Some argue that students with disabilities cannot comply with general education codes of conduct due to their disabilities, but they should still be included. Others argue that inclusion is detrimental, not only to general education students and teachers, but also to students with disabilities who manifest explosive and sometimes dangerous behaviors. 

The audience for this topic is educational professionals who work with students receiving special education services, administrators, policy-makers, researchers, parents, service providers, and others with a vested interest in the education of children with disabilities. This topic is both a personal and professional interest of mine, because I am both a special education teacher and a mother of four children, two of whom have special needs. More broadly, this is also a current hot topic in public discourse with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. 

At the state level, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) implements programs in compliance with IDEA and is responsible for ensuring the state meets federal requirements for funding. That involves ensuring policies and procedures comply with federal requirements and that students with disabilities receive special education program services to which they are entitled. TEA ensures federal compliance with regular reviews and an RDA (results-driven accountability) system that holds districts accountable for compliance with federal law.

Link: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33

State: At the state level, Texas Education Code Chapter 29: Special Education Program (Sec. 29.001 - 29.020) most closely aligns with IDEA by outlining rights and responsibilities for Texas’ special education students. 

Link: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm

Link: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/ed/htm/ed.37.htm

Administrative: An administrative law that aligns with the topic of legal and ethical considerations of discipline in special education is 19 Tex. Admin. Code §89.1053. Procedures for Use of Restraint and Time-Out. In part, the code addresses student safety and states, “Any behavior management technique and/or discipline management practice must be implemented in such a way as to protect the health and safety of the student and others. No discipline management practice may be calculated to inflict injury, cause harm, demean, or deprive the student of basic human necessities” (2024).

Link: https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/laws-and-rules/commissioner-rules-tac/coe-tac-currently-in-effect/ch089aa.pdf

• IDEA, which states, “a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) must be made available to all children with disabilities aged of 3 through 21,  including children who have been suspended or expelled from school” (34 CFR §300.530(d)); (20 USC §1412(a)(1) and 34 CFR §300.101(a)).”

• Texas Education Codes and Texas Administrative codes apply “when the use of physical restraint or time-out is necessary” (TEC 37.0021 and TAC 89.1053 for further guidance).

• Access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) from the ages of 3-21

• FAPE must include students who have been suspended or expelled (34 CFR §300.530(d)); (20 USC §1412(a)(1) and 34 CFR §300.101(a)). 

• Students must continue to receive services in the new setting according to their IEP (§300.101(a)), and

• Receive either behavioral assessment, interventions, and modifications to address the behavior violation

Requirements include:

• Special Education students may not be disciplined in a manner that results in a change to the student’s educational placement without an ARD to review the conduct

• When deciding placement change (suspension, DAEP placement, or expulsion), the district must consider whether the student’s disability “substantially impairs the student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student’s conduct.” 

• A comprehensive, individualized IEP, 504, or BIP (behavior intervention plan): This is important because well-written plans can proactively address behavior concerns before they become disciplinary issues

• Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) programs: These are important because they equip students with the skills to manage emotions, set goals, build healthy relationships, and make informed decisions. This, again, can help prevent larger disciplinary issues. 

• Restorative Justice: This risk-management strategy addresses behaviors after they have occurred. Rather than opting for removal or placement change, restorative justice can allow students the opportunity to face natural consequences and allow them to repair damaged relationships by giving them an opportunity to set things right. This encourages accountability.

I have firsthand experienced the frustration of documenting repeated violations of safety and behavioral codes and being turned away when recommending behavioral interventions that include a change of setting, where appropriate, based on student understanding and collected data. 

I have watched students receiving special education services receive preferential treatment in the class where the disruptions and violence are happening, resulting in general education students suffering adverse behavioral and academic changes as a result of fear and chaos resulting from said behaviors.

• A comprehensive, individualized IEP, 504, or BIP (behavior intervention plan) is the first line of defense against behavioral issues. A well-written plan can proactively address student needs, accommodations, and behavior concerns before they become disciplinary issues.

• Social-emotional programs and Restorative Justice are also proactive programs that can expose students to strategies for conflict resolution and emotional regulation, natural consequences, relationship-building, and accountability. Though these programs are not without their criticisms, such as continued overuse at times when disciplinary procedures would be more appropriate, they are a good defense early on to address minor behavioral issues before they become larger problems.

• Data collection is another important best practice when it comes to the discipline of students receiving services through Special Education. Without accurate and complete data, it can be very difficult to impossible to advocate for disciplinary measures. This often leads to conflict between teachers and administration and between teachers and students as teachers become frustrated with repeated violence and disruptions, but as the popular saying goes, “pictures or it didn’t happen.” 

• When proactive policies, such as those above, fail to resolve or address behavioral issues, the next best practice is to follow current policies with fidelity. Current policies require student understanding to be taken into consideration. Many special education students fully understand right from wrong, and these policies allow for the removal of a student for up to 10 days without the requirement for an ARD for change of placement. For many students and parents, this may serve as a necessary wake-up call that behavior has gone beyond what proactive practices and carefully implemented IEPs and accommodations can handle. In order to be implemented with fidelity, there must be data to support the students’ removal (i.e., behavioral logs, parent contact, and other interventions tried).

• When short-term disciplinary actions fail to address the issue, continued implementation of current policies with fidelity should continue to consider longer-term disciplinary actions. The best practice is to consider longer-term disciplinary placement. For this, it is necessary to hold an ARD. Data collected from the other steps in best practices (i.e., programs the student participated in, skills that have been taught, interventions/accommodations tried, and so on).

• Finally, when all else fails, it is best practice to consider a shift in the mindset of inclusive education. Sometimes, there is a culture of “inclusion at all costs” that does not serve students well. At this point, the FAPE and safety of all impacted should be considered. In addition, it should be questioned whether the current setting is truly the least restrictive for the student or if it actually restricts the student by failing to provide the appropriate boundaries and setting to help the student be successful. This will require revision of the IEP and may require a different placement for the student who is struggling with behaviors.