Leave a Question or Comment

I welcome criticism and questions--it will help me improve this tool or give me ideas for others.  I also don't mind praise (we all need encouragement from time to time).  I will be screening comments to keep out spam, so my apologies for the delay in posting after you submit. 


Bill Moylan said...

Simplicity doesn't seem the best descriptive word to use, but I think that's what makes this tool very usable. I really think some of us make the manifestation process more complicated than it should be. By using this tool, you will be able to focus more on the behavior and solving the problem rather than flying by the seat of your pants wondering if your in compliance or not. I can't wait to see your final product.

Anonymous said...

A child who has not been determined to be eligible for special education and related services under Part B of the IDEA and who has engaged in behavior that violated a code of student conduct, may assert any of the protections provided for in Part B if the public agency had knowledge that the child was a child with a disability before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action occurred.

Does this tool allow for cases where the child is suspected of having a disability?

Matt Stowe said...

Yes. The first button "Eligibility" walks you through the federal rules regarding children not yet evaluated.

Anonymous said...

Matt, in the weapons section, you do not have a tree that looks at whether the item was a weapon under federal law (both knife size and the kind of gun (for instance popguns, starter pistols,etc)matter) (and you don't mention that state statutes may define weapons to exclude the pocket knives that gets kiddos in trouble at school so often, so they should check their state laws.

Matt Stowe said...

IDEA explicitly incorporates the federal definition of weapon.

1415(k)(7)C) Weapon.—The term ‘weapon’ has the meaning given the term ‘dangerous weapon’ under section 930(g)(2) of title 18, United States Code.

This is the definition used in the tool. My interpretation is that the federal law controls here and states do not have discretion to change the definition of weapon, but I have not checked any court decisions on the issue. If you know of one, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll add it to my list of things to double check.

Thanks for the comment.

Anonymous said...

What constitutes a pattern?

Anonymous said...

If a CWD is Tier III and is already in an Alternative Service Provider Setting but does not have a FBA nor a PBIP in his current existing IEP and violates the Student Code of Conduct by assaulting a peer and a teacher during an Intermittent Explosive Episodic Behavior...should a Manifestation Determination be the foremost consideration and then conduct a FBA/PBIP with the IEP Team? Likewise, since the student is currently in an ASP placement and the ASP is not authorized to call an IEP for 'change of placement'...yet, the student is already in an alternative placement, does not have a PBIP, contractor has no authority to place student in an interim placement; as a result, the ASP makes arrangements, with parental permission to isolate student on premises because of the 10 day max (it took the LEA 29 days before meeting after 17 legal requests for such) ASP requested and then completed an Invitation to a Meeting to specifically address MD. Upon arrival to the meeting..the school psychologist independently from the IEP team, abolished the MD and independently and randomnly changed it to a meeting to determine the 'need' for FBA and potential development of a BIP. Since there was no 'serious' bodily harm..it is my interpretation a MD should have been held FIRST. Also, if the S.P. wanted to change the purpose of the meeting...we should have terminated the MD meeting and then send another IM to specifically address FBA/BIP and allowed for 10 day notification to the parents. What is your interpretation?

Anonymously Confused

Tony said...

When dealing with a chronically disruptive student, what impact does "stay-put" clause of IDEA have on my ability to remove or discipline the student and what steps must I take to stay within the intent of the law?

Elisa said...

Sadly, the mental health system in our nation is broken. To get help, people have to essentially hit rock bottom, create immense suffering for themselves and the people around them. Access to mental health care seems to have become a commodity afforded to those who financially destitute or wealthy. Mental health coverage for the middle class essentially equates to increased costs and no/less coverage for the middle class. For those who remember the follies of youth, you may be keenly aware the transition to adolescence and young adulthood can be an extraordinarily difficult and tumultuous time, even under the most ideal circumstances.
I have found myself, like many other hard working class Americans, faced with obstacles in accessing intensive intervention programs to address the mental health needs AND effective educations support systems for my children. Based on my insurance coverage and state income guidelines, I would need a referral through the school or a court order, be a Medicaid recipient or pay out of pocket. The programs I have tried to access in my area do not contract with private insurance and only accept Medicaid. I eventually had to go to the juvenile justice system for help, pressing charges on my 16 year old son, essentially criminalizing him for having a severe emotional disturbance. We have recently implemented MST, by court order.

Post a Comment

The tool currently only includes the federal requirements. Federal requirements apply in all states and states may add on (but not subtract) from the Federal laws. The tool doesn't currently incorporate court decisions or other authoritative interpretation of the law that can clarify issues not explicitly clear from the statute or regulations alone.

Copyright 2008, Matthew J. Stowe. All rights reserved.