Katherine Covington and Meera Mehtaji

1. A Legal Case Position PaperAW, by his parents, Debra D. Wilson and Christopher D. Wilson v. FairfaxCounty School Board, 372 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2004) Katherine Covington and Meera Mehtaji

2. Description of Parties. Party 1: Debra D. Wilson and Christopher D. Wilson Relationship to child: Parents of the child, AW Party 2: Fairfax County School board Relationship to child: school system in which the child attends school . Citation: AW, by his parents, Debra D. Wilson and Christopher D. Wilson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant- Appellee.

3. Procedural History. Due Process:- April 2002, Fairfax County, Virginia. Federal District Court:- August 16, 2002 Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria division. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (January 22, 2004).

4. Characteristics of the Child. Fifth grade, AW was identified as a student with an emotional disability. The IEP “devoted one hour of each school week to specialized education intended to alleviate AW's ‘difficulty maintaining focus and completing academic tasks as required’ and avoidance of ‘many tasks, especially when they involve writing’.” AW successfully completed his fifth- grade year.

5. Characteristics of the Child. Sixth- grade his IEP was revised in accordance with the IDEA procedure. AW “began exhibiting behavior problems he had not displayed during the first year of his IDEA program.”

6. Current Services. AW’s IEP assigned him to "gifted and talented" program (the "GT program") at his elementary school. No accommodations for the behavior problems that he displayed during that school year. Relevant Accommodations/Modifications: One hour a week for to specialized education

7. Settings and Events. In March 2002, AW “persuaded another student to place a threatening note in the computer file of a student that AW disliked.” AW “admitted that his intent was to scare the targeted student away from school.” School administration decided to suspend AW from school for two weeks and initial proceedings to expel AW

8. Settings and Events. IDEA required the school officials to convene a Manifestation Determination Review ("MDR") committee in order to determine the extent to which AW could be disciplined. The MDR committee concluded that AW’s disability did not prevent him from understanding the consequences of the action and that they violated school rules or were inappropriate behavior. These findings allowed the Fairfax County School Board (FCBS) to “to discipline AW as it would any other student.

9. Settings and Events. • FCBS however rejected the expulsion decision by the school and “directed instead that AW be transferred to the GT program at another FCSB elementary school for the remainder of the school year. • AW returned to his original school at the end of his suspension, to complete the final week of school before spring break. During this time AW continued to the GT program course work but in a separate empty classroom. • “As the week drew to a close, AW's parents invoked their right under the due process procedures of the IDEA to a review of the MDR determination.”

10. ISSUES. • “AW asserts that his mid-year transfer by the FCBS violates the “stay put” provision of the IDEA, as the due process review guaranteed to AW’s parents under the IDEA was still proceeding” • Definition of ‘educational placement’ • “AW challenges the substantive determination by the MDR committee that allowed the FCBS to discipline AW in the same manner as any non-disabled student.”

11. STATUTORY AND CASE LAW.Applicable Case Law, ‘stay put’ provision • 20 U.S.C.S. § 1415(j), which required that the student's "educational placement" not change while disciplinary proceedings were pending. • Sch. Comm. v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 373, 85 L. Ed. 2d 385, 105 S. Ct. 1996 (1985) • In discussing the “stay” put provision” of IDEA the Supreme Court, has “indirectly provided insight into the definition of educational placement, “prevent school officials from removing a child from the regular public school classroom over the parents' objection pending completion of the review proceedings.“

12. STATUTORY AND CASE LAW.Applicable Case Law, ‘stay put’ provision • Honing, 484 U.S. at 323 states the “stay-put” provision was intended to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school.”

13. STATUTORY AND CASE LAW.Applicable Case Law – definition of ‘educational placement’ • 20 U.S.C.S. § 1415(j), which required that the student's "educational placement" not change while disciplinary proceedings were pending. • United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 605 (4th Cir. 1995) which states that “any definition of "educational placement" must reflect the fact that the "stay-put" provision is not implicated by temporary changes that track previous assignments as closely as possible and do not affect a student's FAPE.”

14. STATUTORY AND CASE LAW.Applicable Case Law – was the child’s misbehavior related to the diagnosis • Honig, 484 U.S. at 311-12. IDEA "guarantees parents both an opportunity for meaningful input into all decisions affecting their child's education and the right to seek review of any decisions they think inappropriate."This includes the "opportunity to present complaints with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child."

15. STATUTORY AND CASE LAW.Applicable Case Law – was the child’s misbehavior related to the diagnosis • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4) (2000) which states that a “disabled student may not be disciplined by his school unless an MDR committee concludes that the student's IEP was appropriate relative to his qualifying disability and that the student's disability did not inhibit his capacity either to appreciate that his behavior was inappropriate or to conform his behavior to expectations”

16. FINDINGS AND ORDERS; APPLICATION TO CURRENT PRACTICE • ISSUE # 1 “stay put” provision The court held that “the temporary changes in location do not violate the ‘stay put’ provision provided that they do not result in the diminution of the educational services to which the student is entitled. The court held that, “a clearer definition of the term educational placement” was required.

17. FINDINGS AND ORDERS; APPLICATION TO CURRENT PRACTICE • ISSUE # 2 Definition of ‘educational placement’ The court held that “it does not appear that the term also includes the precise physical location where a disabled student is educated.” IDEA was examined to “distill a definition that can most fairly be said to be in the statute, in the same sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purpose that Congress manifested.” “focuses on the degree to which any particular assignment segregates a disabled student from nondisabled students, rather than the precise location of the assignment itself. The court “finds little support in the IDEA’s underlying principles for AW’s assertion that “educational placement” should be construed to secure his right to attend school in a particular classroom at a particular location”

18. FINDINGS AND ORDERS; APPLICATION TO CURRENT PRACTICE • ISSUE # 3 the MDR “erred in concluding that AW could be disciple as any other student,” The court held that the “found no error in the manifest determination review committee’s conclusion that AW’s IEP and placement in a general curriculum GT program was appropriate, and that his ADHD not figure into the behavior for which he was being disciplined.” The court additionally found “no basis in the administrative record to conclude that ADHD figured into the conduct for which AW was disciplined.”

19. References • AW, by his parents, Debra D. Wilson and Christopher D. Wilson v. Fairfax County School Board, 372 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2004)

20. Contributions by Group Members • Katherine Covington –Statutory Cases and Laws, Applicable Case Laws, Findings and Orders, Application to Current Practices. Review of power point presentation, review of facts and issues of the case. • MeeraMehtaji - Facts of the Case, Issues, Power point presentation, review of - Statutory Cases and Laws, Applicable Case Laws, Findings and Orders, Application to Current Practices. • *Both partners agree that work was split evenly, and each member contributed to the overall assignment.