DISCIPLINE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: A GUIDE TO MANIFESTATION
DETERMINATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Special Education,
Rehabilitation, School Psychology, and Deaf Studies
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION
in
School Psychology
by
Amreek Singh
Jonathan Dee Tennison
SPRING
2012
DISCIPLINE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: A GUIDE TO MANIFESTATION
DETERMINATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION
A Project
by
Amreek Singh
Jonathan Dee Tennison
Approved by:
______________________________________, Committee Chair
Catherine Christo
_______________________
Date
ii
Students:
Amreek Singh
Jonathan Dee Tennison
I certify that these students have met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be
awarded for the project.
____________________________________, Department Chair
Bruce Ostertag
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology, and Deaf Studies
iii
______________
Date
Abstract
of
DISCIPLINE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: A GUIDE TO MANIFESTATION
DETERMINATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION
by
Amreek Singh
Jonathan Dee Tennison
The process of disciplining students with disabilities can be overwhelming given the
amount of laws and regulations surrounding the procedure. Oftentimes, school administrators,
teachers and parents do not have a full understanding of the school’s authority and a student's
rights as provided by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The purpose of this project is
provide educators, as well as parents, with resources and best practices for administering
discipline procedures for student with disabilities. More specifically, participants and readers will
be presented with specific procedures for conducting manifestation determinations within special
education. In addition, readers will receive brief information regarding alternatives to suspension
and expulsion.
________________________________, Committee Chair
Catherine Christo
_____________________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank our advisor, Dr. Cathi Christo, for her guidance and support in
completing this project. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge the faculty of the School
Psychology program for their dedication and passion towards preparing future school
psychologists. We would also like to thank our partners, family members, and close friends for
their support, patience, and dance parties.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... v
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem............................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Project ....................................................................................................... 3
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 3
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 5
Statement of Collaboration................................................................................................ 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 6
Discipline in General Education ....................................................................................... 6
Manifestation Determination............................................................................................. 8
The Manifestation Determination Process ...................................................................... 10
Alternative Approach to Manifestation Determinations ................................................. 16
Results of Manifestation Determinations ........................................................................ 17
Interim Alternative Educational Settings ........................................................................ 18
Alternatives to Suspension .............................................................................................. 19
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 24
3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 25
Research .......................................................................................................................... 25
Development of the Presentation .................................................................................... 25
4. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 27
Workshop Objectives ...................................................................................................... 27
vi
Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 27
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix A. Presenter's Manual.................................................................................................... 31
Appendix B. Presentation .............................................................................................................. 35
Appendix C. Participant Manual.................................................................................................. 105
Appendix D. Handouts for Participants ....................................................................................... 116
References .................................................................................................................................... 125
vii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
School discipline is a complex and challenging domain for many school administrators.
The general belief among teachers and administrators is that the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) insulates special education students from experiencing consequences for
their disciplinary infractions and sets them apart from the school’s regular disciplinary procedures
(Taylor & Baker, 2002). The misperception that educators are supposed to tolerate challenging
behaviors of students receiving special education services is largely a result of two main factors.
First, there seems to be a lack of consistency and a lack of clear and precise guidelines on how to
proceed with disciplining students receiving special education services. Second, the IDEA is
unclear as to the procedures involved in disciplining students with disabilities and is made
confusing with legal jargon. Educators seem to be hesitant to proceed with discipline procedures
in certain situations fearing legal ramifications (Taylor & Baker, 2002).
The manifestation determination review process is a vital component of disciplining
students who have special education services. This is a mandate that was introduced with the
reauthorization of the IDEA of 1997 and then updated in 2004. The purpose of this review is to
bring together the members of the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team, the parents
and possibility student, when relevant, and determine if the behavior and the disability have a
relationship. The link between the child’s conduct violation and his or her disability is important
as the US department of Education notes that, “we believe the Act (IDEA) recognizes that a child
with a disability may display disruptive behaviors characteristic of the child’s disability and the
child should not be punished for behaviors that are a result of the child’s disability” ( National
2
Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2010). It is through this vital process
that a decision is made whether to continue with disciplinary measures or to provide alternative
services to the student.
Suspensions and expulsions from school are the most common method that school
administrators use to discipline students who fail to comply with the rules of the educational
institution. Despite current research that punitive discipline does not necessarily change human
behaviors, school suspensions and expulsions have continued to climb. A recent report released
in the state of Texas states that 31% of Texas students were suspended or expelled at least once
during their years in middle and high school. This report also argues that the findings are “very
much representative of the nation as a whole” (Thompson, Tony, & Martha, 2011). Despite
national consensus that non punitive discipline is the way forward, few schools have taken the
initiative to implement such systems and have continued to rely on suspensions and expulsions as
their primary methods of disciplining students, including students with disabilities.
Many would argue that a more comprehensive set of services should be offered to
students who violate school rules and become chronic offenders. However, in the absence of
such comprehensive services, it is important that educators understand the processes that are
already in place. Furthermore, teachers, administrators, and parents should be aware of students’
rights and have a comprehensive understanding of what is considered best practices in student
discipline. This is especially important when working with students with disabilities to ensure
fair treatment of these students.
School discipline in special education is also complex as it involves providing services to
the student who violated a school rule while keeping the school staff and students safe. IDEA is
the primary federal law that addresses the unique needs of students with disabilities and mandates
3
that a free, appropriate education be made available to all children with disabilities and also
ensures that the students have due process rights.
Schools have traditionally used punitive measures of discipline and dramatic incidents of
violence in schools have made educators more reliant on zero tolerance policies and procedures to
handle school discipline matters. Despite little evidence demonstrating that these procedures
increase student and school safety or improve student behavior, suspensions and expulsions still
remain the main tools that administrators use to discipline students.
Purpose of the Project
This project aims to help administrators and school personnel better understand the
process of disciplining students with disabilities. The primary purpose is to demystify the
complex nature of disciplining students with disabilities and to explore alternative ways to view
the manifestation determination process. This project also aims to look at best practices in school
discipline and aims to provide some research based practical alternatives to the current punitive
ways of disciplining students.
Information in this project has been developed into a three hour training workshop and a
handout that accompanies the presentation. The workshop is designed for administrators and
school psychologists who are involved in the discipline process of a school. It is hoped that
through the development of this project readers or participants in the workshop will obtain the
knowledge necessary to effectively discipline students with disabilities, comply with the IDEA
regulations, ensure student due process rights and also provide alternative solutions that are more
research based and overall best practices in the field today.
Definition of Terms
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA): The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act is a United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide
4
early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities. It
addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to age 18 or 21 in cases
that involve 14 specified categories of disability.
Change in Placement: A change of placement because of a disciplinary removal occurs if a child
with a disability is removed from his/her current educational placement for more than 10
consecutive school days, or the child is subjected to a series of removals that constitutes a pattern
because: (a) the removals total more than 10 school days in a school year; (b) the child’s behavior
is substantially similar to previous incidents that resulted in the series of removals; and (c)
additional factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child has been
removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another constitute a pattern.
Current placement: The placement from which the student was removed for disciplinary reasons.
Interim alternative educational setting: An Interim alternative educational setting is a disciplinary
placement that is not the same as the child’s current placement as defined in the student’s
Individualized Education plan.
Manifestation determination: The determination made by the district, the parent, and relevant
members of the student’s Team, after review of all relevant information in the student’s file
including the IEP, teacher observations, and relevant information provided by the parents,
whether (a) the conduct in question was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to
the child’s disability; or (b) the conduct in question was the direct result of the district’s failure to
implement the student’s IEP.
Suspension: Prohibiting a student to be on school grounds for a specified period of time unless the
school has a “supervised suspension classroom” (California Education Code § 48911.1).
Expulsion: Expulsion refers to removing a student from immediate supervision and control, or
the general supervision, of school personnel for an extended time period (C.E.C. § 48925 (b)).
5
Limitations
This project has been designed to give administrators and school psychologists a better
understanding of the process of disciplining students with special education services. The process
of disciplining students with special education needs is governed by the policies and regulations
in IDEA and the California Education Code. The strategies and suggestions provided are not an
interpretation of the laws and policies and are not intended to replace any legal requirement or
directive. This project is an information guide and a tool that provides alternatives and best
practice suggestions in disciplining students who have special education services and presents
alternatives that schools can use instead of the punitive ways of discipline that involve
suspension.
Statement of Collaboration
This project was developed collaboratively. Each co-author had equal responsibility in
the research, collection and compilation of the project. All duties performed in the development
of the project and training workshop were shared equally.
6
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The process of disciplining students with disabilities can be overwhelming given the
amount of laws and regulations surrounding the procedure. Oftentimes, school administrators,
teachers and parents do not have a full understanding of the school’s authority and a student's
rights as provided by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). A competent understanding
of these rights and procedures is important in ensuring that schools maintain compliance with the
law and that parents and students are able to exercise their rights to a free and appropriate public
education (FAPE). The following review of literature outlines many of the procedures involved
in disciplining students with disabilities and offers best practices and suggestions for some of the
more vague requirements included in the IDEA.
Discipline in General Education
Suspension Defined
It is important to review the procedures for disciplining general education students prior to
providing an explanation of the processes and procedures for disciplining student with disabilities
as many of these procedures will apply regardless of the safeguards provided by the IDEA.
California Education Code defines suspension as prohibiting a student to be on school grounds
for a specified period of time unless the school has a “supervised suspension classroom” (C.E.C.
§ 48911.1). The behaviors that may lead to a suspension can be found in California Education
Code sections 48900, 48900.2, 48900.3, 48900.4, and 48900.7, and include threatening, causing,
or attempting to cause physical injury to others; possessing or using tobacco products or illegal
substances; and selling or distributing illegal or controlled substances. Section 48903 of the
California Education Code states that a student may be suspended for no more than 20 school
days. Students with disabilities may be suspended for the same length of time, however there are
7
several safeguards put in place to ensure that the suspension is appropriate and that the student
continues to receive special education services while suspended. Not only are students to be
suspended from the school day, but also they cannot take part in school activities or events while
suspended. There are two primary types of suspensions as outlined by California Education Code
(§ 48910-48911):

Suspension by Teacher: If other means of correction do not succeed, a teacher may
suspend a student from the class for the day of the suspension and the day following. In
elementary schools, 'day' refers to a calendar day while in secondary school it refers to a
class period.

Suspension by Principal: The school principal or principal’s designee may suspend a
student for up to 5 consecutive school days. Suspension can be at the first offense,
without prior attempts at intervention, if a student's actions cause a danger to persons or
property or threaten to disrupt the instructional process.
Expulsion Defined
Expulsion refers to removing a student from immediate supervision and control, or the
general supervision, of school personnel for an extended time period (C.E.C. § 48925 (b)).
Students are typically suspended while expulsion is being considered. Students can be expelled
from their current school and assigned to an alternative school in the district or they can be
expelled from the district. The California Education Code allows a school district to expel a
student for no more than two semesters or one school year (C.E.C. § 48525). The process of
expulsion takes on many forms; the following are examples of the types of expulsions that are
currently used by school districts:

Suspended Expulsion: The student is allowed to stay in his or her home school or may be
moved to another school within the district and the student is placed on an expulsion
8
contract. The student is removed from the school only if he commits another
suspendable offence and then the expulsion order comes into effect.

Stipulated Expulsion: The student/parent(s) agree to the findings of the school and do not
dispute the allegations or recommendations of the school. The student and parent sign the
expulsion order and student is placed in a new educational placement.

Administrative Panel Expulsion Hearing: The student/parent(s) elect to let an impartial
panel of administrators (usually from the same district) hear the case and then the panel
makes a recommendation to the school board.
Once again, students with disabilities are afforded procedural safeguards in order to
ensure that suspensions and expulsions are appropriate and special education services continue.
One procedural safeguard outlined by the IDEA is the process of manifestation determination.
While the objective of this process is commonly known as determining if a student’s misbehavior
is a result of the student’s disability, there are many laws and procedures in place surrounding the
process that require close examination and full understanding.
Manifestation Determination
The process known as manifestation determination, or determining if a behavior is the
result of a disability, is one of the numerous mandates established in order to safeguard the right
to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. This protection
is granted to students receiving special education services because, as Yell (2006) states,
“students should not be denied special education services because of misbehavior that could be
anticipated as a result of their disabilities” (p. 395). However, manifestation determinations have
led to a great deal of controversy and confusion among educators when addressing long-term
disciplinary removal (i.e., suspension or expulsion) of students receiving special education
services (Kubick Jr., 2008). The confusion surrounding manifestation determinations stems from
9
the general and vague definition of manifestation within the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) (Osborne & Russo, 2009). IDEA stipulates that manifestation is the
misbehavior being caused by or directly and substantially related to a student’s disability or the
direct result of the school’s failure to properly implement the Individualized Education Program
(IEP). However, IDEA fails to provide much guidance on making a manifestation determination
(Osborne & Russo,).
A brief look at the historical perspective of disciplining students with disabilities is in
order when attempting to understand the process as outlined by IDEA. Furthermore, a historical
perspective may provide insight into the spirit of the law and help guide the interpretation and
execution of manifestation determinations. The idea of manifestation can be traced back to Doe
v. Koger of 1979, which set the precedent that if the child’s behavior is linked to the disability,
the student cannot be expelled from school (Zilz, 2006). Subsequent cases more clearly outlined
the process of manifestation determination. For example Doe v. Maher, in 1986, established that
IEP teams must determine linkage of behavior and disability (Zilz, 2006). Honing v. Doe
established the 10-day criteria, which prevents a student with disabilities from being denied
services for more than ten days, and resulted with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expulsion
of students with disabilities was considered to be a change of placement and, therefore, was
subject to IDEA procedural requirements (Katsiyannis & Maag, 2001). These court decisions
have addressed the term manifestation to a certain extent yet have provided no clear definition.
For instance, in Doe v. Maher, of 1986, the Ninth Circuit used language similar to that in IDEA
when it declared that the relationship between the disability and the misconduct must be direct
and causal (Osborne & Russo, 2009).
Lower courts have attempted to provide more guidance with the definition of
manifestation. For example, lower court decisions have established that an important issue in
10
manifestation determinations is whether a student has the ability to understand the school rules as
well as the consequences of misbehavior (Osborne & Russo, 2009). However, the vague
definition of manifestation has led to federal courts often demonstrating inconsistency in their
interpretation of what is meant by the concept of manifestation (Kubick Jr., 2008). Prior to IDEA
2004 manifestation determinations were primarily guided by the outcomes of court cases dealing
with the suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities. However, authors of IDEA 2004
have outlined procedures in an attempt to clarify the issue.
The Manifestation Determination Process
Manifestation determinations are reactive procedures to behavioral misconduct that
involve a great deal of effort and interpretation of the law. It should be noted that the
unsatisfactory aspects of manifestation determinations could be mitigated in advance by laying
the groundwork that will make such determinations unnecessary (Kubick Jr., 2008). Meloy
(1999) reinforces this notion by stating that where manifestation determinations are concerned,
“the best defense is a good offense” (p. 8). In other words, implementing behavioral
interventions such as Behavior Support Plans are the best means to avoid the difficulties
encountered when conducting manifestation determinations. However, educators will inevitably
be forced to conduct a manifestation determination and it is imperative that IDEA procedures be
carried out as they are intended.
Change of Placement
As stated above, the courts, along with the authors of the IDEA, view prolonged
suspension or expulsion as a change in placement for students with disabilities because these
students no longer have access to a FAPE as outlined in their IEPs. Federal law mandates that
school officials must conduct a manifestation determination before making any decisions about
whether to change the placement of a student with a disability who violates school rules (United
11
States Code § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i); Code of Federal Regulations § 300.530(e)(1)). The first step in
manifestation determination procedures begins with establishing when a change in placement has
occurred. Expulsion due to behavioral misconduct is clearly a change in placement as it would
limit or deny access to special education. Procedural safeguards of the IDEA, including a
manifestation determination, would be triggered when a student with a disability is up for
expulsion.
In terms of suspension, the IDEA authorizes school personnel to unilaterally (i.e., acting
by themselves) suspend students with disabilities for not more than 10 school days following
normal school procedures as long as similar sanctions would be applied to students who do not
have disabilities (U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B); C.F.R. §300.530(b)). These decisions may be made
unilaterally without holding an IEP meeting or conducting a manifestation determination because
maintaining safety may sometimes require that students with disabilities be removed immediately
from school (Yell, 2006).
When a student with disabilities is given a suspension of more than 10 consecutive days,
the district must follow the IDEA’s change of placement procedures (i.e., notify parents and hold
an IEP meeting) and a manifestation determination may be conducted (Yell, 2006). Similarly, a
series of suspensions that amount to more than 10 days may also be considered a change in
placement, resulting in the need for a manifestation determination (C.F.R. § 300.536(a)).
However, several questions arise when considering what constitutes a day of suspension. For
instance, can in-house suspensions be counted? Is it a day of suspension if the student is sent
home due to an incident during lunch, or the final period, or the second period? Would it be
counted towards the 10 days if the student receives what is considered to be his or her special
education services that day (e.g., 45 minutes with a resource teacher) but is suspended later in the
day? These are very important questions to consider when determining if a student is
12
approaching or has come upon 10 cumulative days of suspension and can only be answered by
the IEP team (Yell). Furthermore, the IDEA states that 10 cumulative days may be considered a
change of placement, but the IEP team should evaluate certain circumstances in order to
determine if a pattern of exclusion has occurred (Yell). The IEP team should consider (a) the
length of each removal, (b) the total amount of time the student is removed, and (c) the proximity
of the removals to one another (IDEA Regulations, § 300.536). While a series of suspensions
that add up to more than 10 cumulative days may not be considered a change of placement if they
do not create a pattern of exclusion, it is often advised that any removal from the educational
program specified by a student’s IEP due to behavior be counted towards the 10-day rule
(Osborne, 1988).
The law is clear in terms of considering expulsion and suspension of more than 10
consecutive days as a change in placement for students with disabilities. However, many
questions arise when evaluating a series of suspensions that may or may not be viewed as a
pattern of exclusion. Osborne and Russo (2009) suggest that school officials must be cautious
with multiple suspensions of students with disabilities. Procedures defining suspension for
students with disabilities should be outlined and communicated to staff. Furthermore,
administrators should establish and maintain an effective monitoring system of disciplinary
actions for student with disabilities and IEP teams should make every effort to convene in order
to evaluate whether a series of suspensions exhibit a pattern of exclusion that would result in a
change of placement.
Manifestation Determination Procedures
Once it has been established that a change of placement has occurred for a student with
disabilities, administrators must conduct a manifestation determination (Meloy, 1999). The
manifestation determination must occur within 10 school days of the decision that changes the
13
student’s placement. Furthermore, the IDEA states that members of the manifestation
determination team must, at a minimum, include a representative of the school district, the
parent(s), and “relevant members “ of the IEP team as determined by the parent and school
administrator (Yell, 2006). As Osborn and Russo (2009) state, this approach permits school staff
who were not part of the original IEP teams to participate in making manifestation determinations
as appropriate.
Prior to the manifestation determination meeting, a review of all relevant information is
conducted by members of the manifestation determination team. This information includes
students’ IEPs, staff observations of students, information in the students’ files, and other relevant
information provided by the parents (U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i); C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1)).
Manifestation determination team members should also review previous psycho-educational
reports. Osborn and Russo (2009) state that, “when evaluation data are not current for students, it
is best to conduct reevaluations” (p. 74). Meloy (2008) echoes this statement by stating, “with
their considerable expertise in comprehensive assessment and intervention, school psychologists
need to be involved in a thorough, nondiscriminatory assessment of a student who has violated a
school disciplinary policy in order to have the best information available for a manifestation
determination” (p.3).
Relationship Test and Implementing the IEP
The IDEA 2004 mandates that manifestation determination team members shall review
all relevant information to determine (a) if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct
and substantial relationship to, the student’s disability, and (b) if the conduct in question was the
direct result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP. As mentioned previously, courts have
offered little guidance for making this determination (Yell, 2006). However, a review of the
14
literature reveals a substantial amount of best practices and professionally based suggestions
when completing manifestation determinations.
Manifestation determinations should be individualized and cannot be based simply on
disability classification (Kubick Jr., 2008). In fact, courts have made it clear that manifestation
determinations must be independent of a student’s disability classification (Yell, 2006). Instead,
manifestation determinations should be based on what Hartwig and Ruesch (1995) refer to as the
“relationship test” in which manifestation determination team members investigate whether or not
an instance of behavioral misconduct is a manifestation of the student’s disability. Gates and
Cheramie (2004) have provided standards and accompanying questions that would be helpful to
ask when conducting a “relationship test”. The two standards are whether or not (a) the student’s
disability impaired his or her ability to understand the consequences of the misconduct and (b) the
student’s disability impaired his or her ability to control the misbehavior. Questions for
manifestation determination teams to consider when deciding if the student’s disability impaired
his or her ability to understand the consequences of the misconduct would include:

Are the student’s thought processes logical?

Did the student understand the consequences for breaking school rules?

Did the student have the capacity to know which behaviors are unacceptable?

Has the student received a copy and adequate explanation of the school’s code of
conduct?

Has the student demonstrated the ability to follow school rules in the past?

Has the student expressed that this or similar conduct is wrong?

Has the student expressed an understanding of the consequences of this or similar
behavior?
15
Questions for manifestation determination teams to consider when determining whether
the student’s disability impaired his or her ability to control the misbehavior would include:

Has the student followed school rules in the past?

What features of the disability has the student exhibited in the past?

In what situations can the student control his or her behavior?

Are there other factors that explain the misconduct?

Is this an isolated or recurrent behavior?

Was the behavior premeditated?

Would similarly situated students without disabilities react in a similar manner in this
circumstance?
The second critical question to be answered by school officials, as outlined by the IDEA,
is if the misbehavior was a result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP. If this is the case,
then the school must take immediate steps to remedy the deficiencies of the IEP (Zirkel, 2006).
Therefore, careful consideration of the student’s IEP at the time of the misconduct is essential
(Kubick Jr., 2008). Gates and Cheramie (2004) and Kester (1999) provide educators with further
guidance by offering the following questions when considering whether the school has properly
implemented the IEP:

Was the IEP legally developed?

Was the IEP implemented as written?

Have the services provided been consistent with the IEP?

Is the student making educational progress?

Did the IEP address all of the student’s needs?

Are behavioral goals and objectives included in the IEP?
16

Was there a developing pattern of conduct that should have been detected?

Was the IEP modified over time to reflect changes in the student’s behavior?

Did the IEP include a goal or objective that addressed any component of the behavior
involved in the student’s misconduct?
It is important that manifestation determination teams do not view the relationship test as
simply a question of whether or not the student knows right from wrong. The courts have clearly
stated that manifestation determinations are not an inquiry into this matter (Yell, 2006). Instead,
manifestation determination teams should examine the student’s ability to understand the
consequences of his or her behavior (Kubick Jr., 2008). It is important to restate that
manifestation determinations are individualized and educators may find the need to adjust these
suggestions as they see fit in order to ensure individualization. However, school personnel must
be aware that if they find there is no relationship between the behavior and the disability and they
change a student’s placement, the burden of proof is placed on the school district to prove there is
no relationship (Yell).
Alternative Approach to Manifestation Determinations
Katsiyannis and Maag (1998) are among the many professionals who argue that there are
no empirically validated methods for determining if a student’s misconduct is a manifestation of
his or her disability. As stated above, this idea resonates throughout the literature. They believe
that proper manifestation determinations are impossible due to the social construct of disability
categories, the application of a medical model to manifestation determinations, and the political
pressure for schools to maintain control and safety while providing FAPE to student with
disabilities.
Katsiyannis and Maag (1998) offer an alternative approach to manifestation
determinations based on social skills assessment literature (e.g. Gresham & Elliott, 1984; Hughes
17
& Hall, 1987; Maag, 1989). Following this model, a student may not perform specific desirable
behaviors because (a) he or she lacks those skills; (b) was unable to assemble skills into a
strategy; (c) interpreted situations inaccurately; or (d) selected behaviors indiscriminately rather
than deliberately (Kubick Jr., 2008). When conducting a manifestation determination based on
social skills assessment, Katsiyannis and Maag suggest that the manifestation team ask the
following questions:

Does the student possess the requisite skills to engage in an appropriate alternative
behavior?

Is the student able to analyze the problem, generate solutions, evaluate their
effectiveness, and select one?

Does the student interpret the situation factually or distort it to fit some existing bias?

Can the student monitor his or her behavior?
If the answer to any one question is no, the team would likely conclude that social skills
deficits inherent to the student’s disability likely had a direct relationship to the student’s
misconduct. The authors of this model acknowledge the limitations, yet they believe the
approach is empirically sound and may result in more functional information being obtained than
the traditional process of manifestation determination.
Results of Manifestation Determinations
The manifestation determination team will determine if the misconduct was the result of
a disability and if the IEP was carried out appropriately. While results may appear to be a simple
yes or no, the procedural repercussions of either decision are quite involved.
Yell (2006) states that if the manifestation determination team finds that the misconduct
is a direct result of a disability or that the IEP is not appropriate, then the suspension over the 10th
day or the expulsion cannot be carried out (i.e., the student must be returned to the setting from
18
which he or she was removed). He goes on to explain that the exception is if the IEP team and
parent agree to a change in placement. In addition to being returned to the original placement, the
IEP team must conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and implement a Behavioral
Intervention Plan (BIP) for the student. Osborne and Russo (2009) suggest that an FBA should
be conducted prior to any manifestation determination.
If the manifestation determination team finds that the misconduct was not a manifestation
of the student’s disability, the student may be disciplined as any other nondisabled student would
be disciplined. However, if the student is to be suspended or expelled, the student must continue
to receive special educational services during the suspension or expulsion (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §
1412 (a)(1)).
Interim Alternative Educational Settings
There are exceptions to the 10-day rule as it is outlined above. A school may unilaterally
change the placement of a student with a disability for more than 10 days if the student engages in
any one specific behavior outlined in the IDEA. This change in placement can occur regardless
of whether or not the behavior was a manifestation of the student’s disability and may last up to
45 days (Yell, 2006). The behaviors that allow a school to make a unilateral change of placement
for more than 10 days but no more than 45 days include the student (a) bringing, possessing, or
acquiring a weapon at school, on school premises, or at a school function; (b) knowingly
possessing, using, or selling illegal drugs, or selling controlled substances at school, on school
premises, or at a school function; or (c) inflicting serious bodily injury to another person while at
school, on school premises, or at a school function (IDEA, 20 USC § 1415 (k)(1)).
If a student with a disability engages is any of the above mentioned behaviors, he or she
may be placed in an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) by the school without parental
consent. The IAES must be in an appropriate setting that allows for the student’s IEP to be
19
implemented so that the student may continue to make progress towards his or her educational
goals (U.S.C § 1425 (k)(1)(D)(i); C.F.R § 300.530(d)(1)(i)). Additionally, an FBA must be
conducted and a BIP created while the student is placed in the IAES.
Alternatives to Suspension
The University Of Minnesota Institute Of Community Integration states that, “the
suspension or expulsion of students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD) has been
problematic and controversial” (Peterson, 2005, p.10). Requirements of IDEA and case law have
indicated that long-term suspension or expulsion violate FAPE, which is guaranteed for students
with disabilities. Schools have struggled to meet these requirements, but the problems with
suspension and expulsion are larger than issues of EBD or disability. Research indicates that
these consequences are not likely to change the inappropriate behavior of the students involved,
nor do they serve to deter other students from engaging in the same behaviors (Skiba, 2000).
Instead, these consequences make the suspended student’s academic progress more difficult, and
they may increase the likelihood of the student dropping out of school or having other negative
outcomes.
As a result of ongoing concerns about punitive discipline measures and the lack of
research supporting these punitive measures, the Institute of Community Integration describes ten
alternatives to suspensions (Peterson, 2005):

Problem solving/contracting: Negotiation and problem-solving approaches can be used
to assist students in identifying alternative behavior choices. The next step should involve
developing a contract that reminds the student to engage in a problem-solving process,
and that includes reinforcers for success and consequences for continuing problem
behaviors.
20

Restitution: In-kind restitution (rather than financial restitution, which often falls on the
parents) permits the student to help to restore or improve the school environment either
by directly addressing the problems caused by the student’s behavior (e.g., in cases of
vandalism students can work to repair things they damaged), or by having the student
improve the school environment more broadly (e.g., helping the janitors paint or clean up
after lunch, etc).

Mini-courses or skill modules: Short courses or self-study modules can be assigned as a
disciplinary consequence. These should be on topics related to the student’s inappropriate
behavior, and should be designed to teach the student to have increased awareness or
knowledge about the topic, thus facilitating behavior change. These modules might
include readings, videos, workbooks, tests, and oral reports on a range of topics such as
alcohol/drug use or abuse, strategies for conflict resolution, anger control strategies,
social skills (e.g., getting along with peers, making behavior appropriate for the setting),
and appropriate communication skills (e.g., appropriate and inappropriate language, how
to express disagreement).

Parent involvement/supervision: Parents should be invited to brainstorm ways they can
provide closer supervision or be more involved in their child’s schooling. Better
communication and more frequent contacts between teachers and parents, as well as
coordinated behavior-change approaches, are very useful and could be formalized into a
disciplinary consequence.

Counseling: Students may be required to receive additional supports or individual
counseling from trained helping professionals (e.g., counselor, school psychologist)
focused on problem solving or personal issues interfering with learning.
21

Community service: Programs that permit the student to perform a required amount of
time in supervised community service outside of school hours (e.g., volunteer at another
school or an organization) should be created. The California Education Code (C.E.C. §
48900.6) also discusses community service as an alternative disciplinary action and
defines it as work performed in the community or on school grounds during the pupils’
nonschool hours.

Behavior Monitoring: Closely monitoring behavior and academic progress (e.g., selfcharting of behaviors, feedback sessions for the student) will permit rewards to be
provided for successful performance.

Coordinated Behavior Plans: Creation of a structured, coordinated behavior support plan
specific to the student and based on a hypothesis about the function of the target behavior
to be reduced should be created. It should focus on increasing desirable behavior, and
replacing inappropriate behaviors.

Alternative Programming: Provide short- or long-term changes in the student schedule,
classes or course content or offer the option of participating in an independent study or
work-experience program. Programming should be tailored to student needs, and permit
appropriate credit accrual and progress toward graduation.

Appropriate In-School Suspension: In-school suspension should be provided and
include academic tutoring, instruction on skill building related to the student behavior
problem (e.g., social skills), and a clearly defined procedure for returning to class
contingent on student progress or behavior. The environment should be carefully
managed to guard against using in-school suspension as a way to avoid attending classes.
22
One of the critical features that would enhance the success of these alternatives to
suspension is a welcoming and safe school climate. A school climate that is supportive of
positive behavior, incorporates efforts to build positive interactions, has appropriate and engaging
instruction, and institutes ongoing close supervision may prevent behavior problems from
growing to crisis proportions, thereby decreasing disciplinary consequences. The Community
Integration Institute lists the following examples of programs that support the previous
alternatives to suspension (Peterson, 2005):

Creating a caring school community and climate: Programs that attend to patterns of
good communication and problem solving, having clear patterns of authority and decision
making, procedures for developing and implementing rules, helping students feel they
belong and are welcome, good curriculum and instructional practices, and having a clean
and positive physical environment.

Efforts to build adult-student relationships: Programs offering opportunities for students
to develop individual relationships with staff.

Increased parent involvement: Programs that involve a variety of parents and community
members in functions and activities within the school, and maintain communication about
their children.

Character education/consistent school values: School curriculum and organization
features that promote the development of fundamental values in children. Typically these
list desirable goals for student behavior.

Early identification and intervention: Programs that permit systematic screening of
students for potential behavior problems, and that provide interventions for the students
identified as at “risk.”
23

Mediation programs: Programs that teach students about non-violent conflict resolution
and permit students to use and experience these in school. Peer-mediation is one
example.

Bullying prevention and intervention: Programs that teach students about bullying
behaviors and how they can be reported to teachers. Specific interventions are created for
both bullies and victims.

Conflict de-escalation training: Programs that teach staff and students to recognize and
to disengage from escalating conflict.

School-wide discipline program: Programs that develop a common terminology and
consistent approach to discipline across school staff. Responsibilities of students and staff
are identified, consistency in rule enforcement is increased, and consequences are
identified for positive and negative behaviors occurring anywhere in school.

Positive office referrals/recognition: Programs that “catch students being good” and
identify, reward, and celebrate individual students for appropriate behavior (e.g.,
attendance, being on-time, improving grades, meeting behavior goals).
Alternatives to suspensions work to provide students a chance to learn from their
mistakes and hold them accountable for their choices. These alternatives are “teaching moments”
rather than punitive measures that can set the student up for future failures. It is also important to
note that not all of the above alternatives will work for all children, and these programs and
recommendations may not be an option for students who may need punitive measures to ensure
safety of others in the school environment.
24
Summary
The process of disciplining students receiving special education services, specifically
with suspensions and expulsions, requires a great deal of familiarity and understanding of the
laws outlined in the IDEA. Furthermore, a review of the literature and opinions from experts in
the field reveals many suggestions that may be considered best practices. In particular are several
models that may provide guidance in completing a manifestation determination, a process that
many school officials view as vague with little guidance offered by the IDEA. Due the important
nature this topic, there is a need for a resource in the form of a manual and presentation that
addresses these guidelines and offers best practices for disciplining students with disabilities.
25
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Research
In order to complete this project, information was collected through a careful review of the
current literature. Data was collected through scholarly books, journal articles, internet resources,
and published documents from school districts across the nation. Academic Search Premier and
ERIC databases were searched for journal articles using a variety of search terms. The key words
student discipline, special education, and manifestation determination were used in combination
with other terms such as, individualized education program, suspensions, expulsions, alternatives
to suspensions, best practices, hearings, students with disabilities, and students’ rights.
Additionally, the National Association of School Psychologists’ website, nasponline.org, was
searched for topics on discipline, special education, and manifestation determination.
Books used in graduate courses and in professional practice, as well as those written by
other professionals in the field, were also utilized as resources. References cited within articles
and books were also utilized for additional information. The articles found were categorized by
themes according to an initial outline. The outline was then revised and adapted based on the
gathered information. Each author focused on specific topics when writing the literature review.
Development of the Presentation
The presentation was developed in order to provide participants with knowledge of
disciplining students with special education service. This includes information regarding the
rights and responsibilities of students with disabilities, the key guidelines involved in the
suspension and expulsion process, best practices in conducting effective manifestation
determinations, and alternatives to student discipline. This presentation is designed to demystify
the complex process of disciplining students with disabilities and to increase competency of
26
school staff. The main points from the literature review were summarized in the presentation and
activities, handouts, and discussion topics were utilized in order to provide an interactive
experience. The in-service includes definitions of suspension and expulsion, a historical overview
of disciplining students with disabilities, a detailed outline the manifestation determination
process including best practices and resources for staff, and alternatives for disciplining students.
The training is designed to be administered in three hours and is presented through a
Power Point presentation. In addition to the presentation, a resource manual is provided to all
participants of the in-service. The intended audience for the presentation is school administrators.
The PowerPoint presentation, notes for presenters and manual are located in the appendix of this
project.
27
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
Information obtained during the literature review was used to create a training workshop
for administrators, school psychologists and special education administrators. The workshop is
designed to last two to three hours. The PowerPoint slides with presentation notes and activities
for the workshop, manuals for presentation and for administrators are included in the project
appendices. This research project and the related workshops aim to give information about the
discipline process of students receiving special education. Specifically, it also provides
information about best practices in the manifestation determination process and gives some
research-based alternatives that schools can use towards student suspensions.
Workshop Objectives
The verbal presentation should include staff friendly language and requires audience
participation and visual aids and handouts to assist in the discussion of the main topics.
Additionally, presenters should take into consideration the audience’s level of awareness of the
subject. The primary focus of the workshop is to present and discuss best practices of
disciplining students receiving special education services as well as to present several researchbased alternatives to school suspensions. In addressing the topic of disciplining students with
disabilities, the workshop attempts to clarify the manifestation determination process and provide
resources to assist schools in complying with the regulations and policies that define this
procedure, while ensuring that due process rights of students are protected.
Discussion
Considering that research consistently shows that the current reactionary, punitive
measures of discipline are ineffective and that zero tolerance policies do not work, it is difficult to
comprehend why more schools have not adopted school wide positive behavior supports that
28
focus on skill building and non-punitive measures. It is understandable that some teachers and
administrators may favor suspensions and expulsions because such consequences remove the
problematic behavior and the student from the school environment. However, these procedures
do very little to help the student learn from their mistakes or build the skill set needed to be
successful in future situations.
The issue of discipline is complicated further when working with students with
disabilities. Although students with disabilities are afforded certain protections, specifically
through the manifestation determination process, it’s difficult to accept that there is a significant
lack of evidence-based procedures for carrying out a process with such serious consequences.
This project highlights the vagueness of the manifestation determination process and is limited
through the lack of research into this topic. It is clear that there remains a need for further
research in the area of disciplining students with disabilities so that educators can ensure students’
rights are maintained and respected.
Recommendations
It is recommended that school administrators view the contents of this project with the
understanding that the workshop is intended for use as a guide for disciplining students with
special education services. It is critical to note that this project contains recommendations and
suggestions and is not to be used as a translation of the laws governing special education
discipline or services. The workshop and supplementary manual serve as guides for
understanding how the suspension and expulsion process may be carried out in most schools.
This project also offers suggestions that can be used as alternatives to school suspensions and
provides the administrators with a framework that can be used in schools to discipline special
education students.
29
There are numerous important implications of the findings of this project. Students
receiving special education services have due process rights that must be respected and followed.
It is also critical that when disciplining a student with special education needs, the delivery of
their services must be considered and taken into consideration. Furthermore, the IDEA provides
students in special education certain protections that must be fully understood in order to ensure
that discipline procedures are both appropriate and affective.
Conclusion
Student discipline continues to be an area of controversy and is a challenge for numerous
administrators. When a student with special education services is involved, the process becomes
much more challenging. It is clear from the literature that punitive measures do not improve
student behavior and that the rates of suspensions and expulsions nationwide have been on an
increase. In evaluation of this project, it is hoped that this information can provide administrators
with foundational knowledge of discipline in special education and how to conduct a fair and
objective manifestation determination process while honoring students’ rights. It is also hoped
that the alternatives to suspension discussed in the project will provide administrators with some
ideas to ponder when faced with a situation where alternatives to school suspension can be
considered.
30
APPENDICES
31
Appendix A
Presenter’s Manual
32
Introduction
The process of disciplining students with disabilities can be overwhelming given the
amount of laws and regulations surrounding the procedure. Oftentimes, school administrators,
teachers and parents do not have a full understanding of the school’s authority and a student's
rights as provided by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). A competent understanding
of these rights and procedures is important in ensuring that schools maintain compliance with the
law and that parents and students are able to exercise their rights to a free and appropriate public
education (FAPE).
This manual, supplemental PowerPoint presentation and handout manual are designed to
provide a guideline and understanding of the process of disciplining student with special
education services, best practices in the field and also some research based alternatives that
administrators and teachers can use instead of the punitive nature of current discipline procedures.
This information is based on a literature review completed between September 2011 and
February 2012.
Nature of Presentation
This presentation has been created for school administrators and special education staff
who are in charge of student discipline. Other staff members, who work directly with students
with disabilities, and school psychologists, may find information from this project helpful.
The presentation is designed to last at least three hours with a 15-minute break
incorporated into the schedule. Although the content of the presentation and instructions for
presenter actions are available in the slide notes, presenters must use appropriate and engaging
presentation techniques such as pausing for questions, demonstrate active listening, and
validating audience input as necessary throughout the presentation. Before beginning the
workshop, the presenter will need to make copies of the appropriate handouts and PowerPoint
33
slides for each participant. The presenters must also be open to listen to alternative processes that
other school districts may be using to discipline students with special education services. It is
critical for the presenters to make the audience aware that the information provided in this
presentation is just one of the various options that school districts can utilize when working with
students receiving special education services.
In preparation for giving this workshop, the presenter(s) should study the slides and
accompanying notes thoroughly so they have excellent knowledge of their content. On the initial
slide, there is space where the presenter(s) may insert their own names. They may also feel free
to change the PowerPoint slide theme if desired. It is also imperative that the presenter(s) be
familiar with the articles referenced at the end of the presentation as well as the corresponding
handouts. Audience members may have questions that go beyond the scope of the presentation
and presenters must be very careful not to interpret special education laws but stay within the
scope of the project. Additionally, new laws or changes to the laws referenced in this project may
have occurred so it is important for presenters to review law material before presenting to ensure
that the laws referenced are current.
Guidance to Presenters
The workshop is presented as a series of Microsoft PowerPoint slides. Each slide has all
the necessary information needed to present the workshop. In addition, the notes section has
general information needed to discuss each slide. Sample language is provided in italics;
however, presenters may use their own words when discussing slide material.
Discussion questions are embedded in the PowerPoint slides to enhance audience
participation. Certain notes from specific slides will direct presenters to ask the audience
questions and access the audiences’ existing knowledge of the subject area. Group activities are
also included in the presentation. These activities include discussion of presented case studies
34
and application of existing and presented knowledge from the workshop. Presenters should be
familiar with each case study and plausible possible outcomes.
One or two presenters can give the presentation. Change presenters at natural times: after
breaks or when presenting a new section or topic. All presenters should introduce themselves
prior to starting the workshop. However, presenters may reintroduce themselves when presenting
a new topic or section if they feel it is necessary. Presenters will likely want to divide the
presentation into sections prior to starting the workshop and incorporate introductions into the
agenda slides. A recommended timeline is provided below:
Discipline in Special Education:
Slides
#1-#3
#4-#6
#7-#45
#46-56
#56-#64
#65-#67
Topic
Duration (minutes)
Introduction
10
General School Discipline
5
Manifestation Determination
40
Case study activity and discussion
35
BREAK
15
Alternative Approach
15
Case Study with alternative approach
25
Alternatives to Suspensions
25
Closing slides and wrap up
10
About the Authors
Jonathan Tennison and Amreek Singh are both students in the School Psychology
Graduate Program at California State University Sacramento. This workshop was created to
satisfy requirements for their Education Specialist program. Jonathan Tennison has a Masters in
Education from California State University Sacramento. Amreek Singh has a Masters in Social
Work from California State University Sacramento and a Pupil Personnel Services Credential
also from California State University Sacramento.
35
Appendix B
Presentation
36
Slide 1
DISCIPLINE IN SPECIAL
EDUCATION:
THE MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS AND ALTERNATIVES TO
SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION
Presented and Developed by:
Amreek Singh
Jonathan Tennison
Sample Language:
Welcome to today’s presentation regarding the discipline process in special education. My name
is _____________ (give description current position and professional background; have each
presenter provide introduction if more than one presenter.)
We’re here today is provide you with information regarding the discipline procedures for
students in special education, as well as to provide and hear ideas of alternatives to the
traditional route of disciplining these students which is usually with suspension or expulsion,
which can also be said about students in general education. But the reason we’re focusing on
students with disabilities, and the reason this presentation was developed, is because the process
of disciplining students in special education can be very unclear and is surrounded by laws and
regulations. With that being said, we must remind you that the purpose of this presentation is not
to provide legal advice as we (presenters) are not lawyers. Rather, the purpose is to provide you
with the language of the law and resources that may help guide you when you deal with this
process.
Notes to Presenter:
If presenting to a small group (less than 10), have group members introduce themselves and their
role in education. If presenting to a large group (10 or more), ask questions to get a sense of the
professionals in the audience. Questions include: Do we have any principals? Could you raise
your hand if you’re a teacher? How many directors of special education are present?
Hand out manuals and hard copies of slides so that participants can refer back to resources while
do case studies.
37
Slide 2
DISCIPLINE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
 Mind
Dump
Sample Language:
Before we go to our presentation outline, we want to get your minds ready for the information
that’s going to be provided. So, take out a piece of scratch paper, and write down everything you
know about disciplining students in special education. This may be laws that you’re familiar
with, myths that you constantly hear, words that always come up in this process; anything
information that you know. Once you’ve completed that, jot down all the questions that you may
have regarding this topic.
Notes to Presenter:
Have scratch sheet and pens/pencils available so everyone can participate.
38
Slide 3
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
Now that you’re thinking about discipline in special education, here is the outline of today’s
presentation. This presentation will be about three hours with a 15-minute break. First we’ll
take a brief look at discipline procedures in general education as these procedures become
relevant later in the presentation. Then we’ll look at MDs*. Specifically, we discuss the
definition and take a look at how we’ve come to this process. Then we’ll spend quite a bit of time
on the actual process of completing a manifestation determination where we have some case
studies and we’ll also provide you with some resources. And finally, we’ll go over alternatives
when disciplining students in special education.
Notes to Presenter:
*The abbreviation MD will be used throughout the presentation notes when referring to
Manifestation Determinations
39
Slide 4
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
In order to proceed with our presentation it is important that we define the two main key terms in
the discipline field in education. These definition become relevant when we discuss change of
placement as well as when we talk about the outcomes of MDs.
40
Slide 5
GENERAL SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Suspension

Prohibiting a student to be on school grounds for a
specified period of time unless the school has a
“supervised suspension classroom”


Suspension by teacher
Suspension by principle/administrator
(CA Education Code § 48911.1 )
Sample Language:
The first term is suspension. The California Education Code defines suspension as prohibiting a
student to be on school grounds for a specified period of time unless the school has a “
supervised suspension classroom”.
There are two main types of suspensions- suspensions by a teacher who may suspend a student
for the class day of the suspension and the day following. In elementary schools, “day” refers to
a calendar day while in secondary school it refers to a class period.
The second type is a suspension by the principal or his/her designee. This suspension may be for
up to 5 consecutive days and can be at first offence with out any prior attempts at intervention, if
a students actions cause danger to persons or property or threaten the instructional process.
Notes to Presenter:
Make participants aware that their districts policies may be different and it is paramount that they
check their own districts policy to understand their districts procedures and policies on
suspensions.
41
Slide 6
GENERAL SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Expulsion

Prohibiting a student to be on school grounds for a
specified period of time unless the school has a
“supervised suspension classroom”


Suspension by teacher
Suspension by principle/administrator
(CA Education Code § 48925 (b))
Sample Language:
The second term when it comes to student discipline is expulsion. Expulsion as defined by the
California Education Code refers to the removal of a student from immediate supervision and
control, or the general supervision, of school personnel for an extended time period. The
expulsion process takes numerous forms but there are three common ways that most districts
precede with this process.
(1) The first way is a suspended expulsion and this is where the student is allowed to stay in
his/her home school or may be moved to another school within the district and the student is
placed on an expulsion contract. The student is removed from the school only if he/she commits
another suspendable offence and then the expulsion order comes into effect.
(2) The second type is a stipulated expulsion and this is where the parent(s) agree to the findings
of the school and do not dispute the allegations or recommendations of the school. The student
and parent sign the expulsion order and the student is placed in their new educational placement.
(3) The last type is administrative panel hearings where the student/parent(s) elect to let an
impartial panel of administrators (usually from the same district) hear the case and then the
panel makes a recommendation to the school board.
Would anyone care to share other forms of expulsion that their district uses?
Notes to Presenter:
These types are only some of the ways that districts precede and participants are advised to
consult their own district personnel to find out ways that their district may be handling this
process. It may be similar to the above or even be different.
42
Slide 7
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
Now that we’ve reviewed the definition of suspension and expulsion, we want to move into the
topic of MDs. As mentioned previously, students in special education may be disciplined
similarly to students in general education using suspensions and expulsion, however, the process
of MDs plays a significant role in how suspensions and expulsions are carried out. So first we’ll
define what this term means and then take a look at how this process came to be, including many
of the significant court cases surrounding MD. We feel that this information is important in
understanding the spirit of the law. In turn, it may help you in completing MDs if you’re aware
of why we conduct them in the first place.
43
Slide 8
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION

“Students should not be denied special education
services because of misbehavior that could be
anticipated as a result of their disabilities”
Mitchell L. Yell
(Yell, 2006)
Sample Language:
When defining MD, it may help to fully understand where the idea first originated. As Mitchell
Yell (presenter may expand on Yell stating his is the author of The Law and Special Education)
states, (read quote). In other words, we don’t want to punish our student for engaging in
behaviors that may be caused or directly linked to their disability. Why do you think this is?
(Wait for participants to offer explanations; one main point to bring up is that punishment is a
form of behavior modification and is unlikely to be effective if administered to a student who is
not under complete control of the misbehavior).
The process of MDs is our way of ensuring that we can be the most effective in changing a
student’s behavior and ensuring a student’s rights. However, carrying out this task can be very
difficult and confusing for administrators/educators.
44
Slide 9
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION

Manifestation

(1) The misconduct is caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability or

(2) The direct result of the school’s failure to
properly implement the Individualized Education
Program (IEP)

No clear guides of how to establish a direct link
between behaviors and disability or lack of a proper
IEP
(IDEA, 2004) (Kubick Jr., 2008)
Sample Language:
The confusion surrounding MDs stems, in part, from the IDEA’s (clarify Individual’s with
Disabilities Education Act if necessary) vague definition of manifestation. As you can see,
manifestation is broken up into two factors (read both factors). In terms of knowing if or how the
student’s behavior is caused or directly related to a disability is really left up to MD teams. Our
research suggests that this is done with some intention as to leave it up for school’s to decide.
However, it also leaves the issue open to a great deal of interpretation.
Notes to Presenter:
Presenter may wish to mention that IDEA 1997 provided some guidance but IDEA 2004 made
the process more vague and excluded those guidelines.
45
Slide 10
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION

Case Law

Goss v. Lopez (1975)


Stuart v. Nappi (1978)


Students with disabilities maintain due process
rights in disciplinary matters
Expulsion/suspension is a unilateral change of
placement inconsistent with IDEA
Doe v. Koger (1979)

A student cannot be expelled for behavior
directly linked to a disability
(Yell, 2006), (Zils, 2006)
Sample Language:
Since the definition of MD is so vague, we want to cover some of the historical cases that defined
MD law. MD didn’t show up in IDEA until the 1997 revision. Before that time, educators were
guided by some of these cornerstone cases (briefly go over the three cases).
46
Slide 11
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION

Case Law

S-I v. Turlington (1981)


A knowledgeable group must determine of the behavior is a
manifestation of the disability
Doe v. Maher (1986)
Manifestation to be determined by IEP team
If link found, services may cease
 Expulsion is a change of placement triggering safeguards of
the law



Honig v. Doe (1988)
If behavior is linked to disability, the student cannot be
expelled
 Established the 10-day rule

(Osborne & Russo, 2009), (Katsiyannis & Maag, 2001)
Sample Language:
In these next three cases, you can really see where IDEA gets some of its language. I want to
point out Doe v. Maher and Honig v. Doe in particular as these cases are commonly referred to
in the literature. (Go over the cases giving specific details about Honig v. Doe and the 10-day
rule)
Notes to Presenter:
Express the following points of Honig v. Doe
-Court case out of California
-Two students with disabilities were suspended (separate instances) for misconduct and were up
for expulsion
-The expulsion decision was delayed and the students remained suspended as administrators tried
to make a decision
-The students argued that they were being denied services
-This resulted in the rule that states that a student in special education can only have a change of
placement (be suspended) for 10 cumulative days before an MD must be completed
47
Slide 12
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION

Manifestation

(1) The misconduct is caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability or

(2) The direct result of the school’s failure to properly
implement the Individualized Education Program (IEP)

Due to a vague definition, federal courts often demonstrate
inconsistency in their interpretation of what is meant by
manifestation

When it comes to manifestation determinations, the best
defense is a good offense
(IDEA, 2004), (Meloy 1999)
Sample Language:
This brings us back to the definition of manifestation. Even though there have been attempts for
courts to provide guidance, and even though there is a federal definition found in IDEA 2004,
there remains significant amount confusion about how to establish manifestation. As a result,
even federal courts have demonstrated inconsistencies in MD hearings. This demonstrates the
difficult nature of linking, or not linking, behaviors to disabilities.
One author even notes that MDs can be such a difficult process, he states that the best defense in
conducting MDs is a good offense. In other words, taking proactive steps such as behavior
support plans and positive behavioral interventions and supports should be implemented so as to
mitigate the difficulty of conducting MDs.
But even with the best defense, MDs are unlikely to be avoided and so we hope to give you insight
in to the best practices when conducting an MD that has been gathered from professionals in the
field.
48
Slide 13
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
Next we’ll be taking a look at the actual process of conducting an MD. This is a large portion of
the presentation and we have a couple of case study activities for you to perform so you can begin
to look at MDs through some of the resources we provide.
The first thing we’d like to share is a flow chart of the MD process that we’ve adapted from
several resources.
49
Slide 14
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS
Sample Language:
This may be difficult to see but if you take the supplementary manual you’ll see it on the first
page. We’ll break this flow chart down into smaller steps as we continue through the
presentation. There are many flow charts floating around out there written by many school
districts. This chart is adapted from much of our research and reviewing a great deal of those
charts. We believe this is the most concise we could get this information to you but keep in mind,
many flow charts include different language and additional steps.
Before we start with the process of disciplining students in special education, we’d like to hear
from you some of the challenges you’ve faced in this process. (Facilitate general discussion of
some of the general challenges with the MD process)
The first event that occurs in the process of disciplining student in special education is that the
student exhibits some form of misconduct. Again, we feel it’s our duty to stress the importance of
proactive procedures such as behavior support plans and positive behavioral interventions and
supports as a means to decreasing misconduct. However, undesirable behaviors cannot be
avoided. So, once the student has committed in infraction and teachers and administrators
believe that suspension or expulsion is the appropriate action, the process has fully begun.
Notes to Presenter:
Have copies of the manual with flow chart printed for every participant or have a flash drive to be
passed around so participants may download the manual.
Participants will need a hard copy of the manual, as the flow chart will be regularly referenced.
50
Slide 15
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
The first thing that needs to occur before the MD is administrators and IEP team member must
determine if a change of placement has occurred.
51
Slide 16
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

IDEA states prolonged suspension or expulsion as a
change of placement

Federal law mandates school officials to conduct
manifestation determinations before changing a
students placement due to conduct

Students no longer have access to FAPE and cannot
make adequate progress towards their IEP goals

What constitutes a change of placement?
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i))
Sample Language:
As stated earlier the IDEA states that suspension or expulsion is considered to be a change of
placement because the student with disabilities no longer has access to special education services
and cannot make progress towards his or her IEP goals. As the cases Goss v. Lopez and Stuart
v. Nappi showed us a few slides previous, students in special education are guaranteed
procedural safeguards when a change of placement occurs due to discipline.
In our research, we found that there are several situations in which change of placement
determinations are clear and straightforward. However, there are unique situations in which the
question of a change of placement is not easily answered and there are few guidelines for the
decision.
52
Slide 17
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

Expulsion is considered a change of placement

Suspension
School may unilaterally suspend a student with
disabilities
 No more than 10 consecutive school days
 No more than 10 cumulative school days
 Or it becomes a change of placement


Types of suspensions
Full day, home
Full day, in-house
 Half day, in-house
 Sent home at differing times of the day


(Yell, 2006)
Sample Language:
Expelling a student is a clear example of changing a student’s placement due to misconduct. The
student would no longer have access to services resulting in a lack of progress towards IEP
goals. In this case, safeguards such as the MD kick in.
Suspension, and its different forms, is where change of placement questions becomes trickier.
The IDEA permits school to unilaterally suspend student with disabilities without holding and
IEP meeting, but there are restrictions. Again, case law, specifically Honig v. Doe, established
what is commonly referred to as the 10-day rule. So, any suspension that results in more than 10
cumulative days is considered to be a change of placement. Confusion arises when a school
administers different types of suspensions because it may be unclear as to whether or not the
suspension should be counted towards the 10-day rule.
Some of the common types of suspension are (read slide). (Ask participants to share about
suspension procedures in their schools)
Are you schools using any or all of these types of suspensions?
If so, what do they look like? For instance, where does the student spend the time during inhouse suspensions?
Are there other types of suspensions that you’re school may be administering?
53
Slide 18
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

Things to consider
Alternative placement
Services
 Progress towards IEP
 Pattern of exclusion



Pattern of Exclusion:

When determining a pattern of
exclusion, IEP teams should consider:
 The length of each removal
 The total amount of time the student
is removed
 The proximity of the removals to one
another
(IDEA Regulations, § 300.536)
Sample Language:
With several forms of suspension, there are several suggestions and things to consider when
determining if a suspension should be counted towards the 10-day rule and if a change of
placement has occurred. One thing that administrators should consider is what the alternative
placement looks like during in-house suspension. In other words, is the student still able to
receive services during suspension and can he or she still progress towards IEP goals? But even
though the student may appear to be receiving services and it’s believed that he or she can make
progress towards IEP goals. An important question that must be considered is if a pattern of
exclusion exists. The IDEA gives some direction in this regard. It states that IEP teams should
work together in determining if a pattern of exclusion exists and that they should consider (Read
bullets from slides and expand as necessary).
54
Slide 19
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement




Formal procedures for monitoring
suspensions of students in special
education
Notification to appropriate members
of the IEP team
Procedures for suspending students
with disabilities should be outlined
and communicated to staff
Count all suspension towards the 10day rule regardless of type.
(Osborne, 1988)
Sample Language:
Additional suggestions include (Read slide and expand as necessary). Ask participants if they are
or have seen these procedures put in place. Ask if there are other suggestions.
55
Slide 20
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

Case Study Activity


Read case study with group
Discuss if the situation should count
towards the 10-day rule (if it is or is
approaching a change of placement)
OR
Discuss if you need more information
and what kind of information you would
want
 Share with the entire group your
decision and what you considered when
making the determination

Sample Language:
This brings us to one of our case study activities. First, we’ll divide you up into groups (pairs),
then we’ll hand each group a case study to read. You’ll all read your case study within you’re
group, then you’ll discuss whether the disciplinary removal should be counted towards the 10 day
of cumulative removals. If you feel that you need more information to make that decision, discuss
what kind of information you would want. We’ll give you about 10 minutes to complete that
portion.
Once the 10 minutes is up, we’ll then come back together to discuss each groups (pairs) results
and what they considered in making their conclusion.
Notes to presenter:
Divide large group into small groups. If 8 or fewer participants are present, divide the group into
pairs. If more than 8 participants are present, divide participants into groups of 3-5 individuals
and explain that some groups will have the same case study.
56
Slide 21
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

A 6th grader receiving services in the form of 50
minutes with a resource teacher is sent to the vice
principle’s office during 4th period for misconduct and
is required to stay in the office for the remainder of
the school day. The student met with the resource
specialist during 2nd period.
After allowing 10 minutes for small group discussion, ask participants to come back to the larger
group. Project the first case study and have the group(s) who reviewed this case study share their
discussion with the larger group. Do this for each case study.
57
Slide 22
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

A 3rd grade who receives services in the general
education classroom is sent to the principle’s office
during lunch/recess for misconduct and stays with
the principle for the remainder of the day. This is the
fourth time the student has had to stay in the
principles office for half the day
58
Slide 23
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

An 8th grade student serves an in-house suspension
by sitting in a 6th grade teacher’s class for the entire
school day. The student receives services by a
resource specialist. The student meets with the
resource specialist for a class period as stated in the
IEP, receives work from all teacher to work on
throughout the day, and is periodically checked on by
the resources specialist and vice principle. This
student has been suspended once during the current
school year and the suspension was administered in
the same manner.
59
Slide 24
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS

Change of Placement

A 4th grade student receives services in the general
education classroom through the assistance of a oneon-one aid. The student has social goals written in
the IEP that the aid assists with during lunch and
recess.
60
Slide 25
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS
Sample Language:
So this brings us through the first part of our flow chart in which a disciplinary removal has
occurred. As the flow chart states, if the removal is a suspension of less than 10 consecutive days
and the suspensions total less than 10 cumulative days, then the removal can be carried out
unilaterally. If the removal is less than 10 consecutive days but results in more than 10
cumulative days, a change of placement determination has to occur. If it’s determined that a
removals of more than 10 cumulative days is not a change in placement, then steps must be take
to ensure FAPE services are provided to the student and he or she is able to make progress
towards IEP goals.
Next we’ll be looking at the actual manifestation determination if the removal is for more than 10
cumulative or consecutive days, which means that a change of placement has occurred.
61
Slide 26
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
The next area of MDs we’ll be looking at are the actual procedures of MDs as outlined by the
IDEA. These procedures kick in once it has been determined that a change of placement has
occurred for a student receiving special education services.
62
Slide 27
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCEDURES


Disciplinary removal is determined to be a
change of placement
A manifestation determination must occur within
10 school days of the decision that changes the
student’s placement

4th grader receiving special education services has 8
days of suspension for the school year. The v.p. has
just decided to suspend the student for another 3
days. (1) When must the manifestation
determination occur and (2) what may happen to the
student while the manifestation team is completing
the process?
(Meloy, 1999)
Sample Language:
So at this point, a decision has been made to expel a student or suspend a student beyond the 10
days. How do your school/districts handle the timeline from this point on? (Ask for participation;
find out if MDs are held prior to the 10 days of suspension)
The IDEA states that the MD must occur within 10 days of the decision that changes a student’s
placement. This is separate from the 10-day rule we just went over. We’ve found that school
districts handle the MD timeline differently in talking with multiple administrators. For instance,
some MD teams will hold an MD once the student has 7 or 8 days of suspension while others will
wait until the 10th day (presenter may point out differences from participants’ answer to the
previous question). Since these procedures vary we wanted to resent a scenario and discuss how
your school would handle according to how the law is written.
Notes to Presenter:
Read the scenario and ask participants to turn to a neighbor and discuss how to address the two
questions. Give participants approximately 3 minutes to discuss. After 3 minutes facilitate
discussion. Main points:
-MD team has 10 days to make a determination
-But student can only be suspended for 10 more days if team decides it a change of placement
-Options include the MD team making a determination within 2 school days. Or, the student
would have to return to original placement while the team conducts the MD
63
Slide 28
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCEDURES


A formal monitoring system of disciplinary
removals should be established
During the manifestation determination




Who is involved?
Representative of the school district, parent(s), and
“relevant member”
What information is utilized?
IEPs, staff observations, cumulative files, and
relevant information provided by parents

Psycho-educational reports/school psychologists
(Yell, 2006)
Sample Language:
In the example we just provided, it’s possible that the student could be administered 3 days of
suspension, but only serves 2 before if the MD team is able to make a determination. So the most
common suggestion in the literature is to have a formal monitoring system of suspensions for
students in special education with a designated administrator keeping track and communicating
timelines.
Once the MD has been initiated, who should be involved? The IDEA does not specify further
than a representative of the school, the parent or parents and any relevant members. Who is
typically involved in MDs in your schools? Are there members who you’ve mandated be at MDs?
Are there members who you think are always relevant but are not stated in this law? (Call on
participants to share). It’s important to note that while IDEA is a little vague on who is should be
involved, it does leave it open for school staff who were not part of the original IEP team to
participate in the MD.
And what type of information is used? What type of information do you usually review prior to
and during MD meetings? (Call on participants to share). The law simply states IEPs, staff
observations, information in cumulative files, and any relevant information from the parents.
Again, we believe this is kept vague so that MD teams can decide what is relevant. In reviewing
the literature, we found that several authors suggest reviewing past psycho-educational reports
and that if psycho-educational reports are out of date, a new evaluation should be conducted.
Meloy, whose literature we reviewed and have presented earlier states that school psychologists
should be involved in MDs as they can often offer a thorough, nondiscriminatory assessment of
the student and the behaviors.
64
Slide 29
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
Once the team is established and information is gather, a determination must be made, and this
brings us to the next step, and often the most difficult step, of the MD process, conducting the
“relationship test”. This is a common term for answering the two main questions of MD and
we’ll take a look at some best practices for conducting the relationship test. During this portion
of the presentation, we’ll also have some case studies for you to complete in groups, and then
we’ll take a break before coming back together to discuss the case studies. So, first let’s go back
to our slide of what the IDEA states is manifestation.
65
Slide 30
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Manifestation

(1) Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?
OR


(2) Is the misconduct a direct result of the school’s
failure to properly implement the Individualized
Education Program (IEP)?
Relationship Test
(IDEA, 2004), (Hartwig & Ruesh, 1995)
Sample Language:
These are the two questions that MD teams must answer (review slide as necessary), and it’s the
process of answering these two questions that have been dubbed the relationship test. However,
these aren’t the easiest questions to answer. In our review of the literature, we found that some
authors believe this was done intentionally so that MD teams would be able to make
individualized decisions based on unique students and situations.
66
Slide 31
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST


Manifestation determinations should be
individualized and cannot be based simply on
disability classification
Courts have made it clear that manifestation
determinations must be independent of a
student’s disability classification
(Kubick Jr., 2008), (Yell, 2006)
Sample Language:
As Kubick, Jr. believes, (read first point of slide). And Yell reinforces this point through the fact
that (read second point). In other words, a MD team should not make a determination that a
student’s behavior, such as impulsively hitting another student, was a result of his diagnosis of
ADHD based only on the fact that he is diagnosed with ADHD. Rather than making decisions
based on disability classification, MD teams should make determinations based on the
“relationship test”.
However, there appears to be significant difficulty in making theses decisions individualized with
such vague definitions of manifestation. Therefore, we’d like to present resources that are
considered to be best practices when conducing MDs
67
Slide 32
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?

The student’s disability impaired his or her ability to
understand the consequences of the misconduct

The student’s disability impaired his or her ability to
control the misbehavior
(Gates & Cheramie, 2004)
Sample Language:
First, Gates and Cheramie have provided standards and accompanying questions that would be
helpful to ask when conducting the relationship test when addressing the first question of MD.
The two standards are (read standards from slides). These standards are considered to be a good
starting point for MD teams in trying to conduct the relationship test.
68
Slide 33
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?

The student’s disability impaired his or her ability to
understand the consequences of the misconduct

The student’s disability impaired his or her ability to
control the misbehavior
(Gates & Cheramie, 2004)
Sample Language:
So let’s take a look at the first standard.
69
Slide 34
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

The student’s disability impaired his or her
ability to understand the consequences of the
misconduct




Are the student’s thought processes logical?
Did the student understand the consequences for
breaking school rules?
Did the student have the capacity to know which
behaviors are unacceptable?
Has the student received a copy and adequate
explanation of the school’s code of conduct?
(Gates & Cheramie, 2004)
Sample Language:
In addressing the first standard, Gates and Cheramie have developed the following questions
(read questions).
Notes to Presenter:
Ask for feedback of individual questions when appropriate. For instance, the presenter may
prompt a discussion around the fist question by asking:
What do the authors mean by a logical though process and what do you think it means of the
student’s though process was illogical?
70
Slide 35
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

The student’s disability impaired his or her
ability to understand the consequences of the
misconduct



Has the student demonstrated the ability to follow
school rules in the past?
Has the student expressed that this or similar
conduct is wrong?
Has the student expressed an understanding of the
consequences of this or similar behavior?
(Gates & Cheramie, 2004)
Sample Language:
Continuing with the first standard (read questions from slide).
Notes to Presenter:
Once again, prompt discussion around each question as necessary. For instance, the presenter
may wish to ask, in regards to the last question:
Why is it important for the MD team to explore the student’s understanding of the consequences
of the behavior, and how would you explore that question if you were on an MD team?
71
Slide 36
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?

The student’s disability impaired his or her ability to
understand the consequences of the misconduct

The student’s disability impaired his or her ability to
control the misbehavior
(Gates & Cheramie, 2004)
Sample Language:
And they have developed questions for the 2nd standard as well. Remember, both standards apply
to the first part of the MD question.
72
Slide 37
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

The student’s disability impaired his or her
ability to control the misbehavior




Has the student followed school rules in the past?
What features of the disability has the student
exhibited in the past?
In what situations can the student control his or her
behavior?
Are there other factors that explain the misconduct?
(Gates & Cheramie, 2004)
Sample Language:
Looking at the questions for the second standard, we have the following questions MD teams
should ask (read questions from slide).
Notes to the Presenter:
Prompt discussion if necessary and appropriate. For instance, the presenter may ask, in regards to
the second question:
How would members of the MD team investigate the second question? Who would be relevant in
this investigation and what type of records would you review?
73
Slide 38
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

The student’s disability impaired his or her
ability to control the misbehavior



Is this an isolated or recurrent behavior?
Was the behavior premeditated?
Would similarly situated students without
disabilities react in a similar manner in this
circumstance?
(Gates & Cheramie, 2004)
Sample Language:
Continuing with the second standard (read questions from slide). It’s important to keep in mind
that these questions were developed to help guide MD teams through the MD process. There’s
no rule behind the result of these questions that leads to a clear answer. For instance, if the MD
team answers “yes” to three of these questions, it may not necessarily mean that the behavior is a
result of the disability. These standards and questions help to guide the MD team while still
allowing the MD to be individualized.
Considering all of these questions that we’ve just reviewed, what kind of information do you think
you would always need to review when conducting an MD, and who do you think should always
be involved in the MD process?
Notes for Presenter:
Facilitate a discussion about how to answer these questions (what info you need and who can
provide the info) and how/if these questions are currently addressed in participants’ MD process.
74
Slide 39
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Is the misconduct a direct result of the school’s
failure to properly implement the
Individualized Education Program (IEP)?




Was the IEP legally developed?
Was the IEP implemented as written?
Have the services provided been consistent with the
IEP?
Is the student making educational progress?
(Kester, 1999)
Sample Language:
Another author, Kester, helps to answer the second critical question whish is if the misbehavior
was a result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP. Once again, these questions are
considered best practices in addressing whether or not a school properly implemented the IEP.
Notes to Presenter:
Facilitate understanding of these questions, just as in the previous slides: For instance, the
presenter may ask, in regards to the first question:
What are the authors trying to address with this question? And what does it mean for the IEP to
be legally developed?
75
Slide 40
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Is the misconduct a direct result of the school’s
failure to properly implement the
Individualized Education Program (IEP)?




Did the IEP address all of the student’s needs?
Was there a developing pattern of conduct that
should have been detected?
Was the IEP modified over time to reflect changes in
the student’s behavior?
Did the IEP include a goal or objective that addressed
any component of the behavior involved in the
student’s misconduct?
(Kester, 1999)
Sample Language:
Continuing with the second part of manifestation we are also given the following question. (Read
questions).
Notes to Presenter:
Facilitate discussion regarding these questions as well. For instance, the presenter may ask, in
regards to the first questions:
How do you think the MD team would answer this question? What type of information or
consultation would the MD team need in order to address this question?
76
Slide 41
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Manifestation Determination Case Studies






What is the most relevant information from your
case?
What additional information do you feel you’re team
needs to answer the question of manifestation?
If additional information is needed, how would the
team obtain that information?
Who would you want on the MD team given your
case?
What are some of the questions you focused on
during your review of the case?
What did your team determine? If more information
was needed, what type of information would make it
a manifestation, and what type of information would
not make it a manifestation?
Sample Language:
Now that we’ve presented and discussed these questions when addressing MD, we’d like for you
to take a look at case studies while considering the information we’ve presented you. You can
find a copy of the questions we’ve presented in both your slides and in the manual we’ve handed
out. So, we have several case studies, and similar to the change of placement activity, we’ll
divide you up into groups and give each group a case to review. However, we’re not necessarily
expecting each group to come up with a correct MD. Rather, we’re more interested in the
process and how you can use these questions to guide a MD. So while we’d like for each group
to come up with a determination, we don’t expect there to be a right or wrong answer and we
really want to hear out these questions could be utilized when conducting the MD.
First we’ll divide you up, and then we’ll hand out the case studies to each group/pair. Then we’ll
give you 15 minutes to review and answer these questions. We’ll also give you and additional 10
minutes to take a break. Essentially, you’ll have the next 25 minutes to complete your case study
and take a break. If you feel that you absolutely need a break first, you’re more than welcome to
do that first. Either way, we’ll ask everyone to come back to the large 25 minutes after we’ve
passed out the case studies. Are there any questions?
Notes to Presenter:
Divide participants into smaller groups as necessary. It may be more efficient for participants to
for the same groups as previously.
The presenter should be present while groups complete case studies in case questions arise.
If presenting to a large group (8 or more participants) and the more than four groups are formed,
inform the groups that some groups will have the same case study but they should still continue to
work in only their group.
77
Slide 42
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST


Case Study #1
Joseph is a senior in high school who has been in
special education classes since he was a freshman.
His primary disability is emotional disturbance and
he has been suspended for a total of 9 days so far this
current school year. He just returned from his 3-day
suspension and got into a fight again in the boys
locker room with another student who had taken
Joseph’s friend’s cell phone. Joseph asked the other
student to return the cell phone to his friend and
when the student refused, an argument ensued and a
mutual fight emerged. As per the school’s discipline
code, this is an automatic 3 day suspension. Both
parties did not suffer any injuries and the fight was
broken up quickly.
Notes to Presenter:
Once the break is over, project each case, one by one, and have groups offer their answers to the
questions. Facilitate discussions surrounding the questions, including asking what would the
groups see as most challenging when addressing these situations.
The questions are provided below so that the presenter may refer back to them through the notes:
What is the most relevant information from your case?
What additional information do you feel you’re team needs to answer the question of
manifestation?
If additional information is needed, how would the team obtain that information?
Who would you want on the MD team given your case?
What are some of the questions you focused on during your review of the case?
What did your team determine? If more information was needed, what type of
information would make it a manifestation, and what type of information would not make
it a manifestation?
78
Slide 43
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST


Case Study #2
Mike is a student in 6th grade and he is in a self-contained
class. He has been in special education since 4th grade and
his primary diagnosis is intellectual disability. He has been
suspended for 8 days this current school year for a variety
of offences including stealing, defiance and verbal
altercation. Mike was involved in an incident yesterday
where he inappropriately touched a female student on her
breast. When questioned about this, he stated that his
friends dared him to do this and said that this would make
him popular at school. The parents of the girl strongly
reacted to this incident and are threatening to file a police
report. They feel that this is sexual harassment and that
the school should act immediately to remove the accused
from the campus as he is a danger to their daughter and
other students.
Notes to Presenter:
The questions are provided below so that the presenter may refer back to them through the notes:
What is the most relevant information from your case?
What additional information do you feel you’re team needs to answer the question of
manifestation?
If additional information is needed, how would the team obtain that information?
Who would you want on the MD team given your case?
What are some of the questions you focused on during your review of the case?
What did your team determine? If more information was needed, what type of
information would make it a manifestation, and what type of information would not make
it a manifestation?
79
Slide 44
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST


Case Study #3
Molly is a middle school student who has been receiving
special education services under the category of Other
Health Impairment. She has been diagnosed with ADHD
since she was 9 and was taking medication for it until
recently when her parents lost their medical insurance
coverage. Her dad is an avid hunter and she goes on
hunting trips with him regularly. Last week she had to do
a presentation to her class about something she likes to do
and she needed to use a visual aid. She decided to bring her
hunting knife to school and use that as a visual. On her
way to school, she was showing her knife to the other
students on the bus and one of the students texted her
mother. The parent called the school and a lockdown
ensued and the knife was confiscated from Molly’s
backpack. She already has 8 days of suspensions this
current school year.
Notes to Presenter:
The questions are provided below so that the presenter may refer back to them through the notes:
What is the most relevant information from your case?
What additional information do you feel you’re team needs to answer the question of
manifestation?
If additional information is needed, how would the team obtain that information?
Who would you want on the MD team given your case?
What are some of the questions you focused on during your review of the case?
What did your team determine? If more information was needed, what type of
information would make it a manifestation, and what type of information would not make
it a manifestation?
80
Slide 45
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST


Case Study #4
Jose is a elementary school student who has a specific
learning disability and has made numerous behavior
challenges. He was recently assessed for special
educations services and most of his suspensions were
prior to his classification as a student with special
education services. He had a substitute in his RSP
classroom on Friday and during a reading exercise,
Jose became extremely frustrated and stated using
foul and vulgar language. When redirected Jose
became defiant and refused to follow directions. He
was sent to the principal’s office for being rude,
defiant and disruptive and for using foul and vulgar
language. He has already been suspended for 10 days
for similar behaviors in the past.
Notes to Presenter:
The questions are provided below so that the presenter may refer back to them through the notes:
What is the most relevant information from your case?
What additional information do you feel you’re team needs to answer the question of
manifestation?
If additional information is needed, how would the team obtain that information?
Who would you want on the MD team given your case?
What are some of the questions you focused on during your review of the case?
What did your team determine? If more information was needed, what type of
information would make it a manifestation, and what type of information would not make
it a manifestation?
81
Slide 46
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
Now we’ll take a look at an alternative approach to conducting MDs.
82
Slide 47
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Social Skills Deficit Model

There are no empirically validated methods for
determining of a student’s misconduct is a
manifestation of a disability.

Alternative approach based on social skills
assessment literature.
(Katsiyannis & Maag, 1998)
Sample Language:
The authors of this model view manifestation in a very different perspective than previously
discussed. Katsiyannia and Maag, like many professionals in the field, stated that there is no
empirical method for determining manifestation. So, these authors have devised an alternative
method for conducting MDs that originates from social skills assessment.
83
Slide 48
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Social Skills Deficit Model

Based on this model, a student may not perform
desirable behaviors due to four factors:
The student lacks the skills
The student was unable to assemble the skills into a
strategy
 The student interpreted the situation inaccurately
 The student selected behaviors indiscriminately rather than
deliberately


(Katsiyannis & Maag, 1998)
Sample Language:
This model is based on the student’s failure to display appropriate behaviors based on four
factors (Read the four factors). The idea behind this model is to assess the student’s social
deficits as they relate to the student’s disability.
84
Slide 49
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST

Social Skills Deficit Model




Does the student possess the requisite skills to
engage in an appropriate alternative behavior?
Is the student able to analyze the problem, generate
solutions, evaluate their effectiveness, and select one
solution?
Does the student interpret the situation factually or
distort it to fit some existing bias?
Can the student monitor his or her behavior?
(Katsiyannis & Maag, 1998)
Sample Language:
And in order to assess those skills, the authors formulated these four questions (Read questions
from slide). If the MD team answered “no” to any one of these questions, then the team would
likely conclude that social skills deficits inherent to the student’s disability likely had a direct
relationship to the student’s misconduct. This model may be difficult to implement on it’s own,
however, it could prove to be very useful in conjunction with the previous questions we’ve
reviewed.
Notes to Presenter:
Discuss these questions as necessary. For instance, the presenter may ask the following
questions:
With these questions in mind, who do you think should be part of the MD process? Would the
members change from sets of questions?
What type of information would you need to gather when addressing these questions and how will
you get that information?
What you see are the challenges in answering these questions as part of the MD process?
85
Slide 50
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST


Social Skills Deficit Model Case Studies
Joseph is a senior in high school who has been in
special education classes since he was a freshman.
His primary disability is emotional disturbance and
he has been suspended for a total of 9 days so far this
current school year. He just returned from his 3-day
suspension and got into a fight again in the boys
locker room with another student who had taken
Joseph’s friend’s cell phone. Joseph asked the other
student to return the cell phone to his friend and
when the student refused, an argument ensued and a
mutual fight emerged. As per the school’s discipline
code, this is an automatic 3 day suspension. Both
parties did not suffer any injuries and the fight was
broken up quickly.
Sample Language:
Now we’d like to do another short exercise as a large group. We’re going to revisit one of the
cases from the activity we did just before the break, but we’re going to have some new
information. And based on this new information, with this social skills deficit model in mind,
we’d like for you to offer any thoughts as to how an MD team might consider this new
information and how it impacts the determination.
Let’s go back to Joseph (paraphrase the situation). So everyone remembers Joseph’s situation?
(The presenter may also remind the group of how the MD was determined during the previous
exercise).
86
Slide 51
THE RELATIONSHIP TEST


Social Skills Deficit Model Case Studies
During an interview with Joseph’s mother, you
learn that she is surprised when the innocent boy
who owned the phone was described by Joseph as
a “friend”. She reports that Joseph has never
had anyone he calls a “friend” and she can’t
imagine him “sticking up for someone” as he is
usually labeled the bully. A review of teacher
comments from past report cards and previous
psycho-educational reports also show that Joseph
has struggled to form relationships with his peers
in the past.
Sample Language:
Well the new information we have is that (Read the new information).
Ask questions to spark a discussion of how this new information may be relevant to the MD.
Questions may include the following:
How do you think this new information plays into the MD?
Do you think it makes it more or less likely that the behavior is a manifestation of a disability?
Can you think of what information you might want form Joseph during an interview with the
model in mind?
Notes to Presenter:
Remind participants that the questions to ask when completing an MD from a social skills deficit
model are contained in their manual if they would like to refer back to the questions.
87
Slide 52
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS
Sample Language:
Looking back to our MD flow chart, we’ve had disciplinary removal of a student and determined
if it’s a change of placement, and we’ve conducted the MD by implementing the questions for the
relationship test. Now, we’ll be looking at the outcomes of the MD decision.
88
Slide 53
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
In the final step in our presentation of the MD process we’ll briefly cover what happens to
students once the MD team has made a determination.
89
Slide 54
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
OUTCOMES

If “No”: The misconduct was not directly related
to the student’s disability OR a result of the
school’s failure to properly implement the IEP.





Discipline procedures may be carried out as they
would for any other student in general education
However, the student must be able to continue to
progress towards IEP goals
The IEP team must determine how to provide a Free
and Appropriate Public Education, although in
another setting
The school must, as appropriate, provide a behavior
support plan to address the misconduct
The student must be returned to the original
placement after the disciplinary removal expires
(Yell, 2006), (IDEA, 2004)
Sample Language:
If the MD team concludes that the misconduct was not directly related to the student’s disability
or that the school failed to implement an appropriate IEP, the student may be removed for
disciplinary reasons, just as any student in general education would be remove. The major
different between a student in special education versus a student in general education is that the
special education student must be provided the opportunity to continue working towards his or
her IEP goals. The law states that is up to the IEP team to determine how the student will be able
to make this progress. How have your schools/districts ensured that progress can be made when
a student is suspended beyond 10 days? (Facilitate discussion of how a student who is suspended
may be able to progress towards IEP goals while suspended).
Notes to Presenter:
Address the fact that there are no clear guidelines form the IDEA of how IEP teams must ensure
FAPE and progress towards IEP goals. Emphasize that this process would be very individualized
based on the student’s needs, disability, present levels, and goals.
90
Slide 55
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
OUTCOMES

If “Yes”: The misconduct was directly related to
the student’s disability OR a result of the school’s
failure to properly implement the IEP.




The suspension over the 10th day, or expulsion,
cannot be carried out unless the parent and school
agrees to a change in placement
The student must be returned to original placement
after the 10th day
The student’s IEP must be modified
The school must conduct a functional behavioral
assessment and create or update a behavioral
support plan
(IDEA, 2004)
Sample Language:
If the MD team determines that the misconduct was related to the student’s disability or was a
direct result of the school’s inability to properly develop or implement the IEP, then the student
cannot be suspended over the 10th day and cannot be expelled. The student must be returned to
the original placement, the IEP must be updated, and an FBA and BSP must be conducted and/or
updated to address the misbehavior.
91
Slide 56
INTERIM ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL
SETTINGS

Exceptions to the 10 rule

A school may unilaterally change the placement of a
student with a disability for more then 10 days due to
specific behaviors outlined in the IDEA, regardless of
manifestation
Bringing, possessing, or acquiring a weapon at school, on
school grounds, or at a school function
 Knowingly posessing, using, or selling illigal drugls, or
selling controlled substances at school, on school grounds,
or at a school fuction
 Inflicting serious bodily injury to another person while at
school, on school grounds, or at a school function.


The student may be placed at an IAES to ensure
services continue
(IDEA, 2004)
Sample Language:
There are exceptions to the 10-day rule in IDEA that we’d like to mention. While there are
specific safeguards for students with disabilities, the authors of IDEA included these exceptions
in order establish school-wide safety. The exceptions to the 10 day rule are that that a student
may be unilaterally moved if they engage in any one of the following behaviors (Read exceptions
from the slide).
If a student engages in these behaviors, the student’s placement may be changed, however,
services must continue. In order for services to continue and for the student be able to make
progress towards his or her IEP goals, districts have designated interim alternative educational
settings where the student may be placed due to serious misconduct. These settings have also
been utilized when a suspended over the 10 days due to misconduct not being a manifestation of a
disability.
92
Slide 57
MANIFESTATION DETERMINATION
PROCESS
Sample Language:
That covers the final part of our MD process flow chart; the results of the actual MD.
93
Slide 58
PRESENTATION OUTLINE


General School Discipline
Manifestation Determination



Defined
Historical Perspective
Manifestation Determination Process



Placement
Procedures
Relationship Test




Break
Alternative Approach
Outcomes
Alternatives to Traditional Discipline
Sample Language:
As we’ve mentioned, disciplining students with disabilities can be an overwhelming process due
to the vague definition of manifestation and the lack of guidelines for completing MDs. So, we’d
like to offer some general alternatives to the traditional forms of discipline. Some of you may
have alternative means currently in place for disciplining all students, but we hope that they may
give you renewed insight into changing behavior through discipline. And perhaps, you can add
to this section by sharing what, if any, alternative measures your school is taking.
94
Slide 59
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION
The University of Minnesota Institute of
Community Integration
 Research indicate that punitive measures of
discipline are not likely to change the
inappropriate behavior of the students involved,
nor do they serve to deter other students from
engaging in the same behaviors

(Peterson, 2005), (Skiba, 2000)
Sample Language:
The University of Minnesota Institute of Community Integration is one of the leading and
respected organizations that champions non punitive measures of suspensions and advocates for
the use of these alternatives to school suspensions.
Furthermore research by Skiba in 2000 also states that punitive measures of discipline, including
school suspensions, are not likely to change the inappropriate behavior of the students involved.
Skiba’s research also shows that suspensions do not deter other students from engaging in the
same behaviors. It is also important that not all these alternatives will work for all the students
and these are simply suggestions rather than mandates. It is also important to note that not all
offences or behaviors will be addressed by these alternatives and there may be instances where a
suspension is to be pursued.
95
Slide 60
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION

Problem Solving and Contracting




3 step process
Step 1- work with the student to problem solve
approaches and identify alternative behaviors.
Step 2- draw up a contract with the student that
reminds the student to engage in the problem solving
process
Step 3- reinforce success and provide consequences
for continued behavior problems
(Peterson, 2005)
Sample Language:
The first alternative that the Institute of Community Integration proposes is Problem Solving and
Contracting. This is a three step process and the first step involves working with the students to
problem solve and identify alternative behaviors. This may include teaching the alternative
behavior if the alternative behavior is not in the student’s repertoire. Oftentimes, process of
teaching the student alternative behaviors through modeling and role playing are left out of this
step.
The second step involves drawing up a contract with the student that reminds the students to
engage in the problem solving process in the future. The contract should include success and how
success is to be reinforced and as a last resort consequence and how to deal with the problematic
behavior if it continues.
The final step is ensuring that success is reinforced and if the problematic behavior continues,
consequences are rendered.
96
Slide 61
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION

Restitution




In-kind rather than financial
Restitution should fall on the student rather than the
parent
Restitution should have some relationship with the
problem caused by the misbehavior
Mini Courses or Skill Modules




Short courses or self study modules are assigned as
disciplinary consequence
Topics are related to the inappropriate behavior
Designed to teach the student to have increased awareness
or knowledge about the topic, thus facilitating behavior
change
Include readings, videos, oral reports
(Peterson, 2005)
Sample Language:
The second alternative to suspension is restitution. In-kind restitution is preferred over financial
restitution as the latter usually falls on the parent. It is recommended that restitution should have
some relationship or connection with the misbehavior. Examples of restitution are work to repair
buildings or property damaged by vandalism, help janitors clean up graffiti during the school
breaks or after school.
The third alternative to suspension recommended by the Institute of Community Integration is to
have the student take mini courses or skills modules that are related to the inappropriate
behavior. These are designed to teach the student to have increased awareness or knowledge
about the topic, thus facilitating behavior change. For example, for a student who has been
suspended for possession of alcohol or drugs, a mini course on drug abuse and the effect of drugs
on a human would be an ideal mini course. It is also important to have the mini course in a form
that the student engages. For example, it could be a video for a student who likes videos or
podcasts. It could be a reading exercise for a student who likes to read.
97
Slide 62
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION

Parent Involvement/Supervision



Involve the parents to discuss ways that they can provide
closer supervision or be more involved in their child’s
schooling
Better home-school communication and more frequent
contacts
Counseling



Provide additional support to student through individual or
group counseling
Community based organization, school counselor, school
psychologist or school social worker or other resources
Counseling should be focused on problem solving and
strength-based, or on personal issues interfering with
learning
(Peterson, 2005)
Sample Language:
The forth alternative proposes involving parents and discussing ways where the parents and
teachers can have increased and more efficient home- school communication. If the
inappropriate behavior occurs outside school boundaries, it may be important to brainstorm
ways of increased parental supervision outside of school. Many districts have databases where
the parent can log in and check on attendance, academics and behavior logs of their children.
Many teachers welcome parent visits to classrooms and schools. Unannounced visits to the
school and classroom by the parents may help in facilitating behavior change. Oftentimes,
parents are merely informed of the student’s misbehavior and the punishment, but are not asked
to take part in the problem-solving process of changing a student’s behavior.
The next alternative is counseling. This should be from a trained individual such as a school
counselor, school psychologist or school social worker or even an intern who is being supervised
by a trained mental health professional. Some schools even partner with community based
organizations to provide this service to their students. The counseling should be focused on
problem solving or on personal issues that are interfering with the students’ learning.
98
Slide 63
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION

Community Service




Community service outside of school hours
California education code also discusses community
service as an alternative disciplinary action
Community service is defined as work performed in
the community or school grounds during pupils’ non
school hours
Behavior Monitoring


Behavior progress monitoring
Have behavior and academic goals and allow
students chart their own progress
(Peterson, 2005)
Sample Language:
As an alternative, community service programs that permit the student to perform a required
amount of time in supervised community service outside of school hours should be created. This
could be work in the community at a local non-profit organization or even work at the school
during non-school hours. Apart from satisfying their suspension consequences, community
service could have other benefits to the student and also to the community at large.
Behavior monitoring involves close formal monitoring of the students behaviors and academic
progress. It is hoped that the inappropriate behaviors decrease and the academics continue to
improve and this will permit rewards to be provided for successful performance.
This alternative also involves students taking responsibility for their behaviors and academics
and the student receiving personalized attention and regular feedback and coaching.
99
Slide 64
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION

Coordinated Behavior Plans (Behavior
Intervention Plan)




Create a structured, coordinated behavior
intervention plan for specific students
Should be based on function of behavior
Focus on increasing desirable behavior and
decreasing or replacing inappropriate behavior
Alternative Programming


Provide students with a short-term or long-term
change in the schedule
Provide other alternatives such as independent study
programs or work- experience programs
(Peterson, 2005)
Sample Language:
The eighth alternative is student specific. This encompasses developing a behavior intervention
plan (BIP) for certain students. This is a plan that is specific to the individual student and is
based on a hypothesis about the function of the target behavior. This plans main goal is to set the
student up for success and look at changes in the environment that will help set the student up for
success. The behavior intervention plan should also focus on increasing desirable behavior and
decreasing or replacing inappropriate behaviors.
Alternative programming looks at alternative ways to provide the educational program to the
student. A change in class schedule or placing the student in an independent study program or
work-experience program may help the student accrue credits and work towards graduation.
100
Slide 65
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION

Appropriate in-school suspension


In-school suspension should be provided and should
include services
Should also include clearly defined procedure for
returning to class contingent on student progress or
behavior
(Peterson, 2005)
Sample Language:
The last alternative to suspension is an appropriate in-school suspension. This will be more
meaningful if paired with academic tutoring or instruction on skill- building related to the student
behavior problem.
The in-school suspension also should include a clearly defined procedure for returning to class
contingent on student progress or behavior. The main idea is that is more structured and formal
than simply having students spend a class period in the office or a full day with the principle.
And that covers several of the alternatives we found through resources. Are there additional
alternative to suspension that you may be using in your school districts? (Encourage participants
to share alternative they’ve seen including the pros and cons of those alternatives).
101
Slide 66
QUESTIONS
Sample Language:
That concludes our presentation of the process of disciplining students in special education, as
well as ideas for alternatives to suspension. Are there any questions? As stated previously, your
manual includes the flow chart we presented, with a few modifications that points you to the
appropriate questions for conducting MDs. We hope helped answer some of your initial
questions and provided you with resources for best practices when dealing with this issue. Thank
you for participating.
Notes to Presenter:
Ensure adequate time to address questions.
102
Slide 67
REFERENCES






California Education Code (C.E.C.) § 48900-48925 (2011). Retrieved October
22, 2011from http://law.onecle.com/california/education/index.html
Gates, G. E. & Cheramie, G. M. (2004). Conducting manifestation
determinations for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the
National
Association of School Psychologists, Dallas, TX.
Hartwig, E. P., & Ruesch, G. M. (1995). How to make a manifestation
determination. Horsham, PA: LRP Publication.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-446, (2004). Retrieved [summary] March 2, 2012, from http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR01350:@@@L&summ2=m&
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W. (1998). Disciplining students with disabilities:
Issues and considerations for implementing IDEA ’97. Behaviroal
Disorders, 23, 276-289
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W. (2001). Manifestation Determination as a
Golden Fleece. Exceptional
Children , 68, 85-96.
103
Slide 68
REFERENCES CONTINUED


Kester, S. (1999). Manifestation determination for EBD students: Guidelines
for school psychologists. Communiqué, 28(4) 1-2.
Kubick Jr, R. J. (2008). Best Practices in Making Manifestation
Determinations. In T. Alex, & G. Jeff, Best Practices in School
Psychology V
(pp. 827-835). Bethesda: NASP Publications.

Meloy, L. L. (1999). Manifestation determination. Communiqué, 28(4), 8-9.

Osborne, A. G., & Russo, C. J. (2009). Discipline in Special Education.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin, A SAGE company.

Osborne, A. G. (1988). Dangerous handicapped students cannot be excluded
form the public schools. West’s Education Law Reporter, 46, 1105-1113.

Peterson, R. L. (2005). Ten alternatives to suspension. Impact, 18(2),
10-11.
104
Slide 69
REFERENCES CONTINUED




Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence : An Analysis of School
Discplinary Practice. Indiana Education Policy Center.
Yell, M. L. (2006). The Law and Special Education. New Jersey: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Zilz, W. A. (2006). Manifestation determination: rulings of the courts.
Education and the Law, 18, 193-206.
United States Code (U.S.C.), Title 20 § 1415 (2011). Retrieved on October 25th,
2011 http://law.onecle.com/uscode/20/1415.html
105
Appendix C
Participant Manual
106
Discipline in Special Education:
A Manual for Conducting Manifestation
Determinations
Created by:
Amreek Singh
&
Jonathan Tennison
107
The information in this manual is presented in a flow chart/decision tree
format. Readers are to refer to the main chart on the following page as a
reference for how to conduct the manifestation determination process.
Subsequent steps (such as change of placement and manifestation
determination questions) are color-coded in order to guide the reader to
additional information throughout the manual.
2
108
Student receiving special education services violates a school rule resulting in disciplinary
removal (suspension/expulsion)
Suspension for the violation
is less than 10 consecutive
school days and
suspensions total less than
10 cumulative school days
in the school year
School may
proceed with
disciplinary
removal in the
same manner
students in
general
education are
removed or may
place the
student in an
interim
alternative
educational
setting (IAES)
Suspension for the violation is
less than 10 consecutive
school days but suspensions
total more than 10 cumulative
school days in the school year
Is the current suspension
considered to be a change of
placement?
Yes
Suspension for the
violation is more than 10
consecutive school days or
the student is up for
expulsion
The disciplinary removal is a
change of placement
No
Notify parents of the change of
Disciplinary removal may continue,
placement and of procedural
however, by the 10th cumulative day of
safeguards under the IDEA
removal, administrators must consult
with at least one of the student’s
teachers to determine how to best
A manifestation determination must
implement FAPE services so the
occur within the 10 days following
student may have access to the
the decision to remove the student
General education curriculum and
from the current placement
progress towards IEP goals
During the manifestation determination, parents and relevant members of the IEP team must
determine if:
(1) the misconduct has a direct and substantial relationship with the student’s disability
(2) the misconduct is a direct result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP
Yes to either
No to both
The student’s behavior is a manifestation of the
student’s disability
The student’s behavior is not a
manifestation of the student’s disability
The school must amend the current IEP if found
to be inappropriate or incomplete
School may proceed with disciplinary
removal in the same manner students in
general education are removed
The school must conduct a functional behavioral
assessment and create a behavioral support plan
or modify the current behavioral support plan
The IEP team must determine how to
continue FAPE services so that the student
may continue to progress towards IEP goals
The student must return to the original placement
unless the parent and school agree to a new
placement
Conduct a functional behavioral assessment
and create a behavioral support plan upon
the student’s return
3
109
Is the current suspension considered
to be a change of placement?
Questions to Consider:
 What does the alternative placement, i.e., in-house
suspension, look like?
 Is the student able to receive special education services?
 Is the student able to make progress towards IEP goals?
 Does the current suspension, along with past suspensions,
indicate a pattern of exclusion?
o How long is each removal?
o What is the total amount of time the student has been
removed?
o What is the time between each removal?
Not A Change of Placement
Change of Placement
Disciplinary removal may continue,
A manifestation
however, by the 10th cumulative day of determination must occur
removal, administrators must consult
within the 10 days following
with at least one of the student’s
the decision to remove the
teachers to determine how to best
student from the current
implement FAPE services so the
placement
student may have access to the
General education curriculum and
See procedures on the
progress towards IEP goals
following page
4
110
Manifestation Determination Procedures
(Q) When must the manifestation determination occur?
(A) Within 10 days of the decision that changes the student’s placement. However, if any of
these days goes beyond the 10th day of suspension, then the student must be returned to the
original placement on the 11th day of suspension while the manifestation determination
process continues.
(Q) Who is involved in the manifestation determination?
(A) Title 20 of the United States Code, § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i), states that the local education
agency, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team (as determined by the parent and
LEA) will be involved in making the determination. Usually an administrator, a school
psychologist familiar with the student and the disability, and teachers familiar with the
student are part of the manifestation determination team. However, other individuals may be
asked for input into the matter, including paraeducators and support staff.
(Q) What information is utilized when conducting a manifestation determination?
(A) The same code mentioned in the previous question continues by stating that all “relevant
information in the student’s file” shall be reviewed. This includes, but is not limited to, IEPs,
observations, past report cards, past disciplinary referrals, medical documents, and any other
information provided by the parent.
5
111
Questions to Help Guide Manifestation
Determinations
During the manifestation determination, parents and
relevant members of the IEP team must determine if:
(1) the misconduct has a direct and substantial
relationship with the student’s disability
(2) the misconduct is a direct result of the school’s failure
to implement the IEP
(1) Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?
And/Or
(2) Is the misconduct a direct result of the
school’s failure to properly implement the
Individualized Education Program (IEP)?
Did the student’s disability impair his or her ability to
understand the consequences of the misconduct?
Did the student’s disability impair his or her
ability to control the misbehavior?
6
112
(1) Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?
Did the student’s disability impair his or
her ability to control the misbehavior?
Did the student’s disability impair his or her ability to
understand the consequences of the misconduct?
 Are the student’s thought processes logical?
 Did the student understand the consequences for
breaking school rules?
 Did the student have the capacity to know which
behaviors are unacceptable?
 Has the student received a copy and adequate
explanation of the school’s code of conduct?
 Has the student demonstrated the ability to follow
school rules in the past?
 Has the student expressed that this or similar
conduct is wrong?
 Has the student expressed an understanding of the
consequences of this or similar behavior?
Gates, G. E. & Cheramie, G. M. (2004). Conducting manifestation determinations for students
with disabilities. Paper presented at the National
Association of School
Psychologists, Dallas, TX.
7
113
(1) Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?
Did the student’s disability impair his or
her ability to understand the
consequences of the misconduct?
Did the student’s disability impair his or her
ability to control the misbehavior?
 Has the student followed school rules in the past?
 What features of the disability has the student
exhibited in the past?
 In what situations can the student control his or her
behavior?
 Are there other factors that explain the misconduct?
 Is this an isolated or recurrent behavior?
 Was the behavior premeditated?
 Would similarly situated students without disabilities
react in a similar manner in this circumstance?
Gates, G. E. & Cheramie, G. M. (2004). Conducting manifestation determinations for students
with disabilities. Paper presented at the National
Association of School
Psychologists, Dallas, TX.
8
114
(2) Is the misconduct a direct result of the
school’s failure to properly implement the
Individualized Education Program (IEP)?
 Was the IEP legally developed?
 Was the IEP implemented as written?
 Have the services provided been consistent with the
IEP?
 Is the student making educational progress?
 Did the IEP address all of the student’s needs?
 Was there a developing pattern of conduct that
should have been detected?
 Was the IEP modified over time to reflect changes in
the student’s behavior?
 Did the IEP include a goal or objective that
addressed any component of the behavior involved in
the student’s misconduct?
Gates, G. E. & Cheramie, G. M. (2004). Conducting manifestation determinations for students
with disabilities. Paper presented at the National
Association of School
Psychologists, Dallas, TX.
9
115
Additional Questions from a
Social Skills Deficit Model
(1) Is the misconduct caused by or directly and
substantially related to a student’s disability?
 Does the student possess the requisite skills to
engage in an appropriate alternative behavior?
 Is the student able to analyze the problem, generate
solutions, evaluate their effectiveness, and select one
solution?
 Does the student interpret the situation factually or
distort it to fit some existing bias?
 Can the student monitor his or her behavior?
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W. (1998). Disciplining students with disabilities:
Issues and
considerations for implementing IDEA ’97. Behavioral
Disorders, 23, 276-289
“No” to any of the preceding questions
The team would likely conclude that social skills deficits
inherent to the student’s disability likely had a direct
relationship to the student’s misconduct
10
116
Appendix D
Handouts for Participants
117
Change of Placement Case Study #1
A 6th grader receiving services in the form of 50 minutes with a
resource teacher is sent to the vice principal’s office during 4th
period for misconduct and is required to stay in the office for the
remainder of the school day. The student met with the resource
specialist during 2nd period.
118
Change of Placement Case Study #2
A 3rd grade student who receives services in the general education
classroom is sent to the principal’s office during lunch/recess for
misconduct and stays with the principal for the remainder of the
day. This is the fourth time the student has had to stay in the
principal’s office for half the day
119
Change of Placement Case Study #3
An 8th grade student serves an in-house suspension by sitting in a
6th grade teacher’s class for the entire school day. The student
receives services by a resource specialist. The student meets with
the resource specialist for a class period as stated in the IEP,
receives work from all teachers to work on throughout the day, and
is periodically checked on by the resources specialist and vice
principal. This student has been suspended once during the current
school year and the suspension was administered in the same
manner.
120
Change of Placement Case Study #4
A 4th grade student receives services in the general education
classroom through the assistance of a one-on-one aide. The
student has social goals written in the IEP that the aide assists with
during lunch and recess.
121
Manifestation Determination Case Study #1
Joseph is a senior in high school who has been in special education
classes since he was a freshman. His primary disability is
emotional disturbance and he has been suspended for a total of 9
days so far this current school year. He just returned from his 3day suspension and got into a fight again in the boys’ locker room
with another student who had taken Joseph’s friend’s cell phone.
Joseph asked the other student to return the cell phone to his friend
and when the student refused, an argument ensued and a mutual
fight emerged. As per the school’s discipline code, this is an
automatic 3-day suspension. Both parties did not suffer any
injuries and the fight was broken up quickly.
122
Manifestation Determination Case Study #2
Mike is a student in 6th grade and he is in a self-contained class. He
has been in special education since 4th grade and his primary
diagnosis is intellectual disability. He has been suspended for 8
days this current school year for a variety of offences including
stealing, defiance and verbal altercation. Mike was involved in an
incident yesterday where he inappropriately touched a female
student on her breast. When questioned about this, he stated that
his friends dared him to do this and said that this would make him
popular at school. The parents of the girl strongly reacted to this
incident and are threatening to file a police report. They feel that
this is sexual harassment and that the school should act
immediately to remove the accused from the campus as he is a
danger to their daughter and other students.
123
Manifestation Determination Case Study #3
Molly is a middle school student who has been receiving special
education services under the category of Other Health Impairment.
She has been diagnosed with ADHD since she was 9 and was
taking medication for it until recently when her parents lost their
medical insurance coverage. Her dad is an avid hunter and she
goes on hunting trips with him regularly. Last week she had to do a
presentation to her class about something she likes to do and she
needed to use a visual aid. She decided to bring her hunting knife
to school and use that as a visual. On her way to school, she was
showing her knife to the other students on the bus and one of the
students texted her mother. The parent called the school and a
lockdown ensued and the knife was confiscated from Molly’s
backpack. She already has 8 days of suspensions this current
school year.
124
Manifestation Determination Case Study #4
Jose is an elementary school student who has a specific learning
disability and numerous behavior challenges. He was recently
assessed for special educations services and most of his
suspensions were prior to his classification as a student with
special education services. He had a substitute in his RSP
classroom on Friday and during a reading exercise, Jose became
extremely frustrated and stated using foul and vulgar language.
When redirected Jose became defiant and refused to follow
directions. He was sent to the principal’s office for being rude,
defiant and disruptive and for using foul and vulgar language. He
has already been suspended for 10 days for similar behaviors in the
past.
125
REFERENCES
California Education Code (C.E.C.) § 48900-48925 (2011). Retrieved October 22, 2011
from http://law.onecle.com/california/education/index.html
Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Title 34, § 300 (2011). Retrieved October 25,
2011 from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=fab97af27
a81aa1d792776b77d4a0be4&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title34/34cfr300_main_02.tpl
Gates, G. E. & Cheramie, G. M. (2004). Conducting manifestation determinations for
students with disabilities. Paper presented at the National Association of School
Psychologists, Dallas, TX.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1984). Assessment and classification of children’s
social skills: A review of methods and issues. School Psychology Review, 13,
292-301.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446,
(2004). Retrieved [summary] March 2, 2012, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d108:HR01350:@@@L&summ2=m&
Hartwig, E. P., & Ruesch, G. M. (1995). How to make a manifestation determination.
Horsham, PA: LRP Publication.
Hughes, J. N., & Hall, R. J. (1987). Proposed model for the assessment of children’s
social competence. Professional School Psychology, 2, 247-260.
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W. (1998). Disciplining students with disabilities: Issues and
considerations for implementing IDEA ’97. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 276-289
126
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W. (2001). Manifestation determination as a golden fleece.
Exceptional Children, 68, 85-96.
Kester, S. (1999). Manifestation determination for EBD students: Guidelines for school
psychologists. Communiqué, 28(4) 1-2.
Kubick Jr., R. J. (2008). Best practices in making manifestation determinations. In T.
Alex, & G. Jeff, Best Practices in School Psychology V (pp. 827-835). Bethesda:
NASP Publications.
Maag, J. W. (1989). Assessment in social skills training: Methodological and conceptual
issues for research and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 6-17.
Meloy, L. L. (1999). Manifestation determination. Communiqué, 28(4), 8-9.
Meloy, L. L. (2008). Minimalist approach to manifestation Determination: Possible
Compromise of Due Process Rights. Communiqué, 36(6), 1-6.
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, NICHCY. (2010).
Manifestation Determination. Retrieved from
http://nichcy.org/schoolage/placement/disc-details/manifestation
Osborne, A. G. (1988). Dangerous handicapped students cannot be excluded form the
public schools. West’s Education Law Reporter, 46, 1105-1113.
Osborne, A. G., & Russo, C. J. (2009). Discipline in special education. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin, A SAGE Company.
Peterson, R. L. (2005). Ten alternatives to suspension. Impact, 18(2), 10-11.
Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary
Practice. Indiana Education Policy Center.
127
Taylor, J. A., & Baker, R. (2002). Discipline and the special education student.
Alexandriai: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Thompson, M., Tony, F., & Martha, P. (2011). Breaking school rules: A statewide study
of how school discipline relates to students’ success and the juvenile justice
involvement. New York: Council of State Government Justice Center.
United States Code (U.S.C.), Title 20 § 1415 (2011). Retrieved on October 25th, 2011
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/20/1415.html
Yell, M. L. (2006). The law and special education. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Zilz, W. A. (2006). Manifestation determination: rulings of the courts. Education and the
Law, 18, 193-206.
Zirkel, P. (2006). The new legal requirements for manifestation determinations under the
IDEA. Communiqué, 35(1), 16-20.