There are several disagreements on how to punish children appropriately. Parents are usually perplexed when it comes to setting limits and educating their kid’s self-control. It is important to note that particular clauses in IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) provide instructions for disciplining tactics aimed at disabled child and their families. The primary goal of these laws is to protect the rights of disabled children. The IDEA procedural safeguards ensured that disabled children were not unjustly withdrawn from their parent-approved programs without their consent. Furthermore, it ensured that pupils received a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment possible (LRE). In light of Charlie’s situation, it is critical to consider the steps to follow when dealing with a disciplinary issue involving children with impairments.
Charlie’s Disciplinary Case Scenario
Actions of the Special Education Teacher
Due to Charlie’s 13-day suspension, the special education teacher must take action. According to that scenario, Charlie will be transferred to an IAES (Interim Alternative Education Setting); as a result, the teacher must be aware of Charlie’s processes and rights as a disabled child (Bradley, 2007). The teacher must decide whether the children’s behavior results from their disability or usual misbehavior. Section 530 (b) of the IDEA allows school officials to transfer a disabled child from their existing placement to an IAES or interim alternative educational setting (Bradley, 2007). When a student’s behavior endangers the pupil or others, the individual’s temporary removal becomes necessary (Anderson, 2021). Furthermore, Section 530 (c) empowers school personnel to expel a student with a disability indefinitely if the behavior is determined not to be a sign of the child’s condition.
Individuals to be Contacted regarding Charlie’s Suspension
In that type of case, school officials must inform the parents according to IDEA standards. The academic staff must contact Charlie’s parents and inform them that he has been withdrawn from his classroom and that there are various punishments and a relocation process (Bradley, 2007). The LEA (Local Education Agency) is accountable for alerting Charlie’s parents and giving them the procedural protection notice on the day that the LEA (Local Education Agency) decides to make this removal, which reflects a change of placement (Anderson, 2021). According to IDEA section 300.530. (h), the Procedural Safeguards Notification covers procedural safeguards notice, parent participation before written notice, and other pertinent IDEA concepts (Bradley, 2007).
Services Provided during Charlie’s Removal to IAES
During Charlie’s move to an interim alternative educational setting, he must get various services (IEAS). When a child with an impairment is removed due to his behavior, Section 300.530 (d) describes how and where services will be provided to them and who will make decisions about benefits (Bradley, 2007). In the IAES, Charlie’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team will attempt to resolve and identify what services should be provided to him. To stay current with the curriculum, he should keep receiving FAPE-compliant support to work toward the goals of the IEP plan, even though he is in a different environment. According to Bradley (2007), after a child is suspended for ten days, they must be helped to the extent required under 300.530. It is critical to note that the education agency is only required to provide special education services to the child when they are not in school (Polloway et al., 2019). Charlie’s scenario shows that the IEP team, FAPE members, and school authorities are all participating in this conversation.
Charlie’s Behavior not in Regard to his Disability
Permissible Disciplinary Actions and Services Provided
It is critical to evaluate the steps where it is found that Charlie’s behavior was not caused by his impairment, and LEA makes this decision following Section 300.534. (Bradley, 2007). Because Charlie’s behavior is unconnected to his impairment, he can be punished in the same way and for the same period as a child who does not have a disability (Bradley, 2007). According to section 300.530 (d), the interventions that could be rendered to Charlie throughout the disciplinary process include continuing his educational content support per FAPE criteria (Bradley, 2007). That is done for him to accomplish his IEP goals and stay on track with the general education program.
Charlie Parent’s Appeal of Manifestation Determination
Assuming Charlie’s parents submit an appeal against the manifestation decision, several things are expected. In that situation, the LEA or SEA (State Education Agency) is responsible for scheduling a due process hearing as soon as possible, which must take place within twenty school days of the due process claim being filed (Bradley, 2007). The reviewing officer must decide within ten school days following the hearing. The children will be confined in the IAES until the hearing officer reaches a decision, according to IDEA section 300.532. (Polloway et al., 2019). When the discipline code is a concern for their child, parents of disabled children should be allowed to discuss it.
Code of conduct discussion regarding a student with disabilities is a topic that has been of great concern for a long time. It has channeled to reviewing how the education system provides the correction and disciplining of such students. Several codes, such as IDEA, have provisions for the discipline of disabled students in learning institutions or school functions. As depicted by Charlie’s scenario, steps to be followed when dealing with discipline cases involve contacting their parent or guardian.
Anderson, K. P. (2021). The relationship between inclusion, absenteeism, and disciplinary outcomes for students with disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(1), 32-59.
Bradley, R. (2007). Key issues in the discipline. Building the legacy: IDEA 2004 training curriculum. Washington, DC: National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities.
Polloway, E. A., Bouck, E. C., & Yang, L. (2019). Educational programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(1), 30-40.