The Rules to Follow for Giving Special Education

Ralph and Manifestation Determination

In the school district of St. Paul, Minnesota, the district's process for making a manifestation determination is the following: a parent must request a meeting with the Individual Education Program (IEP) team, which must hold the meeting no more than 10 days following the request. A meeting will also be held regardless of parental request whenever a student is suspended for at least 5 consecutive days or 10 cumulative days within a school year, a disciplinary change is effected or expulsion is considered.

The team then determines if the following stipulations are met to signify that a manifestation determination can be made. First, the team must gather data regarding evaluations of the child and any diagnostic testing that has been conducted, observations made, as well as placement information or other information that can be helpful in understanding the child's background and providing context for the setting (Office of Specialized Services, 2015).

The team then discusses whether the data gathered is substantial enough to make a manifestation determination, whether more information is needed, or if the student requires a change in special education programming, which can sometimes be the case if the program that the child is in is the problem more so than the child (Reschly, 1996).

If the team discerns that more data is required, the team must obtain written consent from the parent/guardian of the child so that an evaluation may be performed; in doing so, the team must also inform the parent/guardian of the child's characteristics that are effecting this decision.

Simultaneously, the team must also assess the performance of the school in order to ensure that everything proper is being done on its end and that all protocols are being followed (if some protocols are not followed, then these must be addressed before further action with the child can be taken).

Once these steps are taken the team can determine whether or not a manifestation determination is in place; if not, the appropriate disciplinary action may be taken; if it is, then the team must create an appropriate plan of action to meet the needs of the student.

In the case of Ralph, who was suspended 10 days, there would be a team meeting to discuss the possibility of manifestation determination with Ralph. The IEP team would gather the relevant information and documentation, and if there has been no evaluation performed, the team would apply for written consent from Ralph's parent/guardian for this to be done. Once the information is gathered then a determination can be made regarding Ralph's behavior and whether or not he has a learning disability.

If Ralph's behavior is not linked to a disability, the appropriate disciplinary action may be taken, the suspension upheld, and further measures taken if necessary. If the behavior is linked to a disability, then the suspension should be overturned and the immediate steps taken to provide Ralph with the appropriate program to meet his needs and promote better learning strategies and environments for him.

The case law that this action is based upon is evident in numerous examples, including Burriola v. Greater Toledo YMCA (2001) in which the federal court ordered a daycare center to admit a child whose autism had served as a disruption of their operations; the court ordered that they provide accommodations for the child as well as training for staff. This decision impacts schools as well and serves as a guide for schools working with students who have disabilities, signifying that they must do their utmost to meet the needs of students with such disabilities rather than simply dismiss them without assessing their needs first (Wrights Law, 2015)

Other case examples include Community Consolidated School District #93 v. John F. (2000) in which a discipline codification was ordered, so that procedural violations would not occur regarding manifestation determination review and violating Least Restrictive Education guidelines established by the federal government (Wrights Law, 2015). There is also the case of Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. (1999) in which the Supreme Court sided with the student who was in need of the appropriate services related to his disability so that he could attend the public school system in a Least Restrictive environment/capacity (Wrights Law, 2015).

There are numerous other examples that one could turn to in order to find the case law basis for the school district's code of review regarding manifestation determination; these serve as a sufficient overview of the way in which the courts have leaned in recent years with regard to special education services.