 |
| (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
This is the most recent post in the
continuing series that is meant to be an introduction to special
education law. In today's post we will be discussing discipline of
students with disabilities. People often ask why disciplinary actions
are regulated by the special education law. The reason is that before
passage of the law's predecessor, it was common for school officials to
exclude children with disabilities by expelling them and giving them
long suspensions. This series of abuses was reflected in the legislative history of the law.
Discipline is one area that seems to cause folks to develop stomach problems (sorta like the rule against perpetuities in law school), but it isn't really as hard as we seem to make it. Let me know if this explanation helps.
Discipline Issues
The IDEA imposes special rules that govern the discipline of students with a disability. The
basic rule is that a special education student may not have her
placement changed (i.e., suspensions of more than 10 days or expulsion)
for conduct that is a manifestation of her disability. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(F). If
the behavior is not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the
student may be disciplined in the same manner and for the same duration
as children without disabilities. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(C).
One
exception is that, regardless of manifestation, the schools may remove a
student to an interim alternative educational setting, sometimes
referred to as “IAES,” for up to 45 school days if (1) the student
possesses a weapon at school; or (2) the student possesses or uses or
sells illegal drugs at school; or (3) the student has inflicted “serious
bodily injury” upon another person while at school. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(G). The
schools may also ask a hearing officer to change the placement of a
student with a disability to an IAES if remaining in the current
placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or
others. IDEA, § 615(k)(3)(A) and (B).
Another
cardinal rule in the discipline area is that regardless of whether the
conduct of a student was a manifestation of the student’s disability,
where a student with a disability is removed from his current placement,
the schools must continue to provide educational services to ensure
FAPE for the student and to enable the student to continue to
participate in the general curriculum although in another setting. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(D). See generally regarding discipline issues, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530 – 300.537.
The Supreme Court dealt with discipline issues and endorsed the
stay put provision in the case of Honig v. Doe 484 U.S. 305, 108 S.Ct.
594, 559 IDELR 231 (1988). In that
decision, the Supreme Court, noting the Congressional intent in preventing the
exclusion of disabled students and reiterating the importance of the procedural
safeguards under the IDEA, refused to read a dangerousness exception into the
stay put provision. The high Court outlines the history of abuses of the discipline of kids with disabilities in that decision.
In District of Columbia v. Doe ex rel Doe 611 F.3d 888, 54 IDELR 275 (DC Cir 7/6/10) DC Circuit ruled that HO did not exceed his authority where he reduced a disciplinary suspension.
HO reduced a 45 day suspension to an 11 day suspension noting the
trivial nature of the infraction and finding that the more lengthy
suspension denied FAPE to the student.
.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment