ALTHOUGH A FULL-FLEDGED ADVERSARY HEARING WOULD BE TOO COSTLY FOR SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THE HANDLING OF STUDENT DISCIPLINARY MATTERS, CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW MUST BE FOLLOWED. SUCH MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS INCLUDE ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THE STUDENT OF THE HEARING, A HEARING WHICH IS INVESTIGATIVE AND MERELY EXPLANATORY OF PUNISHMENT DECIDED UPON BY ADMINISTRATORS, AND AN IMPARTIAL HEARING BODY. ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS ARE WARRANTED IF EXPULSION IS THE POSSIBLE PENALTY. WHEN THIS OUTCOME IS POSSIBLE, THE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO EMPLOY COUNSEL. AN EXTENSION OF THE HOLDING FROM IN RE GAULT (1967) INDICATES THAT ADJUDICATIONS INVOLVING MINORS MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE PATERNALISM FOR DUE PROCESS SAFEGUARDS WHEN A PERSON'S LIBERTY IS THREATENED. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN GOSS V. LOPEZ (1975) REJECTED ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXPULSION AND SUSPENSION, AND HELD THAT ANY PENALTY THAT WOULD DENY ACCESS TO SCHOOL COULD NOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT CONFORMITY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS. THESE REQUIREMENTS COMPEL A HEARING BODY TO FIND EVIDENCE CONSTITUTING THE CHARGE, HEAR THE ACCUSED, AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE ACCUSED A STATEMENT REFLECTING THE DECISION MADE. THE WISCONSIN STATUTE ON SUSPENSIONS PROBABLY SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS DURING EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT MODIFICATIONS SEEM TO BE NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE STATUTE TO MEET THE GOSS STANDARDS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)