If a student has a serious emotional disturbance, along with ADHD, I’m guessing that any misconduct is going to be considered a manifestation of the student’s disability. Right?
Some educators have expressed the view that misconduct by a student with a serious emotional disturbance and/or ADHD is always going to be considered a manifestation of disability. A recent case proves that is not so. The case involved a student who was charged with creating a “shooting list” in his English journal. The district treated this as a violation of the Code of Conduct and assigned DAEP for 35 days.
The ARDC met to make a manifestation determination on April 12, 2012. The parents were present, along with an advocate and the boy’s pediatrician, who produced a diagnosis of PDD-NOS, and argued that the behavior was a manifestation. The issue of autism came up, as it had before. The district offered to conduct an evaluation, but, according to the district, the parents declined to provide consent. The parties did not complete the process on April 12th, and so they recessed and came back on April 23rd. However, the parents did not participate in the second session. The ARDC concluded that the making of the shooting list was not a manifestation of the boy’s health impairment or emotional disturbance.
The parents requested a special education due process hearing. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district on all issues except for the manifestation determination. The hearing officer concluded that the boy created the so-called “hit list” as a direct result of his disabilities.
Both sides appealed to federal court.
The hearing officer cited the doctor’s testimony in her ruling in favor of the parents. But the federal court overturned that ruling, and concluded that the behavior was not a manifestation. As the court pointed out, the school’s psychologist, “a member of the ARD Committee who actually observed Z.H. in a classroom setting,” rebutted the pediatrician’s view. (Emphasis added). The parents failed to cite evidence in the record to overcome this.
There is no easy shortcut to a proper manifestation determination. Each one must be considered individually, taking into account all of the relevant information available. It is certainly not as simple as automatically attributing certain behaviors to disability; or automatically discounting a causal connection.
The case is Z.H. v. Lewisville ISD, decided by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 2, 2015. We found it at 65 IDELR 106.
DAWG BONE: MANIFESTATION DETERMINATIONS REQUIRE CAREFUL AND INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS.