Which case ruled that students with disabilities may not be excluded for misbehavior that is related to the disability, but services could cease if the behavior was not related to the disability?

Which case ruled that students with disabilities may not be excluded for misbehavior that is related to the disability, but services could cease if the behavior was not related to the disability?

• A. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984)
• B. Honig v. Doe (1988)
• C. Hobson v. Hanson (1967)
• D. Mills v. Board of Education (1972)

Answer: (B)

The key idea is how discipline for students with disabilities is limited when the behavior is connected to the disability. In Honig v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that a student cannot be excluded from school for misbehavior that is a manifestation of the disability. The consequence is that the school must continue to provide an appropriate education and related services during removals tied to disability-related behavior. Conversely, when the misbehavior is not related to the disability, the school may discipline in the same way as for other students, and this can include suspensions or changes in placement that may affect the delivery of certain special education services. The ruling creates a protective barrier against punishing a student for actions that stem from the disability, while still allowing standard disciplinary actions for behavior unrelated to the disability.

The key idea is how discipline for students with disabilities is limited when the behavior is connected to the disability. In Honig v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that a student cannot be excluded from school for misbehavior that is a manifestation of the disability. The consequence is that the school must continue to provide an appropriate education and related services during removals tied to disability-related behavior.

Conversely, when the misbehavior is not related to the disability, the school may discipline in the same way as for other students, and this can include suspensions or changes in placement that may affect the delivery of certain special education services. The ruling creates a protective barrier against punishing a student for actions that stem from the disability, while still allowing standard disciplinary actions for behavior unrelated to the disability.