Disruptive Behaviors in Elementary and Secondary Educational Case Study

Disruptive behaviors in elementary and secondary educational settings have long been a concern for educational administrators, teachers, and courts. The issue is exacerbated when considering disruptive behaviors exhibited by special education students. Given the requirements for a free and public education (FAPE) and the goal of least restrictive environments (LRE), there seems to be a balancing of interests between the needs of the child in special education and the competing interests of both teachers to teach other students, of non-special education students to receive quality education and school administrators to ensure a safe and secure educational setting for all students and instructors. For the purposes of this assignment, three cases will be analyzed; Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, S-1 v. Turlington, Honig v. Doe. These cases will be discussed in an effort to discern similarities and differences between the cases and how these similarities and differences influence and impact special education services.

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

The issues in Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) involved an 8-year-old female child with spina bifida. One of the child's disabilities was an inability to voluntary empty her bladder. Consequently, the child required a process known as clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) every few hours. The process of CIC did not require a great deal of specialized training. However, the child's IEP did not include a condition for school personnel to administer the CIC for the child, as she was unable to successfully complete the process herself. The child's parents invoked the Education of the Handicapped Act, arguing that CIC is one of the included "related services" under the statutory definition, and also invoked 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forbids a person, by reason of a handicap, to be "excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" any program receiving federal aid (Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 1984). The Supreme Court identified two issues in the case: The first is whether the Education of the Handicapped Act requires petitioner to [468 U.S. 883, 889] provide CIC services to Amber. The second is whether 504 of the Rehabilitation Act creates such an obligation. The Supreme Court held that the procedure of CIC services qualifies as a necessary supportive service that is required, pursuant to 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to assist handicapped children to receive special education services (Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 1984).

S-1 v. Turlington 635 F.2d 342 (1981)

The issues presented in S-1 v. Turlington 635 F.2d 342 (1981) involved a child with a 504 disability, who was suspended for disruptive conduct. In other words, because the child's IEP didn't incorporate a seriously emotionally disturbed classification, the child's conduct seemed unrelated to the actual IEP. The court in S-1 v. Turlington agreed with the lower court's ruling and found that a disabled child can't be expelled simply because of behaviors that indicate a serious emotional…