All students have a right to education and safety at the expense of the school that he/she attends, including students with special need that requires special situation with no additional cost. Having such a diverse student body, an administrator would need to have an understanding of the legal ramification that is included in disciplining and accommodating special education students academically.
All students have a right to be educated and in education there is a needed to become cautious that a special educational student can be expelled and/or suspended for being offenders of the school disciplinary code of conduct, like all other students. Also, staff and administration must become aware of the procedures of the IDEA in discipline students of special needs. This paper will discuss the disciplining of a special education students and if the disciplinary action taken to discipline a students was appropriated according to the special education laws.
Student of special needs has multiple office encounters that surface into referrals due to unacceptable behavior in the instructional classrooms environment as well as other area of the school. For example, the students of special needs were standing out outside of a classroom. The students and other student was engaged in an argument begin to push and shove each other. The one student agreed but the other special needs student through a punch at the other student. A teacher grab the student, however the special needed student continue the confrontation and teacher lead him away.
Further, at the beginning of the year the special needs student was reassign to the school due to behavior at local school. The student is a high school student and test data is showing that the student is behind three grades levels. The student refuses to completed work and continues to interrupt the learning environments. Added, the students show high level of frustration toward the instructor when periodically. The student attends class daily without pencil/pen or paper. Student has shown aggressiveness of verbal and physical threats toward other students in the classroom as well as disrespect toward staff.
The students has been tested and identified as having an Emotional Behavior Disorder (EBD). The student show little progress in developing relationships with the dean of students, social worker, and other staff members such as the ESE staff at the school. The student have several alarming emotional concerns that differ from one incident to the next, and on different levels of how serious of the students disability is, therefore, interrupting the whole educational process. Moreover, the student is showing behaviors of withdrawals and isolation.
Students with this disability experience a lot of tribulations when it comes to maintaining any relationships involving their peers or adults. It is possible that many of them will have a medical diagnosis. This particular student is very disruptive in class on a daily basis and has a hard time focusing and capturing the content being instructed. The student parent feels challenged and pushed beyond measure in addressing the student’s behaviors toward the classroom environments and his education.
She empathizes for the child because his father past when he was younger and she have not remarried. She believes that the students are not just having few bad days, along with having a hard time adjusting to the change of not having a father nor sibling to express thought too. The teacher perspective of the situations was as follows: the student needs to build skills in areas of respecting other space and cooperation. She believes that overall the special needs student is a great students when desire to be.
Added, after learning the student background the teacher believed that student needs counseling to address the student’s deeper emotions, which are preventing the student from becoming successful in the classroom. The student attention seeking has become a great distraction; as well as the student’s action has presented a safety hazard for other students and staff. The administration staff decided to reassign the student (without notifying the parent) to an alternative program.
When investigating the incidents in the hallway, the finding showed that that the student is at- risk to himself as well as fellow students and staff members. The suggested program presents an opportunity of preventing him from dropping out of school, providing the student with another option of educational. This reassignment will serving as a disciplinary consequence, which provides the student time to address behavioral remediation. Although, the students feels that this is not the place he want to go.
He refuses to agree to the reassignment. Student further express that he will not be going to the school for remediation. Although the school acts in the best interest of the majority; the school was out of compliance because according to the Federal government’s No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB), the school has violated the student right to choose. The No child Left behind Legislation insists that a student is entitled to choose the reassignment school. Further, all parents/guardians must be inform of the change.
Additionally, as part of the compliance with the NCLB legislation, any student who is a victim of a violent crime will be offered an opportunity to seek a school choice transfer rather than an alternative program. Because the school did not contact the parents to inform her of these interventions that the Student Support Team suggested. They did not provide the parent the right to be informed of all the information and how they are protected under three significant federal statutes: the IDEA, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 (Essex, 2012).
Moreover, the ADA protects individuals whom have one or more physical or mental deficiencies, have a record of such impairments and are regarded as currently having that impairment. The individual must also qualify for the position, or program that is in question in order to be protected under the ADA. The Section 504’s criteria for protection are identical to those stated under the ADA. All of these laws are set in place to act and use as a guideline for any student with special education needs. If this issue was to be brought in front of a judge, most likely the ruling would be in favor of the parent and student.
HONIG, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. DOE, et al. (1988). Strong decision in school discipline case on behalf of emotionally disturbed children who had academic and social problems. Court clarified procedural issues designed to protect children from school officials, parent role, and stay put, that schools shall not expel children for behaviors related to their handicaps. Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2013) On June 13, 2013, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an important decision about parental participation at IEP meetings.
Pete says that “All special education staff who conducts IEP meetings should be familiar with this landmark ruling about IEP meetings and parental participation. ” Another area the school fails to address staff touching students or allowing another student to touch another student could motivate a law suit. In the case Pitasky, 1995, a law suit was filling against school personal. In this case if a student inquired injuries, either physical or emotional, that occurs either accidentally or intentionally, from the fight.
The school could be accounted for wrongful actions and to deter such actions in the future (Fisher, Schimmel, & Kelly, 1995). In closing, all students have a right to education and safety at the expense of the school that he/she attends, including students with special need that requires special situation with no additional cost. It is important to maintain collaborative support system between the school, family, and community to ensure a positive outcome to maintain a productive and effective educational environment.
In the educational arena are many of special need students in educational programs whom are employed and will be able to function as productive citizens, with the proper services and procedures that are available. Courts have acknowledged that schools cannot guarantee the safety of all students (Mawdsley, 1993). Schools officials and school personnel, however, may have legal liability when a student is injured either by a deliberate action or negligence by a teacher. References Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir.
2013). Retrieved fromttp://www. wrightslaw. com/caselaw. htm Essex, N. (2012). Religion and the Public Schools. In Fossel, M. & Holstein, N. (Eds. ), School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders (5th ed. ) HONIG, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. DOE, et al. (1988). Retrieved from http://www. wrightslaw. com/caselaw. htm Mawdsley RD. Supervisory standard of care for students with disabilities. West’s Educ Law Q. 1993; 2:421–433. Quoted in: Yell M (2001).