This study traces the judicial history and educational impact of Honig v. Doe, the Supreme Court decision concerning the suspension of special needs students. In addition, the related Massachusetts Discipline Policy for Students with Special Needs is reviewed, analyzed and compared to Honig. This study also reviewed alternatives to suspension and related court cases. An integral part of the dissertation is a five-page questionnaire distributed to 150 Massachusetts Special Education Administrators and 150 Massachusetts Junior and Senior High School Principals. The overall response rate was 63.7%. The questionnaire queries the policy, the administrators' knowledge of, and attitudes towards the policy, experience with the implementation of the policy, and the alternative discipline methods being used in Massachusetts. An analysis of these responses indicates that more than three-quarters of the administrators who replied correctly answered questions testing their basic knowledge and understanding of the policy and how it was being implemented in their respective schools or school districts. The survey shows a high degree of compliance with the policy's requirements of keeping records of special needs student suspensions and convening Team meetings whenever special needs students' suspensions are expected to total ten days. Furthermore, 89.5% of administrators indicated they have never used the courts to exclude special needs students from school. Alternatives to suspension were also reported with after school detention and in-school suspension being the most common for both regular and special education. More than half of the administrators believed that the policy, which limited the school's authority to suspend special education students, had a negative effect on discipline for special education students. Recommendations are made to help administrators better understand and implement the policy. Areas in need of further research are indicated, including the availability of administrators' access to and utilization of the school attorney and the extent to which the stay-put provision of P.L. 94-142 has prevented administrators from suspending special needs students.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UMASS/oai:scholarworks.umass.edu:dissertations-8620 |
| Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Creators | Hicks, Ralph E |
| Publisher | ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst |
| Source Sets | University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Source | Doctoral Dissertations Available from Proquest |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds