• Three hole punch all handouts (bring a 3 hole puncher to meetings)
• Colored sign up sheet (make corrections on addresses)
• Notebooks for those members who do not have one—check sign up sheet
• Members will bring copies of Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavior Intervention Plans to share with the group

• 97-97 IEP Task Force Model
• Congressional Research Memo

Next Scheduled Meeting Friday October 3, 1997

1. Question #1 (page 3): Under IDEA, do public agencies have a responsibility, as part of the IEP process, to consider a child’s behavior?

In reading the OSEP’s answer to this question, Task Force members questioned how a district would define "when it [misconduct] first appears".

An another question discussed was—How do behavior intervention plans (BIP) relate to the IEP goals and objectives and how do they fit into the IEP document? The team clarified that a BIP could be the method or procedure for addressing specific goal(s) and objectives on the IEP and could be attached to the IEP. One task force member indicated that he felt that this part of the process needs to be emphasized as a preventative intervention.

2. Question #2 (page 3) Does the right to a free appropriate public education extend to children with disabilities who are suspended or expelled?

There was no discussion of this question at this time. We accepted OSEP's response to this question.

3. Question #3 (page 3) What is the meaning of the phrase "children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school?

The Task Force commented that a literal reading of the law is quite different than OSEP’s opinion. We accepted OSEP's response to this question.

4. Question #4 (page 3) Must educational services be continued during the removal of a child with a disability from his or her educational placement for ten school days or less?

The answer to this question as well as Question #3 implies that the number of days a child can be removed (suspended) is cumulative which again is different that the a literal reading of the law. We accepted OSEP's response to this question.

5. Question #5 (page 4) Must there be a manifestation determination before a student with disabilities can be removed from his or her current education placement for a period of ten school days or less during a given school year?

The Task Force observed that in almost all cases, districts will probably not question whether the student’s behavior is a manifestation of his/her disability. However, the decision must be made on an individual basis. There are some cases where a student's behavior is clearly not a manifestation of his/her disability. Some members felt that the major effort should be focused on figuring out the most appropriate placement for the student.

6. Question #6 (page 4) Must a functional behavioral assessment be conducted prior to a removal of ten school days or less during a given school year?

Special Education Directors in the group discussed several formats used or being considered for conducting and documenting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). Models developed by several different people were discussed and the general consensus was that more in-depth forms would be used for more severely involved students.

One building principal in the group suggested that BIPs and FBA could be used for regular education students whose attendance patterns are transient.

The Task Force suggested (encouraged?) the development of sample state forms that include all required components.

We accepted OSEP's response to this question.

7. Question #7 (page 4) Are there any specific actions that a school district is required to take during the removal of a child with a disability from his or her educational placement for ten school days or less

The Task Force indicated that it is possible that a school-wide discipline plan could be considered the first level of a BIP especially if adjustments for individual students were made.

The Task Force strongly encouraged a review of the IEP. In many schools, a parent conference is required before a student returns to school following a suspension of any length of time.

The Task Force felt that it is extremely important for anyone who suspends a student for any length of time to notify the student’s case manager. The consensus among the group is that this is not currently happening in many schools at the secondary level.

We accepted OSEP's response to this question.

8. Question #8 (page 4) Does IDEA continue to allow a school district to seek a court order to remove a student with a disability from school or otherwise change the student’s placement? If so, under what circumstances?

1. Mae Taylor-Sweeten then presented information that she received during a recent LRP conference and answers to the questions that we requested that LRP respond to:

1. In terms of defining "School Personnel": The principal is typically the person who suspends a student but if a placement is to be changed the principal can order that a placement is changed but the IEP team makes the decision about how the placement will be changed.
2. "Property" "Others" can not refer to property. However, it is recommended that if the destruction of property is such that is can be considered a legal offense, a law referral should be made and the situation should be handled through the court system.
3. "General curriculum" refers to content not location and not all of the same offerings are required. LRP indicated that this issue is more of a LRE issue. The Task Force discussed whether the Core Curriculum could be considered as synonymous general curriculum.

1. The Task Force then reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting.

1. There was some discussion of the term "likely to result". One person suggested that this term requires evidence that is beyond the preponderance of a doubt rather than evidence that is beyond a doubt.

1. The Task Force then discussed the Statute language regarding Manifestation Determination (beginning on page 47 of TRL formatted document).

1. In terms of selecting a Hearing Officer, the new statute requires that the Hearing office be trained and on the state approved list but the person doesn't have to be mutually agreed upon by both parties.
2. The Task Force indicated that behavioral observations could be considered appropriate to include when sending probation records.
3. The Task Force generated a question for OSEP to address--If the team agrees that the behavior is a manifestation of the student's disability, then what documentation is needed?

There was much discussion regarding this issue but no consensus at this point. Further discussion will be entertained at the next meeting.

Back