The author examines the controversy surrounding the discipline provisions of the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and suggests that the provisions may serve to encourage systemic reform capable of dramatically impacting the educational and postschool careers of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. The IDEA discipline provisions may assist in curbing traditional exclusionary practices and in developing alternatives to suspension and expulsion. Thus, they may fortify a pedagogically sound and efficacious approach to addressing problem behavior, enhance teacher effectiveness, and improve the schools’ accountability for all students. Such reform is capable of reconciling the competing goals of educational equity and excellence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongS. W., & KauffmanJ. M. (1999). Functional behavioral assessment: Introduction to the series.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 167–168.
2.
BlackS. (1999, January). Locked out.American School Board Journal. Retrieved February 29, 2002, from http://www.asbj.com.
3.
BlackorbyJ., & WagnerM. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.Exceptional Children62, 399–413.
4.
BockS. J., SavnerJ. L., & TapscottK. E. (1998). Suspension and expulsions: Effective management for students?Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(1), 50–52.
5.
BryantT. J. (1998). The death knell for school expulsion: The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.The American University Law Review, 47, 487–555. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe.
6.
BoeckmanL. L. (1998). Bestowing the key to public education: The effects of judicial determinations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act on disabled and nondisabled students.Drake Law Review, 46, 855–880. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
7.
Boston Public Schools, 34 IDELR 102 (SEA Mass. 2001).
8.
BowditchC. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and the production of dropouts.Social Problems, 40, 493–507.
9.
BunchE. A. (1998). Chalk Talk: School discipline under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: How the stay-put provision limits schools in providing a safe learning environment.Journal of Law and Education, 27, 315–321. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe.
10.
CostenbaderV., & MarksonS. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students.Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 59–82.
11.
Doe v. Board of Ed., 23 IDELR 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1996). and 24 IDELR 385 (N.D Ill. 1996).
12.
Doe v. Koger, 480 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Ind.1979).
13.
Doe v. Maher, 793 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986).
14.
Doe v. Manning, 21 IDELR 357 (W.D. Va. 1994).
15.
DupreA. P. (1997). Disability and the public school: The case against “inclusion.”, Washington Law Review, 72, 775–858. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
16.
EngelD. M. (1991). Law, culture and children with disabilities: Educational rights and the construction of difference.Duke Law Journal, 166–205. Retrieved November 13, 1998 from http://web.exis-nexis.com/universe
17.
FrankA. R., SitlingtonP. A. (1997). Young adults with behavioral disorders—Before and after DEA.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 40–56.
18.
GableR. A. (1999). Functional assessment in school settings.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 246–248.
19.
GlennonT. (1993). Disabling ambiguities: Confronting barriers to the education of students with emotional disabilities.Tennessee Law Review, 60, 295–364. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
20.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
21.
GreshamF. M., QuinnM. M., & RestoriA. (1999). Methodological issues in functional analysis: Generalizability to other disability groups.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 180–182.
22.
GroeschelR. W. (1998). Comment: Discipline and the disabled student: The IDEA reauthorization responds.Wisconsin Law Review, 1085–1132. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.exis-nexis.com/universe
23.
Hacienda La Purnte Unified School District v. Honig, 976 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992).
24.
HarwtigE. P., RobertshawC. S., & RueschG. M. (1991). Disciplining children with disabilities.Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report (Special Rep. No. 5). Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
25.
HannonR. C. (1997). Returning to the true goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Self-sufficiency.Vanderbilt Law Review, 50, 715–752. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
26.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. at 323,108 S. Ct. at 604 (1988).
27.
Horry County Sch. Dist. v. P. F., 29 IDELR 354 (D.S.C. 1998).
28.
HowellK. W., & NelsonK. L. (1999). Has public policy exceeded our knowledge base? This is a two-part question.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 331–334.
29.
HustonJ. L. (1998). Inclusion: A proposed remedial approach ignores legal and educational issues.Journal of Law and Education, 27, 249–256. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
30.
JensenG. (1996). Disciplining students with disabilities: Problems under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.BYU Education and Law Journal, 34–54. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
31.
JohnsB. H., CarrV. G., & HootsC. W. (1997). Reduction of school violence: Alternatives to suspension.Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
32.
Kaelin v. Grubbs, 554 IDELR 115 (6th Cir. 1982).
33.
KatsiyannisA., & MaagJ. W. (1998). Disciplining students with disabilities: Issues and considerations for implementing IDEA ‘97.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 276–289.
34.
KatsiyannisA., & MaagJ. W. (2001). Manifestation determination as a golden fleece.Exceptional Children, 68, 85–96.
35.
KauffmanJ. M. (1996). Research to practice issues.Behavioral Disorders, 22, 55–60.
36.
LevinB. (1986). Educating youth for citizenship: The conflict between authority and individual rights in the public school.The Yale Law Journal, 95, 1647–1680
37.
LevinH. M. (1997). Doing what comes naturally: Full inclusion in accelerated schools. In LipskyD. K., & GartnerA. (Eds.), Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America's classrooms (pp. 389–400). Baltimore: Brookes.
38.
MaagJ. W., & KatsiyannisA. (1998). Challenges facing successful transition for youths with E/BD.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 209–221.
39.
MacchiarolaF. J., LipskyD. K., & GartnerA. (1996). The judicial system and equality in schooling.Fordham Urban Journal, 23, 567–606. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
40.
MalmgrenK., EdgarE., & NeelR. W. (1998). Postschool status of youths with behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 257–263.
41.
MelvinD. H. (1995). The desegregation of children with disabilities.DePaul Law Review, 44, 599–671. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
42.
MorrisonG. M., & D'IncauB. (1997). The web of zero-tolerance: Characteristics of students who are recommended for expulsion from school.Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 316–335.
43.
NelsonJ. R., MathurS. R., & RutherfordR. B. (1999). Has public policy exceeded our knowledge base? A review of the functional behavioral assessment literature.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 169–179.
44.
NicholsJ. D., LudwinW. G., & IadicolaP. (1999). A darker shade of gray: A year-end analysis of discipline and suspension data.Equity and Excellence in Education, 32(1), 43–54.
45.
RachelsonA. D. (1997). Expelling students who claim to be disabled: Escaping the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's “stay-put” provision.Michigan Law and Policy Review, 2. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
46.
RebellM. A., & HughesR. L. (1996). Schools, communities, and the courts: A dialogic approach to education reform.Yale Law and Policy Review, 14. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
47.
ReedR. R. (1996). Education and the state constitutions: Alternatives for suspended and expelled students.Cornell Law Review, 81, 582–622. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
48.
Rodiriecus L. v. Waukegan School District, 24 IDELR 563 (7th Cir. 1996).
49.
RylanceB. J. (1997). Predictors of high school graduation or dropping out for youths with severe emotional disturbances.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 5–17.
50.
S-1 v. Turlington, 552 IDELR 267 (5th Cir. 1981).
51.
SampleP. L. (1998). Postschool outcomes for students with significant emotional disturbance following best-practice transition services.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 231–242.
52.
SassoG. M., ConroyM. A., StichterJ. P., & FoxJ. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–296.
53.
School Board of the County of Prince William, Virginia v. Malone, 555 IDELR 402 (E.D. Va. 1984).
54.
ScottT. M., & NelsonC. M. (1999). Functional behavioral assessment: Implications for training and staff development.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249–252.
55.
SkibaR., & PetersonR. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools?Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 372–376.
56.
SkrticT. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence.Harvard Education Review, 61, 148–194.
57.
StageS. A. (1997). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between in-school suspension and the disruptive classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 57–76.
58.
Steldt v. School Board, 885 F. Supp. 1192 (W.D. Wis. 1995).
59.
SugaiG., & HornerR. (2001). School climate and discipline: Going to scale. A framing paper for the National Summit on the Shared Implementation of IDEA June 2001. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from Positive Behavioral Supports web site: http://www.pbis.org/english/index.html
60.
SugaiG., HornerR. H., DunlapG., HienemanM., LewisT. J., NelsonC. M., ScottT., LiaupsinC., SailorW., TurnbullA. P., TurnbullH. R., WickkhamD., RuefM., & WilcoxB. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from IDEA Partnerships web site: http://www.ideapractices.org
61.
SugaiG., HornerR. H., & SpragueJ. R. (1999). Functional-assessment-based behavior support planning: Research to practice to research.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 253–257.
62.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/index.html
63.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001a). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/index.html
Virginia Dept. of Educ. v. Riley, 24 IDELR 278 (4th Cir. 1996).
66.
Virginia Dept. of Educ. v. Riley, 25 IDELR 309 (4th Cir. 1997).
67.
WebberJ., & ScheuermannB. (1997). A challenging future: Current barriers and recommended action for our field.Behavioral Disorders, 22, 167–178.
68.
WrenJ. (1995). Alternative schools for disruptive youths—A cure for what ails school districts plagued by violence?Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 2. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe
69.
YellM. L. (1998). The law and special education.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
