“Congress Was Clear”: Why Parents Must Be Equal Partners in Special Education

Understanding the meaning behind Honig v. Doe (1988)

“Congress was clear that it sought to end the unilateral exclusion of children with disabilities from public school.”

— Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)

What “Unilateral” Means — and Why It Matters

The word unilateral means “one-sided.” In education, it refers to a school making a decision without involving the parent or without following the procedural safeguards required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Before IDEA (originally passed in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act), schools often made decisions about whether to exclude, evaluate, or place students with disabilities — without parental consent, notice, or participation.

The Honig v. Doe ruling reaffirmed Congress’s intent to stop that practice permanently. The Court made it clear:

Schools cannot act on their own to remove or exclude a child with a disability because of behaviors related to that child’s disability.

This principle doesn’t just apply to suspensions or expulsions — it underpins every IDEA safeguard. Schools cannot make major educational decisions alone.

What IDEA Says About Parental Involvement

IDEA makes parental participation the foundation of special education collaboration. The law requires schools to include parents in every major decision about their child’s education and to obtain informed written consent for key actions.

Key federal regulations:

• Initial Evaluation: 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(a)

• Initial Provision of Services: 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)

• Reevaluations: 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c)

• Changes in Placement/Services (Prior Written Notice): 34 C.F.R. § 300.503

• Parental Participation in IEP Meetings: 34 C.F.R. § 300.322

These rules exist to ensure transparency, communication, and equality between schools and families. When schools make decisions without parental input or consent, it violates IDEA’s intent.

Honig v. Doe

: The Case That Reinforced “Stay-Put”

In Honig v. Doe, two students with emotional and behavioral disabilities were indefinitely suspended from school due to behaviors linked to their disabilities.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Schools cannot expel or indefinitely suspend a student with a disability for behaviors that are manifestations of that disability.

• The “stay-put” provision of IDEA guarantees the child’s right to remain in their current placement while disputes are resolved.

The Court reaffirmed that schools cannot act first and explain later. IDEA requires process, communication, and parental participation.

Why This Still Matters Today

Even today, this ruling serves as a reminder: parents are not guests in the IEP process — they are equal members of the team.

Any action that affects a child’s education, placement, or services must include:

1. Parent notification

2. Meaningful participation

3. Written consent or formal procedural documentation

When schools bypass these steps, they are repeating the very actions Congress sought to prevent when it passed IDEA.

For Parents: How to Protect Your Role

If you ever feel decisions are being made for you instead of with you:

✅ Ask for everything in writing — including reasons and proposed actions.

✅ Request an ARC/IEP meeting to discuss changes.

✅ Reference your right to Prior Written Notice (PWN) under 34 C.F.R. § 300.503.

✅ Remember — your consent is required for evaluations, placements, and services.

Your participation isn’t a courtesy. It’s a federal right.

Final Thought

IDEA was built on the belief that partnership, not power, should guide special education.

When parents and schools collaborate, children thrive. When schools act unilaterally, progress and trust break down.

The Supreme Court’s reminder in Honig v. Doe remains one of the most powerful statements in special education law:

“Congress was clear that it sought to end the unilateral exclusion of children with disabilities from public school.”

Disclaimer

This post is for educational and advocacy purposes only and is not legal advice. Every child and case is unique. Parents should seek professional or legal guidance for individual situations.