It would be unjust to penalize a student for behavior they cannot help when it is directly related to their disability. Hence, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) affords enhanced disciplinary protections to students with disabilities.

Removing a student with disabilities from their carefully chosen placement and/or separating them from their peers may be necessary in some circumstances. But repeated removals without review, like some soft suspensions, violate the student’s rights to due process and a free and appropriate public education.

Do Students with Disabilities Have Additional Rights when Facing School Discipline?

Additional rights for students with disabilities come into play when there is a disciplinary change of placement, such as removal to an IAES (interim alternative educational setting) or suspension(s) exceeding ten school days. Students are then entitled to a manifestation determination to assess whether:

1. The problem behavior was a substantially related to the student’s disability; or
2. The problem behavior resulted from the school’s failure to properly implement the IEP.

If the behavior is determined to be either a manifestation of a disability or the result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP, then the student will be returned to their prior placement (with some exceptions for highly dangerous behaviors). The school district must also review and revise the student’s IEP as needed. This will include a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and behavioral intervention plan (BIP).

When Does a Suspension or Removal Become a Disciplinary Change of Placement?

A disciplinary change of placement occurs when a student is suspended or removed from their usual educational placement as a disciplinary measure for over ten schooldays (IDEA Sec. 300.535).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) counts these ten schooldays in one of two ways:

• The suspension or removal lasts longer than ten consecutive schooldays.

OR

• The suspension or removal is for less than ten consecutive schooldays, but it is a continuation of a recurring pattern of suspensions or removals throughout the current school year which adds up to ten schooldays in total.

The Local Education Agency (LEA) representative (commonly referred to as “the school district”) makes the determination that a disciplinary change of placement has occurred on a case-by-case basis. Parents may request a hearing to appeal this decision, like they would any placement- or manifestation-related determination under the IDEA (Sec. 300.532).

When Is a Removal Part of a “Pattern” that Qualifies as a Disciplinary Change of Placement?

Multiple out-of-school suspensions over a single school year that together exceed ten days qualify as a disciplinary change of placement if they constitute a pattern of removals. Such a “pattern” may seem like an imprecise standard. A number of factors enter into this determination, primarily:

• Proximity in time between removals.
• Substantial similarity between the problem behavior(s) that resulted in removal.

Informal School Suspensions Illegal in Some Cases

It is critical that all disciplinary removals be on the record as disciplinary removals. Some educators may skirt the administrative process involved with disciplinary removals or suspension and send the student home for “acting out” without documentation. This may be done with the best of intentions: like when a teacher believes keeping such interventions off the record benefits the student. But when schools deploy off-the-record discipline such as “soft suspensions” or “mental health days,” they circumvent the student’s IDEA protections.

Such informal removals may be illegal. When a student with a disability is removed without documentation, they have not been afforded the accompanying protections like a manifestation determination. This practice also prevents school districts from meeting their obligation to track discipline data so that disparities in how students with disabilities are punished can be addressed.

In February 2026, Attorney General Letitia James concluded an OAG investigation of Buffalo Public Schools with a settlement. The investigation found that students with disabilities were unlawfully sent home early for “acting out,” and not provided documentation. Illegal suspensions deny students with disabilities their due process rights.

Repeated disciplinary removals disrupt a student’s education and hamper their ability to learn. In such cases, it is possible their IEP requires recalibration, and their BIP (behavioral intervention plan) needs to be established or adjusted.

If the behavior which triggered discipline is directly related to either the student’s disability or the school’s failure to properly implement their IEP, it is unjust to penalize the student. Had the IEP and BIP undergone review sooner, much of the discipline and accompanying distress might have been avoided.

Advocating for an Appropriate IEP for Your Child

Students with disabilities are entitled to an appropriate education. It is critical that disciplinary removals are implemented on the record and according to your child’s IEP. No student should be penalized unjustly for behavior directly related to their disability. Nor should any student be punished for a shortcoming on the school’s part: whether that be from a deficiency in the IEP, or a failure to implement the IEP appropriately.

If you are concerned your child may be subjected to repeated removals without adequate review of their IEP, it is highly advisable to seek legal counsel. An attorney experienced in special education matters can advocate for your child’s right to an appropriate education.

Navigating the school disciplinary and appeals process on behalf of a student with a disability can be overwhelming. Tully Rinckey’s special education attorneys will handle your matter with the attention and tact it deserves. If you have additional questions about the rights of parents and students with disabilities in New York state, our team of attorneys is available to assist you today. Please call (888) 259-7918 to schedule a consultation, or schedule a consultation online.

Greg T. Rinckey is one of Tully Rinckey PLLC’s two founding partners. He worked with Founding Partner and fellow Hofstra University alum Mathew B. Tully in 2004 to build the firm from the ground up into the coast-to-coast, full-service powerhouse that it is today. As Founding Partner, Greg collaborates with Mat in all areas of strategic planning and law practice management to develop and deploy innovative business solutions that continue to grow the firm.