Chapter 11 – Manifestation Determination Reviews
The manifestation determination review (MDR) is a provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). Specifically, this process ensures that, despite behavioral consequences, a student is receiving a free and appropriate education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Prior to 1997, no MDR procedures existed for students with disabilities. However, given the requirement for FAPE and LRE and the potential for change in educational placement (e.g., suspension or expulsion) following some behavioral events, additional attention to stay-put provisions were necessary. The stay-put provision specifies that when parents and school teams disagree about educational services or placement for a student with a disability, the last agreed-upon IEP remains in effect. In the reauthorization of IDEA (1997), new requirements established the need to examine the relationship between student behavior and subsequent disciplinary actions, including educational placement. In a later reauthorization of IDEA (2004), additional provisions and structure were added to the MDR process to include the reconvening of the Individual Education Program (IEP) team, reviewing all relevant information and documentation, and soliciting input from the student and parents or guardians. The 2004 amendments to the MDR were intended to simplify the process, but little new information was added to provide additional guidance and direction with MDR decision-making.
The MDR process mandates that if a student with a disability violates a school system’s code of conduct and is recommended for long term suspension or expulsion, the IEP team must determine if the behavior of concern is related to the disability. Alternatively, if a student is suspended for 10 days over the course of a school year, in succession, or spread out over many months, the MDR process is also triggered. Overall, a MDR must be conducted within 10 days of any discipline-related decision to change a student’s placement. The purpose of a manifestation determination is to determine whether or not the behavior that led to disciplinary action is linked to a child’s disability or if the conduct in question was a direct result of the Local Education Agency’s (LEA) failure to implement the IEP.
Members of the IEP team should engage in a comprehensive problem-solving process to identify why the misconduct occurred. In other words, the team must decide if the behavior was a manifestation of the student’s disability. Although best practice would suggest that the student’s IEP team include consistent members who know the student well, IDEA outlines that only a designee, a special educator, and a general educator be present. Parents or guardians must be notified of the meeting and good faith efforts must be made to accommodate parents or guardians, but the meeting may be held without parents if documented efforts are unsuccessful. While it is best practice to include individuals who are familiar with the student, it is also entirely possible, albeit not recommended or advised, to include special or general educators who may only know the student peripherally. While it would be best practice to bring the student into the meeting to discuss their own behaviors, this is not always possible or helpful, depending on the student’s age, disability, availability, or willingness to engage in the discussion. In addition, not all students may be able to provide insight into their behaviors or self-reflect with success.
Once an IEP team convenes for the MDR, a review of the student’s records occurs and the behavior that resulted in the suspension or expulsion is discussed. When determining whether the conduct was a result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP, the team should consider service, goals, positive behavior supports, accommodations, modifications, and the behavior intervention plan (BIP), if one exists.
In determining whether a child’s behavior was a manifestation of their disability, only the following two questions must be answered. These questions are referred to as the “two-prong test” and include:
- Was the conduct in question caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability?
- Was the conduct in question the direct result of the local education agency’s (LEA) failure to implement the Individualized Education Plan (IEP)?
If the answer to both questions is NO, the student’s conduct is not a manifestation of his or her disability. If the answer to either question is YES, the student’s conduct is a manifestation of his or her disability. No additional guidance or clarification for the MDR process has been outlined by either IDEA or related legal proceedings. While the language included in these guidelines does not require extensive knowledge, the definitions of “direct” and “substantial” are still unclear (Walker & Brigham, 2017).
If the IEP team determines that no direct causal relationship exists between the student’s behavior and their disability, the student may be disciplined in the same manner as a student without a disability. This means that any consequences a student without a disability would have received would also occur for the student with the disability. This may include time out of school, missed assignments or tests, or dismissal from activities or sports. If the IEP team determines that a relationship between the behavior and disability exists, the student cannot receive long-term suspension or expulsion for the incident. This consequence would be considered a change in placement. Instead, the student returns to school immediately.
