GCU Ch 4 Disciplining and Suspending a Student with ASD Question Please answer the following question: When can disciplining a student with ASD be seen as
GCU Ch 4 Disciplining and Suspending a Student with ASD Question Please answer the following question:
When can disciplining a student with ASD be seen as a change of LRE/placement? What advice would you give an administrator who is looking at suspending a student with ASD?
Please respond to student discussion:
1. (SHAN) When disciplining a student with ASD any removal from the classroom greater than a ten day suspension is considered a change in placement and a conduct manifestation determination must occur in order to comply with FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education). Therefore, it is best practice to set the child up for success by putting modifications and supports in place prior to severe situations occur.
In the case of a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, I believe structure and supports are critical to the prevention of problem behaviors. I would give the following advise to an administrator who is looking into suspending a student with ASD. Administrators should contact the Child Study Team case manager and teacher. They should ask them what structure and supports are in place for the student. It may be the case that the supports and modifications are not taking place as they should. I would recommend that a Functional Behavior Assessment be completed for the student. Once antecedents, behaviors and consequences (ABC) and a FBA completed, a behavior intervention plan needs to be created that clearly defines the intervention the individual child needs. It is best to predict the supports and modifications that are necessary for each unique child’s needs. A proactive plan is better that just trying to manage a student who is out of control. I would suggest utilizing child specific behavior modifications before suspension.
Rothstein, L. F., & Johnson, S. F. (2014). Special Education Law (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
2. (Tere) When a student is suspended for ten days or more, a change of placement may occur. In order to determine the most effective approach, a manifestation meeting is conducted. This meeting is required to protect students from unnecessary disciplinary action. Students with disabilities who are removed from class for behavior concerns are required to continue receiving services. In some cases, administrators are unclear with the laws pertaining to individuals with disabilities. I would discuss the importance of involving the special education teacher when discipling a student to confirm the IEP is being addressed. Schools needs to determine the positive and negative effects the suspension will have for the student. Was there a previous plan in place? Did the student harm himself or others? Would developing an effective plan be more effective to teach appropriate behaviors? Communication is imperative to support students with disabilities. Everyone on the school team needs to be involved to make informative and appropriate decisions on suspending a student.
3. (DEB) If a student is being removed from the class and/or suspended and is out of the regular classroom more than they are in it, the team needs to look at the services currently in place because something needs to be changed because the student is not able to access the general education curriculum.
One of my students this year had a diagnosis of ASD but there also appeared to be mental health issues as well. There was a significant family history of severe mental illness in the family including biological mother. Along with these issues, she had cognitive deficits. Collecting data and determining her present levels was extremely challenging because she demonstrated work refusal. As the year went on, she became violent in the classroom, she would stand and scream, run from staff into other classrooms and scream, spit at staff and her peers. We tried every strategy we could think of but nothing worked. With grandmas permission, we video taped one of her outbursts and the video showed her violence as well as talking to people who weren’t there. This prompted gram to seek medical mental health intervention. We had a team meeting because she was spending most of her day outside of the classroom due to extreme behaviors. The team recommended another placement because trying to discipline her became more restrictive for her and we clearly were not meeting her needs. She was removed from the classroom daily and that is a situation where discipline became more restrictive for her.
When it comes to suspending students with ASD, I actually encourage my administration not to do it. My feeling is that either the student will not understand or make the connection that they are suspended due to behavior or it may be an unintentional reinforcer and the behavior may increase. I believe that for students with ASD, behaviors that we may see are typically a result of frustration, sensory overload or even anxiety. It is up to the team to figure out why the behaviors are happening and work to help the student. Often times, punitive consequences can have the opposite effect people are looking for. Chapter 4: The people
Before examining in detail the substantive and procedural requirements and the
remedies available under the laws relating to special education, it is useful to have a
sense of the various individuals who are involved in these issues. These include the
students themselves, their parents, educators, administrators, related service providers,
advocates, and decision makers. The following sections describe the major characteristics of these people. This chapter focuses on those individuals primarily from the
perspective of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
StudentsCategorizationNot all students with disabilities are covered by the IDEA. To be
eligible for the protec-tions under the IDEA, a student must fit into the definition of a
child with a disability under the law. The definition includes 13 categories of
disabilities. The definition states,Child with a disability means a child evaluated in
accordance with §§ 300.304 through 300.311 as having mental retardation, a hearing
impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment
(including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as
emotional disturbance), an orthopedic impair-ment, autism, traumatic brain injury,
another health impairment, a specific learning dis-ability, deaf-blindness, or multiple
disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related
services.Each of these categories of disability has its own specific requirements that
must be met in order for a student to be eligible to receive services under the law.
These requirements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. States may also have a
category for children ages 3 through 9 experiencing developmental delays with physical
devel-opment, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional
development, or adaptive development.1 In October 2010, Rosas Law went into
effect. That law required a change in the term mentally retarded to intellectually disabled in all federal statutes and regulations.2It should be emphasized that the student
must not only fit into one or more of the listed categories but must also require special
education and related services because of the disability in order to be eligible for
services. Some have raised concerns about the categorization system used for
providing special education services under the IDEA. One concern is that the
categorical labels do not always accurately reflect the characteristics of the students.
Additionally, labeling may stigmatize the student, and once a student is labeled, it may
be difficult to change the label. Some believe that attaching a label to an individual may
well result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.3Some contend that the labels or categories do
not help teachers to identify the appropriate means of providing instruction and training.
As a result, some profession-als have recommended that the classification of students
be noncategorical. These recommendations have been implemented in some states.
For example, Texas, Colorado, and California train and certify special educators
noncategorically. The move away from categories had positive results in a variety of
programs throughout the country. The 2004 amendments to the IDEA provided states
with some additional discretion in this area by stating that the IDEA does not require
states to classify stu-dents by disability as long as each student who has a disability as
defined by the law and needs special education and related services is regarded as a
child with a disability. In other words, a state does not have to categorize students as
learning disabled (LD), speech/language impaired, other health impaired, and so on. It
could instead just develop a system that provides that students who meet any of the
categories of dis-ability under th The People 55While some of the legal issues relating
to labeling will be discussed more fully in Chapter 6, a few general points should be
noted here. Within the categories set out by the IDEA definition of a child with a
disability, a wide degree of difference exists among students. The educational needs of
students within these categories are corre-spondingly widely disparate. And even
students with the same functional level may have differing educational needs because
of a variety of factors. It should, therefore, be apparent that attaching a label to an
individual provides only the most general infor-mation about that student. It is one of the
reasons that individualized educational programming that goes beyond the students
label is required for students with dis-abilities under the IDEA. Placement and services
cannot be based just on the label.Gaps in CoverageOne category not covered by the
IDEA is gifted and talented. Although the IDEA does not provide coverage for this group
of students, many states provide special educa-tional programming for gifted students.
Several other categories of students are not comprehensively covered by the IDEA. The
first is the chronically ill student, the stu-dent with an illness such as cancer or diabetes
who may be frequently absent from school for treatment or because of illness. Students
could be covered under the law in the other health impaired category, but only if they
require special education and related services by reason of the disability. A student who
is frequently absent and needs a program of homebound instruction because of illness
may fit the definition.Similarly, a student with HIV or another infectious disease may
meet the defini-tion of a child with a disability for purposes of the IDEA under the other
health impaired category, but only if the student requires special education and related
ser-vices as a result of the disability. If the student does not require special education
services, the student could still be protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).This distinction in coverage can be
important if the student is seeking to take advantage of the procedural safeguards noted
in Chapter 3 that are available under the IDEA that are not available under Section 504
or the ADA. More information about the procedural safeguards under these different
statutes is provided in Chapter 12.An additional category of students are those with
attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These
conditions may affect the concentration abilities and other behaviors. At one time, there
was a debate about whether this condition should be treated as a separate disability
under the IDEA or whether it would fall under the definition of learning disability or other
health impair-ment. Because of this debate, the 1990 amendments to the IDEA required
that the United States Department of Education solicit public comments on the issue.As
a result of the comments, the United States Department of Education listed ADHD as
one of the chronic or acute health problems that can fit in the other health impaired
category.5 As with other students with chronic illness, having ADHD alone is not
sufficient to be eligible for services under the IDEA. The student must meet the other
requirements of the other health impaired category and must require special education
services. While some of the legal issues relating to labeling will be discussed more fully
in Chapter 6, a few general points should be noted here. Within the categories set out
by the IDEA definition of a child with a disability, a wide degree of difference exists
among students. The educational needs of students within these categories are correspondingly widely disparate. And even students with the same functional level may
have differing educational needs because of a variety of factors. It should, therefore, be
apparent that attaching a label to an individual provides only the most general information about that student. It is one of the reasons that individualized educational
programming that goes beyond the students label is required for students with disabilities under the IDEA. Placement and services cannot be based just on the
label.Gaps in CoverageOne category not covered by the IDEA is gifted and talented.
Although the IDEA does not provide coverage for this group of students, many states
provide special educa-tional programming for gifted students. Several other categories
of students are not comprehensively covered by the IDEA. The first is the chronically ill
student, the stu-dent with an illness such as cancer or diabetes who may be frequently
absent from school for treatment or because of illness. Students could be covered
under the law in the other health impaired category, but only if they require special
education and related services by reason of the disability. A student who is frequently
absent and needs a program of homebound instruction because of illness may fit the
definition.Similarly, a student with HIV or another infectious disease may meet the
defini-tion of a child with a disability for purposes of the IDEA under the other health
impaired category, but only if the student requires special education and related services as a result of the disability. If the student does not require special education
services, the student could still be protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).This distinction in coverage can be
important if the student is seeking to take advantage of the procedural safeguards noted
in Chapter 3 that are available under the IDEA that are not available under Section 504
or the ADA. More information about the procedural safeguards under these different
statutes is provided in Chapter 12.An additional category of students are those with
attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These
conditions may affect the concentration abilities and other behaviors. At one time, there
was a debate about whether this condition should be treated as a separate disability
under the IDEA or whether it would fall under the definition of learning disability or other
health impair-ment. Because of this debate, the 1990 amendments to the IDEA required
that the United States Department of Education solicit public comments on the issue.As
a result of the comments, the United States Department of Education listed ADHD as
one of the chronic or acute health problems that can fit in the other health impaired
category.5 As with other students with chronic illness, having ADHD alone is not
sufficient to be eligible for services under the IDEA. The student must meet the other
requirements of the other health impaired category and must require special education
services.FOR THE USE OF GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND
FACULTY ONLY. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING. ANY AND ALL
UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Copyright © 2014 by SAGE
Publications, Inc. 56 SPECIAL EDUCATION LAWThe medically fragile student in most
cases is protected under the IDEA, but such individuals are a group for whom education
agencies may have difficulty providing ser-vices. Medically fragile students include
those who might require suctioning6 or some other similar attention to ensure that
medical conditions do not cause injury to the stu-dent. Until 1999, there was an
unsettled legal debate involving some of these students: The mainstreaming principle
discourages homebound instruction, so the issue for school districts became how far
they had to go in providing related services that some may consider medical in nature
(like suctioning, catheterization, operating a portable ventilator for the student, etc.). A
related issue is who has to provide the services. Does a school nurse provide the
services, or can an aide or classroom teacher provide services?Understandably,
teachers are often concerned about liability related to the safety and health of medically
fragile students. If teachers are to provide services, school districts must ensure that
teachers are appropriately and adequately trained to provide them, that a backup plan is
available when there are emergencies, and that a clear pro-cedure has been developed
for providing such services.7A case that helped to resolve this issue is the Supreme
Court decision in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.8 In that case, a
high school student who had been paralyzed at age four required a variety of services
for his physical needs while in school. These services included bladder catheterization,
suctioning of a tra-cheotomy tube, feeding, positioning, and ventilator services. The
services required some degree of training but did not require that a physician perform
them. The Supreme Court held that, although they are intensive and costly, if a doctor is
not required to perform the services and the student requires the services to be able to
attend school, then the educational agency has the obligation to provide or fund these
services during school hours under the IDEA.Another category of students who may fall
through the cracks between special and regular education is the slow learner. Unless a
student is defined as learning disabled, intellectually disabled, or one of the other
categories of disability under the IDEA, he or she is not entitled to the individualization
and special attention accorded to the student with a disability under the
IDEA.Historically, regular education was often geared toward the average student,
which meant that the slow learners needs might not be met in a traditional educational
pro-gram. Today, there are ongoing efforts in many places to provide differentiated
instruction within the classroom for all students to address the different learning styles
and abilities of students. These efforts are outside of the IDEAs
requirements.Additionally, over the years, there has been some disagreement among
profession-als about the definition of learning disabled. Some contend that the definition
used in the IDEA has led to the misclassification of some students, with some students
who are really slow learners being classified as learning disabled under the law and
others who are actually learning disabled not being classified as learning disabled under
the law. Congress and the United States Department of Education attempted to address
some of the issues with the learning disability classification when the IDEA was
amended in 2004, and new implementing regulations were issued in 2006. These
change Students who are socially maladjusted constitute another category that is not
spe-cifically covered under the IDEA. There has been a substantial controversy over the
years about whether to identify or even separate socially maladjusted students from
those who meet the definition of emotionally disturbed and whether it is possible to do
so. The definition of emotional disturbance in the IDEAs regulations states that it does
not include students who are socially maladjusted unless they have an emotional
disturbance.9 Thus the issue becomes whether the social maladjustment can be separated diagnostically from other ailments the student may have that could be covered
under the emotionally disturbed category.10Students who are addicted to drugs or
alcohol present unique difficulties. Alcohol and drug addiction itself is not considered a
disability under the IDEA. These students would be protected under the IDEA only if
they required special education and related services under one of the recognized
categories of disability. Even when such students are not entitled to special education
under the IDEA, there may be instances in which they would be given some protection
against adverse treatment because of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA.
Clearly, this is an area where there is an increas-ing need for services, but at this point,
the primary responsibility for these services does not fall on the school system within
special education mandates.In sum, most students entitled to special education are
more different from each other than they are alike. They are more like other students in
the school system than they are different. But for most of them, their differences require
specialized instruc-tion and some accommodation if they are to benefit from the
educational system.It is also important to note that historically, most attention to special
education students has occurred on the elementary school level. This is reflected in
program-ming and teacher training. There has, however, been an increasing recognition
in the education field of the importance of early education and the transition at the
second-ary level to the workplace or postsecondary opportunities. This recognition is
reflected in changes to the IDEA promoting prevention and early intervention (including
early childhood and infant programs) and an increasing emphasis on vocational training
and transition services for special education students.ParentsWho Are Parents?When
determining the special education placement of an individual entitled to ser-vices under
the IDEA, the individual who will usually be asked to consent to the evaluation,
placement, or other decision is the parent. Children under the age of majority as defined
in state law (usually 18 years of age) are generally presumed legally incompetent under
the IDEA to consent to decisions made on their behalf. The prefer-ences of the
individual may be a consideration, particularly with matters such as tran-sition services,
and the student may participate in the special education process, but the parents make
the decisions. As a result, the procedural protections under the IDEA menti 58 SPECIAL
EDUCATION LAWstudent is under the age of majority. Once the student reaches the
age of majority, the procedural and other rights under the IDEA transfer to the student
unless the student has been determined to be incompetent under state law.11 The
parents maintain a right to notice along with the student under the IDEA even when the
student reaches the age of majority.12For purposes of the IDEA, whenever reference is
made to decision making or involvement by the parent, the term is intended to include
not only the actual parent but also possibly a grandparent, a stepparent, a surrogate
parent appointed by the court or a social service agency, or a court-appointed
guardian.13 The intent is that the per-son who is legally responsible for the student shall
be the person responsible for mak-ing special education decisions. In instances where
the student is a ward of the state, a surrogate parent would have to be appointed or
some other arrangement would have to be made, because the term does not include
the state itself in the role of parent.Given the divorce rate in the United States, it is not
unusual for a student to have parents who do not live in the same household. When one
parent has legal custody, ordinarily that parent will have the authority to make decisions
about special educa-tion placement and will be the party to whom notice of special
education decisions is to be sent. In fact, both parents continue to have rights under the
IDEA unless the divorce decree specifies otherwise. Problems can arise, however,
where divorced par-ents have joint legal custody of a student. Must the school send
both parents copies of all general school notices or only notices about special education
matters? While there is not a great deal of litigation in this area, it is an issue that arises
from time to time. It seems that where there is joint legal custody, both parents retain
their rights under special education law, even when the parents disagree. This may
mean that one parent signs off on an education plan while the other seeks to challenge
it through a due pro-cess hearing. It is possible that, in extreme cases, an interim
judicial action may be necessary pending the final resolu…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
