Purpose: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a highly publicized case brought by a transgender student, G.G., who was denied access to the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity. Ultimately, the Court never heard this case, but the documents submitted to the Court remain a part of the historical record, worthy of examination beyond their legal value. In this study, we analyze the first person accounts presented in the “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs to better understand the human impact of policies and practices related to transgender student inclusion. Method: This research utilizes legal research methods to bound the study design. We draw from legal storytelling, which originates in law, and narrative inquiry, which can be found in educational research. In doing so, we provide a synthesis of all amicus briefs submitted in the G.G. case that include personal, firsthand accounts, stories, and experiences. Findings: Overall, the personal stories highlight the implications of inclusive and noninclusive policies and practices. Where noninclusive policies were in place, individuals shared experiences of bullying, academic harm, medical concerns, and inconsistencies in implementation. On the other hand, inclusive policies were associated with confidence building and academic engagement, and a benefit to all students. Stories also reveal that common fears such as safety or privacy did not materialize in the experiences of individuals represented in the briefs. Implications: Informed by these stories, we present implications for research, policy, and practice. Stories reveal the importance of leadership, communication, and professional development.

A significant and growing body of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) research examines the experiences of students, employees, and the substance of leadership training. This project aims to complement this work by taking a macro-level look at the broader legal and policy issues that may constrain or enhance a school district leader's ability to promote LGBTQ inclusion. Through an examination LGBTQ issues, this article will explore the relationship between various sources of legal authority and the role of law in policy implementation. Method: This article employs legal research methodology to illuminate the breadth of the law affecting LGBTQ issues in schools. Findings: The impact of law on education policy and practice is far-reaching and complex. LGBTQ law is composed of many intersecting sources of legal authority. This article argues that legal literacy is more than a tool that can be used to avoid legal liability; it can be used as a proactive advocacy tool to promote social justice and LGBTQ inclusion. Implications: Educational leaders, researchers, and leadership preparation programs need to be aware of the ways in which the law can hinder or support social justice leadership. As such, this article includes implications for research, policy, practice, and leadership preparation.

This study explores four instances where parental choice has been employed as a legal “circuit breaker”: (a) First Amendment Establishment Clause cases related to public funding, (b) Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection cases regarding race-conscious student assignment, (c) Title IX regulations concerning single-sex education, and (d) a provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) related to parental refusal to consent to initial special education services. In each example, while the end result would not be legally permitted if directed by some governmental decision maker, the presence of parental choice produces a permissible indirect path to the same policy outcome. This study traces the legal underpinnings of each example and discusses their implications for policymakers and practitioners.

As the federal entity in charge of enforcing civil rights law, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plays a critical role in addressing the vast inequities that exist in U.S. education. Through an analysis of the policy guidance OCR issued for a number of areas during the Obama administration, we illustrate the agency’s comprehensive and practical approach to helping ensure that young people from different backgrounds have equitable access to education and equitable experiences once enrolled. This review provides the foundation for understanding civil rights enforcement in the current context of inequality; it is particularly timely, as the Trump administration has begun a rollback of existing guidance, which has concerning implications for students’ civil rights.

Given the legal nature of special education, a particularly promising avenue for infusing research into practice is through court cases. Recent work has illuminated the influence of amicus briefs in court decisions. An amicus brief is a nonparty brief submitted by a person, group of people, or organization that provides insight and expertise on issues presented in a case. In this exploratory study, we examined how interest groups, through the amicus brief process, used research in a recent Supreme Court case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The case focused on a fundamental principle at the heart of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the definition of a free appropriate public education, an issue in which researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike should be interested. Our findings indicate that researchers and research played a limited role in the briefing process. We conclude with a discussion of potential reasons for the lack of research in the briefing process, as well as a call for the field to use amicus briefs as a means to influence special education policy and practice.

Citation: Lewis, M. M. (2017). Were the student's actions a manifestation of the student's disability? The need for policy change and guidance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(50). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2880Abstract: Under federal special education law, before a school district may discipline a student with a disability for greater than 10 days, it must first determine whether the student's actions were a manifestation of his or her disability (IDEA, 2004). This requirement, referred to as manifestation determination review (MDR), aims to ensure that students with disabilities do not experience a significant disciplinary change in placement for actions that are caused by their disabilities. This article will discuss the evolution of the legal standard and the policy implications of a study that examined 80 MDR decisions in one large urban school district.

No abstract

No abstract