Nondiscrimination Policy for Schools

Summary#

HB 2873 would amend Pennsylvania’s Public School Code of 1949 by adding a requirement for school entities to adopt and publish a nondiscrimination awareness and prevention policy. Its stated goal is to set required policy content and support schools with a state-developed model and educational materials. The bill is introduced and is not law; if enacted, it would take effect 60 days later.

  • School districts, charter schools, intermediate units and other defined school entities must adopt a policy, tell employees and students’ parents or legal guardians about it, and post it on a publicly accessible website.
  • The state Department of Education must consult organizations serving people with disabilities, communities of color and LGBTQ+ people to develop a model policy. It must also identify educational materials and make them available to school entities and, upon request, nonpublic schools.
  • Policies must include statements about nondiscrimination and gender identity, and methods for prevention, intervention, responding to incidents, reporting and school safety.
  • Policies must include procedures for early identification and referral of students at risk, and for a behavior threat assessment process based on appraisal of behavior.
  • Nonpublic schools are not required by this bill to adopt a policy; they may request the department’s materials.

What it means for you#

  • School entities: They must adopt a policy consistent with the bill’s required content, inform employees and parents or legal guardians, and post the policy online. They may base it on the department’s model, but the bill does not require them to use that model.
  • Students and school employees: The policy must state that they will not be discriminated against or harassed based on listed characteristics, including race, religion, disability, gender identity or expression, and sexual orientation. The bill requires this policy statement; the supplied text does not set out a complaint process or penalties.
  • Parents and legal guardians: They must be informed of the school entity’s policy.
  • Nonpublic schools: They may request the department’s educational materials. The bill does not require them to adopt the policy.
  • Taxpayers: The bill creates duties for the Department of Education and school entities, but does not state how those duties would be funded.

Money#

Estimated cost: No publicly available information.

  • The department must develop a model policy and identify and provide educational materials; school entities must adopt, communicate and post policies. The bill gives no staffing or cost estimate.
  • The bill creates no tax, fee, fine, benefit or funding appropriation.

What is unclear#

  • The bill says school entities must comply beginning in the 2025–2026 school year, but also says it takes effect 60 days after enactment. How the earlier school-year date would work if the bill becomes law later is unclear.
  • The bill does not set criteria for identifying students “at risk,” assessing behavior, or choosing preventive or corrective measures.
  • It requires reporting procedures and a behavior threat assessment process but does not specify timelines, decision rules, appeals, oversight or enforcement.
  • The Public School Code as currently in force was not supplied, so existing policy duties and how this bill would interact with them could not be verified.
  • The bill does not say how compliance would be checked or what happens if a school entity does not comply.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would require every school entity to address discrimination, harassment and intimidation in a written, public policy.
  • The required content covers both prevention and responses to reported incidents, rather than focusing only on responses after harm occurs.
  • A state model policy and educational materials could give school entities a common starting point while allowing them to adopt their own policy.
  • The bill requires consultation with organizations serving named communities when the department develops its model.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill requires schools to create several procedures but leaves key terms and decision standards, such as who is “at risk,” unclear.
  • The bill requires a threat assessment process but does not specify its safeguards, oversight or appeal routes.
  • The department and school entities would have new duties, but the bill provides no cost estimate or funding.
  • The bill’s 2025–2026 start date may create uncertainty if it takes effect after that school year has begun or ended.