SPD 510 T 6 Discipline process Case study

docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

510

Subject

Business

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by MateAntelopeMaster289

Report
Discipline Process: Case Study Anne Ortiz Grand Canyon University SPD 510 Professor Lewinsohn September 13, 2023 1
Discipline Process: Case Study Charlie is a fifth-grade student with a learning disability, and currently receiving special education services. He is reading at a third-grade level, he is able to do fifth grade level math curriculum. Charlie is receiving additional assistance in the resource classroom for an hour a day on a daily basis. Charlie has not displayed any previous behavior problems. Charlie was just caught stealing software from the school’s computer lab. As a result, he was given a three-day suspension and required to return the stolen materials. He was then taken back to his classroom to retrieve his belongings. While in the classroom Charlie makes a decision to confront his teacher by yelling inappropriate things, threatening to “cut her”, and acting as though he was going to punch her by throwing his fists in her direction. Upon reporting of this incident, the principal added an additional ten-days of suspension to total 13 days. Charlie has been suspended for more than 10 consecutive days and for this reason the school is required to provide interim alternative educational services (IAES). Because the removal is a disciplinary change of placement, the IEP team will need to come together to determine what services will be provided to the child, and what the interim alternative educational services will look like. In addition, a manifestation determination must occur within the next ten days. While in the interim alternate education setting Charlie must receive similar services as indicated in his IEP plan to help him progress towards meeting his IEP goal and attain the curriculum from his general education classes. The manifestation determination meeting must include the local educational agency, the parents, special education teacher, at least one general education teacher, school administrator, and a special education administrator. As stated under IDEA “This occurs through a review of all relevant information in the student’s file, including the IEP, any teacher observations, and any 2
relevant information provided by the parents”. The purpose of this information and meeting is to determine if the child’s behavior was caused by the child’s disability. In this case, the team has determined that Charlie’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. As a result, Charlie is able to be disciplined just like any other student, meaning he can be recommended for expulsion before the school board in the case the school would like to remove him longer than the ten-days. However, no matter what the decision, Charlie is still required to receive educational services. In the case that Charlie’s parents disagree with the manifestation determination, they have the right to request a due process hearing. If this happens, Charlie can stay in his current educational setting, which at this time will more than likely be the interim alternative educational setting he had previously been placed in. This is because of the Stay Put law in the discipline requirement under IDEA. The services Charlie will be provided during this time will include services to help him progress toward the IEP goals, accessing the general education curriculum, any related services (i.e: Speech, occupational therapy, physical therapy) can continue to be provided, as well as an appropriate behavior plan to address the behaviors that caused the removal from the school setting. Charlie’s parents may also request for the hearing to be expedited; the provisions of due process hearings must still comply in this case. This means that parents must be informed of their hearing rights: such as right to counsel, presenting evidence and cross-examining witnesses, and obtaining written decision. As a result of this hearing two options will be presented: (1) Return the child with a disability to the placement from which the child was removed if the hearing officer determines that the removal was a violation of §300.530 or that the child’s behavior was a manifestation of the child’s disability (center for parent information & 3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
resources). (2) Order a change of placement of the child with a disability to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days if the hearing officer determines that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others (Center for parent information & resources). In this case the biggest concern is ensuring the safety of the students and staff. I would only assume that Charlie would be allowed to return back to the school because he did not have any previous behavior incidents. However, I would also believe that the administration may require a threat assessment be implemented to determine that Charlie is not a safety threat to himself or any others as a result, and prior to allowing him to return to school. 4
References Center for Parent Information & Resources. (January 2022). Manifestation determination in school discipline. Retrieved on September 10, 2023 from https://www.parentcenterhub.org/manifestation/ Center for Parent Information & Resources. (September 2022). Are services provided during disciplinary removal? Retrieved on September 10, 2023 from https://www.parentcenterhub.org/services-discipline/ Kids Legal. (n.d). Special education discipline: Suspensions and expulsions. Retrieved on September 10, 2023 from https://kidslegal.org/special-education-discipline- suspensions-and-expulsions#:~:text=If%20a%20student%20with%20a,after%20a %20school%20board%20hearing . 5