I have a child with a disability who has
"behavior" issues at school. Does IDEA 2004 change the behavior and
discipline laws that we're used to? If yes, What's new or different
from the old IDEA?
IDEA 2004 makes significant changes
to the procedures used to determine if a student's misconduct was a
manifestation of their disability. It changes the burden of proof
where the school district had to show that is was not, to the parent
who has to show it was. It also changes the role of the IEP and its
The questions that are asked under the current Michigan Rules are:
Manifestation Determination [34 CFR §300.523(c)(2)]
If the determination of the IEP Team is “No” to any of the statements
below, then the behavior must be considered a manifestation of the
In relation to the behavior subject to discipline and the student’s
1. The current IEP and placement were appropriate; ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. The special education services, supplementary aids and services,
and behavioral intervention strategies were provided consistent with
the student’s IEP and placement; ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. The student understood the impact and consequences of the behavior
subject to disciplinary action; ❑ Yes ❑ No
4. The student had the ability to control the behavior subject to
disciplinary action. ❑ Yes ❑ No
In the past the answer to question 1 was NO (and therefore the
behavior was a manifestation) IF the student not yet found eligible as
they did not have an IEP or did not FBA-BIP or it was not properly
implemented. That is no longer the case, as the parent will need to
"prove" that the lack of an IEP or its implementation the "the cause"
of the misconduct.
The new IDEA states:
(I) if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and
substantial relationship to, the child's disability; or
(II) if the conduct in question was the direct result of the local
educational agency's failure to implement the IEP.
As a result, it is unlikely that starting whenever Michigan adopts its
own version of the rules (2006?) that it will make sense for a parent
to hire a private attorney such as myself to represent a child in a
manifestation determination (or subsequent expedited due process
hearing appealing the denial of manifestation) without first having
expert testimony from a psychologist or therapist as to the exact
relationship between the misconduct and the disability, IEP, FBA-BIP,
Also, the school's ability to make a unilateral 45-day placement has
been expanded to also include "serious bodily injury" to possession of
a weapon or drug related possession.
Finally, the evidence standard needed to find that the student's
behavior was not a manifestation of their disability has been lowered
to make it easier for the school's to prove that to a hearing officer.
While the issue of the dual nature of the special ed - regular ed
discipline system was one of the major issues that the school
administrators and teachers groups lobbied hard for, Sen. Kennedy (and
others) were able to insure that services would still be provided
special ed students, albeit in another setting (home, alternative
school, library, etc.) if parents insist (via hearing) on more than
the minimum 2 hours per week schools like to have their IEP Team find
"appropriate" for suspended special ed students, I suspect that the
net effect of these changes may not be as harsh as it first appears.
Only time will tell.
John Brower, JD
Education Law Center, PLLC · 810-227-9850
Copyrighted Material - All Rights
Reserved - May Not Be Reproduced Without Written Permission