Andrew T. Potter

Credit cards accepted, Fixed hourly rates, Fixed fees available

Serving Anderson, SC

  • Serving Anderson, SC

  • Credit cards accepted, Fixed hourly rates, Fixed fees available

Member at firm Potter Law, LLC

Serving Anderson, SC

Credit cards accepted, Fixed hourly rates, Fixed fees available

Quick nutshell on Education law–no where near exhaustive.


with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA)

(20 U.S.C. §1400 et al.)

Regulations: Education (34 C.F.R. 300 et al.) (2006)

Specifically, the Federal Regulations for Part B of the IDEA permits
school authorities to remove a child with a disability who violates a code of
student conduct from the child’s current placement to an appropriate interim
alternative educational setting, to another setting, or for suspensions of not
more than 10 consecutive days. (See 34 C.F.R. §300.530(b).)

If the child is properly removed from his or her current school placement
for more than 10 days in the same school year, then the child must continue to
receive services to enable him or her to continue to participate in the general
education curriculum and make progress toward his or her individualized
education program (IEP) goals, but in another setting. (See 34 C.F.R.

Also, within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a
child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct,
the local educational agency, the parent, and relevant members of the child’s
IEP Team must determine if the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s
disability. (See 34 C.F.R. §300.530(e).)

If the behavior that caused the removal was a manifestation of the
child’s disability, the IEP Team must determine whether the child should
receive a functional behavioral assessment, if appropriate, and behavioral
intervention services, or modifications to existing services, to address the
behavior. Unless an exception applies, the child is returned to his or her
current placement. (See 34 C.F.R. §§300.530(e)-(f).)

Students with disabilities whose misconduct is determined not to be a
manifestation of their disability may be disciplined in the same manner and for
the same duration as nondisabled students, subject to the continuation of
educational services. (See 34 C.F.R. §300.530(c).)

Education Case law

Honig v. Doe,
484 U.S. 305 (1988) (holding that the “Stay-Put” provision of the IDEA
prohibits state or local school authorities from unilaterally excluding
disabled children from the classroom for dangerous or disruptive conduct
growing out of their disabilities during the pendency of review proceedings).

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333-35 (1976) (holding that an evidentiary hearing is
not required prior to the termination of Social Security disability payments,
and the administrative procedures prescribed under the Act fully comport with
due process).

Goss v. Lopez,
419 U.S. 565 (1975) (holding that students facing temporary suspension have
property and liberty interests that qualify for protection under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).


Frydman & Shani King, School
Discipline 101: Students’ Due Process Rights in Expulsion Hearings,
40 Clearinghouse Rev. 370 (2006), available at

Juv. Just.
Project of Louisiana & Families & Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated
Children, How to Prepare for a
Disciplinary Hearing: A Guide for Parents and Advocates
, available at

Joseph B. Tulman & Joyce A. McGee, Special
Education Advocacy Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA): For Children in the Juvenile Justice System
available at

Julie Waterstone,
Effective Advocacy in School Discipline
, Am. Bar Ass’n,

Law Review Articles

Brent M. Pattison, Questioning
School Discipline: Due Process, Confrontation, and School Discipline Hearings
18 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev.
49 (2008).


School-to-Prison Pipeline:

Project – Ending the Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Project:

Defense Fund Cradle to Prison Pipeline Campaign:

‹ Blogs Home