A memo from the Heartland Area Education Agency, Johnston, Iowa, March 31, 1996:

I am writing to respond to your question regarding appropriate procedures to follow when a staffing team can not agree, or come to consensus, in determining whether a particular student's disability is related to bringing a weapon to school. As you are aware, these situations and the decisions surrounding them are difficult. And, unfortunately, the frequency of these events is increasing at an alarming rate.

We have held a number of manifestation determination conferences in the schools Heartland serves, but this is the first to my knowledge in which the staffing team could not resolve the disability relatedness issue. Therefore I sought legal council [sic]. The attorney stated that it is not uncommon for staffing teams to have difficulty in determining disability relatedness and has dealt with this concern in other AEA's and school districts. The advice was: In cases in which a staffing team can not reach consensus in determining whether a particular student's disability is related to bringing a weapon to school, assume the disability is related and proceed accordingly. This conservative approach gives the student the benefit of doubt, provides them [sic] with specific due process rights, and is more legally defensible for the school district than to assume the disability is not related. In summary, if no clear determination can be made, assume the disability is related to the behavior at issue.

I want to close by commending you and the staffing team for your adherence to following the procedures for determining disability relatedness in weapons related incidents. Not an easy task. Emotions can run high and clear thinking can be clouded. But as I understand how you have proceded [sic] in this case, you have done a very fine job.

Please feel free to contact me for further clarification or if any other questions remain.

Sincerely,

James Stumme, Ed.D., Director
Division of Special Education

cc: Linda Holloway
Staffing Team

†