volume 13, number 1 journal of specialeducation leadership · volume 13, number 1 journal of...

Volume 13, Number 1

Journal of

SpecialEducation

LeadershipThe Journal of the Council of Administrators of Special Education

A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children

Special Issue Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion of Students with Disabilities

Articles Ensuring Compliance With the Discipline Provisions of IDEA ’97: Challenges and Opportunities..................................................................3—Mitchell L. Yell, Ph.D., Antonis Katsiyannis, Renee Bradley, Ph.D., and Michael E. Rozalski, M.A.

Race, Discipline, and Educational Leadership: African American Student Perspectives on the Decatur, IL Incident ......................................................19—RoSusan Bartee, M.A., Jerrell Beckham, B.A., Chandra Gill, B.S., Chion Graves, M.A., Kashelia Jackson, M.A., Rodreic Land, M.A., Dawn Williams, B.S., and Laurence Parker, Ph.D.

Multiattribute Utility (MAU): A Pragmatic Approach to Goal-Based Program Evaluation in Special Education ..................................................................30—James R. Thompson, Ph.D., Ron N. Erickson, Ph.D., Sheryl Wernsing Piercy, Ed.D., and James Carstens, M.S.

Continuum of Educational Programs: A Key to Proactive Discipline for Special Education Students—Superintendent Commentary ................................40—Ralph L. Marshall, Ed.D.

CASE IN POINT: Alternatives to Removal as a Disciplinary Sanction....................43—Cal Evans, Ed.D.

Editor

Dr. Mary Lynn BoscardinUniversity of Massachusetts atAmherst

Assistant to the Editor

Rachel ParkerUniversity of Massachusetts atAmherst

Board of Associate Editors

Dr. Patricia AnthonyCape Cod Lighthouse Charter SchoolOrleans, MA

Dr. Colleen A. CapperUniversity of Wisconsin Madison

Dr. Carl LashleyUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro

Dr. Edward Lee VargasSanta Fe Public SchoolsSanta Fe, NM

Review Board

Dr. Kenneth M. BirdWestside Community Schools Omaha, NE

Dr. Leonard C. BurrelloIndiana University • Bloomington, IN

Dr. Jean B. CrockettVirginia Tech • Blacksburg, VA

Dr. Pia DurkinBoston Public SchoolsDorchester, MA

Dr. Margaret E. GoertzUniversity of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA

Ms. Charlene A. GreenClark County School District Las Vegas, NV

Dr. Susan Brody HasaziUniversity of VermontBurlington, VT

Dr. Robert HendersonUniversity of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign, IL

Dr. Dawn L. HunterChapman University • Orange, CA

Dr. Shirley R. McBrideCanadian Government • Victoria, BC

Dr. Harold McGradyDivision of Learning DisabilitiesArlington, VA

Dr. Judy MontgomeryChapman University • Orange, CA

Dr. Michael OpudaMaine Department of Education Augusta, ME

Dr. Tom ParrishAmerican Institutes For Research Palo Alto, CA

Dr. Ted RiggenBarry Town School • Barry, VT

Dr. Kenneth E. SchneiderOrange County Public Schools Orlando, FL

Dr. Thomas M. SkrticUniversity of Kansas • Lawrence, KS

Dr. Martha ThurlowNational Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota • Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Deborah A. VerstegenUniversity of Virginia Charlottesville, VA

Dr. David WoodAurora Public Schools • Aurora, CO

Dr. Jim YatesUniversity of Texas at Austin Austin, TX

CASE Executive Committee 1999-2000

Jonathan McIntire, President

Beverly McCoun, President-Elect

Pat Guthrie, Past President

Christy Chambers, Secretary

Robert Van Dyke, Treasurer

Luann Purcell, Representative of CASE Units

Kelly Evans, Governor to CEC

Richard Zigler, Canadian Representative

Steve Milliken, Membership Chair

Judy Montgomery, Policy & Legislation Chair

Mary Lynn Boscardin, Journal Editor

Cheryl Zinszer, Publications and Product Review Chair

Brenda Heiman, Professional Development Chair

Jo Thomason, Executive Director

Editorial Board

The Editorial MissionThe primary goal of the Journal of Special Education Leadership is to provide both practicing administrators and researchers of special education administration and policy with relevant tools and sources of informationbased on recent advances in administrative theory, research, and practice. The Journal of Special EducationLeadership is a journal dedicated to issues in special education administration, leadership, and policy issues. It is a refereed journal that directly supports CASE’s main objectives, which are to foster research, learning,teaching, and practice in the field of special education administration and to encourage the extension of special education administration knowledge to other fields. Articles for the Journal of Special EducationLeadership should enhance knowledge about the process of managing special education service delivery systems, as well as reflect on techniques, trends, and issues growing out of research on special education that is significant. Preference will be given to articles that have a broad appeal, wide applicability, and immediate usefulness to administrators, other practitioners, and researchers.

SubscriptionsThe Journal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Educationin conjunction with Sopris West. Copy requests should be made to CASE, 615 16th Street NW, Albuquerque,NM 87104. Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at areduced rate. Members receive a copy of the Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of their membershipfee. See back cover for subscription form.

AdvertisingThe Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conferenceannouncements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products, materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates.

PermissionsThe Journal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes without permission or charge by the publisher. For information on permission to quote, reprint, or translate material,please write or call the editor.

Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, EditorJournal of Special Education Leadership175 Hills-SouthSchool of EducationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst, MA 01003

CopyrightThe Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education adminis-tration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education in conjunction with Sopris West tofoster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special educationadministration. The Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copy-righted articles. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is theresponsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth byadopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution with-out permission from the publisher.

Published in partnership with

Sopris West4093 Specialty PlaceLongmont, CO 80504

Phone: (303) 651-2829Fax: (303) 776-5934 www.sopriswest.com

Journal of Special Education LeadershipVolume 13, Number 1

2Journal of Special Education Leadership 13(1) • April 2000

The topic of discipline in JSEL is timely as more lively student activity arrives with the advent of spring. Honig v. Doe(479 U.S. 1084, 1988) was decided well over a decade ago, yet the debate still continues over appropriate discipline procedures for students with disabilities. One expects that the doubts and confusion about how to best develop policiesaddressing the discipline of students with disabilities would have long been resolved by now. This, however, is not thecase, particularly in environments of zero tolerance where little tolerance exists for individualized, flexible approaches to school discipline policies. Many, not only in zero tolerance communities, see discipline through their own unencum-bered personal experiences they had growing up. An often heard statement is, “Well if [the method of discipline]worked for me, why won’t it work for students today?” The idea of not applying discipline uniformly can be disconcert-ing, particularly when the perception is that “privileged” groups receive special treatment while other “less privileged”groups do not. It is difficult to understand and accept that needs vary among students depending on the special circum-stances they present at the schoolhouse door.

Students, teachers, parents, and even administrators often equate suspension and expulsion with removal of all edu-cational supports and programming. Yet, students receiving disciplinary sanctions require increased time on learning.The tacit, but very explicit, message to students who are suspended or expelled is, “You do not deserve to be educated.”These students often have a long history of academic failure. One wonders how the disparity in academic performancebetween students requiring disciplinary actions and their classmates who do not require such actions could be in thebest interest of the students or the school system.

Students who require disciplinary interventions are not necessarily seen as lovable. Student attitudes and facultyperceptions often derail the desire to help students requiring disciplinary interventions, making effective programmingdifficult to achieve. Disciplinary actions reinforce students’ perceptions of themselves as unsuccessful, adding to a longlist of failures that extends well beyond the school walls. For suspended or expelled students, it is easier to capitulateand drop out.

Students with disabilities are often placed at risk for further educational failure. This is not to suggest these individ-uals should be waived from disciplinary actions. The decision to apply a disciplinary intervention, however, should befree from bias and should neither discriminate on the basis of disability, culture, language, race, age, and gender, norimpede educational progress.

The argument for a more individualized approach to discipline within a uniform disciplinary framework wouldseem reasonable. When students commit an infraction, they must recognize that a rule was broken and assume fullresponsibility for their behavior. Schools can facilitate this process by delivering a disincentive coupled with a strongeducational and counseling component to assist students with accepting responsibility for their actions.

Any type of special programming implies resources that schools often do not have available. This requires creativityon the part of administrators, school board members, teachers, special committees, and task forces who contribute thedevelopment and implementation of programs.

The articles in this issue of JSEL are intended to assist with the development of creative solutions to disciplinaryactions. Mitchell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannis, Renee Bradley, and Michael Rozalski explore methods for assuring compli-ance with the discipline provisions of IDEA ‘97. RoSusan Bartee, Jerrell Beckham, Chandra Gill, Chion Graves, Kashelia Jackson, Rodreic Land, Dawn Williams, and Laurence Parker each take a very hard look at the role race plays indisciplinary sanction decisions through their reflections and critique of the recent and much publicized Decatur, IL inci-dent. James Thompson, Ron Erickson, Sheryl Piercy, and James Carstens provide tools for engaging in a goal-based eval-uation process that leads to identifying and customizing priorities for all educational areas, not just discipline, at theschool building or district level. Ralph Marshall presents us with one superintendent’s approach to proactive discipline,not only for students with disabilities but for all students, through a continuum of educational programming. Finally,Cal Evans provides a matrix of alternatives to disciplinary referral, disciplinary interventions, and disciplinary removals.

In this issue of JSEL, we have tried to provide you with a balanced mix of discussion and tools to assist with thedevelopment of disciplinary alternatives that can be adapted to your particular educational setting. We hope you findthis useful.

Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., [email protected]

A Letter from the Editor

Ensuring Compliance With the DisciplineProvisions of IDEA ’97Challenges and Opportunities

Mitchell L. Yell, Ph.D. Antonis Katsiyannis, Ph.D.University of South Carolina Clemson University

Renee Bradley, Ph.D. Michael E. Rozalski, M.A.Office of Special Education Programs University of South Carolina

• Due process protections must be extended to all students when applying short-term and long-term suspensions and exclusions.

• School disciplinary policies must not violate the protections for students with disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

• Legally correct and educationally appropriate responses must be made when students with disabilitiesexhibit serious problem behavior.

• Problem behaviors in the IEP (e.g., goals and objectives, functional behavioral assessments, and behaviorintervention plans) must be proactively addressed.


Since the passage of the Education of AllHandicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975,

disciplining students with disabilities has been anextremely controversial and confusing issue. TheEAHCA, renamed the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA) in 1990, created a detailed setof rules and guidelines to ensure the appropriateeducation of students who were eligible for specialeducation programs. However, the IDEA containedno federal requirements regarding discipline.Administrators and teachers, therefore, have had lit-tle legislative guidance with respect to their rightsand responsibilities when having to discipline stu-dents with disabilities.

In the Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct Amendments of 1997 (hereafter IDEA ’97),Congress addressed a number of issues related todiscipline. Many questions regarding discipline werefurther clarified when the U.S. Department ofEducation released the final regulations to IDEA ’97,which became effective on May 11, 1999. Accordingto the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)of the Department of Education (1997), the goals ofthe disciplinary provisions of IDEA ’97 were that: (1)all students, including students with disabilities,

deserve safe, well-disciplined schools and orderlylearning environments; (2) teachers and schooladministrators should have the tools they need toassist them in preventing misconduct and disciplineproblems and to address those problems, if theyarise; (3) there must be a balanced approach to theissue of discipline of students with disabilities thatreflects the need for orderly and safe schools and theneed to protect the right of students with disabilitiesto a free appropriate public education (FAPE); and(4) students have the right to an appropriately devel-oped individual education program (IEP) with well-designed behavior intervention strategies.

The purpose of the discipline provisions of thelaw was to expand the authority of school officials to protect the safety of all children and to maintainorderly, drug-free, and disciplined school environ-ments, while ensuring the essential rights and protections for students with disabilities (Letter to Anonymous, 1999). In addressing discipline,Congress sought to help schools: (1) respond appro-priately when students with disabilities exhibit seri-ous problem behavior; and (2) proactively addressproblem behavior in the IEP process when it occurs.Whether Congress succeeded in this effort will be


evident in public schools’ ability to carry out the dis-ciplinary provisions of IDEA ’97.

Unfortunately, there are several inconsistenciesand unanswered questions regarding discipline andIDEA ’97. Moreover, many of the discipline issuesthat school districts will face have not been ade-quately resolved in IDEA ‘97 (Groeschel, 1998).Future hearings, court cases, policy statements fromOSEP, and the next reauthorization of IDEA mayhelp to resolve these issues. These answers, however,will come too late for school officials who are facingdiscipline problems now.

In this article we address the challenges andopportunities school districts will face in carryingout the discipline provisions of IDEA ’97. First, wereview three important considerations school districtofficials face when disciplining students with dis-abilities. These issues are not directly addressed inthe law, nonetheless, adherence to these require-ments is extremely important. Next, we focus on themajor areas addressed in the discipline section ofIDEA ’97. In each of these sections we: (1) review therequirements of the law and regulations; (2) explainrelevant hearings, court decisions, and policy state-ments addressing the IDEA’s mandates; and (3) offerour analysis of school districts’ obligations based onthe law, hearings and court decisions, and researchbased practices. Finally, we propose recommenda-tions to assist school officials to meet the disciplinerequirements of IDEA ’97 in a legally correct andeducationally appropriate manner.

In this article we address the challenges and oppor-

tunities school districts will face in carrying out the

discipline provisions of IDEA ’97.

Important Considerations When Disciplining StudentsWith DisabilitiesIDEA ’97 addresses a number of areas with respectto disciplining students with disabilities. There are,however, three crucial aspects of discipline that arenot covered in the law. It is important that school

officials understand these requirements and adhereto them when applying disciplinary sanctions. Theserequirements include: (1) fashioning clear and rea-sonable discipline policies and procedures; (2)extending due process protections when necessary;and (3) ensuring that disciplinary procedures are notapplied in a discriminatory manner. We next reviewthese requirements.

Fashioning Clear and ReasonableDiscipline Policies and ProceduresAccording to polls both the general public and professional educators believe that schools are nolonger able to effectively discipline students, andthat as a result, schools are no longer safe andorderly environments (Harris, 1998; Rose & Gallup,1998). Clearly, to maintain discipline, and to operateefficiently and effectively, schools must have rulesthat regulate student conduct. This means that stu-dents should clearly know which behaviors areacceptable and which are prohibited. If students violate reasonable school rules by behaving in waysthat are prohibited, they should be held accountable.Student accountability to rules usually implies thatviolators will be subject to disciplinary sanctions orconsequences.

School officials have long recognized that if students understand what types of behavior are pro-hibited when they are in school, and what the conse-quences of engaging in the prohibited behavior willbe, it will be more likely that students will conductthemselves appropriately. Typically, school officialsdevelop policies and procedures addressing stu-dents’ conduct. In considering school discipline poli-cies, the courts have tended to give great authorityto teachers and school officials to write rules thatgovern student behavior in school (Goss v. Lopez,1975; Bethel v. Fraser, 1986). Additionally, courtshave granted school officials the authority todevelop and impose consequences on students whobreak the school’s rules. When developing schoolpolicies regulating student conduct, rules and conse-quences should have a carefully considered rationaleand a school-related purpose. Rules must be clearenough to allow students to distinguish permissiblefrom prohibited behavior. School rules that are toovague or general may result in the violation of stu-

Discipline


dents’ rights because students will not have a clearunderstanding of them.

Unfortunately, many school officials believe thatbecause of IDEA ’97’s restrictions on disciplinarysanctions, school district policies regarding studentbehavior do not apply to students with disabilities.This is a misunderstanding of the law. Students withdisabilities being educated in classroom environ-ments are subject to a school district’s disciplinepolicies and procedures (Gorn, 1999). There are,however, a few situations in which general disciplinepolicies must be changed when applied to studentsin special education. These situations are when theschool district’s disciplinary policy: (1) deprives astudent of his or her special education and relatedservices (i.e., long term suspensions or expulsionswithout providing educational services); (2) triggersthe procedural safeguards of the IDEA (e.g., changesa student’s placement without a change in the indi-vidualized education program or without notice);and (3) is abrogated by a student’s individualizededucation program (IEP), behavior intervention plan(BIP), or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973(29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.) accommodation plan. Forinstance, a student’s IEP may require that a certaindisciplinary sanction will be used rather than thegeneral school disciplinary sanction (e.g., in-schoolsuspension rather than out-of-school suspension). Insuch situations, the student’s IEP must be followedrather than using the school’s discipline policy.

Students with disabilities being educated in class-

room environments are subject to a school district’s

discipline policies and procedures (Gorn, 1999).

If a student’s IEP team determines that he or shewill be subject to the school district’s regular discipli-nary policy, and the policy does not violate therequirements of the IEP, the team may use the stu-dent’s IEP or BIP to affirm that the student will besubject to the district’s discipline policies and proce-dures (Gorn, 1999). This may be done by including acopy of the school’s discipline policy as an adden-dum to the IEP or BIP. In such cases, if the parentsagree to the IEP or BIP, they are consenting to usingthe school’s regular discipline policy. The Departmentof Education seemingly supported such a view in a

comment to the final IDEA regulations, “in appropri-ate circumstances the IEP team … might include spe-cific regular or alternative disciplinary measures thatwould result from particular infractions of schoolrules” (OSEP Question and Answers, 12589, 1999). Ifan IEP team decides that a student will be subject toan alternative discipline plan, this plan should beincluded in the student’s IEP, BIP, or Section 504 plan.

Extending Due Process Protections to All StudentsIn Goss v. Lopez (1975; hereafter Goss), the U.S.Supreme Court held that students have due processprotections when school officials use disciplinaryprocedures such as suspension that remove studentsfrom the school environment for up to ten days (i.e.,short-term suspensions). The purpose of these dueprocess procedures is to ensure that official decisionsare made in a fair manner. The protections affordedstudents, however, are limited by the state’s interestin maintaining order and discipline in the schools.The High Court held that for suspensions of tendays or less the student must receive: (1) oral orwritten notice of the charges; (2) an explanation ofthe charges and evidence that supports them; and (3)an opportunity to present his or her side of the story.Generally the notice and hearing requirementsshould precede the removal of a student fromschool. In emergency situations, however, the stu-dent may be removed from school immediately, butthe necessary notice and hearing should follow assoon as possible.

These due process protections will not shield students from properly imposed suspensions.Rather, the purpose of the protections is to protectstudents from an unfair or mistaken suspension.According to the Supreme Court, suspensions orexpulsions in excess of ten school days may requiremore extensive due process procedures. Althoughthe Court did not elaborate on these procedures,they should include written notice of the hearingand evidence against a student, and a formal hearingin which a student could introduce evidence, facehis or her accusers, present witnesses, be representedby a lawyer, and appeal the suspension/expulsiondecision to a state educational agency.

The due process protections outlined in Goss,must be extended to all students who face suspen-

Discipline


sions. IDEA ’97 does not create more rigorous proce-dural protections for students with disabilities thanthe minimal protections in Goss (Gorn, 1999). If sus-pensions of students with disabilities exceed ten con-secutive school days or amounts to a change inplacement, however, the procedural protections ofthe IDEA apply.

Ensuring That Disciplinary Procedures are not Applied in a Discriminatory MannerAll students with mental or physical impairmentsthat affect a major life function are protected fromdiscrimination under Section 504 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereafter Section 504).This includes students with disabilities who are alsocovered by the IDEA. Discrimination refers tounequal treatment of qualified students with disabil-ities based solely on the basis of the disability.

There are three primary ways that school dis-tricts run afoul of Section 504 when disciplining stu-dents with disabilities. These mistakes are: (1) usingdisciplinary procedures on misbehaving studentswith disabilities that are not used with nondisabledstudents who exhibit similar misbehavior; (2) long-term suspending, expelling, or changing the place-ment of a student with disabilities for misbehaviorthat is related to the student’s disability; or (3) disci-plining a student using procedures that are prohib-ited in the IEP or behavior plan. To ensure thatdiscipline is not applied in a discriminatory manner,and thus in violation of Section 504, school officialsshould adopt the following procedures. First, whenappropriate, use the same disciplinary procedureswith both students with and without disabilities. Insuch situations, IEP teams or Section 504 teamsshould include the school’s regular disciplinary pol-icy in a student’s IEP or accommodation plan.Second, as required by IDEA ’97, manifestationdeterminations should be conducted to assess therelationship between a student’s disability and mis-conduct before using long-term suspensions, expul-sions, or making changes of placements (see thesection on manifestation determinations). Third,administrators must ensure that all school officialsand the student’s teachers understand the contentsof the IEP, BIP, or Section 504 plans and follow theinterventions and disciplinary procedures contained

in these documents. Discipline plans written intoIEPs or Section 504 plans preempt a school district’sregular disciplinary code (Gorn, 1998).

Disciplinary Provisions in IDEA ’97The discipline provisions of IDEA ’97 have proven tobe the most controversial aspect of the law (Hartwig& Reusch, 2000). Furthermore, these provisions con-tain several inconsistencies and do not adequatelyresolve many of the discipline issues that school offi-cials will continue to face (Groeschel, 1998). Giventhe complexities of IDEA ‘97, it is imperative thatschool personnel become aware of the law and cor-responding regulations and have developed the nec-essary capacity for their effective implementation.

Given the complexities of IDEA ‘97, it is imperative

that school personnel become aware of the law and

corresponding regulations ...

Three major points underlie the disciplinarychanges of IDEA ‘97. First, the law emphasizes theuse of positive behavioral interventions, supports,and services for students with disabilities whoexhibit problem behaviors. The purpose of positiveprogramming is to teach appropriate behaviors toincrease the likelihood of a student’s success inschool and in post-school life, rather than merelyusing punishment-based programming to eliminateinappropriate behavior. When appropriate, theseprocedures must be included in students’ IEPs.Second, school officials may discipline a studentwith disabilities in the same manner as they disci-pline students without disabilities, with a few excep-tions. A school’s regular disciplinary procedures canbe used with students with IEPs as long as they: (1)are used with nondisabled students and studentswith disabilities (i.e., the procedures are not discrim-inatory); (2) do not result in a unilateral change in astudent’s placement (i.e., suspension in excess of tencumulative school days that constitutes a pattern of exclusion, change of educational placement madeby school personnel and not the IEP team, andexpulsion from school); and (3) do not result in the

Discipline


cessation of educational services. Third, disciplineshould be addressed through the IEP process. Weanticipate that school districts are most likely to vio-late the disciplinary provisions of IDEA ’97 by: (1)failing to address problem behavior and discipline inthe IEP process; and (2) not following the behavioralplans and disciplinary procedures indicated in a stu-dent’s IEP and IDEA ‘97 (e.g., a principal expels astudent with disabilities and fails to adhere to thediscipline plan in the IEP). Moreover, if school per-sonnel and parents can arrive at solutions to a stu-dent’s discipline problems through the IEP process(e.g., changing a student’s placement to an alterna-tive school rather than moving to expel him or her)there is no need to invoke the disciplinary provisionsof IDEA ’97. Table 1 (on following page) lists theprocedures and restrictions school officials must fol-low when disciplining students with disabilities. Wenext provide analysis and commentary on six of thediscipline sections of IDEA ’97 that we believe willhave the greatest effect on school officials.

Addressing Problem Behavior in the IEPIDEA ‘97 requires that if a student with disabilitieshas behavior problems (regardless of the student’sdisability category) that impede his or her learningor the learning of others, the student’s IEP team shallconsider “strategies, including positive behavioralinterventions strategies, and supports to address thatbehavior” (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(3)(B)(i)).Comments to the federal regulations indicate that ifa student has a history of problem behavior or ifsuch behaviors can be readily anticipated the stu-dent’s IEP must address that behavior.

Addressing problem behavior appropriatelyincludes: (1) conducting an assessment of the prob-lem behavior; (2) writing measurable annual goalsand benchmarks or short-term objectives to addressthe problem behaviors; and (3) providing the appro-priate special education and related services, including supplementary aides and services, that are required to allow the student to meet the goalsand objectives. For such students, a proactive BIPmay also be developed and included with the IEP.The purpose of the BIP is to address the behaviorproblems through the consideration of strategies,including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to ameliorate the problems.

This plan is clearly more than a management plandelineating disciplinary procedures to be used witha student. However, if appropriate, the plan can alsoinclude the specific disciplinary procedures that willbe followed with a student. This may be the school’sregular disciplinary system or an alternative disci-pline system developed by a student’s IEP teamspecifically for the student. For example, if in-schoolsuspension is used when a student engages in cer-tain behaviors, this should be included in the disci-pline plan portion of the IEP or BIP. According to acomment to the IDEA regulations, such a disciplineplan, when included with the positive behavioralintervention plan would constitute a comprehensiveplan to address a student’s problem behavior (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300, Appendix B,Question 38).

For example, if in-school suspension is used when

a student engages in certain behaviors, this should

be included in the discipline plan portion of the

IEP or BIP.

Thomas Hehir, the former director of the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S.Department of Education, indicated that “the keyprovision in IDEA ’97 is using positive behavioralinterventions and supports” in the IEPs of studentswith disabilities who exhibit significant problembehaviors (Letter to Anonymous, 1999). In fact, failure to do so “would constitute a denial of FAPE” and, therefore, result in an illegal IEP(IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300, Appendix B,Question 38).

Short-Term Disciplinary RemovalsIDEA ’97 authorizes school officials to suspend stu-dents with disabilities to the extent that suspensionsare used with students without disabilities. There isno specific amount of time that school officials mustadhere to in suspending students with disabilities.However, educational services must be providedafter the tenth day of removal. Specifically, schoolsmust provide services to the extent necessary toenable the student to progress in the general education curriculum and appropriately advance

Discipline


Discipline

Key Points Explanation

• In the case of a student with disabilities whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, the IEP teammust consider, when appropriate, behavioral interventions and strategies to address that behavior (IDEA, 20 U.S.C.§ 1414(d)(3)(B)(I)).

• An IEP addressing problem behavior must includes (a) information regarding the behavior in the present levels ofeducational performance; (b) behavior goals and benchmarks or short-term objectives (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R.§ 300.346(a)(2)); (c) specific special education and related service related to the goals; and (d) supplementary aids,services, and modifications that will allow the student to participate in the regular classroom (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §1414(1)(A); IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.346(a)(3)).

• Soon after removing a student from school for ten days, changing placement, or placing a student in an interimalternative educational setting for a weapons or drug offense, an IEP meeting must be convened to conduct a FBAand implement a BIP. If the student already has a behavior invention plan, the IEP team shall review the plan andmodify it if necessary (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B); IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.523).

• FBAs do not have to be conducted nor do BIPs have to be developed when a student has been removed fromschool for less than ten days in a school year (OSEP comment on functional behavioral assessments, 1999).

• Failure to conduct a FBA and develop an appropriate BIP may lead to a district’s disciplinary actions being over-turned (Freeport Public Schools, 1997; Akron C.S.D., 1998; William S. Hart High School, 1997).

• School officials may remove a student with a disability to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting,another setting, or suspend the student for not more than ten days in the same year, to the extent that such alterna-tives are used with students without disabilities (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(A); IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.520).

• Students with disabilities may be suspended for less than ten school days even if the misbehavior is related to thestudent’s disability under the IDEA (Honig v. Doe, 1988) and Section 504 (Waterford Bd. of Ed. 1994).

• Educational services do not have to be provided to students with disabilities who have been suspended for tenschool days or less in a school year (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 520(a)(1)).

• Short-term removals of less than 10 days do not require a manifestation determination, FBA, nor the provision ofeducational services (OSEP Discipline Guidance, 1997).

• Short-term removals of less than ten consecutive days do not constitute a change of placement nor do they triggerthe IDEA’s change of placement procedures (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(a)).

• Accumulations of short-term suspensions totaling over ten school days in a year may constitute a change of place-ment subject to the procedural safeguards of the IDEA. Whether a series of suspensions constitutes a change inplacement can only be determined by the IEP team (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.519(b)).

• If bus transportation is a related service, a day of bus suspension is a day of out-of-school suspension, unless theschool district provides another kind of transportation (64 Federal Register 12619, 1999).

• Long-term suspensions and expulsions are changes in placement, and the procedural requirements of the IDEAmust be followed.

• School officials considering expulsion must reconvene the IEP team to complete a FBA and a manifestation deter-mination.

• If an IEP team properly determines that students’ misbehavior is not related to their disability and the school com-plies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA (conducting an FBA, notice to parents, continuation of educa-tional services), students can be subjected to long-term disciplinary removals and expulsions to the same extent aswould nondisabled students.

• Schools can place students in interim alternative educational settings for not longer than 45 calendar days if they:(a) carry a weapon to school or to a school function, or acquire a weapon at school; (b) knowingly possess or useillegal drugs, or sell or solicit the sale of a contraband weapon (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(A)(1)(ii); IDEARegulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(a)(2)).

• A school district may request that an impartial due process hearing officer remove a student to an IAES if a studentpresents a danger to him or herself or others. In such situations the school must prove that they have made reason-able efforts to minimize the risk of harm and have an appropriate IAES (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(2); and IDEARegulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.521).

• A school district may not unilaterally suspend a student with disabilities for more than ten consecutive school daysif the triggering misconduct was related to his or her disability (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)).

• If school districts and parents agree about a proposed change of placement for disciplinary reasons, the IDEA pro-visions regarding length of removal do not have to be followed (OSEP Comments (b), 1999).

• School officials may suspend a student for more than 10 consecutive school days for conduct that is not related tohis or her disability (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(5)(A)).

• When using long-term suspension or expulsion, school officials must (a) notify parents in accordance with theIDEA’s mandates and (b) provide educational services to the student. Parents also have a right to request a dueprocess hearing to object to the school’s actions.

Table 1: Disciplinary Provisions in the Statutes and Regulations of IDEA ’97

Addressing problem behavior in the IEP

Functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and behavior intervention plans (BIPs)

Short-term removals

Long-term disciplinary removals

continued—


toward achieving IEP goals. For example, if a stu-dent is suspended for ten cumulative days in the fallsemester, and is then suspended for three more daysin the spring term, educational services must be pro-vided from the first day in which cumulative sus-pensions exceed ten days or, in this case, the firstday of suspension in the spring. Therefore, schoolofficials may implement additional short-term sus-pensions for separate incidents of misconduct, aslong as they provide educational services to the sus-pended student. Although not directly addressed inIDEA ’97, if a student is suspended for less than tenschool days, a school district is not required to con-tinue educational services (IDEA Regulations, 34C.F.R. § 300.121(d)(1)).

School personnel should keep thorough recordsof the amount of days in which students with dis-abilities are removed from schools for disciplinaryreasons so they do not inadvertently violate the pro-visions of IDEA ’97. Moreover, schools should useout-of-school suspensions judiciously and in emer-gency situations. Martin (1999) contends that the fre-quency and amount of short-term removals, if theyare excessive, may be indicative of a defective IEP.He asserts that the greater the number of short-termdisciplinary removals, the greater the likelihood thata hearing officer will find that the behavior portionof the IEP is inappropriate and a deprivation of thestudent’s right to a free appropriate public education(FAPE). Indeed, if a student is approaching tencumulative days of suspension, the IEP team should

Discipline

Key Points Explanation

• The IAES is the method under IDEA ’97 to provide a free appropriate education (FAPE) to students who have beenremoved from schools for disciplinary reasons (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(a)(2)).

• School personnel may not unilaterally place a student in an IAES for dangerous behavior, this can only be done byan impartial due process hearing officer (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(a)(2)).

• The IEAS must allow the student to continue to participate in the general curriculum, although in another setting,and to continue to receive those special education and related services and modifications that are included in theIEP. The IAES must continue to address the student’s behavior problems so that the student can succeed in class-room settings (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.522; OSEP Questions and Answers, 1999).

• School officials may place a student in an IAES when a student with disabilities is removed from school: (a) for tendays or less; (b) for 45 calendar days for a weapon or drug offense; or (c) by decision of the IEP team, including astudent’s parents (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(2)).

• When a student is placed in an IAES for more than a ten-day suspension, the IAES must be determined by the IEPteam.

• Although it is not required by IDEA ’97, if a school district places a student in an IAES for under ten days, the edu-cational services may be determined by the student’s special education teacher.

• If a disciplinary action involving long-term suspension (over ten days), expulsion, or change of placement is con-templated, the IEP team must conduct a manifestation determination hearing immediately, but no later than tenschool days, after the decision to take the action is made (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k); IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.520-300.526). Parents must be notified of the manifestation decision and their procedural rights immediatelyafter the decision is made (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(6)).

• All disciplinary actions that remove a student from the normal educational setting for more than ten consecutivedays is a change of placement that requires a manifestation determination.

• The purpose of the hearing is to determine the relationship between a student’s disability and misbehavior. If norelationship exists, a student can be disciplined in the same manner as would a nondisabled student for a similaroffense, except that educational services must continue. If there is a relationship, the student can only be disci-plined in accordance with the requirements of the IDEA.

• When conducting a manifestation hearing, the IEP team must consider all relevant information, including evalua-tion and diagnostic results, observations, and a student’s IEP and placement.

• Removals of ten days or less do not require a manifestation determination (OSEP Discipline Guidance, 1997).

• A student who has not been identified as eligible for special education may assert protection under the IDEA ifschool officials had knowledge that the student had a disability before the misbehavior that precipitated the disci-plinary action (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.527(a)).

• School officials shall be deemed to have knowledge if: (a) the parent of the student had expressed a concern inwriting; (b) the behavior or performance of the student demonstrates the need for special education services; (c)the parent of the student had requested a special education evaluation; or (d) the student’s teacher or other schoolstaff had expressed concerns about the student’s behavior (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.527(b)).

The interim alternative educational setting (IAES)

Manifestation determination

Protection of students not yet eligible for special education

Table 1: Disciplinary Provisions in the Statutes and Regulations of IDEA ’97 (continued)


be convened to review the student’s behavioralplans, conduct a functional behavioral assessment,and develop or review the student’s BIP. Martin(1999) also suggests that the IEP team should alsoconduct a manifestation determination prior to theeleventh day of accumulated short-term removals.

Finally, when students with disabilities areremoved from school for misconduct, IDEA ‘97’slimitations on the amount of time that students can be removed will not come into play if schoolpersonnel and parents work out arrangementsregarding an appropriate educational program andplacement through the IEP process (Hartwig &Reusch, 2000). If arrangements cannot be madethrough the IEP process, there is a point whenrepeated short-term removals may be interpreted asa change in placement. Changes of placement canonly be made through the IEP process; therefore,unilateral changes of placement are illegal under theIDEA. Figure 1 is a checklist that depicts importantconsiderations when using short-term disciplinaryremovals.

Accumulations of Short-Term Removals

School officials may not remove a student for aseries of short-term suspensions in excess of ten daysin a school year if these suspensions constitute a pat-tern of exclusion. Such a pattern constitutes a unilat-eral change of placement, which is a violation of theIDEA. However, not all suspensions in excess of tendays would constitute a change in placement.Although the law and regulations do not definewhen short-term removals become a change inplacement, the law clearly indicates that the properforum for determining when such a change occurs isthe IEP team. To determine if a series of suspensionsconstitutes such a change, an IEP team must deter-mine the circumstances surrounding the suspension,including: (1) the length of each removal; (2) thetotal amount of time that the student is removed;and (3) the proximity of the removals to one another(IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.520, Note 1).Thus, the decision to classify a series of suspensionsas a change in placement can only be decided on acase-by-case basis.

Long-Term Disciplinary RemovalsSchool officials may unilaterally place a student withdisabilities in an appropriate interim alternative edu-cational setting for up to 45 days if: (1) the studentbrings a weapon to school, or possesses or acquires aweapon at school or a school function; or (2) know-ingly possesses, uses, or sells illegal drugs, or sells acontrolled substance at school or a school function(IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)). A weapon is definedas a “weapon, device, instrument, material, or sub-stance ... that is used for, or is readily capable of,causing death or serious bodily injury” (IDEA, 20U.S.C. § 615(k)(10)(D)). (For a list of weapons cov-ered under the IDEA see the Federal Criminal Code,18 U.S.C. § 930(g)). A controlled substance refers to alegally prescribed medication (e.g., Ritalin) that isillegally sold by a student. (For a list of controlledsubstances covered by the IDEA see the ControlledSubstances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812(c)). Students can beremoved for up to 45 days for weapons or drugoffenses, even when the misbehavior is related to the student’s disability.

Until the passage of IDEA ‘97, school districtshad to seek a temporary restraining order from acourt to remove a student with disabilities who

Discipline

Were due process procedures administered properly?

Did school administrators:❑ Provide oral or written notice of charges

against the student?❑ If the student denied the charges, provide

an explanation of the evidence supportingthe charges?

❑ Offer an opportunity for the student to present his or her side of the story?

Was the IEP team convened prior to theeleventh day of removal?

Did the team:❑ Develop a plan for conducting the

functional behavioral assessment?❑ Develop or review the behavior

intervention plan?❑ Develop a plan to ensure that the student

continues to receive a free appropriate public education?

Figure 1: Checklist for Short-Term Removals of Under 10 Cumulative Days


presented a danger to himself, herself or others. TheIDEA now authorizes school officials to seek tempo-rary removal of a dangerous student by requestingthat an impartial hearing officer order the studentremoved to an interim alternative educational set-ting for 45 days (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k)(2)).Therefore, if school officials believe that a studentmay present a danger to himself, herself or others,and seek to have the student removed from school,they must convince a hearing officer that: (1) shouldthe student remain in the current placement, he orshe is substantially likely to injure himself, herself orothers; (2) the school district has attempted to mini-mize the risk of harm; (3) the student’s current IEPand placement were appropriate; and (4) the stu-dent’s interim alternative educational setting isappropriate. The hearing officer may then changethe student’s placement to the interim alternativeeducational setting for up to 45 days. During thistime period the IEP team should meet to determinewhat actions to take (e.g., change placement, rewritethe IEP, move to expel the student).

School officials may also use long-term discipli-nary removals when a student’s misbehavior is notrelated to his or her disability, as long as theremovals are equivalent to the removals that anondisabled student would receive for a similaroffense. Whenever a student with disabilities isremoved from school for over ten cumulative days,even if there is no relationship between the disabilityand misconduct, educational services must be con-tinued. Figure 2 is a checklist that depicts importantconsiderations when using long-term disciplinarymeasures.

Manifestation DeterminationsIDEA ‘97 clarifies a procedure long required by thecourts, referred to as the manifestation determina-tion. A manifestation determination is a review ofthe relationship between a student’s disability andmisconduct. It must be conducted when school officials seek a change of placement, including sus-pension or expulsion, in excess of ten school days. Insituations in which a student has been suspended inexcess of the ten days, the review should take placeno later than ten days following the disciplinaryaction.

A student’s IEP team and other qualified person-nel must conduct the manifestation determination.When conducting the review, the IEP team mustconsider all relevant information regarding the misbehavior, including evaluation and diagnosticresults, observations, and the student’s IEP andplacement. The team’s task is to then determine ifthe student understood the consequences of his orher behavior and was capable of controlling it. If theteam determines there is no relationship between themisconduct and disability, the same disciplinary pro-cedures as would be used with students who are notdisabled may be imposed on a student with disabili-ties, including long-term suspension and expulsion.Educational services, however, must be continued.The parents of the student may request an expediteddue process hearing if they disagree with the resultsof the manifestation determination. The student’splacement during the hearing will be in the interim

Discipline


Did school administrators:❑ Provide oral or written notice of charges

against the student?❑ If the student denied the charges, provide

an explanation of the evidence supportingthe charges?

❑ Offer an opportunity for the student to present his or her side of the story?

❑ Notify the student’s parents of their procedural rights under the IDEA?

Was the IEP team convened?

Did the team:❑ Develop a plan for conducting the

functional behavioral assessment?❑ Develop or review the behavior

intervention plan?❑ Develop a plan to ensure that the student

continues to receive a free appropriate public education?

❑ Determine an appropriate interim alternative educational setting?

Figure 2: Checklist for Long-Term Removals


alternative educational setting. If, however, the teamdetermines that a relationship did exist, the studentmay not be suspended or expelled. However, changeof placement procedures may still be initiated usingthe IEP process. Figure 3 is a checklist that depictsimportant considerations when conducting a mani-festation determination and the questions that theteam must address during the hearing.

Interim Alternative Educational Settings

When a student is suspended in excess of ten cumu-lative days in a school year or expelled, the schooldistrict must continue to provide a FAPE. That is,educational services must continue in an interimalternative educational setting ((IAES); IDEA, 20U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)). The IAES must be planned anddetermined by the IEP team. Although the IAES isusually not in the current educational setting, thestudent must be able to continue to participate in thegeneral education curriculum. Additionally, theschool must continue to receive the special educationservices, supplementary aids and services, programmodifications, and related services listed in the IEP,including the interventions to address the student’sproblem behavior.

Although the use of homebound instruction ortutoring as an IAES is not specifically prohibited bythe IDEA, homebound placements are problematic(Katsiyannis & Maag, 1998). This is because schooldistricts must continue to provide the services listedin a student’s IEP while he or she is in the IAES.Clearly, providing these services in a homeboundsetting would be difficult. Furthermore, a commentin the proposed regulations suggests that a home-bound placement will usually be appropriate for alimited number of students, such as those who aremedically fragile and not able to participate in aschool setting (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.551,Note 1). In answers to a series of questions regardingdiscipline, the Office of Special Education andRehabilitative Services (OSERS) noted that in mostcircumstances homebound instruction is inappropri-ate as a disciplinary measure; however, the finaldecision regarding placement must be determinedon a case-by-case basis (Department of EducationAnswers Questions, 1997).

Legal challenges to the school district’s IAESplacements have focused on the quality of educa-tional services provided to students in these settings(Akron Central School District, 1998; Freeport PublicSchools, 1997; Oregon City School District, 1998;William S. Hart Union High School District, 1997).These challenges have been successful when theschool districts have failed to provide appropriatespecial education and related services to studentswhen they were in an IAES. Indeed, the quality of

Discipline


Did school administrators:❑ Notify the student’s parents of their

procedural rights under the IDEA no laterthan the date in which the disciplinaryaction was recommended?

Was the IEP team convened within ten daysafter the decision to discipline the student?

Did the team:❑ Gather all relevant data, including

evaluation and diagnostic results (e.g.,information from the student’s parents,observations, interviews, the student’s IEP and placement information)?

❑ Conduct the manifestation determination?❑ Determine that in relationship to the

behavior subject to the disciplinary action:– The student’s IEP and placement were

appropriate?– The special education services, supple-

mentary aids and services, and behaviorintervention strategies were consistentwith the student’s IEP and placement?

❑ Ensure that the student’s disability did notimpair his/her ability to understand theimpact and consequences of the behaviorsubject to the disciplinary action?

❑ Ensure that the student’s disability did notimpair the ability of the student to controlthe behavior subject to the disciplinaryaction?

Figure 3: Checklist for the Manifestation Determination


the special education services will probably prove tobe the Achilles heel of many school districts’ IAESplacements. Martin (1999) contends that the key toschool districts successfully defending such place-ments will be to maintain the special education andrelated services that were needed to provide a FAPE,while emphasizing the new and additional aspectsof the IAES that will be provided to address the stu-dent’s problem behavior (e.g., behavior goals, psy-chological services, counseling, social skills training,additional staff assistance, parent training). Figure 4is a checklist that depicts important considerationswhen developing the IAES.

Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavior Intervention PlansWhen a student is: (1) removed for more than tendays in a given school or ten consecutive days; (2)placed in an IAES for weapons or drug offenses orby order of a hearing officer; or (3) when short-termremovals constitute a change in placement, a func-

tional behavioral assessment (FBA) must be con-ducted and the BIP must be revised or developed ifit does not exist (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B)(I);IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(b)(1)).

IDEA ’97 does not detail the components of aFBA or a BIP beyond stating that when conductingan FBA following a 10-day suspension or 45-dayremoval, the FBA and BIP must address the behaviorthat led to the removal. Neither is the legislative his-tory of IDEA ’97 helpful in defining either process(Groeschel, 1998). The U.S. Department of Educationdid not include additional information on FBAs orBIPs in the final regulations (OSEP Question andAnswers, 1999)1 Therefore, IDEA ’97 seeminglyleaves interpretation of the specifics of the FBA andBIP requirements of the law to state and local educa-tional agencies.

Although FBAs are not legally defined, theyhave a well-established definition in the special edu-cation literature (Drasgow, Yell, Bradley, & Shriner,1999). A FBA is a problem-solving process in whichinformation is gathered about factors that reliablypredict and maintain problem behavior in order todevelop more effective IEPs and BIPs (Horner &Carr, 1997; O’Neill, Horner, Abin, Sprague, Storey, &Newton, 1997). The factors related to the occurrenceof problem behavior consist of: (1) antecedents (i.e.,events or actions that precede and trigger problembehavior); (2) consequences (i.e., events or actionsthat occur as a result of problem behavior); and (3)setting events (i.e., events that make it more likelythat problem behavior will occur). In essence, a FBAis used to develop an understanding of the causeand purpose of problem behavior (Drasgow et al.,1999).

Horner and Carr (1997) state that a FBA has twoimportant implications for developing interventionsfor problem behavior. First, it focuses on environ-mental events (i.e., antecedents, consequences, and

Discipline


Did school administrators:❑ Notify the student’s parents of their

procedural rights under the IDEA no laterthan the date in which the disciplinaryaction was recommended?

Was the IEP team convened within ten daysafter the decision to discipline the student?

Did the team develop an IAES that:❑ Enables the student to continue to partici-

pate in the general curriculum? ❑ Enables the student to continue to receive

services and modifications, including thosedescribed in the student’s IEP?

❑ Includes services and modificationsdesigned to address the behavior that ledto the disciplinary action so that the behavior does not occur?

Figure 4: Checklist for the Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES)

1 Recently OSEP funded the Center on Positive Behav-ioral Interventions and Supports. The Center has pub-lished a document, Applying Positive Behavioral Supportand Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools, (1999).This document is available on the Center’s website(http://pbis.org) and provides an explanation of FBAand a description of preferred research based practice ineffectively implementing FBA in schools.


setting events). Thus, problem behavior is viewed asthe result of challenging social situations for whichthe problem behavior represents an attempted solu-tion (e.g., yelling is one way to get attention) ratherthan viewing problem behavior as the result of invis-ible, dynamic forces residing within a person.Second, intervention is not focused on managing orcontrolling a person, but instead on redesigning theenvironment and on building new skills that makethe problem behavior irrelevant, inefficient, and inef-fective in that environment (Drasgow et al., 1999).

Based on the results of the FBA, the IEP teamdevelops a BIP. The BIP is a behavior change pro-gram that emphasizes teaching prosocial behaviorsto replace a student’s inappropriate behaviors(Drasgow et al., 1999). The key component of the BIPis the use of positive behavioral interventions.O’Neill et al. (1997) suggest that all BIPs should con-tain the following generic key features: (1) anobservable and measurable description of the prob-lem behavior; (2) an identified purpose of problembehavior as a result of the FBA; (3) a general strat-egy, or combination of strategies, for changing theproblem behavior; (4) a game plan for when, where,and how often the strategy will be implemented;and (5) a consistent system for monitoring and eval-uating the effectiveness of the plan.

Although the law does not indicate who shouldconduct the FBA, it should probably be the responsi-bility of the IEP team and other qualified individuals(Conroy, Clark, Gable, & Fox, 1999; Drasgow et al.,1999; Groeschel, 1998). Conducting FBAs and devel-oping BIPs should be a thoughtful team problemsolving process based on an in-depth assessmentand collaborative program planning. Unfortunately,rather than adopting research based practices in theFBA/BIP process, many school districts have devel-oped check-off systems based on a list of misbehav-iors and potential causes in which the FBA/BIPprocess becomes a 10-minute exercise in markingboxes and filling in the blanks (Groeschel, 1998).Given Congress’ clear emphasis on increasing thequality of educational programming for studentswith disabilities (Eyer, 1998), and judges and hearingofficers’ demands that school districts adopt mean-ingful and empirically validated instructional strate-gies and programs (Yell & Drasgow, 2000), it is ouropinion that such check-off systems will not pass

judicial or administrative scrutiny when faced withlegal challenges.

The law requires the FBA/BIP process in situa-tions in which misbehavior has occurred. However,to use this powerful and proactive method ofaddressing problem behavior in these situationsalone is bad practice. IDEA’97 demands a proactiveapproach to addressing problem behavior ratherthan merely using reactive approaches in whichschool personnel wait until misbehavior occursbefore addressing it. In fact, legal and educationscholars have argued that IEP teams should initiatethe FBA/BIP process at the first signs of serious prob-lem behavior or when school district personnel orfamily members express concerns about a student’sproblem behavior (Conroy, et al., 1999; Groeschel,1998; Hartwig & Reusch, 2000; Katsiyannis & Maag,1998; Martin, 1999; Yell, 1999). To do so would con-stitute evidence to a judge or hearing officer thatschool officials were serious about meeting theirobligations under IDEA ’97. Figure 5 is a checklistthat depicts important considerations for conductingFBAs and developing BIPs in a legally correct andeducationally appropriate manner.

Implications for AdministratorsMaintaining a safe and orderly education environ-ment is one of the most important duties publicschools face. Certainly it is one of the most difficult.If our schools are to be places where students can

Discipline

When conducting the FBA, did the team target a single behavior to:

❑ Consider the contextual factors that maycontribute to the behavior?

❑ Determine the intent of the behavior?

When developing the BIP, did the team attempt to reduce the future occurrence of the target behavior:

❑ Make contextual modifications to reducethe inappropriate behavior?

❑ Identify an appropriate replacement behavior?

Figure 5: Checklist for Conducting the Functional BehavioralAssessment (FBA) and Developing the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)


learn, we need to adopt rules to indicate whichbehaviors will be rewarded and which behaviorswill not be tolerated. When we use disciplinary procedures it is important that we understand ourrights and responsibilities as well as those of our students. It is also important that school officialsfashion school district policies and procedures thatcomport with the law. Following are suggestedguidelines that will help to ensure that administra-tors and teachers meet federal, state, and courtrequirements when using discipline with publicschool students.

Train Administrators, Teachers,and Service Providers in theRequirements of IDEA ‘97Staff unfamiliarity with the legal requirements of theIDEA and procedural errors in carrying out theirresponsibilities are frequent reasons for special edu-cation litigation. Litigation, whether due processhearings or court cases, can be extremely expensivein both financial and human terms (How to AvoidSpecial Education Litigation, 1999). In an analysis ofhearings and cases reported in the Individuals withDisabilities Education Law Report in 1997 through1999, Yell (1999) found that the three most frequentviolations of the disciplinary requirements occurredwhen: (1) school district personnel did not follow thedisciplinary requirements of IDEA ‘97 (e.g., a schooldistrict removed a student to an IAES without con-vening the IEP team); (2) school district personnelfollowed the disciplinary requirements of the IDEA,but failed to implement their programs appropri-ately (e.g., the school’s IEP team developed anappropriate BIP but did not communicate therequirements of the BIP to school staff, so the BIPwas routinely violated); or (3) school administratorsdisciplined students with disabilities without goingthrough the student’s IEP team.

Litigation, whether due process hearings or court

cases, can be extremely expensive in both financial

and human terms.

An effective method for avoiding litigation is forschool districts to offer thorough and ongoing staff

development programs. Administrators, teachers(special and general education), and other serviceproviders (e.g., early childhood teachers, school psychologists, counselors) must be aware of theirresponsibilities under IDEA ’97 and be kept abreastof legal developments. As instructional leaders intheir schools, it is especially critical that principalsunderstand their responsibilities and the importanceof adhering to the requirements of the IDEA.

Train Administrators, Teachers,and Service Providers in PositiveBehavior Programming Teachers must be trained in the use of positivebehavioral programming (e.g., reinforcement, social skills training) as well as the use of behaviorreduction strategies (e.g., time out, response cost).Additionally, special education teachers and serviceproviders should receive intensive training in: (1) conducting functional behavioral assessments; (2) writing behavioral goals and objectives; and (3)developing behavioral intervention plans. Suchtraining should include the appropriate use of disci-plinary procedures as well as legal ramifications ofthese procedures. A policy letter from theDepartment of Education notes the importance oftraining teachers and staff in the effective use ofbehavior management strategies, indicating that theappropriate use of these strategies is essential toensure the success of interventions to ameliorateproblem behavior (OSEP Discipline Guidance, 1997).

Proactively Address Problem Behavior We must remember that the purpose of discipline isto teach. As educators, our goal should not be solelyeliminating problem behavior. Rather we should beteaching prosocial behaviors. Positive behavioralprogramming (e.g., conflict resolution training,anger control training) should be an integral part of our practices.

In the case of students with disabilities who have a history of misbehavior, the problem behaviormust be addressed in their IEP. Judith Huemann, the assistant secretary of in the U.S. Department ofEducation, states that as part of the IEP process,teams have a responsibility to consider a student’sbehavior (OSEP Discipline Guidance, 1997).

Discipline


Additionally, she states that school districts shouldtake prompt steps to address misconduct when it firstappears. She suggests that when a student exhibitsserious problem behavior, the IEP team should con-duct a FBA and determine the needed programmingto properly address the behavior. This requirementapplies to all students in special education, regard-less of their disability category. Additionally, becausethese elements will be discussed at an IEP meeting,the plan would have an increased probability of success because of parental support and participa-tion. The plan is also less likely to be legally chal-lenged (Hartwig & Reusch, 2000). Clearly, positivebehavior interventions should be used rather thanrelying on behavior reduction procedures. Whenbehavior reduction strategies are part of the stu-dent’s program, however, they should also beincluded in the IEP.

Clearly, positive behavior interventions should be

used rather than relying on behavior reduction

procedures.

Develop Alternatives to Out-of-SchoolSuspension and ExpulsionDisciplinary sanctions that result in unilateralchanges of placement are illegal under IDEA ’97.This includes out-of-school suspensions (OSS) inexcess of ten school days in a school year if such suspensions constitute a change in placement, long-term OSS suspensions, and expulsions. An obviousway to avoid the legal and educational difficultiesinherent in such procedures is to develop alternativemethods for imposing disciplinary sanctions. Forexample, a school could assign in-school suspensionrather than OSS. In-school suspension (ISS) systemstypically use a room within the school that is desig-nated for ISS disciplinary sanctions. The ISS roomsare often staffed with certified teachers or parapro-fessionals who assist students with their schoolwork.Student’s classroom and/or special education teach-ers supply the schoolwork and instructions for theISS staff to ensure the work is completed correctly.The advantage of ISS is that it accomplishes the dis-ciplinary purposes of OSS (e.g., segregation from

peers, providing a sanction for misbehavior) whileavoiding the problems (e.g., missing instruction,inadvertently reinforcing students for misbehavior).Moreover, ISS does not trigger the procedural safe-guards of the IDEA, deprive students of a FAPE, noris it considered a change of placement as long aswhile they are in ISS, students: (1) are afforded theopportunity to continue to progress in their educa-tional program; (2) continue to receive the servicesspecified in their IEP; and (3) continue to participatewith nondisabled students (OSEP Questions andAnswers, 1999). Clearly, when ISS is used with stu-dents in special education, students must continue toreceive their special education and related services,and ISS should be included in the student’s IEP.Moreover, ISS should be used with students withand without disabilities.

Document Disciplinary Actions When using disciplinary procedures with studentswith and without disabilities, teachers must keepthorough written records of all disciplinary actionstaken. An examination of court cases and adminis-trative rulings in disciplinary matters indicates thatin many instances, decisions were based on the qual-ity of the schools’ records (Yell, 1999). That is, whena school district is sued over a particular disciplinaryincident, the court will examine the rules and conse-quences of the school to determine whether they arefair and reasonable. Often they will also examine therecords that were kept, if any, on the particularbehavior incident. Records on emergency discipli-nary actions are also important. Such records shouldcontain an adequate description of the incident, disciplinary action taken, and the signatures of witnesses present.

Evaluate the Effectiveness of InterventionsFinally, it is important that teachers evaluate theeffectiveness of the school-wide policies and proce-dures along with individual student’s disciplineplans. There are a number of reasons for collectingdata on an ongoing basis. To make decisions aboutwhether an intervention is reducing target behaviorsin the school or in a student, teachers need data collected during the course of the intervention. If

Discipline


formative data is not collected, teachers will notknow with certainty if a given procedure is actuallyachieving the desired results (Yell & Drasgow, 2000).Teachers are accountable to supervisors and parents,and data collection is useful for these purposes.From a legal standpoint it is imperative that teacherscollect such data. Anecdotal information is not read-ily accepted by courts; data-based decisions certainlywould be viewed much more favorably (Yell &Drasgow, 2000).

SummaryIDEA ’97 attempts to balance schools’ needs to main-tain safe and orderly environments while ensuringthe rights of students with disabilities to receiveFAPE. Unfortunately, several inconsistencies in thestatute and its regulations have resulted in contin-ued confusion over school district’s responsibility.Future hearings, court rulings, and legislation willprovide answers to this still confusing issue. In thisarticle, we have examined these issues and offeredrecommendations to administrators and educators toassist them in meeting the disciplinary requirementsof IDEA ’97 in a legally correct and educationallyappropriate manner. Administrators must ensurethat: (1) general and special education personnel intheir school districts understand the discipline-related requirements of the law; and (2) that allschool personnel comply with these requirements.Local school officials must realize that when disci-plining students with disabilities, the IEP andSection 504 preempt the school’s disciplinary code ifsuspension, expulsion, or changes of placement areused. Moreover, in such situations the proper bodyto address discipline is the IEP team. If schooladministrators are diligent in discharging theirduties, then school districts will be able to meet thechallenges and opportunities presented in the disci-plinary provisions of IDEA ‘97.

ReferencesAkron Central School District, 28 IDELR 909 (SEA NY 1998).Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).Conroy, M, Clark, Gable, R., & Fox, J. (1999). A look at

IDEA 1997 discipline provisions: Implications forchange in the roles and responsibilities of school personnel. Preventing School Failure, 43, 64-70.

Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812(c).Department of Education answers questions on regula-

tions (1997, November 21). The Special Educator.Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Drasgow, E., Yell, M.L., Bradley, R., & Shriner, J.G. (1999).The IDEA Amendments of 1997: A school-wide modelfor conducting functional behavioral assessments anddeveloping behavior intervention plans. Education andTreatment of Children, 22, 244-266.

Eyer, T. (1998). Greater expectations: How the 1997 IDEAAmendments raise the basic floor of opportunity forchildren with disabilities. Education Law Reporter, 126,1-19.

Federal Criminal Code, 189 U.S.C. § 930(g).Freeport Public Schools, 26 IDELR 1251 (SEA ME 1997).Gorn, S. (1998). What do I do when: The answer book on

Section 504. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.Gorn, S. (1999). What do I do when: The answer book on

discipline. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).Groeschel, R.W. (1998). Discipline and the disabled stu-

dent: The IDEA reauthorization responds. WisconsinLaw Review, 1085-1132.

Harris, L. (1998). Violence in America’s public schools: A sur-vey of the American teacher. New York: MetropolitanLife Insurance Company.

Hartwig, E.P. & Ruesch, G.M. (2000). Disciplining stu-dents in special education. Journal of Special Education,33, 243-250.

Honig v. Doe, 479 U.S. 1084 (1988).Horner, R. & Carr, E. (1997). Behavioral support for stu-

dents with severe disabilities: Functional assessmentand comprehensive intervention. Journal of SpecialEducation, 31, 84-104.

How to Avoid Special Education Litigation (1999,November). Special Education Law Update, 9(3), 1 & 6.Burnsville, MN: Oakstone Legal and BusinessPublishing.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.S. §1401-1485(1997).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations,34 C.F.R. § 300 et. seq. (1999)

Katsiyannis, A. & Maag, J. (1998). Disciplining studentswith disabilities: issues and considerations for imple-menting IDEA ’97. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 276-289.

Letter to Anonymous, 30 IDELR 707 (OSEP 1999).Martin, J.L. (1999, May). Current legal issues in discipline of

disabled students under IDEA: A section by section com-ment on § 1415(k), discipline regulations, and initial caselaw. Paper presented at the LRP’s Annual Conference onSpecial Education Law, San Francisco: LRP.

Discipline


O’Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R.,Storey, K., & Newton, J.S., (1997). Functional assessmentand program development for problem behavior. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Oregon City School District, 28 IDELR 96 (SEA OR 1998).OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and

Supports (1999). Applying positive behavioral supportand functional behavioral assessments in schools.University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.

OSEP Questions and Answers, Federal Register (1999,March 12). 12617-12632. Volume 64, No. 48.

OSEP Discipline Guidance, 26 IDELR 923 (OSEP 1997).Rose, L.C. & Gallup, A.M. (1998). The 30th annual Phi

Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudestoward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 41-56.

Understanding discipline under the new IDEA (1997,July). Special issue. The Special Educator. Horsham, PA:LRP Publications.

Waterford Board of Education, 21 IDELR 818 (OCR 1994).William S. Hart Union High School District, 26 IDELR 181

(OCR 1997).Yell, M.L. & Drasgow, E (2000). Litigating a free appropri-

ate public education: The Lovaas hearings and cases.Journal of Special Education, 33, 206-215.

Yell, M.L. (1999, October). Disciplining students with disabil-ities: An analysis of hearings and court rulings. Paperpresented at the Annual Conference of the LearningDisabilities Association, Minneapolis, MN.

About the AuthorsMitchell L. Yell is an Associate Professor in theProgram in Special Education, 235-G Wardlaw,University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.Email: [email protected]. Antonis Katsiyannis is aProfessor in the Special Education Program, 418-DTillman Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC29634. Email: [email protected]. Renee Bradleyparticipated in this article as a former teacher, uni-versity instructor, and individual researcher.Currently she is a special assistant to the Director ofResearch to Practice, U.S. Department of Education,Office of Special Education Programs, Washington,DC 20202. Email: [email protected]. Michael E.Rozalski is a doctoral student in the Program inSpecial Education, 020 Wardlaw, University of SouthCarolina, Columbia, SC 29208. Email:[email protected].

Opinions expressed herein are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the position of OSEP,and any such endorsements should not be inferred.

Discipline


On September 17, 1999, six African American stu-dents were involved in a melee at a high school

football game in Decatur, IL. After that incident, theDecatur school board gave all of them two-yearexpulsions from school. Since these events tookplace, a firestorm of controversy has erupted sur-rounding issues related to school violence, race,social class, and the implementation of school dis-trict rules over student behavior and discipline.Some news reports have indicated a distinct trendtoward higher security concerns since the recentspate of national school shootings, and that schoolviolence must be taken seriously and dealt withswiftly with no exceptions allowed (Johnson, 1999).This has resulted in many districts adopting a “zero-tolerance” policy toward school violencewhere students are expelled from school for specificinfractions of school rules and conduct. However,others, most notably Reverend Jesse Jackson andRainbow-PUSH Coalition have asserted that these“zero-tolerance” have assumed civil rights impor-tance in that the policies have a disproportionateimpact on racial minority groups, most specificallyAfrican American males. Furthermore, “zero-tolerance” does not allow for more reasoned admin-istrative decision making on a case-by-case basis.

Given these background positions on school violence and race related to the Decatur, IL, incident,one of the main purposes of our article is to present

an African American activist perspective and reac-tion to these events and implications for educationalleadership with respect to discipline and specialeducation. A common assertion among many in educational administration is that the general public,parents, and students do not know what it is like tobe an administrator or school board member andface the pressure to make hard decisions that havemajor social ramifications, especially related toschool discipline and special education placement ofAfrican American males. However, there is anotherside that is typically not heard and is summarily dis-missed in educational administration and that is ofminority parents, students and the community. Toooften in communities where an elite power structuredominates the local school board and other institu-tions, it is the voices of minority parents who areignored (Spring, 1998). This indeed is the case inDecatur where race and social class divisions havebeen the norm. African Americans have had theirshare of tension surrounding racial bias issues in theschools, as complaints have been made in the pastabout the racially disproportionate share of specialeducation, discipline, and drop-out problems thatthe district has ignored. For example, in 1998, it hasbeen reported that African Americans received morethan 1,000 of the 1,700 suspensions given by theDecatur school district even though AfricanAmerican students make up 41% of the student

Race, Discipline, and Educational LeadershipAfrican American Student Perspectives on the Decatur, IL Incident

RoSusan Bartee, M.A., Jerrell Beckham, B.A., Chandra Gill, B.S., Chion Graves, M.A., Kashelia Jackson, M.A., Rodreic Land, M.A., Dawn Williams, B.S., and Laurence Parker, Ph.D.University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

• A summary of salient social and legal issues surrounding events that took place in Decatur, IL, (Fall 1999)regarding school expulsions and race is presented within a single context.

• Narratives of African American graduate student perspectives on the protests and the expulsions make a significant contribution to understanding racially charged incidents.

• A better understanding of the categories of special education, school discipline, racial justice,and inclusion of the African American community is critical to the academic success of African American males.


population (McRoberts & Franklin, 1999). Studentsof color are also overrepresented in all disability cat-egories of special education. Glennon (1995)reported a number of alarming trends in special edu-cation such as, African American students beingidentified as disabled and placed in special educa-tion at twice the rate of white students, and AfricanAmerican students being 1.46 times more likely thanwhites to be identified as having a serious emotionaldisturbance. Given these racial trends, and the factthat the U.S. Congress 1997 re-authorization of theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)allows administrators to have more discretionregarding expulsion of special education studentswith weapons, this may indeed result in moreAfrican American males being targeted for discipli-nary action in consort with being labeled withbehavioral disabilities.

Glennon (1995) reported a number of alarming

trends in special education such as, African

American students being identified as disabled and

placed in special education at twice the rate of

white students ....

In this article, we want to present part of thataforementioned concern through voices of summaryperspectives by some of the African American grad-uate student activists who were involved in theprotest. We participated in the protest because wesaw it not as a local concern, but a broader civilrights problem that needs to be addressed within thenational conservative “colorblind” context of racerelations and policy implementation that has had adisproportionate impact on African American stu-dents. For example, Russo & Talbert-Johnson (1997)reported that even though African American stu-dents constituted approximately 16% of the totalU.S. school population in 1992, they comprisedalmost 32% of the children classified in special edu-cation. Furthermore, 1998-99 figures from the threeneighboring towns near Decatur are illustrative ofthe problem of percentages of African Americansoverrepresented in school disciplinary actions. In theChampaign district, white enrollment is at 63% andthe white suspension is 36%, while the African

American enrollment is at 31% but the comparablesuspension rate for African Americans in theChampaign district is 62%. In the Urbana district,the white enrollment is at 62%, while the white sus-pension is 47%. The African American enrollment inUrbana is 28%, but their suspension rate is 49%. Forthe Danville district, the white enrollment is 61%while the suspension rate is 47%, but the comparablefigures for African Americans are 33% and 49%respectively. Even though some school officials haveagreed with the recent Federal District Court of the7th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Decatur studentexpulsions, these same officials admit that the highdisciplinary punishment rates of African Americanmales is an issue which needs attention (Puch, 2000).From a critical race theory perspective, however, weposit that unfortunately, educational administratorsand school boards have been guilty of supportingeducational policies related to discipline and specialeducation placement that are harmful to minoritiesthat would not be tolerated if the same policies wereapplied to the majority white populations.1

The first part of this article presents the sum-mary perspectives and policy recommendations ofthe students on the Decatur, IL, incident. The stu-dents involved were taking graduate-level classesthat I (Laurence Parker) was teaching in theDepartment of Educational Policy Studies at theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign thatfocused on critical race theory and the politics ofeducation. These students felt that it was their

Race, Discipline, and Educational Leadership

1. The reason why we believe this to be the case is that inmany communities, a double disciplinary standard hasbeen in effect for quite sometime. A personal narrativewas related to me by one of my university colleagueswho was at an administrative meeting in which a well-to-do white faculty member (who was also prominentin the local community) described how his son, whowas a star player on the local high school football team,got angry at the assistant principal over a small inci-dent, assaulted him with his fists and knocked him out.The father of this student felt his son did nothing wrongand lobbied the principal, superintendent, and schoolboard members to not have the school press suspensioncharges against his son. The father also knew prominentlawyers and threatened legal action if his son was sus-pended and could not play football. Because of thispolitical pressure, no charges were pressed. We believethese incidents happen too often in schools.


responsibility to put the theory (i.e., class readingson the politics of race in education) into action byattending the marches and lending their effort andsupport to the protests. The students met and dis-cussed their thoughts and feelings about the issuesinvolved in the Decatur situation in the formal classsessions after the various marches, and the informalmeetings and focus groups that they had on theirown. Some of them also organized and participatedin their own marches and vigils on campus and tothe Urbana, IL, Federal District court where the lawsuit was filed claiming that the school board violatedthe due process rights of the six African AmericanDecatur students. Once the student summary per-spectives are presented, the second part of this arti-cle highlights some of the salient facts of case andcritical implications for educational leadership onissues related to race, and social justice.

African American GraduateStudent Perspectives

Thoughts on Decatur by RoSusan Bartee

Reflecting on the expulsion of seven, young AfricanAmerican males from the schools of Decatur, IL, Ifind myself in a state of ambiguity and shame sur-rounding the implications of the school board ruling.We live in a society that preaches ideologies ofdemocracy coupled with rights and privileges forevery individual. And inherent within democracyresonates a fundamental sense of pride and integrityfor American legal and moral systems. Nonetheless,when these nationally imposed values were chal-lenged by acts of immaturity and ignorance by someAfrican American students, democratic decisionmaking instantly became a mechanism of local con-trol and power. Once again, school board membersvacated their position as representative constituents“of the people,” “by the people,” and “for the peo-ple” while continuing to perpetuate their dispropor-tionate expulsion rate of African American students(Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board, 99-CV-2277).This fight was inevitably used as a systematic instru-ment for railroading these African American stu-dents out of school.

... When these nationally imposed values were

challenged by acts of immaturity and ignorance

by some African American students, democratic

decision making instantly became a mechanism of

local control and power.

I do not remove the responsibility from theyoung men. I must admit that after seeing footage ofthe fight, it looked quite intense. But what fistfightdoes not? No fistfight or “mob activity” (as referredto by the defendants) looks good, but the crime didnot fit the time. The young men should have beensuspended, not expelled. Also, the issue should nothave been based on relative evidence of how some-thing looked, but instead, the attention should havebeen directed toward the concrete facts associatedwith the incident. Were there guns involved in theincident? Was anyone seriously injured or evenkilled as a result of the incident? Thus, it can beargued that preventive measures should be takenbefore anything traumatic occurs, and yes, I wouldagree. Nonetheless, I would pose these questions toconsider when assuming position: “Is democracybased on majority rules and regulations whichinevitably decides who is pardoned and who is notwhile diminishing the voices of minorities?” “Isdemocracy really a principle based on rights andprivileges or is democracy a practice of resource andpower?”

When Reverend Jesse Jackson rallied severalmarches in support of the young men, thousands ofpeople attended. I was one of those many whoattended. During the march, my mind started toreminisce on footage from the Civil Rights move-ment of the 1960s. I remembered how the literalanguish expressed by both sides was overwhelming.Many African Americans and other liberals or pro-gressives were “sick and tired of being sick and tiredof” unfulfilled rights of justice and democracy thatAmerica based its existence upon. Political andsocial protests conjoined with Martin Luther King’sendorsement of civil disobedience became theirweapons of protection and armory. Within the back-ground, the echoes of George Wallace’s proclamationof “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segre-gation forever” were magnified with the status-quo



advocates unleashing dogs and unplugging waterhydrants to fight off “intruders.” Conservativessought to maintain and reproduce ill-distributedpower and resources. These 1960s episodes wereplaying and replaying through my mind as wemarched and sang “We Shall Overcome” some fortyyears later in Decatur, IL. I immediately started todraw some correlations.

These 1960s episodes were playing and replaying

through my mind as we marched and sang

“We Shall Overcome” some forty years later in

Decatur, IL.

The political and social tensions could be felt,while the division among community folk becamequite obvious. When the march finally concluded atone of the schools, despite Reverend Jackson’s man-date of a non-violent protest, we were met with thelocal and state police as well as sharp shooters. Whatan uncomfortable and awkward feeling; I thoughtthat Bull Connor had risen from the grateful deadand resumed residency in Decatur! Although thosecivil authorities were supposed to be protecting us, Ifelt like they were the enemy. I would not have beensurprised if the racial and social intensity wouldhave accidentally set the guns off. The climate wasjust that hostile and uninviting. The police presencesent a strong signal that blatantly turned the blametoward the victims (suspended males and support-ers) that inevitably questioned and patronized rea-soning behind the march. Thus, we could easily tellthat our protesting presence was not warranted irre-spective of a valid claim of social injustice.

One thing, for sure, is that this “fistfight” or“mob activity” in Decatur, IL, will never be forgot-ten. Nonetheless, I was definitely appalled at theimplications of democracy and the correlations of the1960s underlying this incident. How democracy getsimplemented is contingent upon local authoritiesthat inevitably leave minority groups at the disposalof majority interests. The Civil Rights movementcontinues today. African Americans, other minoritygroups, and progressives face the silent, more deadlythan George Wallace and his posse, enemy calledinstitutionalized racism. Despite this unfortunate

loss of battle, the struggle and war against racismcontinues, and in the end, We Shall Overcome.

Enough is Enough? by Chandra Gill

Without avoiding the issue of race, there can be aclear understanding of the inequality existent inAmerica. This notion of race is well ingrained in thiscountry’s historical fabric. It has impacted manyaspects of this country, leaving the institution of education susceptible to its power. As I examine thesituation of Decatur, IL, I am drawn to this socialconstruct and its historical implications on presentday issues. The melee involving students of Decaturbrings to the forefront and questions the true iden-tity of this country. While some argue the initialpenalty of expelling the young men for two yearswas indeed harsh, many believe that the young mendeserved what was handed to them. The elementlinking the varying opinions about the issue wouldsuggest that at some point the lunacy must stop.Focusing on what I will assume is the commondenominator (ending this behavior) found in ourschools, I find it imperative to ask the following:who decides enough is enough, and to what lengthare we willing to go to sincerely educate all children?

While some argue the initial penalty of expelling

the young men for two years was indeed harsh,

many believe that the young men deserved what

was handed to them.

As a participant in the many marches andprotests in Decatur, IL, I was reminded of the days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The very fact that a cryfor justice through marching, singing, and chantingis necessary nearly forty years later is mind-bogglingand disturbing but not perplexing. Even more stag-gering is the idea that an issue such as this hasbrought to the forefront the notion of race andracism in this country. Although many suggest thatthis is solely due to members of subordinate groupslooking for an excuse to simply pull “the race card”again and blame the “white man”, I think that it istime to evaluate this and many other issues from acritical race perspective understanding the dynamic,indirect and direct, power this construct has on



America. In lieu of this remains a thought and racistideology on behalf of the forefathers that helpedshape the very document we utilize in an effort toestablish justice. Additionally, as slaveholders,Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln bothbelieved in maintaining a superiority position aswhite men in this country. This, in my opinion,necessitates a need to further understand howAmerica’s system(s) can systematically oppress non-whites through its policies.

This, in my opinion, necessitates a need to further

understand how America’s system(s) can systemati-

cally oppress non-whites through its policies.

In speaking with many African American resi-dents of the town, there was a sense of hopelessnessand despair that I now deem logical due to the sta-tus of the city. In a town where African Americansrepresent just 16.6% of the population there are38.3% living below poverty, an average familyincome of $24, 552, and more appropriate a represen-tation 38.6% of the student population with anastounding 78.3% of the expulsions in the Decaturschool district (McRoberts & Franklin, 1999). Due tothe magnitude of disparities and disproportionaterepresentation of African Americans in other cities inthis state and ultimately the nation, I conclude thissituation is common and not unique in its form. Thefact that this country for the most part reflects andperpetuates European American values and world-views contradicts the “goal” of a pluralistic society.

KEY: I assert that there is a need for critical peda-gogy in our classrooms entailing the true history ofthis country. It is crucial for an understanding ofAmerican educational history, however, to recognizethat within American democracy there have beenclasses of oppressed people and that there have beenessential relationships between popular educationand the politics of oppression—this legacy is seen inwhat we choose to teach our children about race inAmerican history. It reflects a willingness or unwill-ingness to face our past squarely by examining acentral ideology that has attempted to express complex forms of oppression and injustice. I furthercontend that DuBois’s predictive avowal of thetwentieth century’s problem being that of the color

line is nonetheless determined and will prove itselfincorrigible in the twenty-first century. To avoidsuch a travesty would entail representation of indi-viduals in positions of power who understand theplight of members of subordinate (and oftenoppressed) groups and the courage to declareenough is enough on America’s systems bringingforth inconsistent policies, and not the people thatare disadvantaged as a result. The Coalition’sMission Statement (in its entirety): The youths whoneed the most assistance often receive the least. Asstudents of higher education in the State of Illinois,we stand firmly in protest of a school policy thatstrips our children of social justice within dueprocess. We abhor the systemic oppression that isoccurring all over the nation and is highlighted bythe incident in Decatur. We seek to bring a nationalawareness of the injustice that impedes the advance-ment of our children’s education. In addition, weseek to promote the establishment of a fair educa-tional policy for all students.

Reflections on Post-Civil Rights,Special Education Placement and School Discipline by Dawn Williams

Growing up as an African American female in a second-generation household of the 1960’s CivilRights Movement, I was told countless stories ofhow it was “back in the days” or even how it was inthe South. It all seemed so long ago that my parentsmigrated North to escape the ills of racism, discrimi-nation and segregation. At the time what seemed tobe ancient history came back to emotionally hauntme in Decatur, IL.

On the morning of December 16, 1999, I wit-nessed the arrest of Reverend Jesse Jackson andother members of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition asthey tried to move toward the high school while atleast 25 armed police officers aligned the perimeterof the school. My mind suddenly regressed to thoseall too familiar stories of my parents. But I wasn’t inthe South and it wasn’t the 1960’s. I was in Decatur,IL—Middle America, 1999. Overcome by incredibleemotional strife, I stood against the fence in a possi-ble attempt to maintain physical balance. My mindwas filled with an array of present images and his-torical flashbacks. Those visions were interrupted



when a local white reporter approached me, playingon my emotions asking me how I felt and why I washere. Did he know what he was asking? Did heknow what I was feeling? Apparently not. While itwas so difficult, but essential, to put into words mydeeply felt sentiments, I was able to muster up astatement that addressed the unfair biases of theschool policy and the negative future implicationsthat it would invite, particularly for AfricanAmerican male students, not just in Decatur, butnationwide. When I concluded, he remarked thatthat was the most intelligent comment that he hadheard thus far on this issue. He added that if youwere to question the average person out here thatthey would proclaim that it is about the boys. I wasunphased by the “compliment,” for what I said wasmerely a reiteration of what was continually said bymany local, Decatur African American citizens, andthe focus of the press conference just given the nightbefore. He went on to ask if we were students of theUniversity. As I stood in the midst of my classmatesdraped in the University of Illinois paraphernalia Ibecame offended by his comment and generaliza-tion. Why should my comment be held in esteemover the citizens of this town? He showed what littlerespect he had toward the local African Americantown people. Their opinions should be held to ahigher regard being that it most directly affectsthem. Because of his blatant ignorance and covertdisplay of racism I declined his offer of media representation.

... What I said was merely a reiteration of what

was continually said by many local, Decatur African

American citizens, and the focus of the press

conference just given the night before.

White teachers have asserted that they do notcondone racism. Yet, in Kailin’s (1999) study theycomplained about the racial hostility and culturalopposition they face from African Americans in theirschools. Delpit (1995), Derman-Sparks & Phillips(1997), Irvine (1992), Ladson Billings (1994), Foster(1997), and Sleeter (1997) are just some of the schol-ars that should be read for school administrators andteachers to have critical discussions on race so that

actions can be taken such as a moratorium on theplacement of African American males in special edu-cation and disciplinary proceedings until civil rightsissues are addressed.

The Videotape Ruling by Jerell Beckham

The courts decision to rule in favor of the defendantshad been influenced a great deal by the videotapethat was recorded by a fan during the football game.The fact that the courts used this tape as evidenceagainst some of the young men was not completelycalled into question. Clearly, the tape showed that afight had broken out at a football game. However,many interpretations of the board members and thecourt that were inaccurately drawn from this tapeshould be called into question. Only three out of theseven youths that were originally charged could beidentified on this tape; even when they were identi-fied their roles were not necessarily the same duringthe time of the fight. Nevertheless, they were alllumped together and given the exact punishment.The students should have been looked at on a case-by-case basis by the courts and the board to moreaccurately determine their roles and a more suitablepunishment for each individual student.

The board’s initial decision to give all the stu-dents two years, which was basically disregarded bythe courts, should have been evaluated. Without theemergence of key members of the African AmericanCommunity in Decatur, many reverends, and thelocal Rainbow-Push Coalition who invited JesseJackson, the board members initial decision arguablywould have stood unchallenged. Those studentswould have gotten two years in a fight with noweapons where there were no severe injuries.Therefore, our main point was if the case was lookedat on an individual basis for each student, then wedo not believe that all those young men would havegotten two years or even a year of alternative schoolwith no consideration for returning to regular educa-tion at the semester’s end. Furthermore, by interpret-ing the tape incorrectly to describe all of thestudents, even when they all were not present andtheir roles were not the same, also shown by thetape, denied them due process when one consideredthat they all received the same extreme punishment.As a matter of fact, if it turned out that only one ofthose students were denied due process, by being



lumped together rather than by being looked at asan individual on a case-by-case basis, then accordingto the rules of social justice, they all were denied dueprocess.

Accountability by Chion Graves, and Kashelia Jackson

The implications of Judge McCuskey’s ruling in thecase of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board (2000)extend far beyond Decatur, IL. Essentially, adminis-trators have been given the “green light” to takewhatever steps they consider necessary to make ournation’s classrooms safe and productive learningenvironments. Furthermore, their actions won’t haveto be justified. Quite possibly the current trends ofAfrican American expulsion/suspension dispropor-tional rates as well overrepresentation in specialeducation and low tracking will continue to worsenas a result. School administrators must not beallowed to decide upon the future of AfricanAmericans and other minorities without having toanswer for their actions. The Decatur incident is aprelude into what the future holds for AfricanAmericans if administrators are not held accountablefor their decisions. We do not live in a colorblindsociety as some would like to think. Racism inAmerica still exists and is actually more dangerousbecause of the current conditions under which itoperates. Racist intent has become more covert innature and is supported by the recent actions of theFederal Courts in placing the burden of proof on theaccuser. Given this fact, white administrators andmajority white school boards cannot be counted onto act fairly without holding them accountable fortheir decisions. There should be a system of checksand balances in place to ensure equal and fair treat-ment in decisions involving school discipline andassessing educational ability. The stakes are too highfor administrators to act with reckless abandon.

There should be a system of checks and balances

in place to ensure equal and fair treatment in

decisions involving school discipline and assessing

educational ability.

Racial motivation cannot be excluded in theDecatur school board’s decision given the other deci-sions that have been made by the board within thesame school year. In one incident, a white studentimplicated in a bomb threat was suspended for fiveschool days. In another incident, a white studentwas suspended only five days for carrying a knife on school property. In yet another incident, a whitestudent was expelled for one year for a fight inwhich a crowbar was used to assault the victim.How do seven African American boys get expelledfor two years for a fight that did not involve anyweapons, but their white counterparts received lesstime for actions that endangered the lives of others?Furthermore, the board disclosed a videotape of thefight and exposed the attendance records of theboys, both illegal acts, in an attempt to demonizethem. The board has yet to be held accountable forthese actions. The recent ruling by Judge McCuskeysends the message to administrators that they havethe power to act in the best interest of the school system, and that they may do whatever they deemnecessary to accomplish this, including breaking the law.

As African Americans, we have a tradition ofpunishing “family members who do wrong” but notcompletely kicking them out of the community. Thebanishment of these students through expulsion isone that may be legally justified and supports thewill of the white majority who argue for “safeschools” in the post-Columbine Colorado highschool shooting era. However, decisions such asthese and the rampant placement of AfricanAmerican males in special education is a civil rightsconcern because these policy actions have had aharmful racial impact on our African American pop-ulation that cannot be justified. Most teachers andadministrators focus on the discipline of students ofcolor to correct the improper behavior. These tasksare easy. Just remove the “problem” student and youcan have a peaceful school. However, as Noguera(1995) has pointed out, the safest schools are oneswhere administrators and teachers engage in thehard work of building strong relationships with students, parents, and the minority communities so people feel connected to the school: “The urbanschools that I know that feel safe to those who spendtime there don’t have metal detectors or armed



security guards, and their principals do not carrybaseball bats. What these schools do have is a strongsense of community and collective responsibility.Such schools are seen by students as sacred territory,too special to be spoiled by crime and violence, andtoo important to risk one’s being excluded”(Noguera, 1995, p. 207). Similarly, the most effectiveviolence intervention reported in the survey studyby Astor, Meyer, and Behre (1999) was the physicalpresence of a teacher who knew the students andwas willing to intervene, coupled with a clear con-sistent policy on violence. There was consensusamong the students that caring teachers saw theirrole as transcending the walls of the classroom to allareas of the school and surrounding community.From a disciplinary standpoint, the students had themost respect for the teachers who knew about theirhome lives, their after school activities, and theirlong-term hopes. Butchart and McEwan’s (1998)work covers the historical evolution of the focus onschool violence and the control of students from theprogressive era of the early twentieth century to thepresent. The chapters in this excellent book alsocover practical applications and theoretical concernsrelated to how to build school communities based onstudents and teachers coming together to create amoral community that seeks to prepare studentsabout their participation as future citizens.Furthermore, as Larson (1997) pointed out in herarticle on racial problems that surfaced in a smallMidwestern school, administrators who ignore raceand racism and rely on standard operating adminis-trative procedures, will have to suffer the politicaland social consequences of further protests and chal-lenges to social norms and school rules that AfricanAmerican and other students of color find unfair totheir educational interests.

... The most effective violence intervention ... was

the physical presence of a teacher who knew the

students and was willing to intervene, coupled with

a clear consistent policy on violence.

These young men were racialized and targetedas “gang-bangers” after the fact. The media con-tributed greatly to demonizing these young black

men, and the repeated showing of the tape of thefight established a mind-set among many (and itseems as if Federal District Court Judge McCuskeyin the ruling as well!). They were profiled as crimi-nals even though a Chicago Tribune article byHallinan & McRoberts (1999) showed that theseyoung men had diverse backgrounds and historieswith the school authorities, some good and somebad. However, most of the media attention and pub-lic commentary has focused in on the “gang-related”activities that these young men were into and thatprompted the fight. The videotape of the fight hastaken on the profile of Rodney King in reverse! Inthat instance, videotape was used to graphicallyillustrate police brutality that still exists againstAfrican Americans. Now Judge McCuskey, whomade repeated and pointed reference to the video-tape as the reported worst fight one of the schooladministrators had seen in 27 years (Fuller v. DecaturPublic School Board, 2000, pgs. 2,6 & 24), and themedia has a chance to turn the tables on AfricanAmericans and once again show white Americanshow “violent and reckless” African American malesare to create more harmful and useless stereotypesand prejudice against young African Americanmales. The key question that we have to ask thecourt here is, how can the African American plain-tiffs utilize school district statistics to show racialdisparities over time regarding disciplinary actionsand this evidence is not held as valid, yet, a video-tape of African American students fighting is all theevidence needed for upholding the school boardaction?

Where Do We Go From Here:Reconciliation or Resolution? by Rodreic R. LandThe verdict to uphold the school board’s decision inthe Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board case, is yetanother squirt of glass cleaner to clarify the lookingglass to see exactly where we stand as a society inregards to race relations and equal protection underthe law. Drawing on the work of Derrick Bell (1995),the goal of racial equality is more illusory than realfor blacks. For too long, blacks have worked for sub-stantive reform, then settled for weakly worded andpoorly enforced legislation, indeterminate judicialdecisions, token government positions, and even



holidays (Bell, 1995). Well, where do we go fromhere? Do we just lie down, reconcile our differences,walk away and live to fight another day? Or, do webuild upon this battle and further develop resolu-tions to obtain and solidify our true emancipation inthese “United” States of America? I choose the latter.

As blacks set out to level the playing field andtranscend their adversary’s obstacles, they shouldtake into account the argument put forth byDerman-Sparks and Phillips (1997) that while racistbehavior does not exist outside the system of institu-tionalized racism, the system cannot exist outside ofindividual actions. Human beings are products ofthe society into which they are born, but they arealso actors who bring institutional relationships tolife and hence have the potential for influencing andchanging these relationships. Human beings thuscontribute to both the maintenance and the evolu-tion of a racist system. In these dynamic interactionslies the mechanism for either perpetuation of racismor its transformation (Derman-Sparks & Phillips,1997). Although we place the blame of racism oninstitutions in our society, we must hold individualsaccountable.

According to a 1997 report of the National SchoolBoards Association, it was reported that schoolboards are comprised of 60% men; 95% white; 40%between the age of 41 and 50; 65% described them-selves as political conservatives; and more than 40%reported family income of $40,000 to $80,000. Thesedemographics indicate how pervasive white repre-sentation is in the education arena. It is quite appar-ent that the playing field is not level. In changing theconditions of blacks in America today, it is criticalthat blacks have viable representation not just in theeducational arena, but in the political/judicial arenaas well. When I speak of representation, I am notspeaking of just a black face, but a voice—a strongunified voice that will resonate throughout thenation and, giving respect to globalization, through-out the entire world that speaks to the true freedomand equality of African Americans. Blacks can nolonger fight the battle from the outside inward; theymust attack the nucleus. They must get to the coreand destroy these systems from the inside out. Inconjunction with the actions taken by blacks, whitesmust also take a stance against members of theirown group and forfeit their white privilege.

In conjunction with the actions taken by blacks,

whites must also take a stance against members of

their own group and forfeit their white privilege.

All too often, African Americans seem to look fora leader to lead them to the Promised Land, a leaderto tell them what to do and how to do it. Further-more, African Americans have a tendency to pointthe finger and pass the buck on exactly who shouldtake the reins of leading them on this journey to free-dom (i.e. the church, political officials, schools, fam-ily, and the community). Well, they are all correct inwhichever direction they point, because it is going totake a concerted and unified effort by all the afore-mentioned components in order to cause any type ofsubstantial change. Black America, it is time to stoppointing the fingers and passing the buck and unifyyour efforts. A million people whispering are louderthan one person shouting.

Critical Implications of the Decatur situation for Race, Discipline,and Educational Leadership One very clear implication from the Decatur situa-tion is that school administrators and school boardleaders can feel supported by the Federal Courtthrough the Fuller vs. Decatur Public School Board(2000) holding. However, it would be a grave mis-take for principals, superintendents and schoolboard members to simply read and accept the deci-sion through a narrow interpretive policy implemen-tation lens. This would be particularly trueregarding issues of African American over represen-tation in special education. The issues of zero toler-ance and special education are of key significance tominority children and parents. We argue that theDecatur, IL, ruling, coupled with the new discre-tionary discipline powers given to administratorsunder the 1997 IDEA will have a deleterious impacton African American students. Glennon (1995)pointed out how race and special education has been socially constructed and linked so teachers and administrators consciously and unconsciously



interconnect both categories when it comes to theracial profile of students classified with behavior dis-orders. They will be racially targeted for disciplinaryoffenses and labeled because of their special educa-tion classification. Therefore, we urge instead thatschool administrators should place a moratorium on allAfrican American special education placement and disci-plinary proceedings until the social construction of raceand disability as a social justice rights violation can beaddressed by the schools and the African American com-munities. To be sure, students should not engage inviolent behavior, but an overreliance on disciplineand perceived safety has led to paranoia amongwhites about African American students and behav-ioral disabilities and disorders regarding the threatof disturbance. State leaders and school officialsshould follow the lead of the Illinois BlackLegislative Caucus which has proposed legislation(responding to the Decatur situation) to createstatewide uniform codes of discipline, appeal boardsfor student disciplinary disputes with schools, andappropriate punishments not to exceed a one-yearexpulsion. We feel there are existing alternatives thatare already being done in schools to explore betterways to make all students feel safe, lessen discipli-nary problems, and most importantly, that focus cur-riculum and instruction and social context learningon African American student success. Some of thesebest practices related to race and discipline can be found in the Harvard Educational Review (1995)special issue on youth and violence and Noguera(1996), research and activist initiatives in Oakland,California with doctoral students at the University of California at Berkeley.

We feel there are existing alternatives that are

already being done in schools ... that focus curricu-

lum and instruction and social context learning on

African American student success.

Successful classrooms for African American stu-dents utilize their cultural histories and experiencesto motivate learning of traditional subjects in combi-nation with new technologies (Mahairi, 1998, p. 7 &p.117). In consort with this, administrators have tofocus less on zero-tolerance and more on recognizing

and stopping practices and policies (e.g., get toughdiscipline and high special education placement)that have had a disproportionate impact on AfricanAmerican students. Principals, superintendents, andschool board members have to work closer withAfrican American parents, students, and the commu-nity to create a positive educational environment,rather than having African American parents see theschool administration as a source of alienation andresentment (Calabrese, 1990).

In conclusion, we feel that educational adminis-trators have to start with these steps in the areas ofrace, special education and discipline. Many mis-takes were made in the Decatur, IL, situation that donot need to be repeated but unfortunately are toooften in our nation’s schools. We got involved in theprotest and marches out of a call for social justice forAfrican American youth and leadership against theforces that have continuously undermined AfricanAmerican student progress. African American stu-dents in the community should be seen as a culturalresource and strength, not as a force to be disci-plined for order and control.

ReferencesAstor, A.R., Meyer, H.A., & Beher, W.J. (1999). Unowned

places and times: Maps and interviews about violencein high schools. American Educational Research Journal,36, 3-46.

Bell, D.A. Jr. (1995). Brown v. Board of Education and theinterest convergence dilemma. In K. Crenshaw, N.Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical racetheory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp.20-28). New York: The New Press.

Butchart, R.E. & McEwan, B. (Eds.). (1998). Classroom disci-pline in American schools: Problems and possibilities forDemocratic education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Calabrese, R.L. (1990). The public school: A source ofalienation for minority parents. Journal of NegroEducation, 59, 148-154.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict inthe classroom. New York: The Free Press.

Derman-Sparks, L. & Phillips, C.B. (1997). Teaching/learning anti-racism: A developmental approach. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Foster, M. (1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York: TheNew Press.

Fuller v. Decatur Public Sch. Bd. Dist. 61. (2000). U.S.Dist.Ct.—Central Dist. Of Illinois (7th Cir.), Case No.99-V-2277.



Glennon, T. (1995). Race, education, and the constructionof a disabled class. Wisconsin Law Review, 30, 1237-1338.

Hallinan, J.T. & McRoberts, F. (1999, December 5). Facts,faces behind Decatur fight coming into focus. ChicagoTribune, pp. 1, 21.

Harvard Educational Review (1995). Special issue on vio-lence and youth, 65, 127-365.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997). P.L.105-97, 20 U.S.C. 1400, et. seq.

Irvine, J.J. (1992). Making teacher education culturallyresponsive. In M. Dillworth (Ed.)., Diversity in teachereducation: New expectations (pp. 79-92). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, D. (1999, November 30). Schools are crackingdown on miscounduct. New York Times, pp. A1, A20.

Kailin, J. (1999). How white teachers perceive the problemof racism in their schools: A case study in liberal“Lakeview”. Teachers College Record, 100, 724-750.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successfulteachers of African American children. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Larson, C.L. (1997). Is the land of Oz an alien nation? Asociopolitical study of school community conflict.Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 312-351.

Mahiri, J. (1998). Shooting for excellence: African Americanand youth culture in new century schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

McRoberts, F. & Franklin, S. (1999, November 21).Decatur’s deep divisions. Chicago Tribune, sec. 2, pp. 1.

National School Board Association (1997). National sur-vey finds school board members in cautious mood.New York Times, 12 January 1997, p. 11.

Noguera, P.A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence:A critical analysis of responses to school violence.Harvard Educational Review, 65, 189-212.

Noguera, P.A. (1996). Confronting the urban in urbanschool reform. The Urban Review, 28, 1-19.

Puch, D. (2000, January 16). Decatur ruling relief for otherschool officials. Champaign Urbana News Gazette, pp.A1, A8.

Russo, C.J. & Talbert-Johnon, C. (1997). The overrepresen-tation of African American children in special educa-tion: The resegregation of educational programming?Education and Urban Society, 29, 136-148.

Sleeter, C.E. (1996). White silence, white solidarity. In N.Ignatiev & J. Garvey (Eds.), Race Traitor (pp. 257-265).New York: Routledge.

Spring, J. (1998). Conflict of interest: The politics of Americaneducation (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

About the AuthorsRoSusan Bartee, Jerrell Beckham, Chandra Gill,Chion Graves, Kashelia Jackson, Rodreic Land, and Dawn Williams are all doctoral students in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Laurence Parker is an Associate Professor in theDepartment of Educational Policy Studies andteaches a class on critical race theory and educa-tional policy issues at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Education, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL. Email:[email protected]



Evaluating special education programs and ser-vices has traditionally been limited to matters of

compliance monitoring. “Compliance monitoringaddresses whether or not a program adheres to cer-tain regulations and operating standards required byfederal, state, or local authorities” (Johnson & Lewis,1994, p. 461). While compliance monitoring undoubt-edly provides a basal level of quality assurance, suchinformation rarely enables educators to truly assessthe quality of their programs and services.Individuals who are responsible for special educa-tion programs have consistently been challengedwhen attempting to find the time, resources, andexpertise needed to properly conduct program eval-uations. Unfortunately, evaluation efforts that sup-plement compliance monitoring are typically limitedto informal impressions, which provide little direc-tion for decision making or program improvement.

Special education leaders need effective andpractical approaches that go beyond simple indica-tors of compliance and informal impressions. Onesuch approach is the Multiattribute Utility (MAU)approach. The purpose of this article is to provide a

straightforward, nontechnical description of theMAU evaluation process. Our desire is that readers,especially special education administrators andsupervisors at the school and district level, will beprepared to initiate a MAU evaluation upon review-ing this article. Our description of the MAU processis different from those in previous literature (e.g.,Edwards & Newman, 1982) in that we recommend aspecific consensus building process based on meth-ods derived from nominal group and delphi tech-niques (see Dalkey, 1967; Delbecq, Van de Ven, &Gustafson, 1975). Also, we present information onthe collection of data and dissemination of findingsthat has not been presented in earlier publications.Finally, all of our examples are taken from specialeducation program evaluations.

How to Complete a MAUEvaluationMAU is a systematic evaluation approach thatrequires progression through a series of sequentialsteps. MAU evaluations are organized around the

Multiattribute Utility (MAU)A Pragmatic Approach to Goal-Based Program Evaluation in Special Education

James R. Thompson, Ph.D. Ron N. Erickson, Ph.D.Illinois State University University of Minnesota

Sheryl Wernsing Piercy, Ed.D. and James Carstens, M.S.Tri-County Special Education Association

• Special education leaders at the district and school levels need practical evaluation strategies to assessthe effectiveness of their programs; however, program evaluation has proven to be a complex and some-times troublesome process.

• The Multiattribute Utility (MAU) approach is a goal-based approach to program evaluation that focuseson determining the extent to which the goals of a particular project or program have been achieved.

• MAU is a pragmatic evaluation approach in that it is applicable to a variety of contexts and settings, doesnot require extensive expense or special expertise, and does not place an undue burden on staff time.Each step of the process is explained and specific examples of MAU applications are provided.

• The advantages and limitations of the MAU approach are discussed in relationship to the program evalu-ation needs of educators who oversee special education services.


development of a value tree that links measurableattributes to broader program missions and goals(See Figure 1). The statement of purpose can be consid-ered to be the “trunk” of the tree. It is a concisestatement of the function of the program that isbeing evaluated and is the object of the evaluation.The middle section of the value tree, the “branches,”is comprised of the evaluation goals. Goals reflecteither desired outcomes or desired processes relatedto the statement of purpose. The outermostbranches, or “twigs,” consist of the evaluation attrib-utes. Attributes are measurable indicators of thegoals. Each step of a MAU evaluation is describedbelow along with examples of implementation.

Step 1: Identify the Reasons forImplementing the Evaluation Project There are a myriad of reasons for initiating the eval-uation of special education programs. A governingboard or administrator may have a special interest ina certain program; funding sources may require anevaluation; it may be an organization’s policy toperiodically review different areas of their program;or, there may be some type of decision to be maderegarding program continuation or expansion. It isimportant for the evaluator to become familiar withthe reasons why an evaluation is being initiated,which audiences will be interested in the results, andwhat potential purposes the evaluation findings mayserve. Depending on the project, the evaluator’scharge may be very clear and specific, or it may berather ambiguous. Whatever the case, becomingfamiliar with the original reasons for undertakingthe evaluation will enable an evaluator to facilitateactivities that are likely to address a school district’score information needs and prevent the evaluationfrom getting sidetracked. Moreover, understandingthe information needs that prompt the evaluationenables an evaluator to assess whether or not MAUis an appropriate approach to use.

Step 2: Identify, Recruit,and Select StakeholdersStakeholders are individuals who have a key interestor stake in the program. Special education programsusually have multiple stakeholders. These caninclude school board members, parents, students,

teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and funders. In a MAU evaluation, a representativegroup of stakeholders is charged with determiningthe composition of the evaluation items and the cri-teria for judging program quality. The MAU evalua-tor should strive to assure that all members of thestakeholder group have input into developing theevaluation criteria and assist the group in identify-ing and clarifying issues of relevance. Because theMAU evaluator’s role is one of facilitator, not deci-sionmaker, the evaluator must be careful to avoid

Multiattribute Evaluation

Figure 1: Value Tree for Evaluating Transition Services

AttributesGoals

Statementof

Purpose

Attribute 1A

Attribute 1B

Attribute 1C

Attribute 1D

Attribute 2A

Attribute 2B

Attribute 2C

Attribute 2D

Attribute 3A

Attribute 3B

Attribute 3C

Attribute 4A

Attribute 4B

Attribute 4C

Attribute 4D

Attribute 4E

Attribute 5A

Attribute 5B

Attribute 5C

Students will have avision of what their life

will be like after high school and

a plan to make theirvision a reality

Students will completeall of the planned

transition activities that are listed on

their IndividualizedTransition Plans (ITPs)

for the school year

Students will have“optimistically realistic”

postschool outcomegoals on their ITPs

Students will offer transition services

needed by students

Students, parents, adultservice/support

providers, and schoolstaff will collaborate

to develop ITPs

Students with disabilities

will be supported to make a positive

transition from school to adult life


interjecting undue influence on decisions that stake-holders make.

The evaluator should work with the individualswho are initiating the evaluation to identify stake-holders to participate. The first step is to brainstormthe types of stakeholders who should be recruited.Because a diverse collection of stakeholders willassure that diverse perspectives and ideas are incor-porated into the evaluation, it is important thatrecruitment and selection of individuals is completedfairly with no hidden agenda. “Stacking the deck”with individuals who share certain biases or view-points will undermine the democratic, participatorynature of the MAU approach. Although there is nodefinitive number of individuals needed for a stake-holder group, social psychologists have traditionallyreported that the best size for a “problem solving”group is between five and fifteen members (e.g.,Holloman & Hendrick, 1971; Slater, 1958). Edwardsand Newman (1982) point out that a MAU evaluatoroften is faced with having too many potential stake-holders available. While care should be taken not toomit anyone whose perspective is crucial to a partici-patory evaluation, the logistics of trying to accom-modate the schedules of individuals makes itextremely difficult to include more than 15 stake-holders.

Step 3: Write a Statement of PurposeThe first phase of developing a value tree is to writea statement of purpose. As can be seen in the samplevalue tree shown in Figure 1, the statement of pur-pose forms the base of the value tree and identifiesthe overall “definition of success” for the programbeing evaluated. The statement of purpose is criticalin defining the scope and parameters of the evalua-tion. For example, the value tree in Figure 1 showsthat the purpose of this particular evaluation is toassess the quality of school-to-adult life transitionservices. This evaluation is not intended to assess the quality of the entire secondary special educationprogram and transition services (a broader purposestatement would be needed) nor is it intended tosimply assess the quality of individualized school-to-adult life transition plans that the school has on file(a narrower purpose statement would be needed).

To arrive at a statement of purpose, it is recom-mended that the evaluator start by sharing the

reasons the evaluation is being initiated (i.e., infor-mation from Step 1) with the stakeholders. Once thisinformation is provided, the evaluator can eitherinstruct the stakeholders to work individually onwriting a statement of purpose, or can provide oneor more sample “statements” for the stakeholders toindividually review and edit. It often is more effi-cient to provide examples. Once each stakeholderhas either reviewed/edited the examples or hascomposed one or more original statements, stake-holders should be placed into small groups of threeor four people and told that it is their group’s job toreach consensus on a final version of the statementof purpose. After stakeholders have shared and dis-cussed all potential statements of purpose with oneanother in the small group setting, they shouldreturn to a large group format. Each subgroupshould be asked to provide suggested wording forthe purpose statement for the entire group of stake-holders to evaluate. Consensus among the entiregroup often comes quickly, with spontaneous, collec-tive agreement among stakeholders that a particularversion is exceptionally well worded and clear. Ifconsensus does not emerge, each stakeholder shouldvote for the statement that he or she prefers on a private ballot. The statement with the fewest votesshould be eliminated until one option has a simplemajority.

Step 4: Specify and Weight the Evaluation GoalsAs mentioned earlier, goals are value statements thatindicate a desired state of affairs and can be eitheroutcome or process oriented. Outcome goals focuson the external consequences or results of a program.In the case of special education programs this usu-ally means examining the degree to which a pro-gram is positively impacting the lives of the studentsserved by the program. In contrast, process goalsfocus on internal aspects of a program. Investigatingthe degree of problem solving and communicationthat occurs among school staff is an example of aprocess goal. Because MAU evaluations can includeboth process and outcome goals, MAU can accom-modate what Scriven (1967) has termed “hybridevaluations”.

The selection of goals is critical to obtaining agood MAU evaluation. Obviously, if important



goals are omitted and trivial goals are selected, theevaluation will produce useless information. To elicitgood goals from the stakeholders, the evaluatorshould follow the consensus building process out-lined below:1. Charge stakeholders to develop a set of goals that are

related to the statement of purpose and are not redun-dant with one another. Emphasize to stakeholdersthat assessing the relative importance of poten-tial goals comes later, and caution them to avoidfocusing attention on topics or issues that may beinteresting but are not related to the purposestatement.

2. Provide a starting list of potential goals for stakehold-ers to individually review and edit. While providingthis list may introduce a degree of evaluatorinfluence into the process, it is an effectivemethod to maintain the momentum of an evalua-tion. Without a starting point, stakeholders tendto struggle with the process of developing goalsfor consideration. Make it clear that individualsare strongly encouraged to compose additionalgoals concerning any process or outcome that isgermane to the statement of purpose.

3. Alternate stakeholders between individual work, smallgroup work, and large group work to create a final listof potential goals. Much of the small and largegroup work should consist of stakeholders brain-storming different wordings for potential goals,suggesting edits to one another, and exchangingthoughts and rationales. The final list of potentialgoals should be printed and distributed to theentire stakeholder group.

4. Ask stakeholders to share opinions on the relativevalue of each proposed goal in an additional round ofsmall and large group discussions. Stress that thepurpose of these discussions is to share ideasand reasoning, not to necessarily come to totalagreement. Once all opinions on the relative mer-its of each potential goal have been aired, it istime for each stakeholder to individually com-plete the MAU Goal Rating Form (See Figure 2).

5. Distribute MAU Goal Rating Forms to the stakehold-ers and instruct them to individually rate potentialgoals based on the relative importance of each goal tothe statement of purpose. As can be seen in Figure2, a stakeholder can divide his/her 100 points

across all of the potential goals or “spend” all100 points on just one goal. In Figure 2 the stake-holder chose to divide 100 points over fivepotential goals. A standard for accepting andrejecting goals must be established before stake-holders complete their MAU Goal Rating Formsin order to keep the evaluation efficient andmanageable. For example, the group may agreethat any goal with a mean rating of 10 or morewill be included in the evaluation.

After each stakeholder has rated the goals, theevaluator must tally the scores for the group. To calculate a goal’s weight, the mean rating for thegoal is divided by the sum of the mean ratings of allselected goals. Due to the way in which these valuesare calculated, goal weights will always collectivelytotal 1.00. As Edwards & Newman (1982) observed,differential weighting “captures the essence of valuejudgements” (p. 52) by precisely defining the relativeimportance of each goal to the overall project. Thepremise that all evaluation goals and attributes (dis-cussed later) may not be equally important is a keyassumption of the MAU approach.

In the case of a Minnesota school district’s MAU evaluation of its secondary learning disabilities

Instructions: Rate each goal based on its relativeimportance to the evaluation. A maximum of 100total points can be awarded across all goals. Scorescan range from 0 to 100.

Goal Points

1. Goal 1 50

2. Goal 2 ----

3. Goal 3 ----

4. Goal 4 10

5. Goal 5 ----

6. Goal 6 5

7. Goal 7 ----

8. Goal 8 20

9. Goal 9 ----

10. Goal 10 15

Figure 2: MAU Goal Rating Form



program, the stakeholder group assigned the follow-ing weights to the goals of the evaluation: (1) attain-ment of educational outcomes, .29; (2) effectivecurriculum and instruction, .27; (3) qualified anddedicated personnel, .24; and (4) parental and com-munity involvement, .20. The stakeholders in thisexample believed that data concerning the educa-tional achievements/outcomes of graduates shouldcount more heavily in the overall evaluation of theprogram than data associated with the other goals.Notice that the goals were oriented toward both the processes of the program and the outcomes for students.

... The goals were oriented toward both the

processes of the program and the outcomes for

students.

Once the goals have been identified andweighted, stakeholders should be encouraged toconsider the goal statements as the primary ques-tions that the evaluation is attempting to answer. Inthe example above, the goal of exhibiting “effectivecurriculum and instruction” can be reframed as theevaluation question, “Are the curriculum andinstructional methods used in this program effec-tive?” This prepares the stakeholder group for thenext step of a MAU evaluation: identifying whichdata would be most helpful in answering the evaluation questions.

Step 5: Specify and Weight the Evaluation AttributesOnce the statement of purpose and the evaluationgoals are established, all that is needed to completethe value tree is to develop meaningful and measur-able indicators of the goals (i.e., the attributes) and to specify the relative importance of each of these inthe evaluation. The same consensus building processused to specify and weight the goals should be usedwith the attributes. As is the case with the goals, it isuseful to begin the process by providing stakehold-ers an initial list of potential attributes for their reac-tion. Next, small and large group work should bestructured to create a master list of potential attrib-utes that are clearly worded and have limited redun-

dancy with one another. Once the master list is com-plete, stakeholders should share their thoughts andopinions on the relative merit of each item.

It is helpful to present attributes as (1) declara-tive value statements; and (2) in measurable termsthat identify precisely how data will be collected. Forexample, in an evaluation of a pre-referral interven-tion program that was initiated by a rural specialeducation cooperative, one of the selected goals was“Increased support for teachers in meeting the edu-cational needs of children experiencing academicand/or social difficulties in school.” A potentialattribute under consideration for this goal was presented in the following way:

• Value Statement: Conferring teachers perceivethat their consultations with Teacher AssistanceTeams (TATs) and/or cadre teachers were collab-orative and supportive.

• Measurement: All teachers who have conferredwith a TAT and/or cadre teacher during the pastthree months will be surveyed and asked torespond to the following item:“My consultation(s) can be best characterized as:1. Collaborative. There was a spirit of shared

ownership regarding the situation. It was non-threatening and I felt supported.

2. Directive. Suggestions and recommendations were provided to me but the situation/problem remained primarily mine to resolve.

3. Dismissive. The issues that I intended to address were mostly trivialized or ignored by those with whom I consulted.”

Once the small and large group discussionsregarding the relative merits of each attribute havebeen completed, stakeholders must assess eachpotential attribute in regard to its relative impor-tance in representing (i.e., operationalizing) its corre-sponding goal. Each stakeholder has 100 points withwhich to rate potential attributes within each goalarea. A stakeholder can divide his/her 100 pointsacross a maximum number of attributes or “spend”all 100 points on just one attribute. After each stake-holder has independently selected and rated theattributes, the ratings must be tallied across thegroup. As was done with the goals, a standard foraccepting attributes must be set in order to keep thescope of the evaluation manageable.



Step 6: Establish Ideal Scores for Each AttributeTo determine an attribute’s ideal score, stakeholdersmust answer the question, “What results would weexpect if we had an ideal program?” This is a rela-tively easy question to answer for certain types ofattributes. However, for others, setting ideal scorescan be an arduous process.

The attribute that was mentioned previously,concerning teacher perceptions of the quality of theirpre-referral consultations with TATs and cadre teach-ers, is an example of an attribute for which an idealscore was relatively easy to establish. It would beideal if all teachers indicated that their consultationswith TATs and/or cadre teachers were “collabora-tive” as opposed to “directive” or “dismissive”. Forthis particular item, “collaborative” was scored 2points, “directive” was scored 1 point, and “dismis-sive” was scored 0 points. Thus, the ideal score (i.e.,desired mean rating across all teachers) for theattribute was set at 2.0. The decision to select such a high standard of effectiveness was made easierbecause the purpose of this evaluation was to assessa single project, not to make comparisons or deci-sions regarding alternatives.

The decision to select such a high standard of

effectiveness was made easier because the purpose

of this evaluation was to assess a single project,

not to make comparisons or decisions regarding

alternatives.

Establishing standards for acceptability is moredifficult in situations where there is not a forcedchoice selection of responses, and/or a comparisonof program alternatives is needed. In a feasibilityevaluation of a life skills program designed to serve18-21 year old students with multiple disabilities,Option 1 called for the project to be located at a highschool whereas Option 2 called for the project to belocated at a local community college. An attribute forthis project was proximity to community businessesthat had histories of employing students in the pro-gram. Consequently, the stakeholders had to decidewhat constituted an ideal length for a bus ride. It

was decided that selecting different ranges of thevariable would serve as an appropriate rubric (e.g., 5 to 10 miles; 11 to 15 miles; 16 to 20 miles).

Establishing ideal performance standards callsupon stakeholders to consider their own expecta-tions regarding the object of the evaluation. Settingideal scores not only allows for measuring the actualperformance of a program against certain desirableattributes, it also reveals the various perspectivesheld by stakeholders of what is considered ideal program performance.

Step 7: Collect Performance DataDuring this step, the principal evaluator gathers datapertinent to the attributes selected in the earlier step.It is important to note that data for a MAU evalua-tion must be quantifiable. The MAU process cannotaccommodate qualitative data. Although qualitativedata can be used to supplement MAU information,only variables that can be numerically measured canbe incorporated into a MAU evaluation.

Data collection should be completed within areasonable time frame. It is best if stakeholders canbe reassembled to interpret the results and drawconclusions from the evaluation while their partici-pation in the earlier phases of the MAU process isstill relatively fresh in their minds. Although a hostof logistical obstacles beyond the principal evalua-tor’s control can impede data collection efforts, thereshould be a concerted effort to promptly collectinformation.

Step 8: Calculate the Total WeightedUtility IndexA MAU evaluation yields a Total Weighted UtilityIndex which is a numerical indicator of the degree ofcongruence between the ideal state of affairs and theactual state of affairs. The index is computed by com-bining attribute weights, performance data (i.e.,observed scores), and ideal scores. An index of 1.00would be a perfect score and would indicate thatthere was an exact match between the observed andthe ideal scores. Table 1 reveals a Total WeightedUtility Index of 0.74 was achieved from data col-lected for the evaluation of transition services men-tioned earlier (see the value tree in Figure 1). Theindex was calculated in the following manner: (1)



attribute weights were multiplied by goal weights toproduce a utility weight for each attribute; (2) utilitypoints for each attribute were derived by dividingthe observed score (from data collected) by the idealscore; (3) each attribute’s weighted utility was derivedby multiplying its utility points by its utility weight;(4) weighted utilities for all attributes were summedto produce the Total Weighted Utility Index.

Step 9: Interpret the Evaluation ResultsThe evaluator should prepare descriptive findingsfrom the evaluation data and work with the stake-holder group in drawing conclusions. As stated earlier, MAU is typically employed for summativeevaluation purposes due to its ability to aggregateevaluation findings into a Total Weighted UtilityIndex. The index can be used to: (1) make summa-tive judgements regarding the success of a project;(2) compare alternative projects; and/or (3) establish

a baseline by which to track progress over time.Evaluation sponsors and other audiences should bereminded that the validity and usefulness of a TotalWeighted Utility Index is dependent upon the fol-lowing decisions which the stakeholder group madein the previous steps of the MAU process: (1) the initial weighted values placed upon the goalstatements and attributes; (2) the determination ofoptimal or ideal performance standards; and (3) thevalidity and reliability of the data collected to deter-mine the performance of the evaluation object.Changes in any of these factors could lead to differences in the Total Weighted Utility Index, and consequently, in the interpretation of the results.

During the process of interpreting evaluationfindings and drawing conclusions, a sensitivity analysis should be conducted to examine the impactof hypothetical changes in goal weights, ideal scores,or the ways in which the attributes were operational-ized. Any available spreadsheet or database software


Attribute Goal Weight Attribute Weight Utility Weight Ideal Score Observed Score Utility Points Weighted Utility(a) (b) (c) = (a x b) (d) (e) (f ) = (e / d) (g) = (c x f )

1a 0.10 0.20 0.02 4.00 2.90 0.73 0.01

1b 0.10 0.30 0.03 4.00 2.79 0.70 0.02

1c 0.10 0.35 0.04 10.00 8.93 0.89 0.03

1d 0.10 0.15 0.02 4.00 2.71 0.68 0.01

2a 0.35 0.25 0.09 5.00 2.91 0.58 0.05

2b 0.35 0.25 0.09 4.00 3.02 0.76 0.07

2c 0.35 0.29 0.10 6.00 5.18 0.86 0.09

2d 0.35 0.21 0.07 2.00 1.66 0.83 0.06

3a 0.10 0.23 0.02 4.00 3.02 0.76 0.02

3b 0.10 0.21 0.02 7.00 3.35 0.48 0.01

3c 0.10 0.56 0.06 25.00 12.90 0.52 0.03

4a 0.25 0.19 0.05 4.00 2.87 0.72 0.03

4b 0.25 0.19 0.05 10.00 7.94 0.79 0.04

4c 0.25 0.20 0.05 4.00 2.86 0.72 0.04

4d 0.25 0.27 0.07 12.00 10.50 0.88 0.06

4e 0.25 0.15 0.04 6.00 5.51 0.92 0.03

5a 0.20 0.30 0.06 5.00 4.00 0.80 0.05

5b 0.20 0.50 0.10 10.00 6.33 0.63 0.06

5c 0.20 0.20 0.04 7.00 3.69 0.53 0.02

Total Weighted Utility Index (sum column g): 0.74

Table 1: Calculation of Total Weighted Utility Index


application can be used to display the data, afterwhich stakeholders can pursue questions such as thefollowing:

• What would happen if we weighted the goal state-ments differently? The proportional weightsassigned to the various goals reflect the group’sconsensus about which goals are more critical tothe program than others. The group may wish toexamine the impact on the Total Weighted UtilityIndex of weighting each goal equally, or shiftingthe weights among the goals.

• What would happen if we changed our definition ofideal performance? Stakeholders may wish toexamine the effect of modifying the performancestandards or “ideal” scores. Members may wishto adjust the performance standards of one ormore attributes closer to the actual observed per-formance levels, or they may wish to increase theideal scores.

• What would happen if we changed our measures?Attributes can often be validly operationalizedthrough several different means; however, lim-ited resources and time restrictions often makedata triangulation methods infeasible.Stakeholders should consider the impact of usingdifferent measures, or different estimates ofactual performance.

Step 10: Disseminate the EvaluationFindings and ConclusionsThe importance of identifying the different audi-ences that are interested in the results of the evalua-tion prior to initiating evaluation activities wasstressed in Step 1. It is equally important to revisitthe question of who is interested in the results at thebeginning of the dissemination process. It is difficult,if not impossible, to communicate meaningful find-ings and conclusions from an evaluation unless theinformation needs of different audiences are under-stood. A number of excellent suggestions for com-municating evaluation findings are provided byPosavac and Carey (1997) in their text on programevaluation. We will limit our recommendations todissemination issues that are specific to a MAU evaluation.

We have found that executive summaries, whichhighlight key findings in two to four pages, havebeen very well received due to the fact that most

school officials, administrators, parents, and teacherssimply do not want to read a lengthy final report.However, a final report is desired by some and mustbe prepared in all cases to document the completefindings of the evaluation as well as the activities ofthe evaluation. At a minimum, final reports shouldinclude a comprehensive description of the proce-dures that were followed, including descriptions ofthe consensus building process and the manner inwhich final goal and attribution weights were deter-mined. The final report should also contain detailedrecords of the audit trail that emerges from a MAUevaluation. The audit trail enables individuals toexamine the process and outcomes of an evaluationat any point in time.

Using the value tree as an organizing framework,we have found it helpful to present attribute dataaround the different goal areas. Specifically, we rec-ommend presenting the justification for the goal,then presenting findings for each attribute associatedwith the goal, and finally summarizing findings andconclusions for the goal. Presenting results fromeach goal separately functions to keep the evaluationfindings from becoming overwhelming and confus-ing. After findings and conclusions pertaining toeach goal are presented, findings and conclusionsacross the goals need to be provided. This includesan explanation and presentation of the TotalWeighted Utility Index as well as the conclusionsand recommendations that emerged from Step 9.

DiscussionStrengths of the MAU EvaluationApproachMAU is a pragmatic approach to program evalua-tion that does not require extensive expense or spe-cial expertise, and does not place an undue burdenon staff time. The MAU process effectively and effi-ciently moves those conducting an evaluation fromconceptual ideas based largely on values (e.g., indi-vidualized education, family/professional collabora-tion, child-centered services) to the operationaldefinition of those ideas. It is a good evaluationoption for special education leaders who wish toestablish a clear, defensible, and manageable set ofcriteria against which to assess a program and obtain



quantitative data that reflect the extent to which thegoals of a program have been achieved.

The consensus building procedures embedded inthe MAU process assure a participatory evaluation.The structured incorporation of multiple perspec-tives helps establish the legitimacy of the evaluationin the eyes of the individuals who are associatedwith the program being evaluated (e.g., educators,parents, board members). The sequential, systematicnature of the MAU process enables most evaluationsto be completed within a reasonable and predictabletime frame.

The consensus building procedures embedded in

the MAU process assure a participatory evaluation.

MAU is best suited for evaluations where thereis a strong need to collect summative information.The Total Weighted Utility Index produced througha MAU evaluation makes it especially appropriatefor situations where there is a need to measureprogress and performance over time or compare pro-gram alternatives. Because a detailed audit trailautomatically emerges from MAU activities, anyinterested party can inspect all of the evidence thatforms the basis of the final evaluation findings, con-clusions, and recommendations.

Limitations of the MAU EvaluationApproachThe MAU approach is not suited for evaluationswhere the intent is to assess the degree of compli-ance with accreditation standards, nor is it a helpfulstrategy in situations where there is a need to identify whatever consequences—good, bad, orindifferent—arose from a project (i.e., a goal-freeevaluation). Because it is assumed that the necessaryexpertise to identify evaluation criteria and drawconclusions lies within the stakeholders, MAU is instark contrast to the connoisseur/expert opinionapproach where it is assumed that evaluation knowledge and expertise lies within the principleevaluator or evaluation team (e.g., Eisner, 1991).

Although some formative information can begleaned from a MAU evaluation, MAU is designedprimarily to generate an indication of a program’s

relative standing in relation to a set of criteria.Therefore, in evaluations where extensive formativeinformation is desired, the MAU process will need tobe supplemented with other approaches. Posavacand Carey (1997) have pointed out that most pro-gram evaluations are best served by using featuresfrom multiple evaluation models.

MAU is best suited for evaluations where there is a

strong need to collect summative information.

ConclusionAre special education programs worthwhile?Taxpayers, politicians, government officials, parents,and educators have been asking this question withincreasing frequency during the past decade.Observers at the national level have questioned anddefended the value special education services in thepopular press and professional journals (e.g., seeFuchs & Fuchs, 1995; Kauffman, 1999; Ratnesar,1998; Shapiro, Loeb, & Bowermaster, 1993).Although the national debate is interesting and hasimportant implications, the greatest influence onpublic support for special education is undoubtedlythe public’s perception of special education at thelocal level. As long as parents, school board mem-bers, and citizens in communities across the nationbelieve that their local special education programsprovide a useful service to students with disabilitiesand the community as a whole, it is likely that pub-lic support for special education will continue.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of local specialeducation leaders to be accountable for special edu-cation services in their communities. Unfortunately,the systematic evaluation of special education pro-grams is often neglected. All too often school person-nel simply rely on legal mandates to justify thecontinuation of special education services and sup-ports (i.e., “We’re doing this because it is required bythe law”) rather than measures of program quality.Local special education leaders must be prepared tojustify the continuation and expansion of services,and in some instances advocate for the elimination of ineffective or outdated program components. Ifspecial education leaders do not conduct activities



to assess the quality and needs of their programs,evaluative judgements will be left to others with lessknowledge and/or axes to grind. The studentswhom special education programs serve and the professionals who work hard to make a difference in the lives of children deserve a better fate.

ReferencesDalkey, N.C. (1967). Delphi. Santa Monica, CA: Rand

Corporation.Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. (1975). Group

techniques for program planning: A guide to nominalgroup and delphi. Chicago: Scott Foresman.

Edwards, W. & Newman, J.R. (1982). Multiattribute evalua-tion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiryand the enhancement of educational practice. New York:Macmillan.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L.S. (1995). Counterpoint: Special education—ineffective? immoral? Exceptional Children,61, 303-306.

Holloman, C.R. & Hendrick, H.W. (1971). Problem solv-ing in different sized groups. Personnel Psychology,24, 489-500.

Johnson, D.R. & Lewis, D.R. (1994). Supported employ-ment: Program models, strategies, and evaluation perspectives. In M. F. Hayden & B. H. Abery (Eds.),Challenges for a service system in transition: Ensuringquality community experiences for persons with develop-mental disabilities (pp. 449-482). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Kauffman, J. (1999). Commentary: Today’s special educa-tion and its message for tomorrow. The Journal ofSpecial Education, 32, 244-254.

Posavac, E.J. & Carey, R.J. (1997). Program evaluation:Methods and case studies (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ratnesar, R. (1998). Lost in the Middle. Time, 152(11), 60-64.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation: AmericanEducational Research Association monograph series onevaluation, No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Shapiro, J.H., Loeb, P., & Bowermaster, D. (1993). Separateand unequal: Examining special education. U.S. News& World Report, 115(23), 46-60.

Slater, P.E. (1958). Contrasting correlates of group size.Sociometry, 25, 129-139.

About the AuthorsJames R. Thompson, Ph.D., is an associate professorin the Department of Special Education, Illinois StateUniversity, Mail Code 5910, Normal, IL 61790-5910.Email: [email protected]. Ron N. Erickson, Ph.D., is the associate director of the Office of EducationalAccountability, University of Minnesota, University Technology Center, Suite B1, 1313 FifthStreet SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414. Email:[email protected]. Sheryl WernsingPiercy, Ed.D., is the assistant director of the Tri-County Special Education Association, 105 E. Hamilton Rd., Bloomington, IL 61704. Jim Carstens, M.S., is the executive director of the Tri-County Special Education Association, 105 E. Hamilton Rd., Bloomington, IL 61704.



Recently I have heard more and more schooladministrators state that they do not even try to

hold special education students accountable for theiractions when it comes to the normal disciplineprocess within their schools. The administrators’arguments are commonly based on the premise thatthe “red tape” required to discipline students withspecial needs is so great that it is not worth the timeit takes to hold students with special needs account-able to the same standards as those expected of allother students.

During my fifteen years as a district superinten-dent of elementary (K-12) and high school (9-12) dis-tricts, I have observed often that the problem withany discipline program is that these programs aredesigned to treat all students the same. This in itselfis the problem. As a graduate student, I often ques-tioned a professor who constantly espoused hisfavorite saying, “Nothing is as unequal as treatingunequals as equals.” The professor who taught therequired course in the principalship for the masterslevel students aspiring to become building principalswould ask us to consider this statement as wedebated how we would handle our “in basket” sim-ulations which were part of our class projects. Oncethe professor convinced us that hanging studentsfrom the flagpole or shooting them at sunrise werenot acceptable discipline alternatives in modern society, he began to assist us in thinking about evaluating our discipline programs in an effort to better meet our goal to educate all the students in our school.

This led us to consider the following whendeveloping a continuum of alternative educationalprograms for all students:

• “Nothing is as unequal as treating unequals as equals.”

• Educators must identify how their primary goalsare related to each student’s academic progressand then develop discipline programs whichenhance these goals.

• The development of a continuum of educationalprograms must be a local school initiative, devel-oped in cooperation with students and parents.

• Long-term costs versus benefits analysis must becompleted when evaluating the components of acontinuum of educational programs.

• A number of educational benefits could be real-ized by providing a number of structured educa-tional programs in lieu of totally removing thestudent from the educational process.

• Future employment demands will require all stu-dents to possess a minimum of basic academicskills and a desire for lifelong learning.

• All students could benefit from recent advance-ments in the use of technology to provide onlinecourse work.

• As part of making the curriculum accessible toall, teachers would benefit from training thatwould help them individualize instruction forthose students who cannot learn through a “onesize fits all approach” to classroom instruction.

“Nothing is as unequal as treating unequals asequals” forms the basis for the creation of a contin-uum of alternative educational placements to aid ourschools in meeting the goal to educate all our stu-dents to their fullest potential while at the same timeholding them accountable for their inappropriatebehavior. If we accept the challenge to educate allstudents to their fullest potential, which is the statedmission of many public schools, there is no place fordiscipline programs that remove students from theeducational process.

Continuum of Educational ProgramsA Key to Proactive Discipline for Special Education Students

Superintendent Commentary

Ralph L. Marshall, Ed.D.Hononegah Community High School District, IL


We must identify appropriate academic goalswith students at risk and with disabilities and theirparents, and then develop programs which willassist them in meeting those goals. Suspensions andexpulsions would become obsolete if responsiveeducational programs that kept the student engagedin learning were implemented. Keeping students inschool engaged in learning while simultaneouslydelivering disincentives for infractions wouldachieve this goal. Only in the most extreme casesshould it be necessary to remove students from theirinstructional program—when students are in dangerof harming themselves or others (in this latter case,one would anticipate judicial intervention).

We must identify appropriate academic goals with

students at risk and with disabilities and their par-

ents, and then develop programs which will assist

them in meeting those goals.

Developing a continuum of educational pro-grams must be a local school initiative, not just aspecial education initiative. Superintendents andspecial education directors must encourage building-level administrators to involve parents, students,teachers, and special education professionals in theprocess of developing programs which will meet theneeds of individual students. Such programs musthold students accountable for their actions while atthe same time maintaining a structured educationalprogram for the student. It is required that discipli-nary actions appropriate for each student beincluded in their individualized education program(IEP) so that when disciplinary issues arise involvingstudents with disabilities any uncertainty arounddisciplinary actions would be minimized. We allknow that IEP team meetings take time, but theadditional time spent leads to the development ofacceptable discipline alternatives and the avoidanceof litigation over the implementation of impropereducational programming of students with disabili-ties involved in disciplinary actions.

The thousands of dollars each year that arewasted when students fail to meet academic goalscould be considered minimal compared to futurecosts incurred by taxpayers. Students who are

unable to successfully support themselves becomemembers of the social welfare rosters and requirelifetime support. For those who feel alternative edu-cational programming is too costly, consider thecosts versus benefits of paying for a lifetime of socialservices and welfare to preventing student failuresthrough alternative educational programming.

It would appear much easier to work collabora-tively with parents and other student advocates dur-ing the IEP process when proactive disciplinealternatives could save school districts both time andmoney. Discipline programs built on the principle ofretaining students in a formal educational setting canbe much more cost effective in providing the continu-ation of required services to students with disabili-ties. Such services can be delivered within the normalschool setting instead of paying for additional per-sonnel time needed to deliver such services at eithera home bound or other educational placement.

When a number of educational programs areprovided to students and supported by parents,long-term educational benefits could be realized forstudents who in the past may have been considered“at risk” of academic failure. Besides the increasedchances of a student gaining much needed basic aca-demic skills, the introduction of a variety of alterna-tive educational programs will increase the student’sknowledge of options available to him or her to con-tinue a lifetime of learning. A number of times in mycareer as a teacher and school administrator I havehad students tell me that they looked at out-of-school discipline actions as a form of “a vacation”more so than a punishment. Programs that retainstudents within a formal school setting, but offer amild disincentive such as isolation from their peers,could be much more effective in holding studentsaccountable for their actions. Alternative programs,along with contracts agreed to among the student,parents, and school administrators which allow stu-dents to earn back privileges, appear to be muchmore compatible to our goal to maintain efforts tomeet each student’s academic goals.

We are now in an era where public schools areexpected to educate all students to a level to meetbasic skill requirements for future employment.Unlike in past years when there were employmentopportunities for school dropouts with limited acad-emic skills, such employment opportunities are no

A Key to Proactive Discipline


longer available to our students. Today’s studentsneed to be lifelong learners, not recipients of lifetimesupport in order to be the productive workers of thefuture.

We are now in an era where public schools are

expected to educate all students to a level to meet

basic skill requirements for future employment.

Up to this point I have advocated “in-school”options for students. At Hononegah we are in theprocess of investigating electronic means to providealternative educational programs for our students.With the rapid advancements in communicationtechnologies, my staff and I are investigating pro-grams such as the Florida High School on-line cur-riculum. We feel the concepts related to “anytime,anyplace, any pace” education, which are presentedas positives to such on-line programs, could be posi-tive additions to our continuum of educationalplacements for all students. Looking at such pro-grams is also an example of the need for educatorsto keep an open mind as to the types of placementswhich can be used to meet individual student acade-mic goals. These “on-line” programs could helpmeet many of the social issues that are related to allstudent discipline problems.

Some of the alternative educational programspresently in use within the Hononegah High SchoolDistrict are in no way unique to many school dis-tricts. These include before and after school deten-tions, Saturday schools, in-school suspension room,and night school programs. Working to link theseprograms to the student’s regular academic program

must be done among teachers, student, parents, andassistant principal and are not limited to special edu-cation students only. In other words, some students,if not all students, at times may need an IEP. In thisarea, special education professionals could be amajor resource in leading staff development pro-grams which would assist their general educationpeers in the development of skills to design IEPs for each of their students. In such staff developmentprograms, teachers must be trained to link the continuum of educational programs in an effort to develop proactive discipline programs for eachstudent that will assist the student in reaching his or her academic goals.

As we look forward to a new century, thedemands for public schools to educate all students to a higher level of academic standards requires aninnovative continuum of educational programswhich can be utilized as part of a proactive disci-pline program for the purpose of retaining all stu-dents in a formal learning environment designed tomeet their individual academic goals. Such servicesprovided by our public schools increase the level ofcustomer satisfaction and the value of education tosociety. More importantly, schools then can meettheir mission statement which claims, “Helping allstudents reach their fullest potential.”

About the AuthorRalph L. Marshall, Ed.D., is superintendent of the Hononegah Community High School District,307 Salem Street, Rockton, IL 61072. Email:[email protected]

A Key to Proactive Discipline


Now more than ever it is critical for school officialscharged with maintaining order in schools to

understand the difference between discipline, pun-ishment, and behavior interventions. The discipli-nary components of IDEA usher in a new age ineducation. Never before has a federal statuteincluded language specific to discipline in theschools. Why is this so significant? Because usingpunishment with a student where a behavior inter-vention is called for may not only be inappropriate it may now be illegal. In a recent OCR decision a student with an emotional disability and attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), was repeat-edly sent to the principal’s office for inappropriateand disruptive conduct in the classroom (OCR 1992School Admin Unit #38 (NH)). The district failed toformalize a plan for addressing this misconduct;therefore, the repeated punishment by removal of the student from the classroom denied him an equalopportunity to participate in and benefit from theschool district’s educational programs, in violation ofSection 504. In a due process hearing the district wasfound to be in error for failing to exhaust appropriatebehavior management procedures before resorting tosuspension (SEA PA 1993 St. Mary’s Sch. Dist.).

Discipline is a system of rules for conduct and amechanism for ensuring that conduct codes are fol-lowed (Smith & Rivera, 1995). When used as a disci-plinary sanction, punishment is a penalty inflictedon an offender through an established procedure. Abehavioral intervention is the systematic applicationof any validated procedure (antecedent and/or consequence) which has the potential for changingbehavior. The selection of an appropriate behavioralintervention is dependent upon the hypothesisdeveloped through a functional behavioral assessment and is documented on a behavior intervention plan.

Most disciplinary sanctions utilized by schools in the United States are punitive (Mayer, 1995).Suspension is among the most frequently utilizedsanctions for misbehavior. Suspensions are overuti-lized and ineffective disciplinary sanctions, yet, wecontinue to suspend students at an alarming rate.Suspensions and expulsions have increased dramati-cally since 1970 and are now the number one inter-vention used by schools as a sanction for severebehavior issues (McDonnell & Barren, 1994).Sanctions based on removal are used most frequentlybecause the result (the student is gone) is reinforcingto the school official (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey,1996). When a child is removed from the classroomas a disciplinary sanction, isolation from peers andexclusion from the educational process can have dev-astating consequences. The end result of exclusion-ary disciplinary sanctions is alienation of thestudents that we are attempting to discipline.

The acceptance of a new approach in educationhas been shown to be related to its acceptance ratherthan to its external validity (Kazdin, 1981).Convincing teachers and administrators to designbehavioral interventions that teach appropriatebehaviors while measuring outcomes will not beeasy (Scott & Nelson, 1999). While this may be theultimate goal, a first step in this process may be for aschool to develop adequate and effective alternativesanctions to deter undesirable behaviors that do notinvolve removal.

Following is a “Behavior/Consequence Matrix”that includes a non-exhaustive list of school infrac-tions cross referenced to possible referrals to commu-nity agencies, possible alternative interventions, aswell as recommendations for removals should theadministrator determine it appropriate.

The matrix is divided into three major categories—disciplinary referrals, disciplinary

CASE IN POINTAlternatives to Removal as a Disciplinary Sanction

Cal Evans, Ed.D.Jordan School District, UT


interventions, and disciplinary removals. Each ofthese categories is discussed briefly below. A moredetailed description of each of these categories is dis-cussed in Navigating the Dual Discipline System(Evans, 1999).

Disciplinary ReferralsDisciplinary referrals are to be utilized in conjunc-tion with other interventions. The student mayrequire multiple referrals for the same behavior

Alternatives to Removal as a Disciplinary Sanction

Figure 1: Behavior/Consequence Matrix

continued—


(e.g., for drug sales, a student may be referred tocourt, drug assessment, and self-discipline school).Referrals to community agencies or classes allow stu-dents to access additional services designed to assistin reducing the likelihood that the behavior willrecur. Referrals can be made to one or more of thefollowing:

• Anger Management Class• Juvenile Court• Division of Family Services • Drug and Alcohol Assessment Services• First Offenders Drug and Alcohol Program• Mental Health Services• Special Education Evaluation• Referral to Law Enforcement• School Psychologist• School Violence Risk Assessment • Self-Discipline School• Truancy School

While this list is not exhaustive, it does highlightthe many possibilities for referral.

Disciplinary Interventions Disciplinary interventions are designed to reduce thelikelihood that the undesirable behavior will recur,while being less intrusive than removal from school.The following are possible interventions and theintervention implemented depends on the nature of

the infraction and the relationship to the student’sdisability:

• Community Service• In-school Suspension • Lunch/after School Detention• Modified Suspension• Restitution • Time Out to Another Classroom• Work Crew

Disciplinary RemovalsSometimes it is necessary to remove the student fromthe environment. Efforts must be made to ensure thatduration of suspension for specific conduct is as con-sistent as possible for all students. Three differenttypes of disciplinary removals are presented below,accompanied by procedures that must be followed:

• Short-Term Suspension (<10 Days)Administrator must provide parental notification of:1. Behavior prompting suspension.2. Evidence supporting allegation.3. Duration of suspension.4. Date suspension begins.5. Date suspension ends.

• Long-Term Suspension (>10 Days)Administrator must provide parental notification of:1. Behavior prompting suspension.


Figure 1: Behavior/Consequence Matrix (continued)

© 1999 Cal Evans


2. Evidence supporting allegation.3. Right to a hearing to explain their side of thestory and ask questions.4. Duration of suspension.5. Date suspension begins.6. Date suspension ends.

• Expulsion to Appeals CommitteeAdministrators must provide parental notification of:1. Behavior prompting suspension.2. Evidence supporting allegation.3. Date of appointment with District AppealsCommittee.4. Proposed sanction.

The unique feature about expulsion within thedisciplinary removal category is that an AppealsCommittee is convened to engaged in the decision-making process rather than having the responsibilityfor an expulsion decision fall to one individual.

SummaryThis Behavior Consequence Matrix provides schooladministrators with alternatives to removal fromschool. There are several benefits to developing suchalternatives:

• Parents may be involved in choosing the alterna-tive sanction and may be more supportive in carrying out the sanction.

• Students do not suffer the ill effects of removalfrom school.

• Since these alternatives are not a change of placement pursuant to IDEA, the procedural due process required for removal need not beemployed.

• The alternative sanction may be more effective in deterring future misbehavior.

Shortcomings of implementing such alternativesinclude:

• The alternatives are punitive.• They are only effective if the student prefers to

avoid them rather than engage in the problembehavior.

• The student is not taught appropriate behavior.• The alternatives require time, effort, and energy

to put into place and maintain within the school.

Given the limited efficacy of removal as a disci-plinary sanction and further, that removal fromschool is reinforcing for some students with problembehaviors, these alternative sanctions provide schooladministrators with some viable alternatives. Thesealternatives should also be recognized for what theyare—alternative punishments. They are in no wayintended to take the place of behavioral interventionsthat are designed to address the behavioral deficitsof students.

ReferencesEvans, C. (1999). Navigating the dual system of discipline.

Bloomington, IN: The Forum on Education, IndianaUniversity.

Kazdin, A.E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment tech-niques: The influence of treatment efficacy andadverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493-506.

Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in theschools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 467-478.

McDonnell, C. & Barren, K. (1994). What’s happening toour children? Maryland Bar Journal, 27, 111-116.

OCR 1992 School Admin. Unit #38 (NH), 19 IDELR 186.Scott, T. M. & Nelson, M. N. (1999). Functional behavioral

assessment: Implications for training and staff devel-opment. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249-252.

SEA PA 1993 St. Mary’s Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 46. Smith, D. D. & Rivera, D. P. (1995). Discipline in special

education and general education settings. Focus onExceptional Children, 27, 1-14.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1996). Antisocialbehavior in school: Strategies and best practices. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

About the AuthorCal Evans Ed.D., is director of Special Education and Compliance Officer, Jordan School District, 6494 Bouchelle Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 84121. Email: [email protected]



Manuscript Guidelines and Editorial PoliciesThe Journal of Special Education Leadership, publishedby the Council for Administrators of SpecialEducation, seeks articles that capture an administra-tor’s attention by providing useful information thatstimulates new ways of thinking about managingand leading. Only articles that have been validatedand accompanied by accepted theory, research, orpractice are sought.

The Journal of Special Education Leadership’s goals are:1. To provide fresh ideas and perspectives,

grounded in recent advances in administrativetheory and research, on contemporary issues thatadministrators must face.

2. To become a primary source of useful ideas forthose who seek to educate present and futureadministrators of special education programs.

3. To become a forum through which practicingadministrators of special education programs canchallenge the meaningfulness of translations ofadministrative theory and research.

Contributors to each issue will include practicingadministrators, researchers, policymakers, or othersinterested in special education administration. Thepurpose of this arrangement is to encourage interac-tion among individuals within those roles in devel-oping articles. Interactions may include any of thefollowing: a jointly authored manuscript, an inter-view preceded or followed by commentary writtenby the interviewer, and a follow-up article that isspecifically linked to the theory and/or research article that provides examples from the field andimplications for administrators in similar situations.

A typical article might begin with either a briefcase illustrating the primary theme, or posing certainquestions and issues that special education adminis-trators need to address. A typical article will also sat-isfy the academic reader who seeks more than justopinions and wants to see a serious effort at connect-ing ideas to accepted theory and research.

With respect to style and format, manuscriptsshould:• Be accompanied by a letter signed by the

author(s),• Have a separate title page that identifies the

authors (the names(s) of the author(s) should notappear anywhere on the manuscript, except onthe title page),

• Be written in clear, straightforward language,avoiding jargon and technical terms,

• Conform to APA format (see Appendix B of APA Publication Manual, 4th edition, 1994), particularly:- Entire manuscript is double spaced, with

margins.- All pages are numbered in sequence, starting

with the title page.- All references in text are listed and in complete

agreement with text citations.- All author identification information, including

professional title and affiliation, address, and phone number, is on the title page only.

- Cover letter states the manuscript is original, not previously published, and not under consideration elsewhere.

• Include at the beginning an Executive Overviewof 3-5 bulleted major points made in the article,

• Use subheadings but not the traditional onessuch as “Introduction”; use, instead, “The FutureChallenge” or “Do Seamless Delivery Systemshave a Future?”

• For the purpose of documentation, cite notes inthe body of the paper using superscript notenumbers, and

• Include a biographical sketch of each author thatincludes name, title, and place of employment.

Authors are encouraged to get feedback fromcolleagues and practitioners on early drafts. A papercan be improved dramatically when knowledgeablereviewers are asked for reactions in advance of submission.❒ Manuscripts should be double-spaced and no

more than 15 pages in length, including figures.When questions arise regarding issues of

Call For Papers


Call for Papers

grammar or style, authors should refer to thePublication Manual of the American PsychologicalAssociation, 4th edition.The Journal of Special Education Leadership is

published two times per year. The issues vary withsome being thematic. Each issue includes 4-5 articlesand 1-2 administrative briefs/technical notes.

Review ProcessSelection of manuscripts for publication is based on a blind peer review process. However, all manuscripts are screened first by the editor. Thosemanuscripts that do not meet the manuscriptrequirements, or that are not consistent with the purpose of the journal, are not forwarded for peerreview. The author is either notified that the man-uscript is not acceptable for the Journal of SpecialEducation Leadership, or requested to make changesin the manuscript so that it meets requirements.Copies of the manuscript are not returned to theauthor in either case.

Manuscripts that are consistent with the purposeof the journal are sent out for peer review. Reviewerswill not know the identity of the author.

Based on the blind reviews, the Journal of SpecialEducation Leadership editor will communicate theresults of that review to the author. The decision that is communicated to the author will be one of the following:• Acceptable, with routine editing• Acceptable, with revisions indicated by editor• Unacceptable

When a decision is made that a manuscript is unacceptable for the Journal of Special EducationLeadership, it may be recommended that it be sent to a journal of one of the CEC Divisions. This recommendation does not mean that the manuscriptwould be automatically accepted by a Division journal; the manuscript would have to go throughthe review process again.

Author Responsibilities FollowingPublication Acceptance

After a manuscript is accepted for publication inthe Journal of Special Education Leadership, the authoris responsible for completing the following:• Obtaining publication clearance, if needed,

for a manuscript first presented at a professionalmeeting;

• Acknowledging the funding agency for supported research;

• Verifying the authenticity of all quoted materialand citations and for obtaining permission fromthe original source for quotes in excess of 150words or for tables or figures reproduced frompublished works;

• Preparing camera-ready copies of all figuresincluded in the article;

• Assigning literary rights to CASE by signing aCopyright Transfer Agreement;

• Sending two (2) paper copies of the revised manuscript to the Journal of Special EducationLeadership’s Editorial Office; and

• Sending an exact copy of the revised manuscriptto the Editorial Office on a floppy disk (3 1/2”),with the document saved in WordPerfect,Microsoft Word, or WordPro format, if possible.(Acceptable alternatives are ASCII format, on aDOS or Mac platform, however these formats arenot preferable.)

Author Checklist Before sending a manuscript, please complete theAuthor Checklist below. This will help ensure thatyour manuscript is not screened out or returnedbefore review.❒ Manuscript is consistent with the purpose of

the journal.❒ Manuscript is no longer than 15 pages total.❒ Manuscript conforms to APA format (see

Appendix B of APA Publication Manual, 4th edition, 1994).

Send 5 copies of manuscript to:Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, EditorJournal of Special Education Leadership175 Hills-SouthSchool of EducationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst, MA 01003

Acknowledgment of receipt of your manuscript will be sent to you within 2 weeks. Review of yourmanuscript will occur within 6 weeks.

C o u n c i l o f A d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n

P U B L I C A T I O N S

i n t r o d u c e s a g u i d e f o ra d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d t e a c h e r sb y C a l E v a n s...

� Navigating the Dual System of Disciplineprovides site administrators with a visual guide to assist in the management of student discipline.

� In this research based and legally documented guide, Cal Evans provides a step-by-step system to deal with all discipline cases.

� This guide also includes the case law and IDEA ‘97 regulations regarding discipline for special education students.

©1998 140 pages $32.00CASE Members $28.00Order # DD1

To order Navigating the Dual System of Discipline by Cal Evans or to request a catalog of otherCASE publications, fax a request to the Council of Administrators of Special Education at

(505) 247-4822, or write to: CASE Inc., 615 16th Street NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104.

www.members.aol.com/casecec

❑ Yes, I want to subscribe to the Journal of Special Education Leadership!

❑ Single Issue: $15

❑ Full Subscription: $40 (includes two journals)

❑ Institution/Library Subscription: $60 (includes two journals)

Payment Information:

❑ Check/Money Order (payable to CASE, in U.S. dollars)

❑ Please bill my credit card: ❑ MasterCard ❑ VISA

Card Number___________________________ Exp. Date________

Cardholder Signature______________________________________

Ship to:

Name ______________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Phone ______________________________________________________

Subscribe to theJournal of Special Education Leadership

Photocopy and mail to:CASE615 16th Street NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104

If you are already a member ofCASE, you will automatically receivethe Journal of Special EducationLeadership as part of your member-ship. However, you can subscribe ifyou are not a member of CASE.

CASE615 16th Street NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PPAAIIDDPERMIT NO. 489

Subscription Notes:• The Journal of Special Education

Leadership is published by theCouncil of Administrators ofSpecial Education in conjunctionwith Sopris West

• Copy requests should be made toCASE at the address above

• For more information on this jour-nal or other Sopris West publica-tions and services, visit ourwebsite at www.sopriswest.com

• Single copies may be purchased.Orders in multiples of 10 perissue can be purchased at areduced rate.

• Call CASE for membership information: (800) 585-1753 or (505) 243-7622. Or visit our website at http://members.aol.com/casecec

volume 13, number 1 journal of specialeducation leadership · volume 13, number 1 journal of...

Documents