Supreme Court cases on disruptive behaviors and special education services

¶ … Disruptive behaviors in elementary and secondary educational settings have long been a concern for educational administrators, teachers, and courts. The issue is exacerbated when considering disruptive behaviors exhibited by special education students. Given the requirements for a free and public education (FAPE) and the goal of least restrictive environments (LRE), there seems to be a balancing of interests between the needs of the child in special education and the competing interests of both teachers to teach other students, of non-special education students to receive quality education and school administrators to ensure a safe and secure educational setting for all students and instructors. For the purposes of this assignment, three cases will be analyzed; Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, S-1 v. Turlington, Honig v. Doe. These cases will be discussed in an effort to discern similarities and differences between the cases and how these similarities and differences influence and impact special education services.

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

The issues in Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) involved an 8-year-old female child with spina bifida. One of the child's disabilities was an inability to voluntary empty her bladder. Consequently, the child required a process known as clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) every few hours. The process of CIC did not require a great deal of specialized training. However, the child's IEP did not include a condition for school personnel to administer the CIC for the child, as she was unable to successfully complete the process herself. The child's parents invoked the Education of the Handicapped Act, arguing that CIC is one of the included "related services" under the statutory definition, and also invoked 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forbids a person, by reason of a handicap, to be "excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" any program receiving federal aid (Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 1984). The Supreme Court identified two issues in the case: The first is whether the Education of the Handicapped Act requires petitioner to [468 U.S. 883, 889] provide CIC services to Amber. The second is whether 504 of the Rehabilitation Act creates such an obligation. The Supreme Court held that the procedure of CIC services qualifies as a necessary supportive service that is required, pursuant to 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to assist handicapped children to receive special education services (Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 1984).

S-1 v. Turlington 635 F.2d 342 (1981)

The issues presented in S-1 v. Turlington 635 F.2d 342 (1981) involved a child with a 504 disability, who was suspended for disruptive conduct. In other words, because the child's IEP didn't incorporate a seriously emotionally disturbed classification, the child's conduct seemed unrelated to the actual IEP. The court in S-1 v. Turlington agreed with the lower court's ruling and found that a disabled child can't be expelled simply because of behaviors that indicate a serious emotional disturbance, even absent such a classification on the child's IEP. Interestingly, testimony from a psychologist in the case testified that that "a child with low intellectual functions and perhaps the lessening of control would respond to stress or respond to a threat in the only way that they feel adequate, which may be verbal aggressive behavior" S-1 v. Turlington 635 F.2d 342, 16 (1981). This type of behavior was a stress-related adaptation the disabled child might exhibit due to a given physical impairment. Essentially, then, the court in S-1 v. Turlington, held that, prior to expelling a handicapped child, a "trained and knowledgeable group of persons must determine whether the student's misconduct bears a relationship to his handicapping condition," that expulsion is necessarily a change in educational placement pursuant to section 504 and that, while expulsion may be a proper discipline under 504, the cessation of educational services are not proper.

Analysis

Taken together, these three cases suggest that there are many "grey areas" in interpreting precisely what reasons and justifications exist for excluding a child with an IEP from school classes pursuant to both FAPE and LRE. While disruptive behaviors are certainly a concern during school, the matter is subjective; what may be perceived as disruptive by some may be justified, expected, or even predicted behaviors by others. Because there is lacking consensus as to what behavioral transgressions meet criteria for expulsion, it is incumbent on school officials, teachers and administrators to consider that the burden of proof is placed on the school. School officials then, must mount a significant showing to demonstrate that a child's behaviors as so disruptive as to be excessively disruptive by norm referenced criteria. Therefore, subjective interpretations are not permissible to bolster and support removal of students with special needs from the classroom. In the case of Irving v.Tatro (468 U.S. 883-1994), the issue is further compounded given the court's reluctance to accept teacher hardships for accommodating students with special needs.

References:

IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. TATRO, Supreme Court of the United States, 1984, 468 U.S. 883

S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d 342.

Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)