In education institutions, it is observed that school discipline significantly affects students with disabilities compared to those without the same, leading to higher rates of exclusion from class and suspension (Losen & Martinez, 2013). Cognizant that students with disabilities are more likely to receive tough disciplinary actions for identical misbehaviors and other factors that exacerbate the situation such as the school-to-prison pipeline, it is easy to understand the aforementioned phenomenon and differentiate the impact on the larger student populace.

Factors contributing to the adverse outcome experienced by students with disabilities include the lack of the right psychological and behavioral support framework and the expanded popularity of disability-based behavior misunderstanding in schools (Skiba et al., 2006). Central to the problem is that the traditional disciplinary techniques are unable to accurately cater for the unique needs of students with disabilities, especially those with emotional and behavior disorders. Since conventional discipline models might come up short in supporting remedial measures, the policy changes to adopt individualized and proactive support frameworks tailored to address the root cause of the issue and enhance inclusivity (Christle, Nelson, & Jolivette, 2004).

Harms resulting from disciplinary policy changes include academic and social stalling due to reduced time for instruction. Repeated harsh disciplinary actions escalate the likelihood of disengagement and socialization issues such as involvement in criminal activities (Wagner et al., 2006). It is crucial to reform disciplinary policies to adhere positively to behavioral intervention and support concepts and adopt individualized approaches that can address the behavioral framework's fundamental causes while promoting inclusion. These steps should mitigate disparities and improve outcomes of children with disabilities (Sugai & Simonsen, 2012). In effect, these children should be considered while formulating disciplinary policies to mitigate overrepresentation of the undesirable outcomes for the same demographic to maintain fairness and sustainability of their education journeys.

In totality, it can be inferred that disciplinary measures where the unique characteristics of disabled learners are not taken into account are particularly harmful to such disabled students. Therefore, there is a growing need for disciplinary principles that consider all abilities to guarantee that they are high quality and support equity (McHugh, 2019), regardless of whether the learner has a disability that could be physical, emotional, or mental in nature. Critical disparities must emerge for disabled students impacted by disciplinary measures intended for the student populace as a whole; evidence indicates the adverse implications of such disparities, hence there lacks equity in the education sector. There is a call to recognize the unique needs of the disabled student to participate in active life supporting organizations such as education institutions more equitably (Fulda, 2020).

In conclusion, this essay reveals that students with disabilities, when discipline measures are not tailored to their unique needs, are more likely to be negatively affected. These disparities underscore the need for fair and supportive disciplinary systems that account for all students, irrespective of their abilities. Disability in the education sector can only be well comprehended when the disciplinary system is ultimately supportive of these students' needs and fair quotient. The scholar recognizes the need to look into the impacts of disciplinary systems and the types of disabilities on these black children. This was a missing point that needs to be revisited.

Reference:

Christle, C. A., Nelson, C. M., & Jolivette, K. (2004). School Characteristics Related to the Use of Suspension. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 509–526.

Fulda, J.S. (2020). Rethinking In-School Suspensions and Expulsions for Students with Behavior and Emotional Disturbances. Behavioral Disorders, 45(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742919845082

Losen, D. J., & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out of school & off track: The overuse of suspension in American middle and high schools. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies.

McHugh, L. (2019). Students with disabilities: Disproportionate discipline rates and the use of seclusion and restraint. Children's Legal Rights Journal, 39(2), 254–280. https://www.ncjfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CLRJ_Vol-39.2.pdf

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2006). The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-006-0026-4

Sugai, G., & Simonsen, B. (2012). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: History, defining features, and misconceptions. PBIS.org.

Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A., Epstein, M. H., & Sumi, W. (2005) The Proportion of Youths with Identified Emotional and Behavioral Disorders who are Released from High School (SSRI Reports 10). Available at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20052008/10a.pdf

Transitioning students with special needs to post-secondary education or employment presents challenges such as limited support services, lack of individualized planning, and societal barriers. However, with proper transition programs and accommodations, students can achieve greater independence, self-advocacy, and long-term success.

It really depends on the student's ability. My daughter is Autistic and is 18 years old. She is at a non-public school that supports her needs. It is non-diploma track so she is studying for her GED with the goal of attending college.