Navigating the gray area: A school district's documentation of the relationship between disability and misconduct

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background/Context: The administration of student discipline is one of many responsibilities under the purview of teachers and educational leaders across the country. Maintaining a safe environment with minimal disruptions is not an easy task. From existing research on student discipline, we have learned that critical examination of data and continuous reflection are important, particularly in light of documented disparities in discipline practices. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), before a school district may discipline a student with a disability for greater than 10 days, it must first conduct what is referred to as a manifestation determination review (MDR) (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(E)). During this review process, the current version of the law requires school districts to address two questions: (1) Was the student's behavior caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability? (2) Was the student's misconduct caused by the district's failure to implement the student's individualized education program (IEP), as required by law? This study examines the implementation of this standard. Research Question: This study poses the following research question: What factors (explicit and implicit) influence decision makers when deciding whether a student's misconduct was a manifestation of his or her disability? Research Design: This project used a case study approach to examine 80 MDR decisions in one large urban school district in order to better understand how decision makers implement this standard. Specifically, this study reviewed 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were not a manifestation of his or her disability and 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were a manifestation of his or her disability. Findings/Results: Decision makers cited the academic and behavioral manifestations of students' disabilities, students' behavioral histories, students' ability to control their actions, and connections to the home and community. Despite these consistent factors, the striking similarities between Yes and No decisions illustrates the overall arbitrary nature of the decisionmaking process. Conclusions/Recommendations: This article discusses implications that attend to both the procedure and substance of manifestation determination review.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number100307
JournalTeachers College Record
Volume120
Issue number10
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

documentation
disability
district
school
student
decision maker
school law
research planning
education
act
leader
responsibility
examination
Law

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education

Cite this

@article{a994e5d7e8a74653b10eb1a1bc13cb77,
title = "Navigating the gray area: A school district's documentation of the relationship between disability and misconduct",
abstract = "Background/Context: The administration of student discipline is one of many responsibilities under the purview of teachers and educational leaders across the country. Maintaining a safe environment with minimal disruptions is not an easy task. From existing research on student discipline, we have learned that critical examination of data and continuous reflection are important, particularly in light of documented disparities in discipline practices. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), before a school district may discipline a student with a disability for greater than 10 days, it must first conduct what is referred to as a manifestation determination review (MDR) (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(E)). During this review process, the current version of the law requires school districts to address two questions: (1) Was the student's behavior caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability? (2) Was the student's misconduct caused by the district's failure to implement the student's individualized education program (IEP), as required by law? This study examines the implementation of this standard. Research Question: This study poses the following research question: What factors (explicit and implicit) influence decision makers when deciding whether a student's misconduct was a manifestation of his or her disability? Research Design: This project used a case study approach to examine 80 MDR decisions in one large urban school district in order to better understand how decision makers implement this standard. Specifically, this study reviewed 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were not a manifestation of his or her disability and 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were a manifestation of his or her disability. Findings/Results: Decision makers cited the academic and behavioral manifestations of students' disabilities, students' behavioral histories, students' ability to control their actions, and connections to the home and community. Despite these consistent factors, the striking similarities between Yes and No decisions illustrates the overall arbitrary nature of the decisionmaking process. Conclusions/Recommendations: This article discusses implications that attend to both the procedure and substance of manifestation determination review.",
author = "Lewis, {Maria M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
journal = "Teachers College Record",
issn = "0161-4681",
publisher = "Teachers College Record",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Navigating the gray area

T2 - A school district's documentation of the relationship between disability and misconduct

AU - Lewis, Maria M.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background/Context: The administration of student discipline is one of many responsibilities under the purview of teachers and educational leaders across the country. Maintaining a safe environment with minimal disruptions is not an easy task. From existing research on student discipline, we have learned that critical examination of data and continuous reflection are important, particularly in light of documented disparities in discipline practices. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), before a school district may discipline a student with a disability for greater than 10 days, it must first conduct what is referred to as a manifestation determination review (MDR) (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(E)). During this review process, the current version of the law requires school districts to address two questions: (1) Was the student's behavior caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability? (2) Was the student's misconduct caused by the district's failure to implement the student's individualized education program (IEP), as required by law? This study examines the implementation of this standard. Research Question: This study poses the following research question: What factors (explicit and implicit) influence decision makers when deciding whether a student's misconduct was a manifestation of his or her disability? Research Design: This project used a case study approach to examine 80 MDR decisions in one large urban school district in order to better understand how decision makers implement this standard. Specifically, this study reviewed 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were not a manifestation of his or her disability and 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were a manifestation of his or her disability. Findings/Results: Decision makers cited the academic and behavioral manifestations of students' disabilities, students' behavioral histories, students' ability to control their actions, and connections to the home and community. Despite these consistent factors, the striking similarities between Yes and No decisions illustrates the overall arbitrary nature of the decisionmaking process. Conclusions/Recommendations: This article discusses implications that attend to both the procedure and substance of manifestation determination review.

AB - Background/Context: The administration of student discipline is one of many responsibilities under the purview of teachers and educational leaders across the country. Maintaining a safe environment with minimal disruptions is not an easy task. From existing research on student discipline, we have learned that critical examination of data and continuous reflection are important, particularly in light of documented disparities in discipline practices. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), before a school district may discipline a student with a disability for greater than 10 days, it must first conduct what is referred to as a manifestation determination review (MDR) (20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(E)). During this review process, the current version of the law requires school districts to address two questions: (1) Was the student's behavior caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability? (2) Was the student's misconduct caused by the district's failure to implement the student's individualized education program (IEP), as required by law? This study examines the implementation of this standard. Research Question: This study poses the following research question: What factors (explicit and implicit) influence decision makers when deciding whether a student's misconduct was a manifestation of his or her disability? Research Design: This project used a case study approach to examine 80 MDR decisions in one large urban school district in order to better understand how decision makers implement this standard. Specifically, this study reviewed 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were not a manifestation of his or her disability and 40 randomly selected decisions wherein decision makers determined that the student's actions were a manifestation of his or her disability. Findings/Results: Decision makers cited the academic and behavioral manifestations of students' disabilities, students' behavioral histories, students' ability to control their actions, and connections to the home and community. Despite these consistent factors, the striking similarities between Yes and No decisions illustrates the overall arbitrary nature of the decisionmaking process. Conclusions/Recommendations: This article discusses implications that attend to both the procedure and substance of manifestation determination review.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054261763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054261763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85054261763

VL - 120

JO - Teachers College Record

JF - Teachers College Record

SN - 0161-4681

IS - 10

M1 - 100307

ER -