Disciplinary Action Flow Chart by Deb Galante

1. 1/6/2013 Student was suspended from school for 10 days. Under IDEA regulation, 34 C.F.R. ,300.121 [d][1] a school district is not required to continue educational services if the student is suspended for less than 10 days.

1.1. Under IDEA schools may exclude a student with disabilities from school up to 45 school days regardless if the behavior was linked to the student's disability if (c) has inflicted serious bodily injury to another person while at school, on school premises, or at a school function. Bodily injury refers to any physical injury that may result in death, physical pain, disfigurement, or loss of impairment of a bodily function.

2. 1/11/2013 Manifestation Determination meeting is held which included student's parents, special education administration, the special education teacher, the principal, BCBA, and the speech pathologist. The team first reviewed the student's current IEP, behavior plan, input from parents, and also recent notes and observations made by the team. The team needed to address the following two components: (a) was the student's conduct a direct and substantial relationship to the child's disability, or (b) was the conduct a direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the IEP. * The purpose of the manifestation determination meeting is to ensure that students with disabilities are not denied special education services because of misbehavior that can be directly linked to the student's disability.

2.1. If it is determined that either a or b are the case, the LEA must immediately take the necessary steps in order to fix the situation.

2.2. During the

2.3. Parents were notified of the meeting, and were provided with procedural safeguards.

3. 1/11/2013 During the manifestation determination meeting, members of the team brought up that the student had a weekly average of 25 attempted aggressive behaviors towards staff members only. Although the team was concerned about the behaviors, they determined that the behavior was a direct result of the student's disability of being developmentally delayed. The student's frustration of the delay of his communication device led him to throw the device, which hit another student. The parents voiced their concerns, and feel strongly about the student staying in the current school. The LEA felt that by maintaining the current placement may lead to additional injury to a child and/or staff member. Although the team decided that the behavior was directly linked to the student's disability, they feel that the student may provide direct risk to others, and may be better suited to be placed in a different setting.

3.1. The hearing may be requested by filing a complaint pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 300.507 and 300.508 (a) and (b).

3.2. If the team determines that the behavior was a manifestation of the disability, the team must review the current behavior intervention plan and modify the plan to address the behavior.

4. 1/5/2013 Student was completing his daily job of "forecaster". After looking at the weather outside, he returned to the morning meeting area in which the class was sitting in a circle around the carpet. The student began to use his device to communicate the weather to his peers. The screen on the device froze when he started to say "today is rainy". The student started to bang on the device several times, and as a staff member started to assist him, he threw the device and the device hit the face of the girl sitting next to him, resulting in injuring the girl. The girl had several teeth knocked out along with a cut by the eye which resulted from the device hitting her mouth and breaking the frame of her glasses, which then cut an area by her eye.

4.1. *student continued to become agitated and became aggressive towards his paraprofessional when the paraprofessional tried to assist him away from the girl, and into an different area in the room. Administration was called to help assist the student out of the room, in order to calm down, and keep other children/staff safe.