RUNNING HEAD: IDEA and Discipline 1

IDEA and Discipline

Samantha Olivieri

University of New England

EDU 720: Special Education Law for the Class

March 21st, 2016

RUNNING HEAD: IDEA and Discipline 2

IDEA and Discipline

Part One

According to Hulett, under IDEA an LEA does not legally have knowledge that a

child has a disability if he or she was evaluated and found ineligible for special education

services (2009). According to Mr. Rodriguez, a special education supervisor, Brian was

evaluated prior to the incident and did not qualify for services (Weishaar, 2007). This

means that Brians school was not legally aware that he might be a child with a disability.

The law also states that an LEA is aware if a parent has expressed concern in

writing (Hulett, 2009, p. 185). In case 5.1, Brians mother writes that based on

significant behaviors he displays at home, she cant help but wonder if Brian is

emotionally disturbed and needs help (Weishaar, 2007, p.49). If Ms. Demko had

expressed these concerns to the school prior to the incident, Brian would have been

protected under IDEA, as the school would have had knowledge of the disability.

Similarly, the law states that an LEA had knowledge if the childs teacher reports

concerns of repetive behavior to proper personnel (Hulett, 2009). Ms. Pullman, Brians

English teacher, noticed a pattern of failing grades and an emotional change when the

coursework became too difficult for Brian (Wieshaar, 2007). Unfortunately, Mrs. Pullman

did not appear to make this connection or report it until after the incident occurred. Had

Mrs. Pullman conveyed her concern to Mr. Rodriguez or another appropriate staff

member he would be entitled to rights under IDEA.

RUNNING HEAD: IDEA and Discipline 3

Part Two

In case 5.2, Terrance engaged in an altercation with the building principal, during

which marijuana was found in his possession. Terrance was then suspended for 10 days

and a meeting was held to determine if the incident was a direct result of his disability.

A manifestation determination review was conducted with Terrances IEP team

and after careful discussion it was determined that despite having limited impulse control,

Terrance was aware that bringing drugs to school was unacceptable and the incident was

not a product of his disability (Weishaar, 2007). The team was then required to consider

whether or not the event involved special circumstances. According to Hulett, Terrances

incident was a special circumstance because he knowingly possesses or uses illegal

drugs,..while at school (2009, p.182). The author further states that regardless of

manifestation determination a special circumstance gives an LEA the right to change the

students placement (2009).

The IEP team followed the procedure by deciding that he would remain at home

with tutoring for 45 days while waiting for an expulsion hearing. Because Terrances

behavior was not a result of his disability, he was given the same disciplinary actions as

his peers (Hulett, 2009). Unfortunately, Terrance was expelled from school, and entered a

private day treatment facility where his learning disability and behavior problems could

be addressed (Weishaar, 2007, p.56).

Terrances team did take into consideration whether his IEP was properly being

implemented and all members of the team agreed that it was. Had they found it was not,

they would have readdressed his FBA and behavior plan, and he would return to school

after his 45 days at home.

RUNNING HEAD: IDEA and Discipline 4

References

Hulett, K.E. (2009). Legal aspects of special education. Upper Saddle

River,

NJ: Pearson.

Weisharr, M.K. (2007). Case studies in special education law: No Child

Left Behind

Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.