The information below explains general legal concepts for educational purposes. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and procedures vary by jurisdiction and may change. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken based on this content.
Key Facts
- Federal level: Goss v. Lopez requires notice of the charges for suspensions of 10 days or less, plus an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity for the student’s version of events.
- State level: D.C. Code § 38–236.04 prevents denying students access to appropriate academic work and earning credit toward promotion or graduation during a suspension.
- State level: For due process purposes in D.C., a suspension of 6 school days or more is treated as a long-term suspension under § 38–236.04.
- Federal level: Under the IDEA discipline regulations, school personnel may remove a student with a disability for not more than 10 consecutive school days, with additional not-more-than-10-day removals for separate incidents in the same school year (subject to limits).
- Federal level: IDEA also requires review within 10 school days after a decision to change placement for a code-of-student-conduct violation to determine disability causation or a failure to implement the IEP.
- Federal level: IDEA permits special-circumstances removals for up to 45 school days for weapons, illegal drug conduct, or serious bodily injury without regard to the manifestation determination.
- Federal level: Section 504 regulations prohibit disability-based discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance.
- Federal level: Section 504 regulations require evaluation before initial placement and before any subsequent significant change in placement for students who need or are believed to need special education or related services.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- D.C. statutory limits on exclusionary discipline and who is covered
- Federal due process for short suspensions
- IDEA discipline rules when students have disabilities
- Section 504 adds nondiscrimination and evaluation/placement duties
- A compact comparison of time thresholds and disability triggers
- How the federal and D.C. rules tend to overlap in practice
- Common points of confusion when reading discipline policy headlines
- Bottom line what the controlling sources actually establish
- Sources
This legal information explains how discipline policies in D.C. public charter schools sit at the intersection of three legal systems: (1) a D.C. statutory framework that limits exclusionary discipline and preserves academic access during suspensions, (2) federal constitutional due process rules for suspensions, and (3) federal disability protections that can change how discipline decisions work for students with disabilities.
D.C. statutory limits on exclusionary discipline and who is covered
D.C. Code § 38–236.01 defines the scope of the student-discipline chapter by using the term “Local education agency.” In that definition, “Local education agency” includes the District of Columbia Public Schools system and any individual or group of public charter schools operating under a single charter, so the statutory discipline limits apply in the charter-school context within D.C.
D.C. Code § 38–236.04 places limits on “exclusion” discipline actions such as out-of-school suspensions and “disciplinary unenrollment.” The statute also includes specific protections during suspension, including a rule that a student subject to a suspension may not be denied the right to continue to access and complete appropriate academic work or to earn credit toward promotion or graduation during the suspension.
The same D.C. section also provides a due-process framing for suspension length: for purposes of due process, a suspension of 6 school days or more is treated as a “long-term suspension.”
Federal due process for short suspensions
Federal constitutional due process sets a baseline for removing students for misconduct even when a school system labels the action as a “suspension.” In Goss v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that due process requires notice of the charges for suspensions of 10 days or less, and if the student denies the charges, due process requires an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity to present the student’s version of the facts.
In Goss v. Lopez, the timing concept matters in practice: notice and some form of hearing generally occur before removal, but if prior notice or a hearing is not feasible due to danger or disruption, notice and the opportunity to respond should follow as soon as practicable.
IDEA discipline rules when students have disabilities
When a student has a disability covered by IDEA, federal discipline regulations in 34 C.F.R. § 300.530 can affect both the maximum length of certain removals and the procedural review steps used when discipline triggers a placement change. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.530, school personnel may remove a child with a disability to an interim alternative educational setting, another setting, or suspension for not more than 10 consecutive school days, and the regulations allow additional removals of not more than 10 consecutive school days for separate incidents in the same school year subject to placement limits.
34 C.F.R. § 300.530 also addresses decision-making after a placement change. Within 10 school days of a decision to change placement due to a code-of-student-conduct violation, the LEA, the parent, and relevant IEP team members must review relevant information to decide whether the conduct was caused by (or had a direct and substantial relationship to) the child’s disability or whether the conduct was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP.
The IDEA discipline regulations also create “special circumstances” removals that can extend beyond the basic short-removal framework. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.530, school personnel may impose a special-circumstances removal for not more than 45 school days without regard to the manifestation determination if the child carries or possesses a weapon, knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs or sells or solicits controlled substances, or inflicts serious bodily injury upon another person.
Section 504 adds nondiscrimination and evaluation/placement duties
IDEA is not the only federal disability framework that can intersect with discipline. Section 504 regulations apply to programs receiving federal financial assistance and require nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap (disability). The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 states that no qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation, denied benefits, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 504 also connects discipline decisions to evaluation and placement when the student’s needs are tied to disability-related services. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.35, a recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program must conduct a preplacement evaluation before taking action with respect to initial placement and before taking action related to any subsequent significant change in placement for persons who, because of handicap, need or are believed to need special education or related services.
A compact comparison of time thresholds and disability triggers
The following comparison highlights the different “time” concepts that can appear across D.C. and federal discipline rules, and the disability triggers that can change discipline analysis:
| Topic area | Key time threshold or trigger | Controlling authority (as cited) |
|---|---|---|
| Federal due process for short suspensions | Suspensions of 10 days or less require notice of charges plus an explanation of evidence and an opportunity to present the student’s version when the student denies the charges | Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 |
| D.C. due-process classification inside the state statute | Suspensions of 6 school days or more are treated as “long-term suspension” for due process purposes | D.C. Code § 38–236.04 |
| IDEA “short-term” removals | Removals for not more than 10 consecutive school days (with additional not-more-than-10-day removals for separate incidents in the same school year, subject to placement limits) | 34 C.F.R. § 300.530 |
| IDEA special circumstances | Up to 45 school days for weapon, illegal drugs/controlled substances, or serious bodily injury triggers | 34 C.F.R. § 300.530 |
| Section 504 nondiscrimination and placement | Disability-based nondiscrimination plus evaluation before initial placement or a subsequent significant change in placement | 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 and 34 C.F.R. § 104.35 |
How the federal and D.C. rules tend to overlap in practice
Federal constitutional due process and D.C. statutory limits can both constrain school exclusion decisions within D.C’s statutory discipline framework, including protections linked to suspension length and continued access to academic work and credit during suspension. At the same time, federal disability frameworks can determine what process or nondiscrimination protections apply for students with disabilities, which can change both permissible durations of certain removals and the required decision-making steps when discipline creates placement changes.
Section 504 can operate alongside IDEA through its nondiscrimination mandate and evaluation/placement requirements when special education or related services are implicated by the student’s needs under 34 C.F.R. § 104.35.
Common points of confusion when reading discipline policy headlines
- Mixing up “long-term” for due process purposes with IDEA placement-change triggers: D.C.’s statutory due-process classification uses 6 school days as a trigger, while IDEA’s discipline rules use different thresholds keyed to removals and required review steps.
- Assuming federal due process covers only non-disability suspensions: Goss v. Lopez sets the constitutional baseline for short suspensions, but IDEA and Section 504 add additional and sometimes different procedures and nondiscrimination or evaluation duties for students with disabilities.
- Confusing “disciplinary unenrollment” with a total denial of academics: D.C. Code § 38–236.04 preserves access to appropriate academic work and credit during a suspension, including during out-of-school exclusionary discipline actions covered by the statute.
Some readers also look at broader student-record privacy and recordkeeping topics in education settings, which can be separate from the discipline-policy legality questions covered here, such as in privacy concerns in student data contexts.
Bottom line what the controlling sources actually establish
Across D.C. public charter school discipline policies, D.C. Code § 38–236.04 provides state statutory limits and protections during exclusionary discipline, including a due-process time classification at 6 school days and an academic access/credit rule during suspension. Federal law supplies a constitutional baseline for suspensions of 10 days or less through Goss v. Lopez, while federal disability protections operate through IDEA’s discipline-specific duration and decision rules in 34 C.F.R. § 300.530 and through Section 504’s nondiscrimination and evaluation/placement duties in 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4 and 104.35.
