← All tools

Tool 65: The two MDR questions - and the evidence that answers them

THE RULE

At a manifestation determination review, the team - the district, you, and the relevant IEP team members - must answer 2 questions about the conduct (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1)). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states them at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E):

Question 1. Was the conduct caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability? (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1)(i))

Question 2. Was the conduct the direct result of the district’s failure to implement the IEP? (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1)(ii))

A yes to either question means the behavior was a manifestation of the disability (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(2)). Then the district must address the behavior with an FBA and a behavior plan, and - outside the special circumstances in 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g) - return your child to her placement (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)). The team must answer by reviewing the file, the IEP, teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1)).

On Question 1, note what the law does not ask. It does not ask whether the disability was the only cause of the conduct. A direct and substantial relationship is enough. But a weak or distant link is not - the line from the disability to the conduct has to be short and solid.

WHY IT MATTERS

The two questions sound like matters of opinion. They are not. They are answered with documents - evaluations, logs, plans, and dates. The team can only review what is in the file, so the answers tend to follow the paper that made it into the room.

Question 2 is the one most parents never hear asked. If the IEP promised counseling that was not delivered, or a behavior plan the staff never read, and the conduct flowed directly from that gap, the behavior is a manifestation - no matter what the psychologist says about Question 1. The district must then fix the implementation failure immediately (34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(3)).