The 1997 IDEA provisions for manifestation determinations were designed differently
than the 2004 provisions. Under the 1997 law, the behavior subject to discipline was
presumed to be a manifestation of the student’s disability unless the team found that
a. in relationship to the behavior subject to the disciplinary action, the student’s IEP and
placement were appropriate and the special education services, supplementary aides and
services, and behavior intervention strategies were provided consistent with the student’s
IEP and placement;
b. the student’s disability did not impair the ability of the student to understand the
impact and consequences of the behavior subject to disciplinary action; and
c. the student’s disability did not impair the ability of the student to control the behavior
subject to disciplinary action.
If any of those three requirements were not met, then the behavior was considered a
manifestation. As noted in this chapter, the 2004 IDEA amendments completely changed
the standards, and now the behavior is not considered a manifestation unless the team finds
the behavior was caused by the disability, had a direct and substantial relationship to the
disability, or was the direct result of failing to implement the student’s IEP. Which
approach is better and why?