The case that I chose to research and reflect on was Honig v. Doe, 484U.S.

305
(1988). I chose this case because it is something that administrators have to be aware
of every day during their duties of enforcing behavior write ups, and ensuring that
students are still receiving their IEP provisions. While I don’t know that this is truly the
most important case concerning special education services, I thought that this would be
the one administrators have to be aware of and act upon most often, without the support
of the interventionists. Most of the other cases would be handled at a district level
(Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, Forest Grove School
District v. T.A.), or through an interventionist (Irving Independent School District. v. Tatro,
468 U.S. 883, Cedar Rapids v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66) when writing an IEP.

When administrators at any level, specifically principals or assistant principals,

are responding to behavior referrals and concerns from teachers, they are not going to
have interventionists with them to make them aware of individual students' IEPs and
what behaviors are a function of their disability and what behaviors are not a function of
their disability. Administrators have to be aware of the students they are serving on their
own, and also be able to read IEPs. Administrators cannot just make rash decisions
concerning suspensions of students at any age level, especially students that qualify for
an IEP.

If an administrator is to violate Honig v. Doe, and suspend students for more than
10 days when the behavior is a function of their disability, the school system would then
be liable, and would at a minimum have to provide compensatory services to that
student making up for the time that they were not in school. This causes a chain
reaction of events to happen within the school, including possibly paying staff for
additional hours during the compensatory services provided to the student, as well as
any time lost during discussion of the suspensions. Then it would move to the smaller
issues, but still one that administrators would be responsible for including finding
coverage for teachers attending these meetings, and ensuring that all students are
receiving appropriate education in an environment that is conducive to learning and
productive.

I think a common misconception of this case would be that students with

disabilities are provided more chances than students without disabilities when it comes
to behavior concerns. As an educator we should know this is not true, but the case
verifies that if a behavior is a function of a student's disability, there needs to be a
different plan in place for managing that behavior other than what a typical disciplinary
process might be. For all students there should be a plan in place to prevent these
behaviors, maybe even more so with students with disabilities especially if it is a
function of a disability, but we still see many districts immediately lean towards
suspension when there could have been other opportunities to redirect the behavior.