Education is big business and the people (students) we serve are our customers. In the corporate world the customer is always right. Unfortunately in the educational arena, that assumption is not always correct. Therefore laws have been put in place to protect our customers from unwarranted stress and mistreatment. Many years ago, mistreatment to Blacks and disabled children and adults were accepted. Horror stories have been told of disabled people being locked in basements. Society wanted them out of sight and out of mind.
Those days are over and disabled individuals are treated in a humane matter and with respect and dignity. Unfortunately, school administrators used whatever they could use to exclude disabled children from education by using disciplinary measures (Wrightslaw, 2006). For a short period there was at least one law that assisted school children to fit into the educational mainstream. This law that gave disabled children rights was PL 94-142 and it allowed these children the right to a free appropriate education in the school of their peers. “Congress recognized that in certain instances school districts needed increased flexibility to deal with safety issues while maintaining needed due process protections in the IDEA” (Wrightslaw, 2006). Meanwhile, other acts and laws have been enacted to protect the rights of disabled children called Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RHA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to Essex (2008), the law states that:
“Under IDEA 2004, all special education teachers fall under NCLB definition and must possess a special education certificate or pass a state licensing exam, must not have had a wavier based on emergency, temporary, or provisional basis, and must have earned a bachelor’s degree.

The Secretary of Education is authorized to approve proposals for up to fifteen states to allow school districts to develop a multi-year IEP for a maximum of three years with parental consent. The IEP may not necessarily be reviewed annually. Short-term objectives are no longer reviewed annually except for children who are meeting alternative assessment requirements and/or students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (p. 2)

These changes in the law represent the “need of State and local educational agencies to work to ensure that superintendents, principals, teachers, and other school personnel are equipped with the knowledge and skills that will enable them to appropriately address behavior problems when they occur” (Wrightslaw, 2006). The law changes also established a new development with respect to the rights of disabled children and it puts them in the same playing field as the regular educated population in regards to being educated and being disciplined. When children are under the jurisdiction of the school, teachers are said to stand “in loco parentis” (in the place of the parent) to the student. To properly carry out the basic functions of the school it is necessary for the teacher to have authority to direct the student and to punish for infractions, much as a parent would. This relationship of the teacher to the child is an essential element in establishing the standard of reasonableness in regard to punishment. The punishment must be in proportion to the gravity of the offense. It must be reasonably defensible in terms of its purpose, to determine improper conduct as in Williams v Ellington, 936 F. 2d 881 and Cornfield v Consolidated High School District, No. 230, 991 F. 2d 1316 (7Cir. 1993).
Withholding of privileges is a punishment generally judicially accepted. However, an activity from which a student is barred because of conduct must be in a category of a privilege rather than a right of the student. If that which is to be denied the student is an integral part of the curriculum, the ban could conflict with his right to participate in all elements of the curriculum under reasonable rules relevant to the subject.
Disciplining students, whether regular or disabled, is an everyday duty of school administrators. Some may think that a disabled student cannot be disciplined, but that is not the case. Disabled students are disciplined by the same general procedure as the regular population, as long as it is not a manifestation of their disability. But some laws may be used as guidelines. However, disabled students should not be disciplined to the point that their education is compromised “materially and substantially” (Essex, 2008).
A disabled student can be suspended for up to ten days at any point for any infraction that regular education students could be suspended. In fact, multiple suspensions can occur, but educational services must be provided to these students. School administrators must note that if multiple suspensions occur it may “constitute a pattern that is a change of placement because of factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child is removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another” (Wrightslaw, 2006).


References
Essex, Nathan L. (2008). School Law and the Public Schools. Boston, Massachusetts:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Discipline disables students. (2006) Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 156 Retrieved November 10, 2008 from http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/discipline_faqs_osep.htm