The purpose of this study was to determine the nature of written policies regarding suspension and expulsion of handicapped students in local education agencies in Virginia. Existing policies were examined in light of six components derived from the review of federal legislation, litigation, and model policies from other states. In addition, responses to a questionnaire were summarized and analyzed to enhance understanding of the use of these procedures with exceptional students in Virginia. Synthesis and refinement of this information produced components of a model procedure that reflects up-to-date trends in disciplining exceptional students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Education for the Handicapped Law Report. (1988). The lessons of Honig v. Doe. Suppl. 213, SA97–SA101.
2.
Education for the Handicapped Law Report. (1985–1988). Decisions.Alexandria, VA: CRR Publishing.
3.
FischerL., & SchimmelD. (1982). The rights of students and teachers.New York: Harper & Row.
4.
GallupA. M., & ElamS. M. (1981). The 13th annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitude toward the public schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 33–47.
5.
GallupA. M., & ElamS. M. (1987). The 19th annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitude toward the public schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 17–30.
6.
GallupA. M., & ElamS. M. (1988). The 20th annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitude toward the public schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 33–46.
7.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 955 Ct. 729 (1975).
8.
GrosenickJ., & HuntzeS. (1984). Positive alternatives to the disciplinary exclusion of behaviorally disordered students: National needs analysis in behavior disorders.Columbia: University of Missouri, Department of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 668)
9.
GeutzloeE., & WellsD. (1986). Utilizing the IEP: Florida's answer to the exclusion of behaviorally disordered students.Information analaysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 669)
10.
Hartog-RappF. (1985). The legal standard for determining the relationship between a child's handicapping condition and misconduct charged in a school disciplinary proceeding.Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 1985(2), 243–262.
11.
Honig v. Doe, U.S., 108 S. Ct. 592 (1988).
12.
Jackson v. Franklin County School Board, 765 F. 2d 535 (5th cir. 1985).
13.
Kaelin v. Grubbs, 682F. 2d 595 (6th cir. 1982).
14.
RothenbergH. (1986). Suspension and expulsion of handicapped children: An overview in light of Doe v. Maher.Western State University Law Review, 14(3), 341–353.
15.
S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F. 2d 342 (5th cir. 1981
16.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of1973. 29 USC/794.
17.
School Board v. Malone, 762 F. 2d 1210 (4th cir. 1985).
18.
SimonS. (1984). Discipline in the public schools: A dual standard for handicapped and nonhandicapped students.Journal of Law and Education, 13, 209–237.
19.
Southeast Warren Commission School District v. Department of Public Instruction, 285 N. W. 2d 173 (Iowa 1979).
20.
Stuart v. Nappi, 443 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1978).
21.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 USC/1401, 1975.
22.
UnderwoodJ. (1988). Special education discipline: Changing practices after Honig v. Doe.Journal of Law and Education, 17(3), 375–386.
23.
U.S. Department of Education. (1988). Suspension and explusion. Memorandum to State Directors of Special Education from Jeff Champagne.
24.
U.S. Office of Civil Rights. (1988). Long-term suspension or expulsion of handicapped students. Memorandum to OCR senior staff from LeGree S. Daniels.
25.
Virginia State Department of Education. (1988). Virginia School Laws.Richmond: Code of Virginia, State Legislature.
