Manifestation Determination After Repeated Aggression

The two prongs ask whether the conduct was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the disability, and whether the conduct was the direct result of the district's failure to implement the IEP. For the chair throwing: the FBA identifies escape from nonpreferred tasks and peer attention; the cafeteria is a nonpreferred, noisy setting, and the BIP was not implemented with fidelity, with points recorded in only 40% of intervals. That supports a yes on both prongs. For the hallway shove: the FBA also identifies peer attention; without ABC data on this incident, the team cannot assume it was unrelated. The failure-to-implement prong is met because the BIP was not consistently delivered. For yelling at the substitute: escape from an unfamiliar adult's demands is consistent with the FBA, and the substitute likely did not have the BIP. Again, the failure-to-implement prong is met. Therefore, the team should conclude that all three incidents were manifestations of the disability. The chair incident did not involve serious bodily injury, so the 45-day IAES for special circumstances does not apply. The team must not impose the 45-day placement. Instead, it must conduct or update the FBA, revise the BIP, and return Damon to the placement in the IEP unless the parent and team agree to a change.

After a manifestation determination, the team must conduct a functional behavioral assessment if one is not current and implement or revise a behavior intervention plan that addresses the functions. It must review the IEP to ensure it includes appropriate supports and services. The team cannot simply return Damon to the same ineffective plan. It should revise the BIP with antecedent strategies such as advance notice of cafeteria noise, a quiet lunch option, and a substitute-teacher orientation card; replacement behaviors such as requesting a break or asking for help; consequence strategies such as differential reinforcement of alternative behavior instead of punitive points; and fidelity checks such as weekly review of point logs and coaching for staff. It should add a crisis plan and specify who responds to aggression. Placement should be in the least restrictive setting; a change to a more restrictive setting requires an IEP team decision and prior written notice, not a disciplinary removal. The team can consider a shorter day only if it is an IEP placement decision, not punishment. It cannot impose the 45-day IAES because no special circumstance applies, cannot suspend beyond 10 cumulative days without services, and cannot unilaterally change placement. It should document the manifestation determination and provide the parent with prior written notice and procedural safeguards.

The team should acknowledge the safety concern and separate it from the legal question. It should explain that a manifestation determination does not mean no consequences; the district can use the IEP's crisis plan, restorative practices, and in-school supports. The team should review incident data by time, setting, and staff, and add supervision during transitions and in the cafeteria. If the principal believes the current placement is unsafe, the team can reconvene to consider a more restrictive IEP placement, but it must base that on evidence: repeated serious incidents despite a well-implemented BIP, failure of supplementary aids, and a documented risk assessment. A change to a separate setting would require prior written notice, an IEP amendment, and consideration of the continuum. The team should not use repeated short suspensions as a de facto change of placement; after 10 cumulative days, services must continue, and the pattern may trigger a manifestation review. Data that would justify a later change include aggression frequency and severity, BIP implementation fidelity above 80%, failure of at least two interventions, and a safety assessment from a behavior specialist. The team should set a review date and measure progress.