When Discipline Trumps Disability Rights: How Michigan’s Student Discipline Practices Systematically Violate the IDEA

By Paul N. Barger, Esq., Barger & Gaines

Introduction

Across Michigan, students with disabilities face a troubling reality: school districts routinely suspend and expel them for behaviors directly related to their disabilities. These consequences for behavior are regularly handed out without providing the supports and services mandated by federal law. These practices violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and contribute to a cycle of exclusion in which students with disabilities are removed from educational environments rather than supported within them.

The Michigan Department of Education’s current framework for student discipline, while ostensibly neutral, enables districts to circumvent federal protections for students with disabilities. The result is a two-tiered system where students with disabilities who have social, emotional, and behavioral needs are disproportionately excluded from educational opportunities, often with minimal oversight or consequences for non-compliant districts.

The Legal Framework: IDEA’s Protections

The IDEA establishes clear protections for students with disabilities facing disciplinary action. These protections are not discretionary and key provisions include:

Manifestation Determination

Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.530 (E), before a district may impose a disciplinary change in placement, it must convene the IEP team to determine whether the conduct was:

1.    Caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability, or

2.    The direct result of the school district’s failure to implement the IEP.

If either condition is not met, the behavior must be deemed a manifestation of the student’s disability. The district may not proceed with the disciplinary removal, except in limited special circumstances.

Obligation to Provide FAPE

Even during disciplinary removals, schools must continue to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(d). This includes:

·      Educational services that enable progress toward IEP goals

·      Services allowing progress toward IEP goals

·      Behavioral interventions

Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavioral Intervention Plans

When behavior is a manifestation of disability, districts must:

·      Conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA), and

·      Implement or revise a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)

Child Find and Evaluation Requirements

 Schools have an affirmative duty to identify and evaluate students suspected of having disabilities. This includes students with behavioral challenges that may indicate underlying social-emotional needs. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111.

Michigan’s Implementation Gap

Despite these federal requirements, Michigan’s approach to student discipline reveals significant gaps including:

 Inadequate Behavioral Supports

Many Michigan districts fail to provide proactive behavioral interventions before resorting to exclusionary discipline. Common failures include:

·      Absence of functional behavioral assessments for students with repeated behavioral incidents

·      Lack of positive behavior intervention plans in IEPs

·      Insufficient training for staff in de-escalation and behavioral support strategies

·      Limited access to mental health services and counseling

Repeated reliance on exclusionary discipline without behavioral supports violates both IDEA and Section 504.

Procedural Violations in Disciplinary Actions

Districts frequently violate IDEA procedures when disciplining students with disabilities. Common violations include:

·      Conducting inadequate or perfunctory manifestation determination reviews

·      Failing to reconvene IEP teams to address behavioral concerns

·      Not providing required educational services during suspensions

·      Improperly changing placements through repeated suspensions

Procedural violations that impeded parental participation or result in loss of educational benefit constitute a denial of FAPE.

Michigan’s Systemic Under-Identification

Michigan schools often fail to identify students with social-emotional and behavioral disabilities until after significant disciplinary issues arise. Some examples include:

·      Delayed evaluations despite clear behavioral indicators

·      Narrow interpretation of eligibility categories

·      Resistance to identifying students with emotional impairments

·      Failure to consider trauma and mental health factors

Courts have held that persistent behavioral issues trigger Child Find obligations, even without formal diagnoses.

Michigan’s Statutory Discipline Framework and Its Structural Gaps

Michigan’s general discipline authority is codified as MCL § 380.1310-1311a, which grants school boards broad discretion to suspend or expel students. Although these statutes reference federal disability law, they do not impose meaningful state-level limitations on cumulative suspensions or require affirmative procedural safeguards beyond the federal minimum.

As a result, Michigan districts routinely:

·      Issue repeated suspensions of fewer than ten days

·      Avoid recognizing cumulative removals as changes in placement

·      Delay or bypass MDRs and reconvening of the IEP team

Federal guidance makes clear that a series of short-term suspensions can constitute a change in placement when they form a pattern. 34 C.F.R. § 300.536

Michigan’s Suspension Limits in the National Context

Michigan’s approach to student discipline stands in stark contrast to neighboring states and other jurisdictions that have implemented more protective frameworks for students with disabilities. This comparison reveals the extraordinary level of days Michigan students with disabilities can be kept out of school compared to their peers in other states.

Neighboring States: More Protective Standards

 Ohio

Ohio limits initial suspensions to ten school days maximum, with strict requirements for manifestation determination reviews before any extensions. Ohio Rev. Cod § 3313.66. While Ohio permits suspensions beyond ten days for serious offenses, the state requires community service or alternative consequences rather than extended exclusion from school.

Indiana

Indiana restricts suspensions to no more than ten school days, with specific protections requiring manifestation determinations for longer removals. Ind. Code § 20-33-8-18. The state requires that any cumulative suspensions over ten days trigger special education protections.

WISCONSIN

Wisconsin has no absolute limit on cumulative suspension days but requires strict procedural safeguards after ten days. Wis. Stat. § 120.13(b)(2). The state limits consecutive suspensions to five days, or fifteen days if expulsion proceedings are initiated.

Illinois

Illinois follows the federal ten-day standard, requiring manifestation determination reviews for suspensions exceeding this limit. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/10-22.6(b).

Northeastern States: Enhanced Protections

New York 

New York limits initial suspensions to five consecutive school days for students with disabilities, with ten-day limits requiring superintendent approval. Superintendents’ suspensions can last from six days to one year but require immediate due process hearings within five days. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 201.4. The state requires manifestation determinations within ten school days of any disciplinary change in placement. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 201.8.

New Jersey

New Jersey limits suspensions to ten consecutive or cumulative school days before triggering change in placement protections. Notably, New Jersey maintains a forty-five-calendar day limit (not school days) for interim alternative placements, believing that nine weeks is too long for removal from educational programs. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.8. The state prohibits suspension or expulsion of preschool through second grade students except in extreme cases involving firearms or violence.

Connecticut

Connecticut restricts suspensions to ten consecutive school days maximum. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233c. The state also limits total suspensions to ten times or fifty days per school year, whichever results in fewer days of exclusion. Connecticut prohibits out-of-school suspension and expulsion for students in second grade and below, except in extreme situations.

The Michigan Exception

 Unlike these stats with clear protective limits, Michigan allows districts to suspend students with disabilities for extended periods with minimal oversight. While other states have implemented ten-day limits, mandatory manifestation reviews, and restrictions on cumulative suspensions, Michigan districts can:

·      Issue repeated suspensions just under ten days to avoid federal protections

·      Accumulate dozens of suspension days without triggering meaningful review

·      Remove students with disabilities for behaviors directly related to their disabilities

·      Avoid providing educational services during extended removals.

This comparison demonstrates that Michigan’s approach is an outlier, providing significantly fewer protections for students with disabilities than neighboring states and major northeastern jurisdictions. The result is that Michigan students with disabilities can face significantly more days of suspension in a school year, exceeding what would be permitted in states with more protective framework.

The Consequences: A System That Fails Students

The impact of these violations extends far beyond individual disciplinary incidents.

Academic Regression

Students subjected to repeated suspensions and expulsions experience:

·      Loss of instructional time

·      Disrupted educational progress

·      Increased dropout rates

·      Widening achievement gaps

School-to-Prison Pipeline

Exclusionary discipline practices disproportionately funnel students with disabilities into:

·      Alternative education settings with limited resources

·      Juvenile justice systems

·      Long-term institutionalization

·      Criminal justice involvement

 Mental Health Deterioration

 Exclusionary discipline exacerbates behavioral and emotional challenges. Without appropriate supports students experience:

·      Increased behavioral challenges

·      Deepening mental health issues

·      Social isolation and stigmatization

·      Reduced access to therapeutic services

Case Examples: Patterns of Violation

While cases require confidentiality, common patterns emerge across Michigan districts.

Pattern 1: The Suspension Cycle

Students with undiagnosed ADHD or emotional impairments face repeated short-term suspensions that cumulatively exceed ten days without triggering IDEA protections. Districts exploit this loophole by issuing nine-day suspensions, allowing a brief return, then suspending again.

Pattern 2: Inadequate Manifestation Reviews

When manifestation reviews do occur, they often involve:

·      Predetermined outcomes favoring suspension

·      Failure to consider all relevant information

·      Exclusion of parents from meaningful participation

·      Rubber-stamp approval of disciplinary actions

Pattern 3: Punishing Disability-Related Behaviors

Students are routinely disciplined for behaviors directly related to their disabilities:

·      Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder suspended by sensory-related outbursts

·      Students with ADHD expelled for impulsivity

·      Students with emotional impairments removed for anxiety-related behaviors

The Enforcement Vacuum

Michigan’s monitoring systems inadequately track disparities or impose corrective action, despite IDEA’s state supervision mandate. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11). Despite clear IDEA violations, Michigan districts face minimal consequences

Limited State Oversight

The Michigan Department of Education’s monitoring systems fail to:

·      Track patterns of disproportionate discipline

·      Investigate systemic violations

·      Impose meaningful corrective actions

·      Ensure implementation of remedial measures

Barriers to Legal Recourse

Families face significant obstacles in challenging violations:

·      Complex due process procedures

·      Costly legal representation requirements

·      Lengthy timelines that outlast student enrollment

·      Limited awareness of rights and remedies

Lack of Accountability Measures

Districts continue violating IDEA with impunity due to:

·      Minimal financial penalties

·      No personal accountability for administrators

·      Insufficient public reporting requirements

·      Limited state intervention authority

Recommendations for Reform

Addressing these systemic violations requires comprehensive reform in the areas of:

 Legislative and Regulatory Changes

1.    Strengthen Michigan’s discipline codes to explicitly incorporate IDEA protections

2.    Mandate comprehensive data collection on discipline disparities

3.    Establish automatic triggers for state intervention based on discipline patterns

4.    Create expedited complaint procedures for discipline-related violations

District-Level Improvements

1.    Implement universal screening for behavioral health needs

2.    Require evidence-based behavioral interventions before exclusionary discipline

3.    Provide comprehensive professional development on disability awareness

4.    Establish multi-tiered systems of support for all students

Accountability Mechanism

1.    Public reporting of discipline data disaggregated by disability status

2.    Financial consequences for districts with persistent violations

3.    Independent monitoring of manifestation determination reviews

4.    Required corrective action plans with measurable outcomes

Support Systems

1.    Increased funding for school-based mental health services

2.    Behavioral support teams in all schools

3.    Family advocacy and education programs

4.    Trauma-informed approaches to student behavior

 Conclusion

Michigan’s current approach to student discipline systematically fails students with disabilities, violating federal law and perpetuating educational inequity. The convergence of inadequate behavioral supports, procedural violations, and lack of accountability creates an environment where students’ disabilities are punished rather than accommodated.

The stark contrast between Michigan’s permissive suspension policies and the protective frameworks in neighboring states and across the nation underscores the urgency of reform. While states like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut limit suspensions to ten days and require immediate manifestation reviews, Michigan allows districts to exclude students with disabilities for weeks or months with minimal oversight. This disparity means Michigan students with disabilities face educational disruption and exclusion far beyond what their peers in other states experience.

Reform is not merely a legal imperative but a moral one. Every day that passes without addressing these violations represents lost educational opportunities, damaged futures, and preventable harm to vulnerable students. Michigan must move beyond compliance rhetoric to implement meaningful changes that ensure all students, regardless of disability, receive the education and support they deserve.

The path forward requires courage from policymakers, commitment from educators, and sustained advocacy from communities. Only through comprehensive reform can Michigan transform its disciplinary practices from a system that excludes and punishes to one that includes and supports all students.

Call to Action

This issue demands immediate attention from:

·      Legislators – Enact stronger protections and accountability measures

·      Educators- Advocate for resources and training to support all students

·      Parents- Learn your rights and demand appropriate services

·      Legal Advocates- Challenge systemic violations through strategic litigation

·      Community Members- Support inclusive educational practices and policies

The time for change is now. Michigan’s students with disabilities cannot afford to wait while their rights are violated and their futures compromised. Together, we must build an educational system that truly services all students, honoring both the letter and spirit of the IDEA.

To learn more, contact Attorney Barger by phone 914-902-5918 or by email at info@bargergaines.com.