Mississippi Teachers’ Bill of Rights
Mississippi House Bill 1110
HB1100: This bill establishes a Mississippi Teachers’ Bill of Rights that expands teacher authority over classroom discipline, strengthens due-process-style procedures for handling disruptive students, and adds limited liability protections and reporting requirements.
Full Analysis
Vote Statement
A vote for this bill is a vote to reinforce teacher authority and classroom order through clearer removal procedures and protections, while imposing some additional policy, training and reporting mandates on districts.
Key Provisions & Tradeoffs
Creates a statutory Teachers’ Bill of Rights that designates teachers as the primary authority in classroom matters and authorizes immediate removal of disruptive or threatening students under defined conditions.
Requires principals and districts to follow structured documentation, parental notification, conferences and escalating discipline steps for repeatedly removed students, with specific protections and appeal rights for teachers.
Provides presumptive immunity and optional fee reimbursement for teachers acting in good faith within policy, while requiring new district policies, annual trainings, and aggregate discipline data reporting to the state Department of Education.
Liberty Analysis
Economically, the bill does not create a new statewide spending program or entitlement, but it does impose some unfunded mandates on districts and charter schools: annual teacher/administrator trainings, policy revisions, and new recordkeeping and aggregate data reporting to the Mississippi Department of Education. These are ongoing compliance costs and a modest expansion of bureaucratic paperwork and state-level data collection. On the other hand, the bill does not mandate specific new services or staff positions; districts retain discretion over how to meet the requirements, so the fiscal hit is likely limited rather than major.
From a limited-government and decentralization perspective, the bill is mixed but leans pro-liberty in practice. It codifies that teachers, not central office administrators, are the primary authority in classroom matters and sharply limits principals’ ability to override a teacher’s removal decision. Procedures for parental notice, conferences, and behavior plans introduce some additional process, but they largely formalize what many districts already do, rather than creating a new layer of state control over curriculum or instruction. There is some centralization through mandatory policies, training, and reporting to MDE; that is a mild negative, but it is not accompanied by major new enforcement power or penalties.
On civil liberties and due process, the bill mostly operates within the existing suspension/expulsion framework and explicitly distinguishes short-term classroom removal from formal suspension and expulsion, which preserves current due process standards for the latter. It includes explicit protections and federal-law alignment for students with disabilities, and it requires parental notice, conferences, and written behavior plans after repeated removals. Teacher immunity is narrowed by exceptions for excessive force, criminal intent, bad faith, or violations of law, which helps prevent blanket shielding of misconduct. Overall, the bill tends to clarify authority and process rather than strip rights.
For parental rights and school choice, the bill modestly strengthens transparency and parental involvement by requiring that parents receive the code of student conduct and notice of teacher removal authority, plus conference and notification requirements after repeated incidents. It does not curtail any school choice mechanism or increase state control over private education. The biggest liberty tradeoff is the added top-down procedural and reporting mandates. Weighing that against the clearer empowerment of teachers to maintain order, protection from retaliation, and a more orderly learning environment—which is a precondition for any effective education system—the balance tilts toward a modestly positive, not transformative, pro-liberty reform.
It’s a sad day when we have to pass legislation to accomplish something so fundamental. I suggest rather that we hire and retain competent school leadership, support them with efforts to hire and retain competent teaching staff, and allow them to “run this business” the way it should be run. We should protect the competent from BS attacks by stupid parents and fore those there too incompetent to protect. Parents (the ones that aren’t stupid) should “know” that their school is being run with competence and they should know that if it isn’t the school staff will be relieved of their positions and replaced.
This is such a no-brainer and sorely needed. During Covid, my son was offered his first free Master's degree in Teaching if he would teach for 2 years in a disadvantaged school here in Mississippi. He never intended to teach, but he wanted to work and he thought it would be a good learning experience. He finished those 2 years and got out. He then traveled to England and got a different degree altogether. One of the biggest reasons he said he would not do that work is because in each class, there are 2 or 3 students who monopolize the time and hold everyone else hostage with their behavior. Of course, they continue to do this because principals generally aren't supportive of disciplinary action. They aren't directly affected by the child's behavior. All this does is keep every child learning at the level of the lowest common denominator. He tested those kids in the 8th grade and almost half couldn't read above a 3rd grade level! He said the amount of work one has to do to hold someone back is a job on its own. He enjoys the English language and enjoyed most of the students. However, he said schools are now just glorified daycare centers and the pay would have to triple and overtime be counted separately for him to even consider putting himself through that nonsense on a daily basis for 30 years. When teachers aren't allowed to run their classrooms, they become nothing more or less than a high school graduate. Why even get the degree?