Disproportionate Discipline, a Request for an Emotional Disability Evaluation, and Reading Failure
Malik is a 12-year-old African American seventh grader who has received five office discipline referrals since September, all from the same teacher, for “defiance,” “disrespect,” and “not following directions.” He has been suspended four times, totaling 9 days. The teacher describes him as “intimidating” and requests an emotional disability evaluation. You review the data: the referrals occurred during independent writing time; Malik is reading at the 5th percentile, and his IEP from elementary school was exited two years ago. The school’s discipline data show African American students are 3.2 times more likely than white students to receive an office referral for subjective infractions. The principal wants a manifestation determination meeting and asks you to “support the ED classification so we can get him services.” What legal, ethical, and diversity considerations guide your next steps, and what would you do?
1. Identify the legal and ethical concerns in this referral, including the manifestation determination request, the ED classification request, and the discipline data.
Read the worked answer
Several concerns converge. First, a manifestation determination review is legally required only when a student with an IEP is being disciplined with a change of placement; Malik’s IEP was exited two years ago, so the team must first determine his current eligibility status and whether child find obligations are triggered. If he is not currently eligible, the principal’s framing of a manifestation determination is legally confused. Second, the request to “support the ED classification so we can get him services” reverses the eligibility process: a disability category must be based on evidence that the disability adversely affects educational performance, not on a desire to access services or manage behavior. Third, the referrals are subjective, clustered in one teacher’s class during independent writing, and Malik reads at the 5th percentile; the behavior may be an escape response to a frustrating task rather than evidence of an emotional disability. Fourth, the discipline data showing a 3.2 times disparity for subjective infractions raise concerns about bias and nondiscriminatory practice. An ethical evaluation must consider whether Malik’s behavior is being interpreted through a racialized lens, whether the teacher’s “intimidating” description is supported by objective data, and whether the school has failed to address his reading disability. Classifying him as ED to obtain services would be both legally vulnerable and potentially harmful.
2. What data and procedures would you use to evaluate Malik appropriately, and what hypotheses would you test?
Read the worked answer
I would start with a comprehensive review: the exited IEP, prior evaluations, reading intervention history, attendance, grades, and all discipline records. I would conduct a functional behavioral assessment focused on independent writing time, using direct observation, teacher and student interviews, and antecedent–behavior–consequence data. I would test several hypotheses: task avoidance due to reading frustration, unclear expectations, teacher–student conflict, peer attention, and possible trauma or anxiety. I would assess reading with current measures, because a 5th-percentile score suggests a significant academic need that may explain the behavior. I would collect teacher rating scales for emotional and behavioral functioning, but I would also gather data from other teachers to see whether the pattern is setting-specific. I would observe the classroom climate and the teacher’s use of redirection and instructional scaffolding. I would review the discipline data for subjectivity and consistency, and I would ask whether other students receive referrals for similar behavior. I would involve the family with culturally responsive communication, asking about strengths, concerns, and any outside services. If the data suggest an emotional disability, I would evaluate for it; if they suggest a reading disability or an instructional/behavioral mismatch, I would pursue that. I would not pre-decide the category before the evaluation.
3. How would you address the disproportionate discipline pattern and collaborate with the principal and teacher without letting the case become solely about one student?
Read the worked answer
I would treat Malik’s case as both an individual and a systems issue. Individually, I would advocate for an FBA-based behavior intervention plan and a reading evaluation before any discussion of ED classification. I would help the team replace subjective referral language with observable descriptions and data, and I would recommend that independent writing time be structured with clear steps, a model, and a brief check-in. Systemically, I would present the discipline data to the principal without accusing individuals: African American students are 3.2 times more likely to be referred for subjective infractions, which is a pattern that warrants a review of referral criteria, teacher support, and alternatives to suspension. I would offer to co-facilitate a problem-solving team with the teacher, focusing on instructional and behavioral strategies rather than blame. I would also recommend that the school review whether students with reading disabilities are being disciplined for avoidance behavior. With the principal, I would be direct about the legal risk of classifying Malik as ED to obtain services and the ethical risk of using a disability label to manage a discipline problem. I would document the data, the team’s decisions, and the actions taken, and I would follow up to ensure Malik receives appropriate academic and behavioral support rather than another suspension.