JOAN TURNER, M.S. CCC-SLP
Literature Review
Perspectives on the Manifestation Determination Review Process
Some consider the terminology in the federal law to be vague and point specifically to the use of the word “relevant” in three different instances (Fisher et al., 2021; Katsiyannis & Maag, 2001; Katsiyannis et al., 2019; Lewis, 2017; Ritzman & Sanger, 2007; Walker & Bingham, 2017). The law asserts the LEA must invite “relevant” IEP members and the MDR team review “relevant” information from the student’s file and “relevant” information provided by the parents. There is little guidance in this section of the law about how to determine who and what is relevant. There is concern that this vague terminology can invite bias (Fisher et al., 2021) and some researchers have found that what is considered during an MDR meeting varies greatly (Lewis, 2017; Trapp et al., 2021; Walker & Bingham, 2017).
​
The guidelines of the federal law are unclear about who should be in attendance during the MDR meeting and contributing to the MDR decisions. The law states “the LEA representative, the parent, and other relevant IEP team members” (U.S. DOE, 2022) must be in attendance for a MDR meeting. In contrast, federal law states an IEP meeting must include the parents, at least one special education teacher, at least one general education teacher, the LEA, an individual who can interpret assessment results, and the child “when appropriate” (U.S. DOE, 2022). Although it’s not required, some argue that one cannot review an IEP without a school psychologist present to help interpret the scores of past assessment results (Fisher et al., 2021, Lewis, 2017, Walker & Bingham, 2017). An SLP can serve as the interpreter of assessment results in the case of language testing. The student, who can be invited to be a team member at any time, is required to begin participating when they turn 16 (Knudsen & Bethune, 2018). There are many other professionals who may interact with a student (e.g., guidance counselor, related service providers, paraprofessionals) and they may be invited to participate in an IEP. It is unclear which IEP teams should be considered “relevant” when inviting individuals to the MDR meeting (Allen, 2021; Walker & Brigham, 2017).
​
The team is also required to review “relevant information in the student’s file, including the child’s IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents” (U.S. DOE, 2022). This limited guidance leads to teams arbitrarily deciding which information is most important and often leaving other information unreviewed (Fisher et al., 2021; Trapp et al., 2021; Walker & Brigham, 2017).
Disproportionality of Exclusionary Discipline Practices
As discussed on the "Context" page of this website, there is data that suggests students with dis/abilities and students of color are suspended and expelled disproportionately when compared to their white and non-disabled peers (Fisher et al, 2021; Hines et al., 2018; Hurwitz et al., 2021; Katsiyannis et al., 2019; Lewis, 2017). The “School-to-Prison Pipeline” is a metaphor that refers to elementary and secondary students who are, because of exclusionary discipline practices and policies, more likely to enter the criminal justice system as adults (Mallet, 2016). Experts believe the “School-to-Prison Pipeline” is a result of students missing instruction due to suspensions and expulsions (Haight et al., 2016; Morgan et al., 2019; Snow, 2019). Based on the school data that suggests students of color and students with dis/abilities are disproportionately disciplined using suspensions and expulsions, it can also be concluded that those same individuals of color and individuals with dis/abilities are more likely to commit crimes that can lead to ongoing participation in the criminal justice system (Fisher et al., 2021, Hines et al., 2018; Lewis, 2017; Mallet, 2016). It can be hypothesized that students may have better outcomes if they are able to remain in class.
Language as a Predictor of Behavior
As previously mentioned, there is a disproportionate number of youth offenders who would qualify as having DLD (Anderson et al., 2016; Billstedt et al., 2017; Blanton & Dagenais, 2007; Bryan, 2004; Bryan et al., 2007; Bryan et al., 2015; Chow et al., 2022; Gregory & Bryan, 2011; Hughes et al., 2017; LaVigne & Rybroek, 2010; McLeod & McKinnon, 2007; Montgomery et al., 2003; Sanger et al., 2000; Snow, 2019; Snow et al., 2015; Sowerbutts et al., 2021; Swain et al., 2020). Researchers who assess the language of youth offenders follow a procedure of assessing individuals once they are part of the criminal justice system (Anderson et al., 2016; Chow et al., 2022; Sowerbutts et al., 2021). There is evidence that suggests difficulties with language development and use can be a predictor of later problematic behavior (Bryan et al., 2015; Chow et al., 2018; Sanger et al., 2004). Johnson et al. (2010) found individuals with diagnosed childhood DLD were “more likely to have poorer outcomes multiple objective domains (communication, cognitive/academic, educational attainment, and occupational status) than their peers without early communication impairments and those with early speech-only impairments” (p. 51). Researchers have found evidence that language disorders can be a predictor of future maladaptive behaviors, hypothesizing that young people don’t have the language to negotiate with others and they need language to comprehend the interventions for youths with emotional and behavioral problems (Chow et al., 2018; Sanger et al., 1994). Students receiving special education services for a language impairment or another identification with language therapy as a related service may be more likely to require discipline in the school setting (Chow et al., 2018; Snow & Powell, 2004). Furthermore, students with early communication difficulties required more psychiatric referrals as adults (Clegg et al., 2005; Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 2008). The implication of this research would be consideration of language in the discipline process.
Student Roles and Responsibilities
It is expected that students over the age of 16 participate in their IEP meetings for the purpose of post-secondary transition planning. Federal law does not mandate that a student participate in the MDR process. Whether a student is considered a “relevant IEP team member” is for the LEA and parent to decide (Sec. 300.530 authority of School Personnel 2017). Researchers have looked at the roles of youth offenders in the criminal justice system and they have identified communication skills youth offenders need including, but not limited to, oral narrative skills, pragmatic language skills, auditory comprehension skills, working memory, ability to speak under stress, and a positive outlook (Anderson et al., 2016; Chow et al., 2022; Ciolino et al, 2021; Hopkins et al., 2018; Law et al., 2013; Snow & Powell, 2005; Snow & Powell, 2008; Snow & Sanger, 2011; Snow et al., 2012; Sowerbutts et al., 2021; Wetherell et al., 2007). If schools expect students to be a participant in their MDR process and the outcomes, these communication skills may not be present in students with language dis/abilities. In addition to these skills, young people being disciplined are often asked to communicate in situations that can cause stress, trauma, and anxiety. According to a foundational study by Gynther (1957), this can lead to a decrease in a person’s communicative effectiveness. This could mean that, while students with dis/abilities may have opinions about the decision to suspend or expel them, they may find it difficult to participate in their disciplinary proceedings.