State Office of Education Practices Implementing the IDEA Disciplinary Provisions

* Disciplining students with disabilities while safeguarding their right to a free, appropriate public education has been a controversial issue since the passage of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, in 1975. Initially, federal legislation did not include provisions to address the issue of student discipline. Consequently, this issue had been addressed largely by court rulings-- including rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court-- as well as by memoranda from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP, 1995). Examples of interpretations provided through those sources include the nature of procedural safeguards in long-term suspensions (i.e., suspensions of more than 10 consecutive days) and/or expulsion of students with disabilities (Kaelin v. Grubbs, 1982; S-1 v. Turlington, 1981); the student's status during the pendency of any administrative and judicial proceedings related to disciplinary matters (Honig v. Doe, 1988); the need for manifestation determination when exclusion constitutes a change of placement (S-1 v. Turlington; School Board of The County of Prince William, Virginia v. Malone, 1985); the need for continuous services for excluded students with disabilities (OSEP, 1995; S-1 v. Turlington); the availability of injunctive relief-related procedures for school districts when encountering violent students (Honig v. Doe); and the option of interim placements of up to 45 days for students and bringing weapons to school (OSEP, 1995). Viewed together, this succession of court cases and OSEP memos has provided guidelines for school districts in implementing disciplinary procedures with students who have disabilities. Concern over the rates at which students either perpetuate or are victimized by acts of aggression and violence has received national attention. In-the mid-1990s, 3 million acts of violence and theft took place in and around public schools each year, and more than 100,000 weapons were brought to school daily (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; General Accounting Office, 1997). Notwithstanding a leveling off and actual decline in reported incidence, media attention and public and parental pressure prompted federal initiatives. For example, Congress attempted to address the concern voiced by numerous school personnel over disciplining of students with disabilities by adding significant provisions during the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA '97). Specifically, Congress expanded the authority of school officials to protect the safety of all students, while ensuring the rights of students with disabilities, and emphasized the use of effective techniques and methodologies to prevent behavior problems, including the requirement that the individualized education program (IEP) contain behavioral intervention strategies (Katsiyannis & Maag, 1998; Yell, Katsiyannis, Bradley, & Rozalski, 2000). The IDEA '97 disciplinary provisions also address student placement in an interim alternative educational setting, the authority of hearing officers, the manifestation determination review, the status of students during parent appeals, the availability of an expedited hearing, protections for students not yet eligible for special education, and referral to and action by law enforcement and judicial authorities. Researchers and practitioners have discussed the magnitude of the challenge schools face in translating the disciplinary provisions into classroom and school practice. Although IDEA '97 provides mandates for state and local education agencies to follow when implementing disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities, a number of legislative components are subject to varying interpretation and debate (Conroy, Clark, Katsiyannis, Gable, & Fox, 2000; Katsiyannis & Maag, 1998). Foremost among these components are: (a) manifestation determinations, (b) cessation of services, (c) functional behavioral assessment (FBA); and (d) behavioral intervention plans (Katsiyannis & Maag, 1998). …