Checklist · Education

Facing a Suspension, Expulsion, or School Investigation: A Practical Checklist

20 U.S.C. § 1232

Type
Checklist
Jurisdiction
National
Date
2024-10-01
Topic
Education

This checklist runs a school discipline matter from the first notice through hearing, appeal, and reentry, and runs the district's side alongside it. It opens with the immediate steps in the first forty-eight hours, because records requests, video preservation, and criminal exposure assessment become harder with every day of delay. It then works through policy compliance, which is the operative question in most disputes, and the removal day count that determines whether disability protections attach. Separate parts cover the manifestation determination and the evidence it requires, search and speech analysis, expulsion hearing preparation, and parallel criminal proceedings. Closing parts address discrimination screening, appeal record preservation, reentry negotiation, and the district-side practices that reduce exposure.

Facing a Suspension, Expulsion, or School Investigation: A Practical Checklist

Education > Student Discipline, School Searches, and Education Due Process | Published 1 October 2024 - Updated 3 August 2025 | UpLaw - uplaw.us

Part 0 — First forty-eight hours

☐ Notice obtained in writing, stating the specific rule charged and the proposed consequence ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Complete records requested in writing under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, with the response deadline calendared ☐ ☐ Video preservation demanded in writing; retention periods are short ☐ ☐ District discipline policy and student handbook obtained ☐ ☐ State education code provisions on suspension and expulsion identified ☐ ☐ Whether the student has, or may have, a disability determined ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Criminal exposure assessed before the student speaks to anyone ☐ ☐ Witnesses identified and statements sought ☐ ☐ Services during any removal confirmed in writing ☐ ☐ Deadlines for appeal or hearing request calendared ☐

Part 1 — Process actually required

☐ Length of removal determined: ten days or fewer ☐ more than ten ☐ expulsion ☐ ☐ Constitutional floor confirmed: notice of charges ☐ explanation of evidence ☐ opportunity to respond ☐ — Goss v. Lopez ☐ ⚠️ State law and district policy requirements identified item by item, since these exceed the constitutional floor ☐ ☐ Each requirement checked against what actually occurred ☐ ☐ Notice timing, content, and method compared to the policy ☐ ☐ Whether the student was given a genuine opportunity to respond, and whether it was documented ☐ ☐ Decision-maker and investigator identity noted; separation required by policy? ☐ ☐ Emergency removal authority reviewed if process followed rather than preceded the removal ☐ ☐ Official liability standard noted — Wood v. Strickland, with 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and fees at 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ☐ ☐ Corporal punishment issues analyzed under state law — Ingraham v. Wright ☐

Part 2 — Removal day count

☐ Every removal listed with date and duration ☐ ☐ Partial days included ☐ ☐ Informal removals included: sent home early ☐ picked up by parent ☐ told not to attend ☐ ☐ Bus suspensions included where transportation is a related service ☐ ☐ In-school suspension analyzed: did services continue and was the program implemented? ☐ ☐ Exclusion pending investigation or threat assessment included ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Cumulative total computed for the school year ☐ ☐ Whether a pattern exists: substantially similar conduct, proximity, and length considered ☐ ☐ Change of placement determination made ☐

Part 3 — Disability protections

☐ Existing eligibility confirmed, or basis for asserting the district had knowledge established: written parental concern ☐ evaluation request ☐ staff-expressed pattern concerns ☐ ☐ Statutory framework reviewed: 20 U.S.C. § 1400, 20 U.S.C. § 1401, 20 U.S.C. § 1412, 20 U.S.C. § 1414, 20 U.S.C. § 1415, 20 U.S.C. § 1416; regulations 34 C.F.R. Part 300, 34 C.F.R. Part 303 ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Manifestation determination demanded in writing within ten school days of the decision ☐ ☐ Required participants confirmed ☐ ☐ Question one: was the conduct caused by, or does it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the disability? ☐ ☐ Question two: was the conduct the direct result of a failure to implement the program? ☐ ☐ Evidence assembled: current program ☐ behavior intervention plan ☐ evaluations ☐ functional behavioral assessment ☐ behavior data ☐ service logs ☐ teacher statements on implementation ☐ clinical information ☐ discipline history ☐ ☐ If a manifestation: return to placement, functional behavioral assessment conducted, plan implemented or revised ☐ ☐ If not a manifestation: services continue enabling general curriculum participation and progress ☐ ☐ Special circumstances checked: weapon ☐ drugs ☐ serious bodily injury ☐ forty-five school day interim setting ☐ ☐ Stay put analyzed — Honig v. Doe ☐ ☐ Expedited due process hearing considered ☐ ☐ Independent educational evaluation considered ☐ ☐ Parallel claims screened under 29 U.S.C. § 705, 29 U.S.C. § 794, 29 U.S.C. § 794a with 34 C.F.R. Part 104, and 42 U.S.C. § 12131, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 with 28 C.F.R. Part 35 ☐

Part 4 — Substantive education standard

☐ Program reviewed against the reasonably calculated standard — Board of Education v. Rowley ☐ ☐ Progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances assessed — Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1 ☐ ☐ Burden of persuasion noted — Schaffer v. Weast ☐ ☐ Related services analysis where health supports are needed — Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. ☐ ☐ Private placement reimbursement considered — Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, Forest Grove School Dist. v. T. A. ☐ ☐ Parental standing noted — Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist. ☐

Part 5 — Search analysis

☐ Who conducted the search, and in what capacity ☐ ☐ Justified at inception: reasonable grounds to suspect evidence of a violation ☐ — New Jersey v. T.L.O. ☐ Scope reasonably related to the objectives ☐ ☐ Not excessively intrusive given age, sex, and the nature of the infraction ☐ ☐ Strip search analysis where applicable — Safford Unified School District v. Redding ☐ ☐ Suspicionless testing program analyzed — Vernonia School District 47j v. Acton, Board of Education v. Earls ☐ ☐ School resource officer involvement assessed for the applicable standard ☐ ☐ Phone or device search scope examined against the suspicion ☐ ☐ Locker, vehicle, and canine issues analyzed under district policy ☐ ☐ Admissibility consequences in any delinquency proceeding assessed ☐

Part 6 — Speech analysis

☐ Framework identified: substantial disruption ☐ lewd or offensive ☐ school-sponsored ☐ drug promotion ☐ off campus ☐ ☐ Tinker v. Des Moines standard applied where the default framework governs ☐ ☐ Bethel School District v. Fraser considered for vulgar expression ☐ ☐ Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier considered for school-sponsored expression ☐ ☐ Morse v. Frederick considered for drug-related expression ☐ ☐ Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L. applied to off-campus expression ☐ ☐ Actual disruption documented, or its absence established ☐ ☐ Religious expression questions considered — Kennedy v. Bremerton School District ☐

Part 7 — Expulsion hearing preparation

☐ Notice reviewed against every statutory and policy requirement ☐ ☐ Representation rights confirmed ☐ ☐ Recording permitted? If so, arranged ☐ ☐ Complete record obtained in advance, including all statements and video ☐ ☐ Whether the conduct violates the rule charged, read literally, tested ☐ ☐ Confrontation rights under state law determined ☐ ☐ Hearsay objections prepared where confrontation is available ☐ ☐ Student history assembled: grades ☐ attendance ☐ prior discipline ☐ teacher statements ☐ interventions attempted ☐ ☐ Specific alternatives proposed: behavior plan ☐ counseling ☐ modified schedule ☐ restitution ☐ alternative placement short of expulsion ☐ ☐ Manifestation determination completed first where a disability is in issue ☐ ☐ Every objection preserved on the record ☐ ☐ Appeal deadline calendared immediately after the decision ☐

Part 8 — Parallel criminal proceedings

☐ Whether the conduct could be charged determined ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Student advised not to make statements before coordination ☐ ☐ Whether warnings were given, and whether an officer participated, documented ☐ ☐ Continuance of the school hearing requested where charges are pending ☐ ☐ Whether the defense can be presented without the student's testimony assessed ☐ ☐ Resolution not requiring an admission explored ☐ ☐ Information sharing between the district and the court anticipated ☐ ☐ Delinquency disposition consequences under state education law identified ☐ ☐ School and criminal counsel coordinated before the hearing ☐

Part 9 — Records

☐ Complete education record requested in writing ☐ ☐ Response deadline tracked under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g and 34 C.F.R. Part 99 ☐ ☐ Categories confirmed: incident reports ☐ witness statements ☐ discipline history ☐ evaluations ☐ plans ☐ communications ☐ video ☐ ☐ Video handling policy obtained ☐ ☐ Amendment sought for inaccurate or misleading entries; hearing requested if refused ☐ ☐ Statement inserted where amendment is refused ☐ ☐ Disclosure exceptions understood: law enforcement ☐ transferee school ☐ health or safety emergency ☐ ☐ Survey and evaluation rights reviewed under 20 U.S.C. § 1232h ☐ ☐ Enforcement route noted as administrative — Gonzaga University v. Doe ☐ ☐ Peer-grading distinction noted — Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo ☐

Part 10 — Discrimination screening

☐ Discipline data for the school and district obtained ☐ ☐ Comparators identified: students of other races or without disabilities disciplined for similar conduct ☐ ☐ Race and national origin claims analyzed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d with 34 C.F.R. Part 100 ☐ ☐ Sex discrimination and harassment analyzed under 20 U.S.C. § 1681 and 20 U.S.C. § 1682 with 34 C.F.R. Part 106 ☐ ☐ Peer harassment standard applied — Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed. ☐ ☐ Adult-on-student standard applied — Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist. ☐ ☐ Disability discrimination analyzed under 29 U.S.C. § 794 and 42 U.S.C. § 12132 ☐ ☐ Enrollment or residency exclusion issues analyzed — Plyler v. Doe ☐ ☐ Equal protection claim analyzed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requiring intent ☐ ☐ Administrative complaint route considered ☐

Part 11 — Forum and exhaustion

☐ Gravamen of the complaint identified ☐ ☐ Two clarifying questions applied — Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools: could the claim arise at a non-school public facility ☐ could an adult press the same grievance ☐ ☐ Relief sought identified; whether it is available administratively determined — Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools ☐ ☐ Administrative options reviewed under 20 U.S.C. § 1415: state complaint ☐ mediation ☐ resolution meeting ☐ due process hearing ☐ expedited hearing ☐ ☐ State timelines confirmed ☐ ☐ Limitations periods calendared for each theory ☐

Part 12 — Threat assessment and alternatives

☐ Whether a threat assessment process was used, and the protocol obtained ☐ ☐ Exclusion pending assessment treated as a removal and counted ☐ ☐ Notice and opportunity to respond provided ☐ ☐ Whether any required evaluation is a district evaluation triggering consent rights determined ☐ ☐ Records generated requested ☐ ☐ Restorative conference participation: voluntary? statements protected? ☐ ☐ Behavior contract terms compared to policy; automatic exclusion provisions identified ☐ ☐ Whether alternative placement counts as a removal determined ☐ ☐ Diversion program conditions and admissions reviewed ☐

Part 13 — Reentry

☐ Credit and coursework status determined ☐ ☐ Work provided during removal, and whether it can be submitted for credit ☐ ☐ Reentry meeting requested before return ☐ ☐ Supports, expectations, schedule, and triggers addressed ☐ ☐ Behavior plan in place on the day of return, with staff trained ☐ ☐ Placement adjustments considered: schedule ☐ lunch ☐ designated adult ☐ transportation ☐ ☐ Discipline record content confirmed and transfer implications understood ☐ ☐ Attendance coding for the removal days confirmed in writing ☐ ☐ Truancy referral risk assessed ☐ ☐ Reentry terms negotiated as part of any resolution ☐

Part 14 — District-side practices

☐ Policy followed exactly, with each step documented ☐ ☐ Notice documented by date, method, and content ☐ ☐ Student's response documented ☐ ☐ Removal days counted accurately, including informal removals ☐ ☐ Manifestation determination held on time with required participants ☐ ☐ Functional behavioral assessment conducted and the plan implemented ☐ ☐ Services continued beyond ten days ☐ ☐ Video preserved on notice of a dispute ☐ ☐ Referral decision training delivered, not only consequence training ☐ ☐ Investigator separated from decision-maker where severity warrants ☐ ☐ Voluntary withdrawal not proposed without documenting rights forfeited ☐ ☐ Discipline data reviewed by school, offense, and staff member ☐

Part 15 — Bullying and harassment response

☐ Whether the conduct is based on a protected characteristic determined ☐ ☐ Report made in writing where the family is the complainant ☐ ☐ District anti-bullying policy obtained; complaint procedure followed ☐ ☐ State statutory obligations identified: reporting timeline ☐ investigation requirement ☐ parent notification ☐ prescribed interventions ☐ ☐ Actual knowledge and deliberate indifference analyzed — Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed. ☐ ☐ Adult-on-student standard analyzed — Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist. ☐ ☐ Effect on the complainant's access to education documented ☐ ☐ Interim measures assessed for whether they burden the complainant ☐ ☐ Where the accused student has a disability, manifestation analysis triggered ☐ ☐ Where separating students changes a placement, program review triggered ☐ ☐ Limits on disclosing another student's discipline understood ☐

Part 16 — Younger students

☐ State restrictions on suspending or expelling students below a specified grade identified ☐ ☐ Early childhood program framework confirmed, including 34 C.F.R. Part 303 for infants and toddlers ☐ ☐ Repeated removals treated as an evaluation trigger ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Evaluation requested in writing at the first pattern of removals, establishing district knowledge and starting timelines ☐ ☐ Child find obligation raised where no request has been made ☐ ☐ Behavioral supports and functional assessment requested ☐ ☐ Whether removals are being coded as absences confirmed ☐

Part 17 — Attendance interaction

☐ How suspension days are coded for attendance confirmed in writing ☐ ☐ Whether removal days count toward truancy thresholds determined ☐ ☐ Compulsory attendance obligation during removal addressed ☐ ☐ Attendance-based credit policies reviewed for the effect of removal ☐ ☐ Credit recovery options identified ☐ ☐ Truancy referral risk assessed, with the discipline record preserved as relevant evidence ☐ ☐ Alternative education availability confirmed in writing ☐

Part 18 — Appeal

☐ Appeal deadline calendared immediately upon the decision ☐ ☐ Whether review is on the record or de novo determined ☐ ☐ Every objection confirmed preserved in the hearing record ☐ ☐ Transcript or recording obtained ☐ ☐ Statement of errors organized by requirement violated, with a citation to the policy or statute for each ☐ ☐ Disposition arguments preserved separately from liability arguments ☐ ☐ Board appeal exhausted before any judicial review, where required ☐ ☐ Judicial review standard identified ☐ ☐ Interim relief considered where the student is out of school pending appeal ☐ ☐ Parallel administrative complaint filed where appropriate ☐

Part 19 — Errors that recur

☐ Assuming a full hearing is constitutionally required for a short suspension ☐ ☐ Arguing fairness instead of identifying a specific policy violation ☐ ☐ Undercounting removal days by omitting informal exclusions ☐ ☐ Failing to demand the manifestation determination in writing ☐ ☐ Overlooking the failure-to-implement prong ☐ ☐ Allowing statements while criminal charges are possible ☐ ☐ Requesting records after rather than before the hearing ☐ ☐ Missing the video retention window ☐ ☐ Treating exclusion pending assessment as something other than a removal ☐ ☐ Accepting voluntary withdrawal without understanding the forfeiture ☐ ☐ Assuming exhaustion is required for every school-related claim ☐ ☐ Failing to make a record for appeal ☐ ☐ Neglecting reentry planning ☐

Part 20 — Investigation participation

☐ Whether the student is a subject, a witness, or a complainant determined ☐ ☐ Whether a parent may be present during questioning determined under policy and state law ☐ ☐ Whether the interview will be recorded, and by whom ☐ ☐ Written questions requested in advance where the policy permits ☐ ☐ Scope of questioning confirmed; refusal to answer beyond scope preserved ☐ ☐ Written statement reviewed before signing; corrections made ☐ ☐ Copy of any statement obtained ☐ ☐ Whether an officer will be present confirmed before the interview ☐ ☐ Interpreter or accommodation provided where needed ☐ ☐ Whether the student's disability affects the reliability of statements considered ☐ ☐ Follow-up in writing summarizing what was asked and answered ☐

Part 21 — Documentation to assemble

☐ All notices received, with envelopes or transmission records ☐ ☐ Handbook and discipline policy, in the version in effect on the date of the incident ☐ ☐ Board policy and administrative regulations ☐ ☐ Complete education record ☐ ☐ Individualized program and behavior plan, in every version ☐ ☐ Evaluations and independent evaluations ☐ ☐ Service logs and attendance records ☐ ☐ All communications with the district, in writing ☐ ☐ Video, preserved and copied ☐ ☐ Witness statements ☐ ☐ Grade reports and transcripts ☐ ☐ Medical or clinical records relevant to the disability ☐ ☐ Discipline data reports for the school and district ☐ ☐ Prior incident records for comparators, to the extent obtainable ☐

Part 22 — Settlement terms to negotiate

☐ Consequence reduced or converted to an alternative placement short of expulsion ☐ ☐ Discipline record content specified: what is recorded, and whether it is expunged after a period ☐ ☐ Whether the record transfers on a change of schools ☐ ☐ Attendance coding for the removal days ☐ ☐ Credit recovery mechanism and deadline ☐ ☐ Services during any remaining removal, specified by type and frequency ☐ ☐ Functional behavioral assessment and behavior plan commitments, with dates ☐ ☐ Reentry meeting scheduled, with participants named ☐ ☐ Placement adjustments agreed: schedule ☐ staff ☐ transportation ☐ ☐ Compensatory services where services were missed ☐ ☐ Independent evaluation funded where in dispute ☐ ☐ Staff training commitments where implementation failed ☐ ☐ No-retaliation provision ☐ ☐ Confidentiality scope, with a carve-out permitting disclosure to the student's providers ☐ ☐ Release scope, with carve-outs for claims not yet accrued ☐ ☐ Whether any parallel administrative complaint is withdrawn or preserved ☐

Related Documents