Order Code 98-42 A
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
Discipline Provisions in P.L. 105-17
Updated January 15, 2002
Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
Discipline Provisions in P.L. 105-17
Summary
The 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are the
most comprehensive and significant changes made since its original enactment.
Several of the most important changes were made regarding the discipline of children
with disabilities. Congress attempted to strike “a careful balance between the LEA’s
(local educational agency’s) duty to ensure that school environments are safe and
conducive to learning for all children, including children with disabilities, and the
LEA’s obligation to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate
public education.”
Generally, the new provisions give schools increased flexibility for dealing with
children with disabilities who misbehave. A school may now place a child with a
disability in an interim alternative educational setting for not more than forty-five days
if the student has been involved with drugs or weapons (not just firearms as under
previous law). An impartial hearing officer may order a change in placement for a
child with a disability to an interim alternative educational placement for up to forty-
five days if the hearing officer finds that the school has demonstrated by substantial
evidence that leaving the child in the current placement is substantially likely to result
in injury to the child or others. In addition, P.L. 105-17 codifies the previous
interpretation by the Department of Education that educational services may not cease
for children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled. Final regulations,
issued by the Department of Education on March 12, 1999, elaborated upon these
statutory requirements. This report examines both the statutory and regulatory
provisions relating to discipline as well as recent proposed amendments. It will be
updated as necessary.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of IDEA’s Discipline Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Discipline Provisions in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Ten Day Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
School Initiated Interim Alternative Educational Placements . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Hearing Officer Initiated Interim Alternative Educational Placements . . . . . 6
Manifestation Determination Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Child’s Placement During Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Continuation of Educational Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Children who are not yet Eligible for Special Education and
Related Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Law Enforcement and Judicial Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Transfer of Disciplinary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Proposed Amendments to IDEA Discipline Provisions Since 1997. . . . . . . . . . . .11

---

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
Discipline Provisions in P.L. 105-17
Introduction
On June 4, 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments
of 1997, P.L. 105-17, were signed into law. These amendments are the most
comprehensive and significant changes made to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) since its enactment in 1975. Several of the most important
changes were made regarding the discipline of children with disabilities. Congress
attempted to strike “a careful balance between the LEA’s duty to ensure that school
environments are safe and conducive to learning for all children, including children
with disabilities, and the LEA’s continuing obligation to ensure that children with
disabilities receive a free appropriate public education.”1
Although much of the previous statute, case law, regulations and policy guidance
were incorporated in the new statutory language, several provisions were added
which give schools increased flexibility for dealing with children with disabilities who
misbehave. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 allow a school to place a child with a
disability in an interim alternative educational setting for not more than forty-five days
if the student has been involved with drugs or weapons (not just firearms as under
previous law). An impartial hearing officer may order a change in placement for a
child with a disability to an interim alternative educational placement for up to forty-
five days if the hearing officer finds that the school has demonstrated by substantial
evidence that leaving the child in the current placement is substantially likely to result
in injury to the child or others. In addition, P.L. 105-17 codifies the previous
interpretation by the Department of Education that educational services may not cease
for children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled.
The Department of Education promulgated final regulations under P.L. 105-17
on March 12, 1999 after receiving comments from about 6,000 individuals, public
agencies and organizations.2 The regulatory provisions on discipline were
controversial, especially those aspects relating to short term suspensions, and these
provisions were changed from what the Department had put forth in its proposed
regulations.3
1S.Rept. 105-17, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 28 (1997); H.Rept. 105-95, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 108
(1997).
264 F.R. 12405 (March 12, 1999). For an overview of the final regulations see Jones and
Apling, “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Department of Education Final
Regulations,” CRS Report RL30103 (March 22, 1999).
3 Proposed regulations, 62 F.R. 55025 (Oct. 22, 1997).

---

CRS-2
Although significant changes were made in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA,
amendments have been proposed since then to further amend the discipline provisions.
Several of these have passed the House or Senate but have not become law. Prior to
a more detailed discussion of the 1997 statutory and regulatory changes as well as
more recent proposed changes, it is important to briefly examine the history of
IDEA’s discipline provisions.4
History of IDEA’s Discipline Procedures
The manner in which children with disabilities can be disciplined may seem quite
complex but the logic involved is much more apparent when IDEA’s history is
examined. IDEA was originally enacted in 1975 as the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142. The primary motive for its enactment was
the fact that children with disabilities often failed to receive an education or received
an inappropriate education.5 This lack of education gave rise to numerous judicial
decisions, notably PARC v. State of Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa. 1972),
and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866
(D.D.C. 1972). These decisions found constitutional infirmities with the lack of
education for children with disabilities when the states were providing education for
children without disabilities. As a result, the states were under considerable pressure
to provide such services, and they lobbied Congress to assist them.
In enacting P.L. 94-142, Congress provided grants to the states to help pay for
education for children with disabilities and also delineated specific requirements the
states must follow in order to receive these federal funds. These requirements did not
contain a discipline provision per se but rather contained a requirement that if there
is a dispute between the school and the parents of a child with a disability, the child
“stays put” in his or her current educational placement until the dispute is resolved
using the due process procedures set forth in the statute. The concept of “stay put”
was placed in the statute to help eliminate the then common discriminatory practice
of expelling children with disabilities from school. A revised “stay put” provision
remains as law in the current version of IDEA.
4Although it is beyond the scope of this report to examine studies on the implementation and
efficacy of discipline approaches, it should be noted that there is some research data available.
For example see GAO, Student Discipline: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
GAO-01-210 (January 2001); Safe and Responsive Schools Project at the Indiana Education
Policy Center, Preventing School Violence: A Practical Guide to Comprehensive Planning;
Indiana Education Policy Center, Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School
Disciplinary Practice (Aug. 2000); Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute,
Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (May 2001).
5The House and Senate Reports for P.L. 94-142 both noted statistics indicating that there were
more than eight million children with disabilities and that “only 3.9 million such children are
receiving an appropriate education, 1.7 million handicapped children are receiving no
educational services at all, and 2.5 million handicapped children are receiving an inappropriate
education.” H.Rept. 94- 332, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1975); S.Rept. 94-168, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 8, reprinted in 1975 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1425, 1432.

---

CRS-3
Issues relating to children with disabilities who exhibited violent or inappropriate
behavior have been raised for a number of years. In 1988, the question of whether
there was an implied exception to the stay put rule was presented to the Supreme
Court in Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988). Honig involved emotionally disturbed
children one of whom had choked another student with sufficient force to leave
abrasions on the child’s neck and who had kicked out a window while he was being
escorted to the principal’s office. The other child in the Honig case had been involved
in stealing, extorting money and making lewd comments. The school had sought
expulsion but the Supreme Court disagreed finding that “Congress very much meant
to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude
disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school.”6
However, the Court observed that this holding did “not leave educators
hamstrung....Where a student poses an immediate threat to the safety of others,
officials may temporarily suspend him or her for up to 10 school days....And in those
cases in which the parents of a truly dangerous child adamantly refuse to permit any
change in placement, the 10-day respite gives school officials an opportunity to invoke
the aid of the courts under section 1415(e)(2), which empowers courts to grant any
appropriate relief.”7 This statement about the school’s right to seek judicial relief has
come to be know as a Honig injunction.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of IDEA in Honig did not quell all concerns
about discipline and children with disabilities. In 1994, Congress amended IDEA’s
stay put provision to give schools the unilateral authority to remove a child with a
disability to an interim alternative educational setting if the child was determined to
have brought a firearm to school. This provision was expanded upon in the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 to include weapons, not just firearms, and drugs.
The Department of Education had also received numerous questions from
schools about discipline and in 1995 issued a memorandum discussing numerous
discipline issues including the use of manifestation determinations.8 If a school
sought to suspend or expel a child with a disability for more than ten days, the school
must first make a “manifestation determination,” a determination concerning whether
the student’s misconduct was related to his or her disability. If the behavior was not
related to the disability, the school could suspend or expel for more than ten days but
must continue to provide education services. If the behavior was related to the
disability, the school must give notice of any recommended change in placement and,
if the parent objected, the parent could invoke the stay put provision. The
Department found that Honig injunctions, court orders to change the placement of a
child with a disability, were proper when a school believed that maintaining the child
in his or her current placement was “substantially likely to result in injury to the
student or others.” The concept of a manifestation determination was placed in
statutory language by P.L. 105-17. Similarly, the new statutory language continues
the regulatory interpretation that educational services cannot cease for children with
disabilities even if they have been suspended or expelled.
6484 U.S. 305, 323 (1988).
7Id. at 325-326.
8OSEP Memorandum 95-16, 22 IDELR 531 (April 26, 1995).

---

CRS-4
Discipline Provisions in the IDEA Amendments of
1997
With the preceding background in mind, the specific changes made by P.L. 105-
17 will now be examined. First, however, it should be emphasized that much of what
Congress intended to do was to codify existing law that was found in the regulations,
case law, and policy guidance. The changes that were made were among the most
contentious in a long and controversial reauthorization. The House and Senate
reports described the changes in general.
The committee recognizes that school safety is important to educators and parents.
There has been considerable debate and concern about both if and how those few
children with disabilities who affect the school safety of peers, teachers, and
themselves may be disciplined when they engage in behavior that jeopardizes such
safety. In addition, the committee is aware of the perception of a lack of parity
when making decisions about disciplining children with and without disabilities
who violate the same school rule or code of conduct. By adding a new section
615(k) to IDEA, the committee has attempted to strike a careful balance between
the LEA’s duty to ensure that school environments are safe and conducive to
learning for all children, including children with disabilities, and the LEA’s
continuing obligation to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free
appropriate public education. Thus, drawing on testimony, experience, and
common sense, the committee has placed specific and comprehensive guidelines
on the matter of disciplining children with disabilities in this section.9
Generally, a child with a disability is not immune from disciplinary procedures;
however, these procedures are not identical to those for children without disabilities.
If child with a disability commits an action that would be subject to discipline, school
personnel have several options. These include
! a suspension for up to ten days,
! placement in an interim alternative education setting for up to forty five days
for situations involving weapons or drugs, and
! asking a hearing officer to order a child be placed in an interim alternative
educational setting for up to forty five days if it is demonstrated that the child
is substantially likely to injure himself or others in his current placement,
! conducting a manifestation determination review to determine whether there
is a link between the child’s disability and the misbehavior. If the child’s
behavior is not a manifestation of a disability, long term disciplinary action
such as expulsion may occur, except that educational services may not cease.
9S.Rept. 105-17, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 28 (1997); H.Rept. 105-95, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 108
(1997).

---

CRS-5
School officials may also seek a Honig injunction as discussed previously if they are
unable to reach agreement with a student’s parents and they feel that the new
statutory provisions are not sufficient.
The Ten Day Rule
School personnel can order a change in placement for not more than ten days to
an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another setting or suspension
to the same extent that these options would be applied to children without disabilities.
This new provision in P.L. 105-17 codifies what was existing practice. The Supreme
Court in Honig v. Doe, supra, had allowed ten-day suspensions under the prior law.
However, the new statutory language does not state whether the ten days are ten
days for the school year or ten consecutive days and this became a point of
controversy in the proposed regulations. The final regulations responded to this
criticism with a compromise. School personnel may order the removal of a child with
a disability from the child’s current placement for not more than ten consecutive
school days for any violation of school rules to the extent that the same removal
would be applied to children without disabilities.10 In addition, the school may
remove a child with a disability for periods of not more than ten consecutive school
days in the same school year for other incidents of misconduct as long as these
removals do not constitute a change in placement as described in §300.519(b).
Section 300.519(b) states that a change in placement occurs if “the child is subjected
to a series of removals that constitute a pattern because they cumulate to more than
10 school days in a school year, and because of factors such as the length of each
removal, the total amount of time the child is removed, and the proximity of the
removals to one another.”
For suspensions after suspensions for the first ten days of the school year, the
final regulations state that schools must provide services to the extent necessary to
enable the child to appropriately progress in the general curriculum and meet the
child’s IEP (individualized educational placement) goals.11 If the child is removed for
not more than ten consecutive days and there is not a change in placement, the school
personnel make the determination of which services are necessary.12 If there is a
change in placement, certain obligations are triggered for the LEA. The IEP team
must meet and develop a behavior assessment plan,13 manifestation determinations are
required,14 and certain services to meet the FAPE requirement must be provided.15
1034 C.F.R. §300.520(a)(1).
1134 C.F.R. §300.121(d)(2).
1234 C.F.R. §300.121(d)(3).
1334 C.F.R. §300.520(b).
1434 C.F.R. §300.523.
1534 C.F.R. §300.121(d).

---

CRS-6
School Initiated Interim Alternative Educational Placements
A major change made by P.L. 105-17 was the expansion of when an interim
alternative educational placement can be used. Under prior law, school officials could
make such a placement only when a student carried a firearm to school or a school
function. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 expand upon this authority to allow
schools to make such a placement not only for firearms but for weapons16 and
drugs.17 The appropriate interim alternative education setting is to be determined by
the child’s individualized education program (IEP) team.
An important addition made by P.L. 105-17 concerns behavior intervention
plans. Within ten days after deciding to move a child with a disability to an interim
alternative educational setting, if there was not already a functional behavior
assessment and a behavioral intervention plan, the local education agency must
convene an IEP meeting to develop an assessment plan. If there was already a
behavior intervention plan, the IEP team is to review and, if necessary, modify the
plan.18 This requirement is in addition to the new statutory provision providing that
in developing a child’s IEP, where a child’s behavior impedes his or her learning or
the learning of others, the IEP team shall consider, when appropriate, strategies,
including positive behavioral interventions, and supports to address the behavior.19
Hearing Officer Initiated Interim Alternative Educational
Placements
A new situation where an interim alternative educational placement may be used
was added by P.L. 105-17. Under certain circumstances, an impartial hearing officer
may order a change in placement to an interim alternative educational setting for not
more than forty-five days. The hearing officer must: determine that the school has
demonstrated by substantial evidence that maintaining a child’s current placement is
“substantially likely to result in injury” to the child or others; consider the
appropriateness of the child’s current placement; consider whether the public agency
has made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the child’s current
placement; determine that the interim alternative educational setting has been selected
so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general curriculum and to
continue to receive those services and modifications that will enable the child to meet
the goals set out in his or her IEP; and determine that the interim alternative
16Weapon is defined as having the meaning of “dangerous weapon” under paragraph (2) of
the first subsection of 18 U.S.C. sec. 930. Dangerous weapon is defined in this subsection
as meaning “a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that
is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except such term
does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 ½ inches.”
17An issue had been raised concerning the use of the phrase “carries a weapon” and in its
discussion of the final regulations, the Department stated that this statutory language also
includes situations where a child acquires a weapon at school. 64 F.R. 12416 (March 12,
1999).
18Section 615(k)(1)(B).
19Section 614(d)(3)(B)(I).

---

CRS-7
educational placement shall include services and modifications designed to address the
behavior that led to the disciplinary action so that the behavior does not reoccur.20
Manifestation Determination Review
As was noted previously, the concept of a manifestation determination originated
in policy interpretations of IDEA by the Department of Education. The theory is that
when behavior, even inappropriate behavior, is caused by a disability, the response of
a school must be different that when the behavior is not related to the disability. P.L.
105-17 codifies this requirement by mandating that a determination regarding the
relationship between a child’s disability and his or her behavior must be made by the
IEP team in certain circumstances. These circumstances, as specified in the statute,
are when school personnel contemplate ordering a change in placement for
disciplinary reasons to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than
forty-five days; when a hearing officer contemplates ordering a change in placement
for disciplinary reasons; or if a disciplinary action involving a change in placement of
more than ten days is contemplated for a child with a disability who has engaged in
any other behavior that has violated a school’s rule or conduct of conduct.21
If the child’s behavior is related to his or her disability, the school may review
the child’s placement and, if necessary, initiate a change in the child’s placement. The
school also has the option of suspending the child for ten school days or less and
seeking a Honig injunction.
If the child’s behavior is not related to his or her disability, the relevant
disciplinary procedures that are applicable to children without disabilities may be
applied to the child in the same manner in which they would be applied to children
without disabilities except that a free appropriate public education must be made
available to the child even if he or she is expelled or suspended. Parents have a right
to request a hearing if they disagree with the determination that the child’s behavior
was not a manifestation of the child’s disability or with any decision concerning
placement. In these cases, there shall be an expedited hearing.22
In order to find that a child’s behavior was not related to his or her disability, the
IEP team must consider all relevant information and must make three determinations.
First, the IEP team must find that in relation to the behavior in question, the child’s
IEP and placement were appropriate and the special education services and behavior
intervention strategies were provided according to the child’s IEP and placement.
Second, the IEP team must find that the child’s disability did not impair the child’s
ability to understand the impact and consequences of the behavior subject to
disciplinary action. Finally, the IEP team must find that the child’s disability did not
20Section 615(k)(2) and (3).
21Section 615(k)(4)(A).
22Section 615(k)(6)(A).

---

CRS-8
impair the ability of the child to control the behavior subject to the disciplinary
action.23
Child’s Placement During Appeals
If the parents request a hearing regarding a disciplinary action involving an
interim alternative educational setting or manifestation determination, their child with
a disability shall remain in the interim alternative educational setting. This placement
is where the child stays until the hearing officer’s decision or until the expiration of
the specified time periods unless the parents and the LEA or SEA agree otherwise.24
If the child is placed in an interim alternative educational setting for more than ten
days and the school wants to change the child’s placement after the time in the interim
alternative educational setting, and if the parents challenge the proposed placement,
the child stays put in the placement the child was in prior to the interim alternative
educational placement.25 If school personnel feel that this would be dangerous, there
may be an expedited hearing.26
The final regulations reiterate the statutory language and make clear that the
expedited hearing procedure may be repeated.27 In addition, the final regulations note
that “if the decision of a hearing officer in a due process hearing conducted by the
SEA or a State review official in an administrative appeal agrees with the child’s
parents that a change of placement is appropriate, that placement must be treated as
an agreement between the State or local agency and the parents for the purposes of
paragraph (a) of this section.”28 Paragraph (a) is the regulatory recitation of the stay
put requirement.
Continuation of Educational Services
One of the most controversial aspects of the discipline issue during the
reauthorization of IDEA involved the cessation of educational services for children
with disabilities. IDEA has from its inception required that each state receiving funds
have in effect a policy that assures all children with disabilities the right to a free
appropriate public education (FAPE). P.L. 105-17 added to this requirement,
indicating that it includes “children with disabilities who have been suspended or
expelled from school.”29
23Section 615(k)(4)(C). The final Department of Education regulations reiterate the statutory
language regarding manifestation determinations and do not require a manifestation
determination for a ten day suspension. See 34 C.F.R. §300.523.
24Section 615(k)(7).
25Id.
26Section 615(k)(7)(C).
2734 C.F.R. §300.526(c).
28 34 C.F.R. §300.514(c).
29Section 612(a)(1)(A).

---

CRS-9
The statutory addition tracked the interpretation of the law by the Department
of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)30 which had been
criticized as being beyond the scope of IDEA’s statutory language. Previously, the
state of Virginia refused to comply with the OSEP interpretation. This led to several
judicial decisions and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plain
language of IDEA did not condition the receipt of IDEA funds on the continued
provision of educational services to expelled children with disabilities and that in order
for Congress to place conditions on the state’s receipt of federal funds, Congress must
do so clearly and unambiguously.31 The clear signal sent to Congress by the courts
was that if Congress wanted to avoid judicial controversies and impose a requirement
that educational services cannot cease for children with disabilities, it should amend
the statute to do so. Congress responded by adding the qualifying phrase to the
FAPE requirement in P.L. 105-17 indicating that FAPE extends to children with
disabilities who have been suspended or expelled.
The Department of Education’s final regulations addressed the meaning of the
new FAPE language when read in connection with the rule on ten day suspensions.
The final regulations interpreted the statute as not requiring services during the first
ten days a child is removed from school32 but for subsequent suspensions, schools are
required to provide certain services.33
Children who are not yet Eligible for Special Education and
Related Services
One of the situations Congress sought to address during the reauthorization
concerned children who were the subject of a disciplinary action and who alleged after
the action occurred that they were disabled and thus entitled to the protections of
IDEA.34 P.L. 105-17 allows such a child to assert the protections of IDEA if the local
educational agency had knowledge that the child was a child with a disability before
the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action occurred. The law specifically
states that the LEA is deemed to have such knowledge if
! the parent of the child has expressed concern in writing (unless the parent is
illiterate or has a disability that prevents such expression) to personnel of the
agency that the child is in need of special education and related services;
! the behavior or performance of the child demonstrates the need for such
services;
30OSEP Memorandum 95-16, 22 IDELR 531, 536 (OSEP 1995).
31Virginia Department of Education v. Riley, 86 F.3d 1337 (4th Cir. 1996).
3234 C.F.R. §300.121(d)(1).
3334 C.F.R. §300.121(d)(2).
34Two court cases were examined by Congress concerning this issue: Hacienda La Puente
School District v. Honig, 976 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992); and M.P. by D.P. v. Grossmont
Union High School District, 858 F.Supp. 1044 (S.D. Calif. 1994).

---

CRS-10
! the parent of the child has requested an evaluation of the child; or
! the teachers of the child or other LEA personnel have expressed concern about
the behavior or performance of the child to the special education director or
to other personnel of the agency.35
This last category caused some concern among school officials who feared that
it would indicate that the LEA had knowledge that the child was a child with a
disability if there were casual hallway comments. In the final regulations, the
Department of Education stated that this concern had to be expressed to the director
of special education “or to other personnel in accordance with the agency’s
established child find or special education referral system.”36
Law Enforcement and Judicial Entities
Prior judicial decisions also gave rise to the issue of when children with
disabilities could be referred to law enforcement officials.37 P.L. 105-17 specifically
states that nothing in Part B of IDEA shall be construed to prohibit an agency from
reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability to appropriate authorities or
to prevent state law enforcement and judicial authorities from exercising their
responsibilities.38
Transfer of Disciplinary Information
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 also provide for the transfer of disciplinary
information on a child with a disability since it was felt that there was an increased
possibility of violence when a local school system was not adequately informed about
the child’s past. The Amendments specifically allowed a state, at its discretion, to
require a local educational agency to include a statement of any current or previous
disciplinary actions that have been taken against a child with a disability, in the records
of the child. The statement can include a description of the behavior the child
engaged in, a description of the disciplinary action taken, and other information that
is relevant to the safety of the child and other individuals. This information can be
transmitted to the same extent that such information would be transmitted with the
records of children who do not have disabilities.39 In the final regulations, the
Department of Education discussed the relationship of this provision to the Family
35Section 615(k)(8)(A) and (B).
3634 C.F.R. §300.527(b)(4).
37See Morgan v. Chris L., 25 IDELR 227 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1271 (1997).
38See State of Connecticut v. David F., 1998 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3247 (Nov. 6, 1998),
where the court interpreted this provision to allow a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The
court stated that “the juvenile court’s jurisdiction will not frustrate the IDEA or its ‘stay put’
provisions.”
39Section 613(j).

---

CRS-11
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and found that IDEA permits
transmission of records only to the extent permitted by FERPA.40
Proposed Amendments to IDEA Discipline Provisions Since 1997
Although Congress described its 1997 changes to discipline provisions as a
“careful balance,” it was not long before amendments to change the provisions
surfaced. The most recent amendments were offered to H.R. 1, 107th Cong., and its
companion bill, S. 1.41 Both these amendments passed their respective Houses but the
conference committee did not include them as part of the final legislation which
became P.L. 107-110.
Representative Norwood described his amendment to H.R. 1 as allowing “special
needs students to be disciplined under the same policy as nonspecial needs students
in the exact same situation.”42 Essentially the amendment would have eliminated the
mandated provision of educational services to children with disabilities who have been
suspended or expelled for actions involving drugs, weapons, or aggravated assault or
battery in a state that does not require educational services in that situation for
children without disabilities.
The amendment offered by Senator Sessions to S. 1, like the House amendment,
would have implemented uniform disciplinary policies regarding the discipline of
children with disabilities in certain circumstances. The Senate amendment was not
limited to specific disciplinary situations like those involving weapons but would have
amended IDEA by adding a new subsection relating to uniform policies on discipline
when the behavior at issue is not a manifestation of the child’s disabilities, providing
for certain procedural protections, and providing for alternative placements of
children with disabilities in certain situations.
In 1999 the Senate passed S. 254, 106th Cong., the Violent and Repeat Juvenile
Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, and the House passed H.R. 1501,
106th Cong., the Child Safety and Protection Act, both of which contained
amendments to IDEA. These amendments would have changed section 615 of IDEA
to eliminate IDEA’s different disciplinary procedures for children with disabilities in
certain situations. In the Senate the amendment applied to children with disabilities
who carry a gun or firearm while in the House the amendment would have covered
a weapon. These amendments were not enacted.43
4034 C.F.R. §300.529.
41 For a more detailed discussion of these amendments see CRS Report RS20947,
Amendments Relating to the Discipline of Children with Disabilities in H.R. 1 and S. 1,
107th Congress, by Nancy Lee Jones.
42 147 Cong. Rec. H2583 (daily ed. May 23, 2001).
43 For a more detailed discussion of these amendments see CRS Report RS20558,
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Proposed Discipline Amendments, by
Nancy Lee Jones.

---

CRS-12
Two amendments relating to children with disabilities were offered and accepted
during House Education and Workforce Committee markup of H.R. 4141, 106th
Cong., the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments. One amendment,
offered by Representative Norwood, concerned the discipline of a child with a
disability who carries or possesses a weapon. The other amendment, offered by
Representatives Talent, McIntosh and Tancredo, concerned the discipline of a child
with a disability who knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs at school or commits
an aggravated assault or battery at school. These amendments were not enacted.44
44 Id.

---