational agencieS be able to request and have considered, waivers from compliance
from theSe provisions if they can demonstrate they are having a direct impact on their ability
to provide a quality education to their student body?
10.
One of the National Education Goals enacted and signed into law during the 103rd Congress
was an increase in the high school graduation rate. Since there is evidence that those students
who are expelled often do not return to school and complete their education, how do you
propose to balance the impact of this provision with the goal of a higher high school
completion rate?
11.
The Supreme Court has now heard arguments in the U.S. v. Lopez. case, which will deteniune
the validity of a federal law which outlaws the possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a
school. If the Court finds that the law is unconstitutional, how do you see such a decision
affecting your implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act?
�UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE SECRETARY
January 17, 1995
Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman
Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have enclosed detailed guidance developed by the Department of
Education to assist States in implementing the Gun-Free Schools
Act provisions. This detailed guidance responds to many of the
questions raised by you and your colleagues in your November 18,
1994 letter to me. Thank you for your patience in awaiting this
response.
While the enclosed guidance provides basic information with
regard to consistent interpretation of the Gun-Free Schools Act
provisions and the provisions of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), it does not respond to all the
questions raised in your letter. The Department intends to issue
separate, more detailed guidance on discipline of students with
disabilities, which will include clarification of the
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act consistent with IDEA
and Section 504. We anticipate issuing that guidance by February
15.
Your letter also expresses a concern about the potential impact
of expulsions under the Gun-Free Schools Act provisions on high
school completion rates. Although we believe that the issue of
removing weapons from schools is critically important, and that
the problem is pervasive, we do not expect that the volume of
expulsions occurring as a result of the Gun-Free Schools Act
provisions will have a significant impact on our national goal of
improving the school completion rate.
Of course, I share your concern about the effect of long-term
expulsions on educational achievement and high school completion
of those removed from their regular educational program. However,
the Gun-Free Schools Act provisions do not require that student
access to educational services be denied. Local educational
agencies must remove students from their regular educational
placement if they have been found to have brought a weapon to
400 MARYLAND AVE .. S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20202-DlOO
�Page 2
school, but may certainly continue to provide educational
services if they desire. Additionally, the statutory provisions
require that State law allow the chief administering officer of a
local educational agency to make exceptions to the expulsion
requirement on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, with regard to your question about the effect of the
Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lopez on
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act provisions, it is
difficult to speculate on the content of that decision and its
possible implications for our administration of the Gun-Free
Schools Act. Of course, I would be pleased to provide
information in response to this question after the decision is
issued and we have had an opportunity to evaluate the impact, if
any, of that decision on programs we are administering.
I hope that the enclosed guidance and supplemental information .
contained in this letter respond to the concerns expressed by you
and your colleagues. I would be happy to discuss these issues
with you or respond to any other concerns you may have about our
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act _provisions.
Yours sincerely,
\
Richard
Enclosure
w.
�·- .,
GUIDANCE CONCERNING STATE AND LOCAL
RESPONSIBILITIES ONDER THE
GUN-FREE SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994
This guidance is to provide information concerning State and local
responsibilities under the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA), which was
enacted on October 20, 1994 as part of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 (the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)) , Public Law 103-382.
Preliminary information, including a copy of this new legislation,
was mailed to Governors and Chief State School Officers in a letter
dated November 28, 1994.
The GFSA states that each State receiving Federal funds under ESEA
must have in effect, by October 20, 1995, a State law requiring
local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not
less than one year a student who is determined to have brought a
weapon to school.
Each state's law also must allow the chief
administering officer of the local educational agency (LEA) to
modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.
The legislation explicitly states that the GFSA must be construed
to be consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA). Therefore, by using the case-by-case exception, LEAs
will be able to discipline students with disabilities in accordance
with the requirements of Part B of the IDEA and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and thereby maintain eligibility
for Federal financial assistance. The Department intends to issue
separate, more detailed guidance on discipline of students with
disabilities,
which
will
include
clarification
of
the
implementation of the GFSA consistent with IDEA and Section 504.
The following questions and answers have been prepared to assist
states, State educational agencies (SEAs), and LEAs in implementing
these new requirements.
Ql.
What entities are affected by the provisions of the Gun-Free
Schools Act?
A.
Each State, as well as its State educational agency and local
educational agencies, has responsibilities under the GFSA.
Q2.
Are private schools subject to the requirements of the GunFree Schools Act?
A.
Private schools are not subject to the provisions of the GFSA,
but private school students who participate in LEA programs or
activities are subject to the one-yearexpulsion requirement to
the extent that such students are under the supervision and
control of the LEA as part of their participation in the LEA's
programs.
For example, a private school student who is
�enrolled in a Federal program, such as Title I, is subject to
a
one-year expulsion,
but only from Federal program
participation, not a one-year expulsion from the private
school.
Of course, nothing prohibits a private school from
imposing a similar expulsion from the. private school on a
student who brings a weapon to school.
Q3.
Will SEAs and LEAs have a period of time to comply with the
requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act?
A.
States must take prompt action to implement the requirements
of the GFSA,
including prompt action to initiate the
legislative process.
States have until october 20, 1995 to
enact and make effective the one year expulsion legislation
required by Section 14601. States that have not enacted and
made effective legislation by this date risk losing ESEA
funds.
In order to be eligible to receive ESEA funds, LEAs must have
an expulsion policy consistent with the required State law.
LEAs must take immediate action to implement the referral
policy required by Section 14602, because the GFSA directs
that no ESEA funds shall be made available to an LEA unless
that LEA has the required referral policy.
Q4.
Is compliance with the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools
Act a condition for the receipt of Federal financial
assistance under the ESEA?
A.
Yes, compliance with the requirements of the GFSA is a
condition for the receipt of funds made available to the state
under the ESEA.
QS.
Will failure to comply with the requirements of the Gun-Free
Schools Act result in the termination or withholding of funds
made available to the state under the ESEA?
A.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the GFSA could
result in the withholding, under the provisions of the General
Education Provisions Act, of funds made available to the State
under the ESEA; however, it is anticipated that technical
assistance provided to States will result in timely compliance
and make withholding of funds unnecessary.
Q6.
May a state request a waiver of the requirements of the GunFree Schools Act?
- 2 -
�A.
Yes.
The ESEA authorizes the Secretary to waive the
requirements of the GFSA if that action will increase the
quality of instruction for students or will improve the
academic performance of students.
However, it 1s not
anticipated that the requirements of the GFSA will be waived
except in unusual circumstances.
Q7.
Does the Gun-Free Schools Act's one-year expulsion requirement
preclude any due process proceedings?
A.
No. Students facing expulsion from school are entitled under
the U.S. Constitution and most State constitutions to the due
process protection of notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If, after due process has been accorded, a student is found to
have brought a weapon to school, the GFSA requires an
expulsion for a period of not less than one year (subject to
the case-by-case exception discussed below).
QB.
What does the Gun-Free Schools Act require of states?
A.
The GFSA requires that each state receiving Federal funds
under the ESEA must, by October 20, 1995: (1) have in effect
a State law requiring LEAs to expel from school for a period
of not less than one year a student who is determined to have
brought a weapon to school; (2) have in effect a state law
allowing the LEA's chief administering officer to modify the
expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis; and (3) report
to the Secretary on an annual basis concerning information
submitted by LEAs to SEAs. SEAs must also ensure that no ESEA
funds are made available to an LEA that does not have a
referral policy consistent with Section 14602.
One Year Expulsion Requirement
Each State's law must require
expulsion requirement; that
discussed below, any student
must be expelled for not less
LEAs to comply with a one-year
is, subject to the exception
who brings a weapon to school
than one year.
case-by-case Exception
Each State's law must allow the chief administering officer of
an LEA to modify the one year expulsion requirement on a caseby-case basis.
Annual Reporting
Each State must report annually on LEA complia'nce with the one
year expulsion requirement, and on expulsions imposed under
-
3 -
�the State law, including the number of students expelled in
each LEA and the types of weapons involved.
Q9.
What does the Gun-Free Schools Act require of LEAs?
A.
The GFSA requires that LEAs (1) comply with the state law
requiring the one-year expulsion; (2) provide an assurance of
compliance to the SEA; (3) provide descriptive information to
the SEA concerning the LEA's expulsions; and ( 4) adopt a
referral policy for students who bring weapons to school.
One Year Expulsion Requirement
LEAs must comply with the State law requ1.r1.ng a one-year
expulsion; that is, subject to the case-by-case exception, any
student who brings a weapon to school must be expelled for not
less than one year.
LEA Assurance
An LEA must include in its application to the State·
educational agency for ESEA assistance an assurance that the
LEA is in compliance with the state law requiring the one-year
expulsion.
Descriptive Report to SEA
An LEA must include in its application for ESEA assistance a
description of the circumstances surrounding expulsions
imposed under the one-year expulsion requirement, including:
(A) the name of the school concerned;
(B) the number of students expelled from the
school; and
(C) the type of weapons concerned.
Referral Policy
LEAs must also implement a policy requ1.r1.ng referral to the
criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student
who brings a weapon to school.
QlO. When must an LEA implement its referral policy?
A.
LEAs must take immediate action to implement a policy
requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile
delinquency system of any student who brings a weapon to
school.
The GFSA directs that no ESEA funds shall be made
available to an LEA unless that LEA has the required referral
policy.
- 4 -
�Qll. When must an LEA submit the required assurance?
A.
In its first application to the State educational agency for
ESEA funds after the date that the State enacts and makes
effective the required one year expulsion legislation, the LEA
must include an assurance that the LEA is in compliance with
the State law.
Q12. What is the role of the SEA in determining whether an LEA is
in compliance with the Gun-Free Schools Act?
A.
The GFSA requires States to report to the Secretary on an
annual basis concerning LEA compliance.
Therefore, before
awarding any ESEA funds to an LEA, the SEA must ensure that
the LEA has: (1} implemented a policy requiring referral to
the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any
student who brings a weapon to school; and (2) included in its
application for ESEA funds the assurance and other information
required by the GFSA.
SEAs must ensure that the LEA
application contains:
(1) an assurance that the LEA is in compliance with the
state law requiring the one-year expulsion; and
(2} a description of the
expulsions
imposed
under
requirement, including:
circumstances surrounding
the
one-year
expulsion
(A) the name of the school concerned;
(B) the number of students expelled from
the school; and
(C) the type of weapons concerned.
Q13. Who is an LEA's "chief administering officer"?
A.
The term "chief administering officer•i is not defined by the
GFSA.
Each LEA should determine, using its own legal
framework, which chief operating officer or authority (e.g.,
Superintendent, Board, etc.) has the power to modify the
expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.
Q14. can any individual or entity other than the LEA's "chief
administering
officer"
modify
the
one-year
expulsion
requirement on a case-by-case basis?
A.
No.
However, the chief administering officer may
another individual or entity to carry out preliminary
- 5 -
allow
�information gathering functions, and prepare a recommendation
for the chief administering officer.
QlS. Is it permissible for an LEA to use the case-by-case exception
to avoid compliance with the one-year expulsion requirement?
A.
No, this exception may not be used to avoid over-all
compliance with the one-year expulsion requirement.
Q16. How is the term: "weapon" defined?
A.
For the purposes of the GFSA, a "weapon" means a firearm as
defined in Section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code
(copy attached).
According to Section 921, the following are included within
the definition:
any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive
the frame or receiver of any weapon described above
any firearm muffler or firearm silencer
any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(1) bomb,
(2) grenade,
(3) rocket having a propellant charge of more than
four ounces,·
( 4) missile having an explosive or ·incendiary charge
of more than one-quarter ounce,
(5) mine, or
(6) similar device
any weapon which will, or which may be readily
converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive or other propellant, and which has any
barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in
diameter
any combination of parts
for use in converting any
device described in the
examples, and from which
readily assembled
either designed or intended
device into any destructive
two immediately preceding
a destructive device may be
According to Section 921, the following are not included in
the definition:
-
6 -
�an antique firearm
a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for
sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes
any device which is neither designed nor redesigned
for use as a weapon
any device, although originally designed for use as a
weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling,
pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device
surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the
Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of
section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10
In addition, we have been advised by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms that Class-C common fireworks are not
included in the definition of weapon.
Q17. Does the Gun-Free Schools Act preclude classes such as hunting
or military education, or activities such as hunting clubs or
rifle clubs, which may involve the handling or use of weapons?
A.
No, the GFSA does not prohibit the presence at school of
rifles that the owners intend to use solely for sporting,
recreational, or cultural purposes.
Q18. Are knives considered weapons under the Gun-Free Schools Act?
A.
No, for the purposes of the GFSA, the definition of weapon
does not include knives. State legislation or an SEA or LEA
may, however, decide to broaden its own definition of weapon
to include knives~
Q19. What is meant by the term "expulsion"?
A.
The term "expulsion" is not defined by the GFSA; however, at
a minimum, expulsion means removal from the student's regular
school program at the location where the violation occurred.
Q20. Is a state, SEA, or LEA required to provide alternative
educational services to students who have been expelled for
bringing a weapon to school?
A.
The GFSA neither requires nor prohibits the provision of
alternative educational services to students who have been
expelled. Other Federal, State, or local laws may, however,
-
7 -
�require that students receive alternative educational services
in certain circumstances.
Q21. What is an "alternative setting" for the
educational services to an expelled student?
A.
provision
of
An alternative setting is one that is clearly distinguishable
from the student's regular school placement.
Q22. :Is
Federal
funding
educational services?
A.
available
to
provide
alternative
Yes, formula grants awarded under the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act may be used for alternative
educational services. In addition, other Federal funds may be
available for alternative educational services, consistent
with each program's statutory and regulatory requirements.
Q23. Do the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act conflict
with requirements that apply to students with disabilities?
A.
No.
Compliance with the GFSA may be achieved consistently
with
the
requirements
that
apply
to
students
with
disabilities, so long as discipline of such students is
determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the IDEA
and Section 504. The Department intends to issue separate,
more detailed guidance on discipline of students with
disabilities, which will . include clarification of the
implementation-of the GFSA consistent with IDEA and Section
504.
Q24. :Is it permissible to expel a
rather than a year?
A.
student for a
No. The statute explicitly states that expulsion shall be for
a period of not less than one year.
Q25. Does the expulsion requirement apply
occurring in the school building?
A.
"school year"
only
to
violations
No.
The one~year expulsion requirement applies to students
who bring weapons to any setting that is under the control and
supervision of the LEA.
- 8 -
�GUIDANCE CONCERNING STATE AND LOCAL
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE
GUN-FREE SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994
This guidance is to provide information concerning state and local
responsibilities under the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA), which was
enacted on October 20, 1994 as part of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 (the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)), Public Law 103-382.
Preliminary information, including a copy of this new legislation,
was mailed to Governors and Chief state School Officers in a letter
dated November 28, 1994.
The GFSA states that each State receiving Federal funds under ESEA
must have in effect, by October 20, 1995, a State law requiring
local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not
less than one year a student who is qetermined to have brought a
weapon to school.
Each state's law also must allow the chief
administering officer of the ;local educational agency (LEA) to
modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.
The legislation explicitly states that the GFSA must be construed
to be consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) . Therefore, by using the case-by-case exception, LEAs
will be abl~ to discipline students with disabilities in accordance
with the requirements of Part B of the IDEA and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and thereby maintain eligibility
for Federal financial assistance. The Department intends to issue
separate, more detailed guidance on discipline of students with
disabilities,
which
will
include
clarification
of
the
implementation of the GFSA consistent with IDEA and Section 504.
The following que~tions and answers have been prepared to assist
States, State educational agencies (SEAs), and LEAs in implementing
these new requirements.
Ql.
What entities are affected by the provisions of the Gun-Free
Schools Act?
A.
Each State, as well as its State educational agency and local
educational agencies, has responsibilities under the GFSA.
Q2.
Are private schools subject to the requirements of the GunFree Schools Act?
A.
Private schools are not subject to the provisions of the GFSA,
but private school students who participate in LEA programs or
activities are subject to the one-yearexpulsion requirement to
the extent that such students are under the supervision and
control of the LEA as part of their part-icipation in the LEA's
programs.
For example, a private school student who is
�enrolled in a Federal program, such as Title I, is subject to
a
one-year expulsion,
but only from Federal program
participation, not a one-year expulsion from the private
school.
Of course, nothing prohibits a private school from
imposing a similar expulsion from the private school on a
student who brings a weapon to school.
Q3.
Will SEAs and LEAs have a period of time to comply with the
requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act?
A.
States must take prompt action to implement the requirements
of the GFSA,
including prompt action to initiate the
legislative process.
States have until October 20, 1995 to
enact and make effective the one year expulsion legislation
required by Section 14601. States that have not enacted and
made effective legislation by this date risk losing ESEA
funds.
In order to be eligible to receive ESEA funds, LEAs must have
an expulsion policy consistent with the required State law.
LEAs must take immediate action to implement the referral
policy required by Section 14602, because the GFSA directs
that no ESEA funds shall be made available to an LEA unless
that LEA has the required referral policy.
Q4.
Is compliance with the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools
Act a condition for the receipt of Federal financial
assistance under the ESEA?
A.
Yes, compliance with the requirements of the GFSA is a
condition for the receipt of funds made available to the State
under the ESEA.
QS.
Will failure to comply with the requirements of the Gun-Free
Schools Act result in the termination or withholding of funds
made available to the state under the ESEA?
A.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the GFSA could
result in the withholding, under the provisions of the General
Education Provisions Act, of funds made available to the State
under the ESEA; however, it is anticipated that technical
assistance provided to States will result in timely compliance
and make withholding of funds unnecessary.
Q6.
May a state request a waiver of the requirements of the GunFree Schools Act?
- 2 -
�A.
Yes.
The ESEA authorizes the Secretary to . waive the
requirements of the GFSA if that action will increase the
quality of instruction for students or will improve the
academic performance of students.
However, it is not
anticipated that the requirements of the GFSA will be waived
except in unusual circumstances.
Q7.
Does the Gun-Free Schools Act's one-year expulsion requirement
preclude any due process proceedings?
A.
No. Students facing expulsion from school are entitled under
the u.s. Constitution and most State constitutions to the due
process protection of notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If, after due process has been accorded, a student is found to
have brought a weapon to school, the GFSA requires an
expulsion for a period of not less than one year (subject to
the case-by-case exception discussed below).
QS.
What does the Gun-Free Schools Act require of States?
A.
The GFSA requires that each State receiving Federal funds
under the ESEA must, by.October 20, 1995:· (1) have in effect
a State law requiring LEAs to expel from school for a period
of not less than one year a student who is determined to have
brought a weapon to school; (2) have in effect a State law
allowing the LEA's chief administering officer to modify the
expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis; and (3) report
to the Secretary on an annual basis concerning information
submitted by LEAs to SEAs. SEAs must also ensure that no ESEA
funds are made available to an LEA that does not have a
referral policy consistent with Section 14602.
One Year Expulsion Requirement
Each State's law must require
expulsion requirement; that
discussed below, any student
must be expelled for not less
LEAs to comply with a one-year
is, subject to the exception
who brings a weapon to school
than one year.
Case-by-case Exception
Each State's law must allow the chief administering officer of
an LEA to modify the one year expulsion requirement on a caseby-case basis.
Annual Reporting
Each State must report annually on LEA compliance with the one
year expulsion requirement, and on expulsions imposed under
-
3 -
�A.
Yes.
The ESEA authorizes the Secretary to waive the
requirements of the GFSA if that action will increase the
quality of instruction for students or will improve the
academic performance of students.
However, it is not
anticipated that the requirements of the GFSA will be waived
except in unusual circumstances.
Q7.
Does the Gun-Free Schools Act's one-year expulsion requirement
preclude any due process proceedings?
A.
No. Students facing expulsion from school are entitled under
the U.S. Constitution and most State constitutions to the due
process protection of notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If, after due process has been accorded, a student is found to
have brought a weapon to school, the GFSA requires an
expulsion for a period of not less than one year (subject to
the case-by-case exception discussed below) .
QS.
What does the Gun-Free Schools Act require of States?
A.
The GFSA, requires that each state receiving Federal funds
under the ESEA must, by October 20, 1995:
(1) have in effect
a state law requiring LEAs to expel from school for a period
of not less than one year a student who is determined to have
brought a weapon to school; (2) have in effect a State law
allowing the LEA's chief administering officer to modify the
expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis; and (3) report
to the Secretary on an annual basis concerning information
submitted by LEAs to SEAs . . SEAs must also ensure that no ESEA
funds are made available to an LEA that does not have a
referral policy consistent with Section 14602.
One Year Expulsion Requirement
Each State's law must require
expulsion requirement; that
discussed below, any student
must be expelled for not less
LEAs to comply with a one-year
is, subject to the exception
who brings a weapon to school
than one year.
Case-by-case Exception
Each State's law must allow the chief administering officer of
an LEA to modify the one year expulsion requirement on a caseby-case basis.
Annual Reporting
Each State must report annually on LEA compliance with the one
year expulsion requirement, and on expulsions imposed under
-
3 -
�the State law, including the number of students expelled in
each LEA and the types of weapons involved.
Q9.
What does the Gun-Free Schools Act require of LEAs?
A.
The GFSA requires that LEAs (1) comply with the state law
requiring the one-year expulsion; (2) provide an assurance of
compliance to the SEA; (3) provide descriptive information to
the SEA concerning the LEA's expulsions; and ( 4) adopt a
referral policy for students who bring weapons to school.
One Year Expulsion Requirement
LEAs must comply with the State law requiring a one-year
expulsion; that is, subject to the case-by-case exception, any
student who brings a weapon to school must be expelled for not
less than one year.
LEA Assurance
An LEA must include in its application to the state·
educational agency for ESEA assistance an assurance that the
LEA is in compliance with the State law requiring the one-year
expulsion.
Descriptive Report to SEA
An LEA must include in its application for ESEA assistance a
description of the circumstances surrounding expulsions
imposed under the one-year expulsion requirement, including:
(A) the name of the school concerned;
(B) the number of students expelled from the
school; and
(C) the type of weapons concerned.
Referral Policy
LEAs must also implement a policy requiring referral to the
criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student
who brings a weapon to school.
QlO. When must an LEA implement its referral policy?
A.
LEAs must take immediate action to implement a policy
requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile
delinquency system of any studen.t who brings a weapon to
school.
The GFSA directs that no ESEA funds shall be made
available to an LEA unless·that LEA has the required referral
policy.
- 4 -
�Qll. When must an LEA submit the required assurance?
A.
In its first application to the State educational agency for
ESEA funds after the date that the State enacts and makes
effective the required one year expulsion legislation, the.LEA
must include an assurance that the LEA is in compliance with
the State law.
Ql2. What is the role of the SEA in determining whether an LEA is
in compliance with the Gun-Free Schools Act?
A.
The GFSA requires states to report to the Secretary on an
annual basis concerning LEA compliance.
Therefore, before
awarding any ESEA funds to an LEA, the SEA must ensure that
the LEA has: (1) implemented a policy requiring referral to
the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any
student who brings a weapon to school; and (2) included in its
application for ESEA funds the assurance and other information
required by the GFSA.
SEAs must ensure that the LEA
application contains:
(1) an assurance that the LEA is in compliance with the
State law requiring the one-year expulsion; and
(2) a description of the
expulsions
imposed
under
requirement, including:
circumstances surrounding
the
one-year
expulsion
(A) the name of the school concerned;
(B) the number of students expelled from
the school; and
(C) the type of weapons concerned.
Q13. Who is an LEA's "chief administering officer"?
A.
The term "chief administering officer~ is not defined by the
GFSA.
Each LEA should determine, using its own legal
framework, which chief operating officer or authority (e.g.,
Superintendent, Board, etc.) has the power to modify the
expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.
Q14. can any individual or entity other than the LEA's "chief
administering
officer"
modify
the
one-year
expulsion
requirement on a case-by-case basis?
A.
No.
However, the chief administering officer may
another individual or entity to carry out preliminary
- 5 -
allow
�information gathering functions, and prepare a recommendation
for the chief administering officer.
QlS. Is it permissible for an LEA to use the case-by-case exception
to avoid compliance with the one-year expulsion requirement?
A.
No, this exception may not be used to avoid over-all
compliance with the one-year expulsion requirement.
Q16. How is the term "weapon" defined?
A.
For the purposes of the GFSA, a "weapon" means a firearm as
defined in Section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code
(copy attached).
According to Section 921, the following are included within
the definition:
any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive
the frame or receiver of any weapon described above
any firearm muffler or firearm silencer
any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(1) bomb,
(2) grenade,
(3) rocket having a propellant charge of more than
four ounces,
( 4) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge
of more than one-quarter ounce,
(5) mine, or
(6) similar device
any weapon which will, or which may be readily
converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive or other propellant, and which has any
barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in
diameter
any combination of parts
for use in converting any
device described in the
examples, and from which
readily assembled
either designed or intended
device into any destructive
two immediately preceding
a destructive device may be
According to Section 921, the following are not included in
the definition:
-
6 -
�an antique firearm
a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for
sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes
any device which is neither designed nor redesigned
for use as a weapon
any device, although originally designed for use as a
weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling,
pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device
surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the
Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of
section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10
In addition, we have been advised by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms that Class-c common fireworks are not
included in the definition of weapon.
Ql7. Does the Gun-Free Schools Act preclude classes such as hunting
or military education, or activities such as hunting clubs or
rifle clubs, which may involve the handling or use of weapons?
A.
No, the GFSA does not prohibit the presence at school of
rifles that the owners intend to use solely for sporting,
recreational, or cultural purposes.
Ql8. Are knives considered weapons under the Gun-Free Schools Act?
A.
No, for the purposes of the GFSA, the definition of weapon
does not include knives. State legislation or an SEA or LEA
may, however, decide to broaden its own definition of weapon
to include knives~
Ql9. What is meant by the term "expulsion"?
A.
The term "expulsion" is not defined by the GFSA; however, at
a minimum, expulsion means removal from the student's regular
school program at the location where the violation occurred.
Q20. Is a State, SEA, or LEA required to provide alternative
educational services to students who have been expelled for
bringing a weapon to school?
A.
The GFSA neither requires nor prohibits the provision of
alternative educational services to students who have been
expelled. Other Federal, State, or local laws may, however,
- 7 -
�require that students receive alternative educational services
in certain circumstances.
Q21. What is an "alternative setting" for the
educational services to an expelled student?
A.
of
An alternative setting is one that is clearly distinguishable
from the student's regular school placement.
Q22. Is
Federal
funding
educational services?
A.
provision
available
to
provide
alternative
Yes, formula grants awarded under the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act may be used for alternative
educational services. In addition, other Federal funds may be
available for alternative educational services, consistent
with each program's statutory and regulatory requirements.
Q23. Do the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act conflict
with requirements that apply to students with disabilities?
A.
No.
Compliance with the GFSA may be achieved consistently
with
the
requirements
that
apply
to
students
with
disabilities, so long as discipline of such students is
determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the IDEA
and Section 504.
The Department intends to issue separate,
more detailed guidance on discipline of students with
disabilities,
which will. include clarification of the
implementation· of the GFSA consistent with IDEA and Section
504.
Q24. Is it permissible to expel a
rather than a year?
A.
student for a
No. The statute explicitly states that expulsion shall be for
a period of not less than one year.
Q25. Does the expulsion requirement apply
occurring in the school building?
A.
"school year"
only
to
violations
No.
The one-year expulsion requirement applies to students
who bring weapons to any setting that is under the control and
supervision of the LEA.
-
8 -
�• NIAJORITY MEMBERS,
MINORITY MEMBERS:
WILLIAM F, GOODLING. PENNSYLVANIA
lHOMAS E. PETRI. WISCONSIN
MARGE ROUKEMA. NEW JERSEY
STEVE GUNDERSON. WISCONSIN
RICHARD K. ARMEY. TEXAS
HARRIS W. FA WELL. ILLINOIS
CASS BALLENGER. NORTH CAROLINA
SUSAN MOLINARI, NEW YORK
BILL BARREn. NEBRASKA
JOHN A. BOEHNER. OHIO
RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, CALIFORNIA
PETER HOEKSTRA. MICHIGAN
HOWARD "BUCK" MCKEON. CALIFORNIA
DAN MILLER. FLORIDA
MICHAEL N. CASTLE. DELAWARE
WILLIAM D. FORD. MICHIGAN.
CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM IBILLI CLAY. MISSOURI
GEORGE MILLER. CALIFORNIA
AU6~1N J. MURPHY. PENNSYLVANIA
DALE E. KILDEE. MICHIGAN
PAT WILLIAMS. MONTANA
MA IT HEW G. MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA
MAJOR R. OWENS. NEW YORK
THOMAS C. SAWYER. OHIO
DONALD M. PAYNE. NEW JERSEY
;~~~~\u~~~KEL~;.::~~HINGTON
~~g;R:E:r/~~~~~~s:!~~JERsEv
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
:~~O~~E~~~E~~~:!!"voRK
~~~~~~ ~EC·~~~~;.Ai~g~~~IRGINIA
GENE GREEN. TEXAS
LYNN C. WOOLSEY. CALIFORNIA
cARLos A RoMERQ.BARcELo. PuERTo R1co
RON KLINK. PENNSYLVANIA
KARAN ENGLISH. ARIZONA
TED STRICKLAND. OHIO
RON DE LUGO. VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, AMERICAN SAMOA
SCOTTY BAESLER. KENTUCKY
ROBERT A UNDERWOOD. GUAM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAJORITY-i202) 225-~527
(TTYH2021 226-3372
MINORITY-i202) 226-3725
(TTYH2021 2211-3 1 13
2181 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6100
November 18, 1994
I,
..
The Honorable Richard W. Riley
The Secretary
Uhitru Sialcs :Ut:panmt:m of Eciucarion
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202-0100
Dear Mr. Secretary:
It has come to our attention that the President has issued a memorandum instructing you
to implement the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 in an expeditious manner
and to vigorously enforce its provisions. As you are no doubt aware, many Members on
both sides of the aisle had serious reser~·ations about this legislation. While supportive of
removing guns and other weapons from our schools and keeping them out, we question the
need for Federal involvement in this area.
While this is neither the. forum nor the time to continue a debate over the wisdom of this
policy, efforts to implement it do. raise several concerns on our part. Attached to this letter
are a number of questions relating to implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994
that we would like you to address.
As is evident from the scope of these questions, we feel that there are a number of
significant issues raised by the implementation of this statute. Perhaps most significant are
tile aispanues m the treatment of students covered by the Individuais with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as compared to those
students who do not enjoy the same level of Federal protection. It is possible that this issue
alone could create an endless litany of litigation for local school districts.
We appreciate your timely attention to these questions and look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling
Ranking Republican Memher
lJd't/~ ..J
Pat Williams
Memher of Congress
�The Honorable Richard W. Riley
Page 2
Member of Congress
Richard Armey
Member of Congress
Dan Miller
Member of Congress
Cass Ballenger
Member of Congress
Steve Gunderson
Member of Congress
~
BUCkMC~~~~
Member of Congress
r of Congress
~:4~/,
Member of Congress
�1.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended, allows a student with a
disability who brings a firearm to school to be placed in an alternative educational placement
up to 45 days, if the action is related to his or her disability. In addition, if there are legal
proceedings between the parent and the school over a proposed change in educational
placement, the student will remain in the alternative placement during the pendency of the
proceedings, and will not be returned to the original educational placement. This disparity in
discipline between students with disabilities and those who are non-disabled raises several
interesting questions that need to be addressed.
For a student who is disabled and brings a gun to school, but the action is determined to be
unrelated to the student's disability, the student will be subject to expulsion. How will the
school determine whether or not the action is related to the disability? If the school does
expel the student with a disability, will it still be required by the IDEA to provide educational
services to the student? If IDEA requires educational services to be provided to the student,
how will the requirement for education in the Least Restrictive Environment be applied?
2.
If a student not previously identified as disabled brings a firearm to school, he or she will be
subject to the one year expulsion policy. It is conceivable that a parent, in order to avoid the
student being subject to a one-year expulsion and possible loss of educational services, would
file a motion to determine that the student has a disability.
Under normal procedures for disabled students, during the pendency of due process hearings,
the student must be returned to the original educational placement after 10 days. Which
standards would apply for a student that had not previously been identified as disabled, the
return to the original placement after 10 days, or the 45-day alternative placement and
alternative placement during the pendency of hearings?
3.
The statute allows the chief administering officer of an LEA,to "modify such expulsion
requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis." Is it not possible, despite Federal
requirements to institute a policy mandating a one-year expulsion, that this provision would
allow LEAs to maintain current policy regarding students who bring guns to school? Does
the Department anticipate limiting through regulation an LEAs ability to use this provision in
a way that preserves the status quo?
4.
During the Conference consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Act reauthorization,
the House voted 19 to 7 to retain House language on the guns in schools provision. This
language did not link Joss of Federal funds with non-compliance with the guns in schools
provisions. The language ultimately accepted in Conference with the Senate also does not
link loss of Federal funds with non-compliance. Yet, the memorandum from the President
includes a specific reference to loss of Federal funds for non-compliance. What is the
statutory basis for denying Federal funds to States or LEAs that do not comply with the GunFree Schools Act of 1994?
5.
The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 relies on the definition of "firearm" found in Sec. 921 of
Title 18 of the U. S. Code. This is a broad definition that also includes the term "destructive
device," which is defined in a way that could include certain firecrackers. What guidance
will the Department provide to States and LEAs regarding what weapons and destructive
devices fall under this definition?
�6.
If an expelled student is under a State compulsory age of attendance and alternative education
is required, are the child's parents, the school district or the State responsible for paying for
such child's alternative education and related costs if this issue is not addressed in State law?
If the financial burden for an alternative placement falls on the State or LEA, would this
violate the language on unfunded mandates also contained in H.R. 6?
7.
Do you assume a role for the federal government in providing funds for the alternative
education of students who are expelled if such expulsion is the result of federal action and if
the lack of State action to adopt the one-year expulsion policy could result in the loss of
federal assistance?
8.
H.R. 6 as passed by Congress did not directly outline the penalty for failure to comply with
the one-year expulsion law. The President.. however, has ordered the Secretary to withhold
federal assistance from States which are not in compliance. He did not, however, specify
which "federal assistance" would be affected. Would it be limited to funds received by States
under H.R. 6 or would it include funds for special education, vocational education, higher
education, etc.?
9.
As enacted by Congress, H.R. 6 contains broad waiver provisions. Since the "Gun Free
Schools" provisions are not specifically exempt from the waiver provisions, will States and
local educational agencies be able to request and have considered, waivers from compliance
from these provisions if they can demonstrate they are having a direct impact on their ability
to provide a quality education to their student body?
10.
One of the National Education Goals enacted and signed into law during the 103rd Congress
was an increase in the high school graduation rate. Since there is evidence that those students
who are expelled often do not return to school and complete their education, how do you
propose to balance the .impact of this provision with the goal of a higher high school
completion rate?
ll.
The Supreme Court has now heard arguments in the U.S. v. Lopez case, which will determine
the validity of a federal law which outlaws the possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a
school. If the Court finds that the law is unconstitutional, how do you see such a decision
affecting your implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act?
�UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE SECRETARY
Honorable William Goodling
Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have enclosed detailed guidance developed by the Department of
Education to assist States in implementing the Gun-Free Schools
Act provisions. This detailed guidance responds to many of the
questions raised by you and your colleagues in your November 18,
·1994 letter to me.
While the attached guidance provides basic information with
regard to consistent interpretation of the Gun-Free Schools Act
provisions and the provisions of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), it does not respond to all the
questions raised in your letter. The Department intends to issue
separate, more detailed guidance on discipline of students with
disabilities, which will include clarification of the
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act consistent with IDEA
and Section 504. We anticipate issuing that guidance by February
15.
Your letter also expresses a concern about the potential impact
of expulsions under the Gun-Free Schools Act provisions on high
school completion rates. Although we believe that the issue of
removing weapons from schools is critically important, and that
the problem is pervasive, we do not expect that the volume of
expulsions occurring as a result of the Gun-Free Schools Act
provisions will have a significant impact on our national goal of
improving the school completion rate.
Of course, I share your concern about the effect of long-term
expulsions on educational achievement and high school completion
of those removed from their regular educational program. However,
the Gun-Free Schools Act provisions do not require that student
access to educational services be denied.
Local educational
agencies must remove students from their regular educational
placement if they have been found to have brought a weapon to
school, but may certainly continue to provide educational
services if they desire. Additionally, the statutory provisions
require that State law allow the chief administering officer of a
local educational agency to make exceptions to the expulsion
requirement on a case-by-case basis.
400 MARYLAND AVE .. S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. :.!0202-0100
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nntion.
�Page 2 - Honorable William Goodling
Finally, with regard to your question about the effect of the
Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lopez on
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act provisions, it is
difficult to speculate on the content of that decision and its
possible implications for our administration of the Gun-Free
Schools Act. Of course, I would be pleased to provide
·
information in response to this question after the decision is
issued and we have had an opportunity to evaluate the impact, if
any, of that decision on programs we are administering.
I hope that the attached guidance and supplemental information
contained in.this letter responds to the concerns expressed by
your and your colleagues.
I would be happy to discuss these
issues with you or respond to any other concerns you may have
about our implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act provisions.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
Enclosure
�406
407
"(3) to provide sex education or HN prevention education
educational personnel that there will no lon[fer be any failure or_in·
in schools unless such instruction is age appropriate and .inability on the part of such agency or consortwm to n:e_et the appltca·
cludes the health benefits of abstinence; or
ble requirements of section 14503 or any other promston of th~s Act.
"(4) to operate a program of condom distribution in schools.
"(c) PAYMENT FROM STATE ALL?TMEN!.-When the Secretary
"(b) LOCAL CONTROL.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to·
arranges for services pursuant to ~h~s sect~?n, the S_ecretary shall,
after consultation with the appropnate publ~c and pnvate .s~hool ?f"(1) authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Governficials, pay the cost of such se~vices, including the a_dmm~strat~ve
ment to mandate, direct, review, or control a State, local educosts of arranging for those sermces, from the approprw.te allocatwn
cational agency, or schools' instructional content, curriculum,
and related activities;
or allocations under this Act.
.
.
"(2) limit the application of the General Education Provi"(d) PRIOR DETERMINATION.-Any by-pass determm?'twn by the
sions Act;
Secretary under this Act as in effect on the day precedmg the date
"(3) require the distribution of scientifically or medically
of enactment of the Improving America's Schools ~ct of 1994 shall
false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the distribution of
remain in effect to the extent the Secretary dete;mme~ that such de·
scientifically or medically true or accurate materials; or
termination is consistent with the purpose of th~s sectzon.
"(4) create any legally enforceable right.
"SEC. 14507. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDS FOR REUGIOUS WORSHIP
"SEC.
14512.
PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, AND
·
OR INSTRUCTION.
.
CONTROL.
"Nothing contained in this Act shall be constr:u.ed to auth?nze
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer
the making of any payment under this Act for rel~gwus worshtp or
or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or coninstruction.
trol a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, pro"SEC. 14508. APPUCABILITY TO HOME SCHOOLS.
gram of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or
mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect home schools.
incur any costs not paid for under this Act.
"SEC. 14509. GENERAL PROVISION REGARDING NONRECIPIENT
"SEC. 14513. REPORT.
NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS.
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, en~our·
"The Secretary shall report to the Congress not later than 180
days of the date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools
age, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect of an~ pnvatj
Act of 1994 regarding how the Secretary shall ensure that audits
religious, or home school, whether or not a home school ~s trea~e
Cl!nducted by Department employees of activities assisted under this
as a private school or home school under State law. Thts sectzon
Act comply with changes to this Act made by the Improving Amerishall not be construed to bar privat~, religious, ?r home schools
cn's Schools Act of 1994, particularly with respect to permitting
from participation in programs or servzces under thzs Act.
diildren with similar educational needs to be served in the same
"SEC. 14510. SCHOOL PRAYER.
.
.
tducational settings, where appropriate.
"Any State or local educational agency that ~s adjud~ed by a . "SEC. 14514. REQUIRED PARTICIPATION PROHIBITED.
Federal court of competent jurisdiction to have wzllful~y vwlated a
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State shall be
Federal court order mandating that such local educatwnal a_gency
rrquired to participate in any program under the Goals 2000: Eduremedy a violation of the constituti?nal ri~~t of any student ~~t~ :ej cn.te. America Act, or to have content standards or student performspect to prayer in public schools, m addltzon to any other JU~tcza
ance standards approved or certified under such Act, in order to reremedies, shall be ineligible to receive Federal· funds u~der .thzs A~ ttive assistance under this Act.
until such time as the local educational. agen~ complzes wzth S!fC
order. Funds that are withheld under thzs sectwn shall. not be rezm·
"PART F-GUN POSSESSION
bursed for the period during which the local educatzonal agency
was in willful noncompliance.
-sEC. 14601. GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS.
"SEC. 14511. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS.
.
"(a) SHORT TITLE.-This section may be cited as the 'Gun-Free
.
·· •
"(a) PROHIBITION.-None of the funds authorized under thzs Act Schools Act of 1994'.
'¥b) REQUIREMENTS.shall be used.
"(1) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in paragraph (3),
"(1) to develop or distribute materzals, or operate p~ograTTI$
each State receiving Federal funds under this Act sluill have in
or courses of instruction directed at youth that are destgnet to
· effect a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel
promote or encourage, sexual activity, whether homosexua or
from school for a period of not less than one year a student who
heterosexual;
. .
.
is determined to have brought a weapon to a school under the
"(2) to distribute or to aid in th~ dtstnbut~on by any orga·
jurisdiction of local educational agencies in that State, except
niziltion of ·legally obscene matenals to mmors on schod
that such State law shall allow the chief administering officer
grounds;
�.,
409
408
of such local educational" agency to modify ~uch ~xpulsion rt·
quirement for a student on a case-by-case basts.
"(2) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent a State from allowing a local educational
agency that has expelled a s~u4ent from ~uch a stu~ent's regu·
lar school setting from provtdmg educahonal servtces to such
student in an alternative setting.
"(3) SPECIAL RULE.-(AJ Any State that has a law in effect
prior to the date of enactment of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 which is in conflict with the not less than
one year expulsion requirement described in paragraph (1) shall
have the period of time described in subparagraph (B) to com·
ply with such requireme!'lt.
.
. .
"(B) The period of ttme shall be the pertod begmmng on till
date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act and
ending one year after such date.
"(4) DEFINITION.-For the purpose of this section, the term
'weapon' means a firearm as such term is defined in section 921
oftitle 18, United States Code.
"(c) SPECIAL RULE.-The provisions of this section shall be con·
strued in a manner consistent with the Individuals with Disabilitiu
Education Act.
"(d) REPORT TO STATE.-Each local educational agency request·
ing assistance from the State educational agency that is to be provided from funds made availab~e t~ the State. under this ~ct shall
provide to the State, in the appltcatton requesttng such assJ.stance"(1) an assurance that such local educational agency is in
compliance with the State law required by subsecti~n (b); and
"(2) a description of the circumstances su_rroundtng any ~·
pulsions imposed under the State law reqwred by subsectlon
(b), including"(A) the name of the school concerned;
"(B) the number of students expelled from such schoo~
and
"(C) the type of weapons concerned.
"(e) REPORTING.-Each State shall report the information ck·
scribed in subsection (c) to the Secretary on an annual basis.
"({) REPORT TO CONGRESS.-Two years after the date of enact·
ment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, the Secretary
shall report to Congress if any State is not in compliance with tht
requirements of this title. ."SEC. 14602. POLICY REGARDING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM REFER·
.
RAL.
"(a) IN GENERAL.-No funds shall be made available under t~ia
Act to any local education~[ C!genry u~less ~uch C!gency. has a pol1t1
requiring referral to the crtmmal ;usttce or ;uventle delmquency sys·
tem of any student who brings a firearm or weapon to a schod
served by such agency.
"(b) DEFINITIONS.-For the purpose of this section, the ternu
'firearm' and 'school' have the same meaning given to such terms by
section 921(a) of title 18, United States·Code.
"SEC. 14603. DATA AND POLICY DISSEMINATION UNDER IDEA.
"The Secretary shail-
;.•
;•t
'I
"(1) widely disseminate the policy of the Department in effect on the date of enactment of the Improving America's
S~hoo!~ ~ct of 1994 with respect to disciplining children with
d£Sabtl1ttes;
. . "(2) collect data on the incidence o( children with disabilJ.ttes (a~ sue~ te"!"; ifJ defined in section 602(a)(1) of the Individl.fals Wtth. Dtsabtlr.,tte~ Education Act) engaging in life threatenmg behavtor or bnngr.ng weapons to schools; and
"(3) submit a report to Congress not later than January 31
1995, analyzing the strengths and problems with the current
approaches regarding disciplining children with disabilities.
"PART G-EVALUATIONS
EVALUATIONS.
"(a) EVALUATIONS."(1) IN_ GENE~-Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary J.s authon.z.ed to reserve not more than 0.60 percent of
the amo~nt appropnated to carry out each program authorized
under th1s Act.
"(A) to carry out comprehensiVe eooluations of categorJ.cal programs .and demonstrati?n projects, and studies of
p;ogr_am effectr.veness, under th1B Act, and the administratwe. 1mfact of. su.ch programs on schools and local educatto!la agenctes 1n accordance with subsection (b);
(B) to evaluate the aggregate short- and long-term. effec_ts and cost efficiencies across Federal progmTM runder
thtS Act and related Federal preschool, elementary and seconda;~ programs under other Federal law; and
. '(C) to strenqthen the usefulness ofgrant recipient eval1.fat1ons for ~ntr.nuous program progress through. improvJng th~ qualJty,, timeliness, efficiency, and utilization of pro~ram mformatwn on program perfOrmance.
(2) SPECIAL RULE.-(A) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
any program under title I.
. "(B) If funds are made available under any pro~m ass£Sted u_nder t~itf ;Act (other than a program under title ljJJr
e~aluat1on actJvr.ttes, then the Secretary shall reserve no
itJ.onal funds pursuant to the authority in subsection (a)(1) to
evaluate such PN?gram, but. shall coordinate the evaluation of
sue~ program w1th the natwnal evaluation described in subsectton (b).
"(b) NATIONAL EvALUATIONS.."(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall use the funds made
avatlabl~, u~r subsection (a) ~o carry out. (A) tndependent studtes of categorical and demonstrat1on programs urukr this Act and the administrative impact f:!f such programs on schools and local educational
agenctes, that are coordinated with research supported '
through t?te Office of Educational Research and lmprove~nt, Ufl'ng ':'lfOrous. methodological designs and techmques, tncllfdmg longr.tudinal designs, control groups, and
random ass&gnment, as appropriate, to determine-
"SEC. 14701.
,
.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
SUBJECT:
Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools .r...ct
of 1994, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act
Our schools are increasingly plagued by violence and crime that
is abhorrent to all law-abiding citizens. It is of paramount
importance that this Nation's schools be safe, disciplined, and
conducive to learning.
Several laws passed this year will promote our effort to make
schools safe for learning. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994
provides that within one year, every State receiving.federal
aid for elementary and secondary education must have a law
requiring school districts to expel from school for at least
one year any student who brings a gun to school, subj.ect to
certain exceptions. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act funds comprehensive violence prevention
programs, including those that enhance school security.
To ensure vigorous enforcement, I am directing you to coordinate
implementation of these anti-violence measures with appropriate
local authorities to the maximum extent possible. Your collaborative efforts should include the States, school districts,
law enforcement agencies£ and educators. In the case of the
Gw~-Free Schools Act, enforcement should include termination
of Federal assistance if you determine that ·a State is not in
compliance.
You should report to me in writing by December 31 on the
specific steps you have taken to implement these statutes.
�UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE SECnETARY
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
In response to your memorandum of October 22 requesting a
December 31, 1994, report on the steps we have taken to implement
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and the GunFree Schools Act, I am pleased to provide the following
information.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA),
enacted as Title IV of Title I of the Improving America's Schools
Act of 1994, expands the scope of the pre-existing Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act to authorize activities related to
violence prevention. The SDFSCA will provide support for formula
grants for a broad range of drug and violence prevention
activities by State and local educational agencies, as well as
Governors. The SDFSCA also supports national discretionary
activities, including direct grants, training and technical
assistance, and information development and dissemination.
Funds will be mad~ available to the States under the SDFSCA
formula grant program on July 1, 1995. Although your budget for
Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 requested $480 million for the formula
grant program and $80 million for National Programs, Congress
appropriated $457 million for the formula grant program and $25
million for National Programs. While most of the $25 million
provided for National Programs will be used to meet continuation
obligations for existing grants, approximately $6 million has
been set aside to provide assistance and leadership on issues
related to implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act discussed
below.
Your October 22 memorandum directed us to coordinate, to the
maximum extent possible, with States, school districts, law
enforcement agencies, and educators as we began implementation of
the violence prevention programs. Accordingly, we provided
assistance to States in understanding and implementing the new
law at a Department-sponsored conference in December that
included representatives from every State. To ensure that we are
aware of issues that concern our customers, we are holding five
regional consultation sessions that will allow State and local
educational agency personnel, as well as representatives from
Governor's offices, to discuss their needs and concerns and make
suggestions that would facilitate the development of the most
400 MARYLAND AVE .• S.W.
WASIIINGTON. D.C. :.!0:.!0:.!·0100
�effective drug and violence prevention programs and strategies in
their States.
In keeping with the Administration's emphasis on flexibility, we
have decided to administer the formula grant program without
issuing any new regulations. We will use only the Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) and nonregulatory guidance to administer the formula grant program. We
are currently developing an application package that will allow
States to submit a consolidated application for FY 1995 funding
under the SDFSCA formula grant program and other elementary and
secondary education formula grant programs.
Gun-Free Schools Act
The Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA), enacted as Title XIV (Part F) of
Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act~ requires that
States pass laws requiring local educational agencies to expel
for at least one year students found to have brought a weapon to
school. The GFSA provides flexibility by permitting a local
educational agency's chief administering officer to modify the
expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis. States with laws
in conflict with the GFSA requirements (virtually all States, we
believe) have until October 20, 1995 to comply. The GFSA also
requires that local educational agencies refer students found to
have brought a weapon to school to the criminal justice or
juvenile delinquency system.
On November 28, 1994, we notified each Governor and Chief State
School Officer·about the new law and shared your memo to me
outlining your interest in implementation of the requirements.
We indicated that more detailed guidance would be provided as
quickly as possible.
In order to develop appropriate guidance, we have consulted with
a number of interested parties to hear their views on the
important and difficult implementation issues. We have met with
representatives of the State Attorney Generals Association, the
National Council of State Legislatures, the National School
Boards Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers,
the National Education Association, the American Federation of
Teachers, the PTA, the Police Foundation, and the International
Association of Chiefs of Police. These meetings and briefings
have demonstrated that there exists a signifi~ant level of
concern on the part of State and local education officials about
the implementation of these provisions. Many believe that the
GFSA intrudes upon the rights of States, and object to the oneyear expulsion requirement in particular.
We plan to take the following actions in order to minimize
controversy and difficulties in implementation:
o
Develop and disseminate detailed implementation guidance on
a number of issues that require interpretation of the
�statutory language.
Our approach is to provide the maximum
amount of flexibility to States and local educational
agencies, while maintaining an appropriate emphasis on the
importance of safe and disciplined schools and the statutory
requirements. The guidance will be disseminated to
Governors, Chief State Sch6ol Officers, and selected
legislators within 30 days.
o
Develop and implement an initiative, funded with $6 million
from the FY 1995 SDFSCA National Programs appropriation that
responds to the most common concern voiced about
implementation of the GFSA provisions -- the negative effect
of removing students from school without addressing their
continuing education needs. The initiative will include:
-- a small grant program for the development and testing of
innovative alternatives to expulsion;
-- technical assistance to local educational agencies
concerning existing strategies designed to provide
educational and other needed services to students in
alternative placements;
-- development and broad dissemination of information about
existing strategies designed to provide educational and
other needed services to students in alternative placements.
I believe that our efforts to implement the GFSA provisions
represent a comprehensive plan to identify and address concerns
expressed by educators and others affected by the provisions,
while continuing to.emphasize the importance of removing weapons
from our Nation's schools.
Please be assured that we will
continue to move as quickly as possible to complete the course of
action laid out in this letter.
If you have any questions regarding our plan, or desire
additional information, please contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Richard
w.
Riley
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Jonathan Prince
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Jonathan Prince
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1998
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36296" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763293" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0466-F
Description
An account of the resource
Jonathan Prince served in various capacities during the two terms of the Administration. He was one of President Clinton’s speechwriters, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and directed the public relations effort related to the fallout from the bombing of refugees by NATO forces during the war in Kosovo. This collection consists his speechwriting files which contain speech drafts, handwritten notes, memoranda, correspondence, publications, and schedules. Prince wrote most of President Clinton’s radio addresses from 1993-1997. He also specialized in dealing with domestic issues such as crime, gun control, unemployment, urban development, and welfare.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
187 folders in 11 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
1994 Education – Guns and Schools
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Jonathan Prince
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0466-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 4
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0466-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763293" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
12/15/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7763293-20060466F-004-010-2014
7763293