Suspensions
Summary of Cases
1.
Case Name
Doe v. Todd County Sch.
Dist., 625 F.3d 459 (8th Cir.
2010).
2.
Portsmouth (VA) Pub. Schs.,
48 IDELR 80 (OCR 2007).
3.
Fennville Pub. Schs., 44
IDELR 290 (SEA MI 2005)
Summary
Public school student brought 1983 action against school
district alleging they violated his federal procedural due
process rights when he was placed in an alternative high
school setting following his suspension for fighting and
bringing a pocket knife to school. The court found the
school district did not violate student’s constitutional
rights when it denied him opportunity to challenge his
placement in an alternative setting before the local school
board because the IEP team changed the student’s
placement from the school which suspended him to an
alternative educational setting. Because the school board
lacked authority to overrule educational decisions of the
IEP team, the district’s refusal to convene a school board
meaning did not violate the student’s procedural due
process rights.
Virginia district suspended a student for a total of 12
days over a five-month period. OCR determined that the
district did not need to hold an MD hearing before his
third suspension. OCR concluded that the three
suspensions were too brief and too far apart to constitute
a pattern of removals under the IDEA. OCR explained
that a district has no obligation to conduct a
manifestation determination unless the student's
disciplinary removals constituted a significant change in
placement. Although the student could establish a
significant change in placement by establishing a pattern
of exclusion, OCR concluded that he could not show a
pattern. OCR observed that each individual suspension
lasted five days or less -- less than half of the time it
would take for a single suspension to amount to a change
in placement. Moreover, the suspensions occurred in
December 2005, April 2006 and May 2006. While all of
the suspensions stemmed from fights with classmates,
OCR explained that the similarity in misconduct did not
in itself establish a pattern. Finding there was no need
for the district to hold an MD hearing, OCR closed the
parent's discrimination complaint.
An IHO concluded that evidence offered at a due process
hearing showed a Michigan district treated a middle
schooler with an undisclosed disability similarly to
students without disabilities, attempted to keep him in
4.
Norfolk (VA) City Pub. Schs.,
46 IDELR 21 (OCR 2005)
5.
Chicago (IL) Pub. Schs., 45
IDELR 227 (OCR 2005)
6.
Broward County (FL) Sch.
Dist., 36 IDELR 159 (OCR
2001)
7.
Randy M. v. Texas City
Independent School District,
93 F.Supp. 2d 1310 (S.D.
Texas 2000).
8.
Magyar By & Through
Magyar v. Tuscon Unified
Sch. Dis., 958 F. Supp. 1423
(D. Ariz. 1997)
school and continued to provide the services identified in
his IEP during his removals. Therefore, district did not
change the student’s placement.
Districts must ensure that if ISS are not intended to be
viewed as changes in a student’s placement, they must
continue to provide educational opportunities during the
ISS, with the accommodations required by the student’s
plan. Here, student with ADHD and depression did not
receive the accommodations required by his Section 504
plan while he was assigned to 15 days of in-school
suspension. OCR determined district had no policies or
procedures defining how the district would meet the
individual educational needs of students with Section 504
plans while they were assigned to ISS.
A district did not substantially change the placement of a
ninth-grader with a LD when it gave her 14 days of ISS
and 5 days out-of-school suspension. OCR found the
district complied with both Section 504 and ADA by
providing student with all services required by her IEP
by the teachers who normally provided her services.
Therefore, district was not required to conduct a
reevaluation or a manifestation determination.
During the student’s in-school suspensions and
detentions, he was relocated to a study carrel outside the
assistant principal’s office where he worked on his class
assignments. He was not denied services, FAPE was
continued and his placement was not altered. Although
he was not provided services during two three-day outor-school suspensions, those suspensions did not create a
pattern of exclusion and there, a change of placement did
not occur.
Special education student filed application for mandatory
injunction, seeking an order requiring the school district
to retain him in his last agreed upon educational
placement. District Court held that district was justified
in its disciplinary placement of special education student
at an alternative learning center for remainder of the
school year for his planned and intentional assault of a
female student where student’s actions were not a
manifestation of his disability.
Change in placement occurred when the school district
decided to extend the student’s suspension from 10 to
175 days without any meeting about his IEP. District
violated IDEA because such a long-term suspension
represents a change in placement for which a new IEP is
required.
9.
Big Beaver Falls Area Sch.
Dis. v. Jackson, 624 A.2d 806
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)
10. Greenville County (SC) Sch.
Dist., 17 IDELR 1120 (OCR
1991)
11. Chester County (TN) Sch.
Dist., 17 IDELR 301 (OCR
1990)
12. Millcreek Township (PA) Sch.
Dist., 16 (IDELR 1989)
The district violated the due process rights of a student
with disabilities by continuing to assign her to in-school
suspensions after it became abundantly clear she would
choose to return home rather than remain in the ISS
classroom. Accordingly the ISS assignments amounted
to de facto exclusions of the student from school,
resulting in a substantial inference with her right to
FAPE.
Student with speech deficiency and ADD alleged that the
district improperly placed him on in-school suspension
for a single day on two occasions. OCR found district
had not evaluated the student for special education and
related services on the basis of his ADD. However, OCR
determined that the single day ISS did not constitute a
significant change in placement.
As an alternative to exclusion from school, the in-school
suspension program permitted students to attend school
in a classroom with a qualified special education teacher
and to continue their academic coursework and
assignments in accordance with their IEPs. OCR found
that the district's in-school suspension program was
comparable, in nature and quality, to the educational
services regularly provided to special education students
and, thus, such suspensions, even for periods in excess of
10 days, did not constitute a significant change in
placement requiring the replacement evaluation
procedures of Reg. 104.35(a).
OCR found that the district followed proper evaluation
and placement procedures before instituting in-school
suspensions, and provided adequate prior notice to the
parents of their procedural rights. Thus, the district
complied with Section 504 when it placed a student with
learning disabilities on ISS for more than 10 consecutive
school days.