This article examines school removals and transitions among nine special education students. First, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the local school discipline policy and special education contexts are discussed. Next, drawing from participants’ narrative accounts, the ways in which policy mandates and contextual conditions shaped their individual experiences are examined. Findings reveal the significance of IDEA and the profound impact of educational policies on students having academic and disciplinary difficulties. I argue for further examinations of the “on-the-ground” effects of educational policies and for students and their families to have more power in school accountability.
AbramsL.HaneyW. (2004). Accountability and the grade 9 to 10 transition: The impact on attrition and retention rates. In OrfieldG. (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis (pp. 181-205). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
AkomA. A. (2001). Racial profiling at school: The politics of race and discipline at Berkeley High. In SkibaR. J.NoamG. G. (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools safe? (pp. 51-63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2009). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 112, 1205-1209.
5.
Blackman-Jonesv.District of Columbia, 401 F.3d. 516, 522 (D.C. 2005).
6.
BrownT. M. (2007). Lost and turned out: Academic, social and emotional experiences of students excluded from school. Urban Education, 42, 432-455.
7.
ChaikenM. R. (2000). Violent neighborhoods: Violent kids. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
8.
ChristleC.NelsonM. C.JolivetteK. (2004). School characteristics related to the use of suspension. Education and the Treatment of Children, 27, 509-526.
9.
DatnowA.HubbardL.MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
10.
District of Columbia Public Schools. (2009a). Disciplinary responses to student behavior. Washington, DC: Author.
11.
District of Columbia Public Schools. (2009b). A new approach to student discipline: Proposed draft for community response. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
District of Columbia State Superintendent of Education. (2007). Agreement regarding Blackman/Jones compensatory education. Washington, DC: Author.
EckesS. E. (2006). Barriers to integration in the Mississippi Delta: Could charter schools be the new vehicle for desegregation?Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 6(1), 15-30.
15.
ElmoreR. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
16.
FarrellA. D.ErwinE. H.BettencourtA.MaysS.Vulin-ReynoldsM.SullivanT.. . . MeyerA. (2008). Individual factors influencing effective nonviolent behavior and fighting in peer situations: A qualitative study with urban African American adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37, 397-411.
17.
FergusonD. (2001). Technology in a constructivist classroom. Norfolk, VA: The Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
18.
GagnonJ. C.LeoneP. E. (2001). Alternative strategies for school violence prevention. In SkibaR. J.NoamG. G. (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools safe? (pp. 101-125). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
General Accounting Office. (2003). Special education: Numbers of formal disputes are generally low and states are using mediation and other strategies to resolve conflicts. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
GordonJ. M. (2004). Looking at high school dropout problems from students’ perspectives: Finding a solution (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
21.
HarryB.KlingnerJ. K.HartJ. (2005). African American families under fire: Ethnographic views of family strengths. Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 101-112.
22.
HehirT. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
23.
HoffD. J. (2008). Debate emerges of proposed rules on SES, choice. Education Week, 27(36), 18-19.
24.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004, P. L. 108-446. (2004).
25.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2006). School behavior and disciplinary experiences of youth with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
26.
JohnsonJ.DuffetA. (2002). When it’s your own child: A report on special education from the families who use it. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
27.
KellnerM. H.BryB. H.SalvadorD. S. (2008). Anger management effects on middle school students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Anger log use, aggressive and prosocial behavior. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 30, 215-230.
28.
LakeJ. F.BillingsleyB. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent–school conflict in special education. Remedial & Special Education, 21, 240.
29.
LehrC. A.TanC. S.YsseldykeJ. (2009). Alternative schools: A synthesis of state-level policy and research. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 19-32.
30.
LeoneP. E.DrakefordW. (1999). Alternative education: From a “last chance” model to a proactive model. Clearing House, 73(2), 86-88.
31.
LipmanP. (2003). Education and the new urban workforce in a global city. In SaltmanK. J.GabbardD. A. (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The militarization and corporatization of schools (pp. 273-286). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
32.
LosenD. (2004). Graduation rate accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act and the disparate impact on students of color. In OrfieldG. (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis (pp. 41-56). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
33.
McCurdyB. L.KunschC.ReibsteinS. (2007). Secondary prevention in the urban school: Implementing the behavior education program. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 9-19.
34.
MedleyN. S.LittleS. G.Akin-LittleA. (2008). Comparing individual behavior plans from schools with and without schoolwide positive behavior support: A preliminary study. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(1), 93-110.
35.
MorrisonG. M.AnthonyS.StorinoM. H.ChengJ. J.FurlongM. J.MorrisonR. L. (2001). School expulsion as a process and an event: Before and after effects on children at risk for school discipline. In SkibaR. J.NoamG. G. (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools safe? (pp. 45-71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
MuellerT. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 4-13.
37.
MuellerT. G.SingerG. H. S.DraperL. M. (2008). Reducing parental dissatisfaction with special education in two school districts: Implementing conflict prevention and alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18, 191-233.
38.
MunozJ. S. (2005). The social construction of alternative education: Re-examining the margins of public education for at-risk Chicano/a students. The High School Journal, 88(2), 3-22.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Overview of public elementary and secondary students, staff, schools, school districts, revenue, and expenditure: School year 2004-05 and fiscal year 2004. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007309.pdf
41.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Public alternative schools and programs for students at risk for educational failure: 2000-01. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002004.pdf
42.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009a). The condition of education 2009: Indicator 28 student suspensions and expulsions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). Student effort and educational progress: Elementary/secondary persistence and progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
45.
NogueraP. A. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
46.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
47.
OrfieldG.LosenD.WaldJ. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/410936.html
48.
ParrishT.HarrJ. J.PoirierJ. M.MadsenS.YonkerS. (2007). Special education financing study for the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
49.
PayneY. A.BrownT. M. (2010). The educational experience of street-life-oriented Black boys: How Black boys use street life as a site of resilience in high school. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3).
50.
Pettiesv.District of Columbia, 897 F.Supp. 626, 627-28 (D.D.C. 1995).
51.
ReyesA. (2006). Discipline, achievement, race: Is zero tolerance the answer?Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
52.
RickeyK. (2003). Special education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(1), 46.
53.
RossowL. F.ParkinsonJ. R. (1999). The law of student expulsions and suspensions. Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
54.
SamuelsC. A. (2008). D.C. schools trying new approach to spec. ed. cases. Education Week, 27(38), 6.
55.
SamuelsC. A. (2009). D.C. schools penalized on spec. ed. Education Week, 28(36), 5.
56.
Schafferv.Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005).
57.
SeidmanI. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
58.
SkibaR. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. Bloomington, IL: Indiana Education Policy Center.
59.
SkibaR. J. (2001). When is disproportionality discrimination? The overrepresentation of Black students in school suspension. In AyersW.DohrnB.AyersR. (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools (pp. 176-187). New York, NY: New Press.
60.
SkibaR. J.NoamG. G. (Eds.). (2002). Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools safe?San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
61.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
TarasH. L.FrankowskiB. L.McGrathJ. W.MearsC. J.MurrayR. D.YoungT. L. (2003). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 112, 1206-1209.
63.
TurnbullR. H. (2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 320-326.
TuzzoloE.HewittD. T. (2006). Rebuilding inequity: The re-emergence of the school-to-prison pipeline in New Orleans. High School Journal, 90(2), 59-68.
66.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (2003). Joint motion for preliminary approval of consent decree (Vol. Civil Action No. 97-1629 [PLF]). Washington, DC: Author.
67.
ZirkelP. A.ScalaG. (2010). Due process hearing systems under the IDEA: A state-by-state survey. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 3-8.
