DISIPLINE PLANS

Discipline and the Student Receiving Special Education Services



Discipline and the Student Receiving Special Education Services

Review of Literature

The Court Cases

A number of court cases have defined and sculpted the laws that protect students with disabilities from unfair removal or no access to public education. A brief narrative description of the journal article, document or resource; The historic decision "Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania", exemplifies a growing trend towards the new legal definition of education issues previously engaged to professional or bureaucratic solutions. During the decade since the "PARC" The decision have an effect, hearings and appeals that the mandate has been to highlight the concerns of the case at the expense of substance (Weaver, 2008 ). Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) the court has recognized many children not afforded educational rights because they had been identified with a severe disorder (Crimmins, 2006). The District of Columbia has failed “to provide publicly supported education and training to these students and other "exceptional" children, members of their class, and the excluding, suspending, expelling, reassigning and transferring of "exceptional" children from regular public school classes without affording them due process of law.” (Weaver, 2008, pp 85-135) In the PARC v. Pennsylvania (1972) case, children with mental retardation have allowed to be educated in the public school. Brown v the Board of Education and the equal rights movement help parents of these children in Pennsylvania push the case to allow their children the right to go to public school like their non-disabled peers. (Education and Special Education Law, n.d.)These cases led to the Education of the Handicapped Act (Public Law 94-142).

In United Stats, the S-1 v Turlington (1981), the court decided it has not enough if the child knew “right from wrong”, has the child understand the consequences of the behavior. It has also decided that it must be the IEP team that makes the decision if the behavior the child is exhibiting is a manifestation of his or her disability (Yell, Rozalski, & Drasgow, 2001). Stuart v Nappi, (1978), Prince William Conty School Board v. Malone (1985), S-1 v. Turlington (1981,) Kaelin v. Grubbs (1982) and Doe v. Maher (1986) are all court cases that ruled that an explusion has a change of placement(Bleck, Nagel, 2004). The decision marked the beginning of a dramatic increase in the number of children receiving special education services and financial support for such services. His due process hearings, however, have proved more useful for resolving individual disputes to achieve institutional and systemic reform. These court cases established the new discipline regulations in IDEA 1997. (Yell, 2006) Honig v Doe (1988) pushed the change of placement issue, when two students labeled emotionally disturbed have expelled(Achilles, et al., 2007). Both students have extremely emotionally disturbed and had more than one incident of causing bodily harm, or violating more than one of student code of conduct. In Honig v. Doe, the Supreme Court issued a strong decision ...