Third and Subsequent Disruptions  Op.Atty.Gen.No.
2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001; Miss. Code Ann. 37-11-55. The
statute does not specify a standard for the principal’s review.  Id.  Id. The local school board has the responsibility of defining the form of conference. Id.
"Disruptive" and "Habitually Disruptive" Students
A student can be labeled as "disruptive" when the student behaves in a way that significantly interferes with the classroom environment. Generally, teachers have significant discretion in determining whether a student’s action has violated the school rules or is disruptive. Students who are disruptive on multiple occasions can be labeled as "habitually disruptive." Although relatively minor offenses, disruption and habitual disruption can lead to serious consequences for a student. Depending on a student’s age and number of disruptions, a school can remove a student from class, have the student psychologically evaluated, develop a behavior modification plan for the student, and even expel the student.
First Act of Disruption
Upon determining that a student is disruptive, a teacher may remove a student from the classroom and send the student to the principal's or assistant principal's office. The principal or assistant principal then reviews the teacher's decision and decides whether the student should be returned to the classroom. If the principal determines that the student should be returned to class, the principal must justify his disapproval of the teacher’s decision. If the principal agrees with teacher, the student may not return to class until after a conference has been held with the student's parent or guardian. DB's question here: Is the student prevented from returning to any class or just this particular class?
Second Act of Disruption
In addition to being removed from class, the second time a student (under the age of 13) engages in "disruptive behavior," a school or private psychologist will evaluate the student. Based on this evaluation, the principal, teacher, and parent must develop a behavior modification plan, which will go into effect within two weeks of the disruptive act. The plan is designed to . . .
Courts and statutes have yet to recognize any significant procedural or substantive rights for students in developing the behavior modification plans. The relevant statute simply requires that students (as well as their parents) receive counseling as part of the behavior modification plan. However, if a habitually disruptive student is or has been identified as a special education student, the behavioral modification plan should conform to special education laws. This would entitle the student to certain procedural protections, as well as continued adherence to the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). For a further explanation of a special education student's rights and the interaction with discipline, please visit this website’s special education materials.
Once a behavior modification plan goes into effect, further disruptions by a student may lead to expulsion. If a student over 13 years old fails to follow his or her behavior modification plan, that student is labeled "habitually disruptive" and may be expelled based on a third act of disruptive behavior during a school year. But being "habitually disruptive" is not enough for a student to be automatically expelled; automatic expulsion may only happen if a student both (1) fails to follow the behavior modification plan, and (2) commits a third disruptive act during a school year.
 “Habitually disruptive” refers to student actions that "cause disruption in a classroom, on school property or vehicles or at a school-related activity on more than 2 occasions during a school year, and to disruptive behavior that was initiated, willful and overt on the part of the student and which required the attention of school personnel to deal with the disruption. However, no student shall be considered to be habitually disruptive before the development of a behavior modification plan for the student in accordance with the code of student conduct and discipline plans of the school district." Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-18.1. [This section repealed July 1, 2010.]
 See Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-18.1 [Repealed July 1, 2010.]; Op.Atty.Gen.No. 2001-0380, Carter, July 6, 2001; Op.Atty.Gen.No. 2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001.
 Op.Atty.Gen.No. 2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001; Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-55.
 Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-18.1. [Repealed July 1, 2010.]
 Miss. Code Ann. § 37-13-92; § 37-13-9(1)(i) - ? - check citation.
 Appellate Brief, Schaffer v. Weast, No. 04-698, 2005 WL 1521616 (4th Cir. June 24, 2005); see also Pigford, supra note 1, where the disciplined student's IEP "was created with the input, cooperation, and approval of [his] parents.”
 Weast, supra note 24, citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv) (2005) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.344(a)(4) (2005). See also Weast, quoting Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 790 F.2d 1153, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986) ([the IDEA] “place[s] primary responsibility for formulating handicapped children's education in the hands of local school agencies in cooperation with each child's parent”) and citing Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207-208 (1982) (state and local education agencies collaborate with parents to develop educational plans for disabled students).
 See, e.g., Weast, supra note 24.
 Weast, supra note 24.
 Id. at 9, citing Tatro v. Texas, 703 F.2d 823, 830 (5th Cir. 1983), and Hanson v. Smith, 212 F. Supp.2d 474, 481 (D. Md. 2002).
 Weast, supra note 24, citing Hanson, supra note 30, quoting Sanger v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 916 F. Supp. 518, 520 (D. Md. 1996).
 Weast, supra note 24. Lentz School Security specifically addresses the content of behavior modification plans, which describe the student's unacceptable behavior and desired behavior, and include projected timelines and techniques for intervention. Mary A. Lentz, Lentz School Sec. § 5:5 (2008).
 Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-55. A student under 13 years old is not subject to automatic expulsion upon being deemed habitually disruptive, but may be expelled under other school board disciplinary provisions. Op.Atty.Gen.No. 2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001; Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-55.
 Op.Atty.Gen.No. 2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001. Those who determine a student's lack of compliance with the behavior modification plan (thus defining the student as “habitually disruptive”) should be specified either in school policies or in the plan itself. Miss. Code Ann. § 37-11-55.
 Op.Atty.Gen.No. 2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001; Miss. Code Ann. 37-11-55. Cf. Op.Atty.Gen.No. 2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001 (teachers' powers pursuant to the Mississippi School Safety Act also apply to substitute and assistant teachers). Note, however, that a student's removal from a classroom for disrupting the class does not necessarily mean the student's conduct was a statutory act of “disruptive behavior.”
Third and Subsequent Disruptions
2001-0311, Thompson, June 25, 2001; Miss. Code Ann. 37-11-55. The
statute does not specify a standard for the principal’s review.
 Id. The local school board has the responsibility of defining the form of conference. Id.