Navigating the Gray Area: A School District's Documentation of the Relationship between Disability and Misconduct

Abstract

Background/Context

The administration of student discipline is one of many responsibilities under the purview of teachers and educational leaders across the country. Maintaining a safe environment with minimal disruptions is not an easy task. From existing research on student discipline, we have learned that critical examination of data and continuous reflection are important, particularly in light of documented disparities in discipline practices. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), before a school district may discipline a student with a disability for greater than 10 days, it must first conduct what is referred to as a manifestation determination review (MDR) (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(E)). During this review process, the current version of the law requires school districts to address two questions: (1) Was the student's behavior caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability? (2) Was the student's misconduct caused by the district's failure to implement the student's individualized education program (IEP), as required by law? This study examines the implementation of this standard.

Research Question

This study poses the following research question: What factors (explicit and implicit) influence decision makers when deciding whether a student's misconduct was a manifestation of his or her disability?

Research Design

This project used a case study approach to examine 80 MDR decisions in one large urban school district in order to better understand how decision makers implement this standard. Specifically, this study reviewed 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were not a manifestation of his or her disability and 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were a manifestation of his or her disability.

Findings/Results

Decision makers cited the academic and behavioral manifestations of students’ disabilities, students’ behavioral histories, students’ ability to control their actions, and connections to the home and community. Despite these consistent factors, the striking similarities between Yes and No decisions illustrates the overall arbitrary nature of the decision-making process.

Conclusions/Recommendations

This article discusses implications that attend to both the procedure and substance of manifestation determination review.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnberger

, & Shoop

(2006). A principal's guide to manifestation determination. Principal Leadership, 6(9), 16—21.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Doe v. Maher 793 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986).

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1975).

Harry

, & Klingner

(2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-779 (2004).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1997).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 USCS §§ 1400 et seq. (2006).

10.

Katsiyannis

, & Maag

(2001). Manifestation determination as a golden fleece. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 85—96.

11.

Knoster

(2000). Understanding the difference and relationship between functional behavioral assessments and manifestation determinations. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(1), 53—58.

12.

Lewis

M. M.

(2017). Were the student's actions a manifestation of the student's disability? The need for policy change and guidance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(50), 1—24.

13.

Losen

D. J.

(Ed.). (2014). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

14.

Losen

D. J.

, & Orfield

(Eds.). (2002). Racial inequality in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

15.

Mead

(1999). The reauthorization process of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Expressions of equity. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(4), 476—492.

16.

Merriam

S. B.

(1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

17.

S-1 v Turlington, 635 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1981).

18.

Senate Rep. 108-185. (2003). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/108/crpt/srpt185/CRPT-108srpt185.pdf

19.

Skiba

R. J.

, Michael

R. S.

, Nardo

A. C.

, & Peterson

R. L.

(2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 17—342.

20.

Skiba

R. J.

, Poloni-Staudinger

, Gallini

, Simmons

A. B.

, & Feggins-Azziz

(2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72, 411—424.

21.

Skiba

, Simmons

, Ritter

, Kohler

, Henderson

, & Wu

(2006). The context of minority disproportionality: Practitioner perspectives on special education referral. Teachers College Record, 108, 1424—1459.

22.

Smith

(2000). Behavioral and discipline provisions of idea ‘97: Implicit competencies yet to be confirmed. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 403—412.

23.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006, August 14). 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301: Final rule. Federal Register, 71, 46,539 et seq.

24.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014, January 8). Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf

25.

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil Rights Data Collection. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf

26.

Walker

J. D.

, & Brigham

F. J.

(2016). Manifestation determination decisions and students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 25(2). doi:10.1177/1063426616628819

27.

Yell

, Rozalski

, & Drasgow

(2001). Disciplining students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(9), 1—20.

28.

Zilz

W. A.

(2006). Manifestation determination: Rulings of the courts. Education and the Law, 18(2–3), 193—206.

29.

Zirkel

(2006). Manifestation determinations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: What the new causality criteria mean. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 19(2), 3—12.

30.

Zirkel

(2010). Manifestation determinations under the New Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: An update. Remedial and Special Education, 31(5), 378—384.