Reasonable Modifications to Discipline Policies and Practices
Read the ADA Title II general prohibitions, 28 CFR § 35.130, focusing on paragraph (b)(7): a public entity “shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,” unless it can show the modification would fundamentally alter the program. Public schools are covered by both Title II and Section 504. Then reread § 104.4(b) and Appendix A, ¶ 6.
28 CFR § 35.130 — General prohibitions against discrimination (ADA Title II)
Open 28 CFR § 35.130 on eCFR →Open § 104.4 → · Open Appendix A →
Case law: in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985), the Supreme Court explained that an otherwise qualified individual with a disability must be provided meaningful access to the benefit a federally funded program offers, and that reasonable accommodations in the program may have to be made to assure that access.
- When a neutral discipline rule may still require modification
- How modifications can prevent disability discrimination
- Why identical treatment is not always sufficient
- How safety goals can sometimes be preserved while changing a rule
- Why schools must consider modifications rather than automatically applying policy
What “Reasonable Modification” Really Means
Reasonable modification is often misunderstood as simply giving a student an exception to a rule. The actual analysis is more sophisticated. The school considers the purpose of the policy, the student’s disability, whether the policy creates a disability-related barrier, and whether the policy can be adjusted while preserving the legitimate purpose it serves.
A neutral rule can still create disability discrimination.
A policy does not become immune from Section 504 analysis simply because it applies to every student using identical language. A generally applicable rule may affect a student with a disability differently because of disability-related needs.
The school’s legitimate goal may remain intact.
Modifying a policy does not necessarily mean abandoning its purpose. For example, a school can keep a bus rule that students remain seated for safety while changing another part of the procedure, such as seating the student near an adult who can give reminders, so the student can comply successfully.
A modification can occur before misconduct happens again.
A reasonable modification can address the conditions that make a violation predictable. The school does not necessarily need to wait for another disciplinary event before considering whether a policy should operate differently for the student.
Sometimes the modification may be not applying the rule.
Depending on the facts, a reasonable modification can include not applying a particular consequence to a student for behavior that is based on the student’s disability. The limit is the one in 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7): the school need not make a modification that would fundamentally alter the nature of the program.
A modification developed for disability access may benefit everyone.
A school may determine that a policy change originally considered to avoid disability discrimination would also benefit students without disabilities and may choose to implement the change more broadly.
The school has to consider the modification.
Consider a club rule that excludes students from the next meeting after repeated interruptions. The central concern is not the existence of the rule. The problem develops when the school refuses to consider whether the rule can reasonably be modified for a student whose disability is associated with the behavior.
The modification inquiry is not necessarily the same as a FAPE evaluation.
The reasonable-modification rule in 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7) does not prescribe an evaluation procedure. Deciding whether a student needs a modification to a policy or procedure may not require the full evaluation under 34 CFR § 104.35 that is used to decide the special education or related services needed for FAPE, although a modification that changes the student’s services or placement brings § 104.35 back into play.
The label is less important than meaningful access.
Section 504 case law speaks of “reasonable accommodations” and the Title II regulation of “reasonable modifications.” In elementary and secondary schools, the practical question is whether the adjustment is needed to avoid discrimination, not which word describes it.
Each card describes how a school responds when a disability-related need intersects with a generally applicable rule.
Sort the responses into the category that best describes the quality of the school’s Section 504 analysis.
Individualized Analysis
The school gathers relevant information and considers whether a modification is needed.
Possible Modification
The school changes how the policy operates while addressing the underlying school need.
Automatic Application
The school applies the rule without adequately considering disability-related access.
Click a card, then click the category where you want to place it.
Match each school rule with the response that most directly preserves the legitimate purpose of the rule while addressing the student’s disability-related need.
A student with a disability repeatedly violates a school rule in circumstances that appear connected to disability-related needs.
Put the team’s analysis into the most defensible order.
Apply What You Learned
Analyze the situation below. Consider the purpose of the school policy, the student’s disability-related needs, possible modifications, safety and access, and whether automatically applying the rule would be appropriate.
Equal rules do not always produce equal access.
Federal disability law requires schools to consider whether policies, practices, or procedures need reasonable modification to avoid disability discrimination: the ADA Title II regulation states the duty directly (28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7)), and Section 504 requires meaningful access to the school’s program. The goal is not automatically to eliminate rules or accountability, but to determine whether legitimate school objectives can be achieved without unnecessarily excluding a student because of disability.