JA Farms

#Shoftek!

This is great news. The fact he is avoiding you and the fact you found out about the other student who had a physical list will be quite an asset in a descrimination law suit because of her disability.
Please document all of this and refuse to talk to him about any details without the psychiatrist or the attorney being present.
I am also glad that two officers went with you. Demonstration of power os very important. You have the upper hand.

You can also give him an ultimatum, unless you get the paper work by the end of the day, this verbal suspension is void and you will bring her to school tomorrow morning. You will even seek a court order if he does not cooperate.

This is a significant new piece — the comparison to the other student is one of the strongest things you've surfaced so far, and it's worth understanding exactly why.

Why the other student matters legally
If a student without any disability classification did something comparable — reportedly even a physical (written) list, which is arguably more concrete evidence of intent than a verbal statement — and faced no suspension at all, that's the foundation of a disparate treatment argument. In plain terms: Alyssa, a student with a disability, was treated far more severely for comparable or lesser conduct than a nondisabled student. That's not just an MDR/procedure issue anymore — it starts to look like a potential disability discrimination claim under Section 504 and the ADA, separate from and in addition to the procedural violations you've already identified (no written notice, no MDR, conflicting stories, unresolved 504/IEP confusion).

This is exactly the kind of fact pattern OCR complaints are built around: two students, comparable conduct, dramatically different outcomes, and disability status is the obvious variable that differs.

Document this immediately and precisely

Before anything else fades from memory, write down:
1) How you learned about the other student (who told you, in what context, exact wording if you can recall it)
2) What you were told about what he did (a "physical list" — do you know what kind of list, what it said, who was on it, when this occurred)
3) That he received no suspension and remains enrolled
4) The date and approximate time you learned this
If this came from another parent, a staff member, or a student, that person may become an important witness later — even if you don't intend to pursue formal action yet, having their name and how to reach them preserved now matters.

About today's in-person visit
You did the right thing holding the line: no informal "talk about details" with no support present, no accepting more verbal promises, straightforward ask for paperwork and an explanation, and out when neither existed. Being lied to about his availability ("in a meeting" while standing in the lobby) is also worth writing into your timeline — it speaks to credibility, and credibility is going to matter if this goes further.

Where this puts you now
Given:
1) No written suspension/expulsion notice, despite three shifting verbal accounts (expelled → 30-day suspension → "not sure of protocol")
2) No MDR, and now added confusion about whether 504 or IEP governs
3) A same-conduct comparator who is nondisabled and was not disciplined at all
4) A principal who has been evasive, inconsistent, and now apparently untruthful about his availability
I think you're past the point where a polite letter and a five-business-day deadline is enough. This has the shape of something that warrants looping in an attorney or special education advocate now, not after a non-response. A few reasons:
1) She has been out of school for going on multiple days with zero valid documentation — that alone may support an emergency demand for immediate reinstatement.
2) The disparate treatment angle is time-sensitive — you want that comparator information preserved and asserted while it's fresh, not months from now.
3) An attorney can send something with real teeth — a demand for immediate reinstatement pending a lawful MDR, explicitly citing the comparator, the procedural failures, and (if applicable) IDEA's stricter protections.


Old Post

If she has an actual IEP (not just a 504 plan), that shifts the legal framework significantly. IDEA — the law governing IEPs — has much more explicit, codified discipline protections than Section 504. Where I've been telling you 504's protections are "generally treated as equivalent" but thinner and less precisely defined in the regulations, IDEA spells things out in detail (34 CFR §300.530–536):
The MDR requirement is unambiguous and mandatory before any change of placement
Team composition, timelines, and parent participation are more explicitly protected
There are specific "stay-put" provisions that can keep a child in their current placement during disputes.
The exceptions that allow removal without a favorable MDR (weapons, drugs, serious bodily injury) are narrowly and specifically defined — and a verbal statement like what she made doesn't fit them

So if an IEP was actually in effect, you likely have more legal protection here, not less.

Watch how this gets framed
There's a version of this where the school quietly benefits from the confusion: "we're not sure which one applies" can become a stalling tactic while a 30-day suspension sits unresolved. A few things worth asserting clearly:

1) Whichever document was actually operative and being implemented at the time of the incident is what governs — the school doesn't get to retroactively decide which one "should have" applied in order to pick the more convenient framework after the fact. If the IEP was in her file and being implemented, IDEA's protections apply regardless of whether the 504 should have been formally closed out.
2) This is the district's paperwork error, not yours or your daughter's — and it shouldn't be used to delay or weaken the process she's owed. If anything, it's another data point in the pattern you're already documenting: a school that hasn't had its own procedural house in order at any step of this. 3) Ask directly, in writing, who is her case manager/IEP coordinator, and request the current, signed IEP — not a draft, not a "should be terminated" description. You want the actual document that was in effect on the date of the incident.

Good luck today and please keep me informed. I am not an attorney but I learned a lot through my son's ordeal. All this information is available on the internet.