Addressing Disciplinary Actions for Charlie: A Special Education Perspective

  Addressing Disciplinary Actions for Charlie: A Special Education Perspective Charlie, a fifth grader with a learning disability, finds himself facing serious disciplinary actions due to an incident involving theft and subsequent threatening behavior toward his teacher. Given the complexities of his situation, particularly regarding his special education needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there are several critical steps and considerations for the special education teacher, school administration, and stakeholders involved in Charlie's educational journey. Addressing Charlie's Suspension Following Charlie's 13-day suspension, the special education teacher must take immediate action to ensure compliance with IDEA provisions. According to IDEA regulations, any student with a disability who is suspended for more than ten school days must have their Individualized Education Program (IEP) reviewed to determine if the behavior that led to the suspension was a manifestation of their disability (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)). In this case, the special education teacher will need to collaborate with the IEP team to facilitate this review and assess whether Charlie’s behavior was related to his learning disability. Communication with Stakeholders The next step involves contacting several key stakeholders regarding Charlie's suspension. This includes: 1. Charlie's Parents: They must be informed of the suspension and the school's actions. Parents have a right to participate in discussions concerning their child's education, particularly when disciplinary measures are involved (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)). 2. IEP Team Members: This includes general education teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, and any other professionals who are part of Charlie's IEP team. Their input will be vital in determining the appropriateness of current supports and interventions. 3. School Administration: The assistant principal and principal should be involved in any discussions regarding changes to Charlie’s IEP or additional support services during the suspension period. Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) During the suspension, if Charlie is removed to an interim alternative educational setting (IAES), the school must ensure that he continues to receive educational services. IDEA mandates that students with disabilities must have access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) even during disciplinary removals (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)). The IEP team should determine how services will be delivered in the IAES setting, which may involve providing modified instruction that aligns with his IEP goals. Stakeholders involved in this discussion will include: - The special education teacher, who can provide insights into Charlie's learning needs. - The school administrator overseeing the IAES. - Charlie's parents, who should be informed and involved in decision-making. Manifestation Determination Review Assuming a manifestation determination review is held and it is concluded that Charlie's behavior was not a manifestation of his disability, several disciplinary actions become permissible. Under IDEA, if a student’s behavior is not a result of their disability, schools can impose the same disciplinary measures as they would for students without disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C)). This means that Charlie could face further consequences up to and including expulsion, depending on the severity of the offense. However, it is essential to note that while disciplinary actions may be enforced, schools are still required to provide educational services to ensure FAPE is maintained during the duration of any disciplinary action (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)). This could involve continued access to educational materials and instruction tailored to his IEP goals. Appeals Process If Charlie's parents choose to appeal the manifestation determination, they have the right to request a due process hearing under IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)). During this process, they can challenge whether the behavior was indeed not a manifestation of Charlie's disability. The outcome of such hearings can lead to reinstatement of services or modifications in how his educational needs are addressed moving forward. It is crucial for parents to understand that they retain the right to participate actively in all proceedings affecting their child's education. Conclusion Charlie's situation underscores the importance of adhering to IDEA regulations when addressing behavioral issues involving students with disabilities. The special education teacher plays a vital role in ensuring compliance with legal requirements while advocating for Charlie's educational rights. By involving all relevant stakeholders and implementing appropriate supports during disciplinary actions, schools can help mitigate adverse effects on students like Charlie and promote a more positive educational experience. References - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. - U.S. Department of Education. (2004). A Guide to the Individualized Education Program. - Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). The Law and Special Education. Pearson. This structured approach ensures that all legal requirements are met while prioritizing Charlie’s educational needs and rights under IDEA.

Sample Answer