5 minute read
Special Education Update: Alabama Teachers' Bill of Rights and Classroom Removals of Students with Disabilities
Leslie A. Allen, Esq., Resolutions in Special Education
David "Butch" Sargent, Resolutions in Special Education
Julie J. Weatherly, Esq., Resolutions in Special Education
This article was published by ALA-CASE for the CLAS School Leader Magazine
Longstanding teacher frustrations with the (real or perceived) indifference of administrators to challenging, unruly students in classrooms led to enactment of Alabama’s Teachers’ Bill of Rights (“ATBOR”). Beginning in the 2024-2025 school year, teachers will have more authority to remove misbehaving students who disrupt classes to protect the educational process for all students.
Although a thorough analysis of the ATBOR is beyond the scope of this article, the law essentially provides that a teacher can remove a student who:
Behaves in a way that obstructs the teaching or learning of others;
Threatens, abuses, intimidates, or attempts to intimidate an education employee or another student;
Intentionally disobeys an education employee;
Uses abusive or profane language directed at an education employee; or
Engages in disorderly conduct.
“Disorderly conduct” means any conduct that intentionally:
Disrupts, disturbs, or interferes with the teaching of students; or
Disturbs the peace, order, or discipline at school.
Before removing a student, teachers must first follow their approved classroom management plans. Teachers must prepare and principals must promptly review and approve these plans. The Act also requires certain steps by principals before a removed student returns to the teacher’s class, depending on the student’s grade level and number of removals from the teacher’s classroom over a period of time.
Detailed documentation by teachers and administrators will be key to using this law properly. It is widely recognized that students with disabilities (SWDs) are removed from school for disciplinary reasons at much higher rates that nondisabled peers.1 Consequently, although the ATBOR applies to all students, realistically, removals are much more likely to involve SWDs. Inequities for disabilitycaused behaviors can violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and suggest unlawful discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
With those concerns in mind, how does the ATBOR impact federal protections in place for SWDs? Does it allow circumvention of discipline safeguards in place under federal law?
The starting point to answer these questions is Section 6 of the ATBOR itself. That provision makes clear that the law cannot infringe on any student rights pursuant to the IDEA, Section 504, or the ADA. Further, principals and other relevant administrators must implement the ATBOR in compliance with these federal laws, including: (i) promptly carrying out manifestation determinations after misconduct; (ii) meting out discipline in accordance with the student code of conduct where misconduct is not determined to be a manifestation of disability; (iii) performing functional behavior assessments and adjusting behavior intervention plans as needed in a timely manner; and (iv) performing other duties and responsibilities provided by federal laws. In short, nothing in the ATBOR allows for removal of a SWD if the removal does not comply with the requirements of federal law.
As the new school year approaches, teachers and administrators must be aware of these important limitations on removals. Even without the express language in Section 6 of the ATBOR, the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution and the longstanding doctrine of preemption prevent the use of removals under the ATBOR in a manner that contradicts the requirements of federal law.2 The ATBOR cannot override the federal protections in place for SWDs: IDEA and Section 504 (and the ADA) still apply, regardless of whether classroom removals otherwise may be permitted by state law.
Accordingly, if classroom removals constitute a “change of placement” for a SWD, the IDEA/504’s discipline protections must be followed, including the requirement for a manifestation determination review (MDR). Whether a disciplinary “change of placement” has occurred due to a pattern of removals from the classroom for behaviors, in our view, turns on whether the student was deprived of the overall services in the IEP during these times of removals.
Applying as analogous federal guidance on in-school suspensions or, more recently, in the 2022 guidance on shortened school days,3 times of classroom removals do not count toward a change of placement if the student: 1) is afforded the opportunity to continue to appropriately participate in the general curriculum during the removal; 2) continues to receive the services specified in the current IEP during the removal; and 3) continues to participate with nondisabled students to the extent provided by their current placement. Thus, school staff must document the services a child receives during each removal to determine whether a pattern of removals exists to mandate an MDR. Documentation showing these conditions are met should establish that removal times do not count toward a change of placement and, therefore, do not trigger the need for an MDR.
Crucially, even if classroom removal times do not count toward a disciplinary change of placement, the child’s IEP/504 Team must address the disruptive behaviors in circumstances where a SWD is repeatedly removed from the classroom. Even if a district does not violate IDEA/504’s discipline rules, repeated removals could be a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under federal law if the Team fails to address behaviors that impact learning.
Finally, the State Board of Education and local school boards must develop rules for implementing the ATBOR. Although these still-to-be-developed rules may create more confusion than clarity, they could offer additional guidance on how the ATBOR will work in conjunction with federal protections for SWDs. Therefore, “stay tuned” for legal guidance!
