Month: November 2025

Statement on Senate Passage of Pennsylvania CROWN Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Lindsay Wagner, [email protected], (215) 701-4264

Education Law Center-PA Statement on Senate Passage of Pennsylvania CROWN Act

Today, by an overwhelming, bipartisan, 44-3 vote, the Pennsylvania Senate approved the CROWN Act (HB 439), which protects Pennsylvanians against racial hair discrimination based on hair type, hair texture, or protective hairstyles like braids, twists, knots, and locs. Public school students are specifically protected by this law.

The Education Law Center-PA applauds the Pennsylvania Senate for passing this critical legislation that enacts statutory protections from this type of racial discrimination, and brings the Commonwealth into alignment with the growing majority of states (30) to statutorily outlaw this type of discrimination.

“Passing the PA CROWN Act is reform that Black girls in Pennsylvania’s public schools have been demanding,” said ELC-PA Senior Attorney Paige Joki. “This is a critical improvement for equity in our schools. Students’ right to wear protective styles — such as braids, locs, and twists — and the right to learn without fear of stigmatization, reprisals, school exclusions, or other disciplinary measures will now be codified by Pennsylvania’s non-discrimination law, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). This important legal shift helps safeguard students’ right to expression and helps ensure that students can learn without fear and that they can come to school as their full authentic selves. No child can learn in an environment that is teaching and enforcing discrimination.”

In the past several years, ELC-PA has had to challenge discriminatory school rules for banning hairstyles that aren’t “neat” or “well-groomed,” hair that is “colored or highlighted in any flamboyant colors,” and rules that prohibit the use of combs, headscarves, wave caps, or do-rags.

Students, families, and advocates in our communities have been powerful champions for needed changes in our schools. As detailed in ELC-PA’s first-of-its kind report, We Need Supportive Spaces that Celebrate Us: Black Girls Speak Out About Public Schools, racially discriminatory school rules that punish children for their hair textures and protective hairstyles have been an ever present part of many children’s educational experiences. This discrimination is illegal. ELC-PA invites community members to learn more directly from Black girls by reading our report, four-page companion guide, and one-pager.  Join us in the fight for equitable school rules by reviewing public school rules in your community and advocating for positive change.

This legislation, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, now heads to the Governor’s desk.

###

T.B. v. School District of Philadelphia: Protecting Students from Expulsion Before Disabilities Are Identified

Each month in 2025, we are highlighting an ELC milestone or success as we mark our 50th anniversary. See our timeline of ELC milestones here. 
Filed in 1997, T.B. v. School District of Philadelphia was a class-action lawsuit brought by the Education Law Center-PA on behalf of students who were expelled before being evaluated for special education services. “The gist of the claim was that their behaviors were such as to suggest that they might have a disability — and that the ‘child find’ requirement of IDEA meant that the district should do a screening to determine whether a full special education evaluation was warranted,” recalled Leonard Rieser, lead attorney and former ELC-PA co-director.  Case in point: The lead plaintiff, T.B. was expelled “after a long history of behavioral problems, consistent academic failure, disciplinary transfers and a request by T.B.’s mother for disability evaluation,” according to court filings. ELC-PA attorneys argued the district had failed to evaluate T.B. — and scores of other students annually — for disabilities before expelling her, despite its duty to do so under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA’s “child find” mandate obligates school districts to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities. T.B.’s case was not a one-off. Rieser estimated that over two years, 70 students had been expelled and several hundred transferred to alternative schools without receiving evaluations that would have confirmed the need for special education services, according to a news account at the time of the lawsuit. In 1998 the district agreed to settle the lawsuit and created the Behavior Performance Review process, which Rieser described as, “essentially, a checklist of questions that school personnel were required to answer to determine whether a special education evaluation should be conducted.” The district’s current Code of Conduct refers to the process in the section on student behavior and discipline. In T.B.’s case, she was readmitted to school, evaluated, and provided special education services. T.B. was “probably one of the first cases to create an actual system for protecting kids with disabilities from expulsion, etc., before identification,” said Rieser, noting that pre-expulsion assessment requirements are now on the books in multiple states and districts. “The value of the case as I see it is that it establishes an ongoing process that reaches all kids, not just those whose parents or advocates (or teachers) know to raise the issue,” he said.