The Year in Review—Special Education
KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING
Agenda
•Behavior & Discipline
•Bullying & Harassment
•Eligibility
•ARD Meetings
•LRE Cases
•Monetary Damages
•Private School Placements
•Procedural Issues
•The Perfect Educational System
2
Behavior & Discipline
A high school girl with LD and ADHD was expelled from her high school
for her participation in an on-campus fight including attacking a
principal who restrained her.
A manifestation determination meeting was conducted and
determined the fight was not related to her disability.
District provided homebound services while hearing proceeded.
Expulsion was revoked and student was sent to another high school
campus.
Parents claims of their child’s rights being violated dismissed since she
received services throughout the expulsion via homebound.
J.F. v. New Haven Unified Sch. Dist., 64 IDELR 212 (N.D. Cal. 2014)
3
Behavior & Discipline
A parent claimed that her child being suspended for six days over a
two year period should have triggered a Manifestation Determination
Review (MDR)?
The court found for the district stating that six days did not trigger the
need for an MDR review.
Avila v. Spokane Sch. Dist. #81 64 IDELR 171 (E.D. Wash 2014)
4
Behavior & Discipline
A fourth grade boy with autism developed severe behaviors that
interfered with learning including eloping from the classroom, physical
aggression and defecating/urinating in the calming room.
School district initiated the process to develop a Behavior Intervention
Plan (BIP).
The parents unilaterally removed the child and initiated a private
placement.
The court held that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement
for a private placement since the district was in the process of
developing a BIP at the time and was willing to implement it.
Endrew F. Douglas County Dist. RE 1 64 IDELR 38 (D. Colo. 2014)
5
Behavior & Discipline
A fifth grade girl with an emotional disturbance was permitted as a
part of her Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) to leave her classroom
when feeling angry.
Evidence that the girl was frequently removing herself from the
classroom which was in her BIP caused the parent to file suit noting that
she was being denied FAPE.
The court found for the school district because the child was following
the BIP put in place and it was appropriate to leave the classroom to
regain control.
C.P. v. Krum Indep. Sch. Dist. 64 IDELR 78 (D. Tex.. 2014)
6
Behavior & Discipline
A district limited a third grade student’s access to music, physical
education and group instruction without convening an Admission,
Review and Dismissal (ARD) meeting.
The district had been given parental notice that the student needed a
re-evaluation focused on behavioral concerns.
 The court found for the parent noting the district violated the child’s
IDEA rights by not initiating a re-evaluation to determine the student’s
needs.
West-Linn Wilsonville Sch. Dist. 63 IDELR 251 (D. Or.. 2014)
7
Administrator Points to Remember
 Campus staff must follow and adhere to the Behavior
Intervention Plan developed for an individual student.
Campus staff has 10 FAPE Free days each school year. It is
considered a change of placement if you go over 10 days and
you must have an MDR.
If a student begins to exhibit behavioral concerns that
interfere with learning, the campus needs to have an ARD
meeting to address the concerns and put a plan of action in
place.
If you need help, please request behavioral assistance. A
memo will be sent to campus principals on the process in
August 2015.
8
Special Education Implications in Katy ISD
Based on what was reviewed in these national cases, what
discipline and behavioral issues are you facing on your campuses?
Please turn and discuss what you deal with in relationship to this topic
on your campus with someone sitting by you.
Are there any questions that can be addressed for the group?
If you would prefer to write your questions down and submit them to
us with an email address or phone number we can do this as well.
9
Bullying & Harassment
A self-contained LIFE Skills classroom teacher joined with a parent
of a student with multiple disabilities to sue the district.
Parent alleged that the child’s sexual assault in the school
restroom by a peer mentor was caused by an oversized class that
prevented effective supervision of the students
Court rejected the parent claim finding the principal’s response to the
sexual assault was reasonable and conformed with the law.
Teacher claimed her advocacy for the student led to district
retaliation.
Court noted the teacher was not constitutionally protected because it
was a personal grievance rather than advocacy.
J.W. v. Johnston County Bd. of Educ.,. 64 IDELR 64 (E.D.N.C. 2014)
10
Bullying & Harassment
A male classmate was “leering” and “staring” at a high school girl,
making her uncomfortable.
Parents alleged that the male student had sexually assaulted their
older daughter four years earlier.
Parents alleged that the district’s failure to stop the male
student’s behavior led to the daughter’s Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD).
 The courts found the effect of the boy’s presence at school was
not sufficient to trigger the school district’s obligation to prevent
any association between the students.
M.S. v. Marple Newton Sch. Dist., 64 IDELR 267 (E.D. Pa. 2015)
11
Bullying & Harassment
A male classmate was “leering” and “staring” at a high school girl,
making her uncomfortable.
Parents alleged that the male student had sexually assaulted their
older daughter four years earlier.
Parents alleged that the district’s failure to stop the male
student’s behavior led to the daughter’s Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD).
 The courts found the effect of the boy’s presence at school was
not sufficient to trigger the school district’s obligation to prevent
any association between the students.
M.S. v. Marple Newton Sch. Dist., 64 IDELR 267 (E.D. Pa. 2015)
12
Bullying & Harassment
Sixth grade boy with dyslexia was bullied in Physical Education
class.
The principal responded by separating the bully from the student
and suspending another student.
The court held that the lawsuit was frivolous and the district’s
response was reasonable and awarded attorneys fees.
G.M. v. Dry Creek Joint Elem. Sch. Dist., 64 IDELR 231 (9th Cir. 2014)
13
Bullying & Harassment
The district erred by failing to address peer harassment in third
grade girl’s IEP. The girl had gained 13 pounds and had 46
absences/tardies and became academically withdrawn due to
bullying.
Court found that bullying had adversely affected the girl’s
learning and should have been addressed in the IEP.
T.K and S.K. v. New York City Dep’t. of Educ., 63 IDELR 256 (E.D. N.Y.2014)
14
Administrator Points to Remember
 Bullying and harassment claims need to be taken seriously
and if a special education parent makes this type of allegation,
the campus must investigate, document the findings and notify
the parent of the results of the investigation
15
Special Education Implications in Katy ISD
Based on what was reviewed in these national cases, what
bullying and harassment issues are you facing on your campuses?
Please turn and discuss what you deal with in relationship to this topic
on your campus with someone sitting by you.
Are there any questions that can be addressed for the group?
If you would prefer to write your questions down and submit them to
us with an email address or phone number we can do this as well.
16
Eligibility/Child Find/Evaluations
The district did not err by failing to conduct a re-evaluation prior
to discontinuing a tenth grade girl’s IEP eligibility.
The district evidence showed proficiency in grade-level standards
and mastery of IEP goals.
The court stated that IDEA does not obligate school districts to
conduct additional standardized assessments unless the parent
requests these.
Phyllene W. v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 64 IDELR 242 (N.D. Ala. 2014)
17
Eligibility/Child Find/Evaluations
The district violated “Child Find” by failing to evaluate the girl for
IDEA eligibility.
The girl made 54 visits to the school nurse; grades had
significantly declined; and she had swallowed a metal instrument
used to cut herself.
Parent’s failure to notify the district of the girl’s private diagnosis
of depression did not relieve the district of their “Child Find”
obligation.
Jana K. v. Annville Cleona Sch. Dist., 63 IDELR 278 (M.D. Pa. 2014)
18
Eligibility/Child Find/Evaluations
Former Learning Disabled (LD) student no longer met IDEA
eligibility criteria.
Court rejected the parents’ claim that LEAs are barred from
considering statewide testing while the student is receiving special
education services.
Court stated if this were the case, no LD student could ever be
found ineligible for special education and related services.
J.B. and A.B. v Wells-Ogunquit Cmty. Sch. Dist., 63 IDELR 294 (D. Me.
2014)
19
Eligibility/Child Find/Evaluations
Read 180 program (fluency) was utilized for one school year, but
proved ineffective for fifth grade student with dyslexia who had
decoding and encoding difficulties.
LEA did not change reading programs even after the student
failed to respond.
Court ordered the LEA to provide an Orton-Gillingham reading
program focused on the child’s deficits.
I.S. v. School Town of Munster, 64 IDELR 40 (N.D. Ind. 2014)
20
Administrator Points to Remember
 State Performance Plan Indicator 11: requires that all initial
evaluations of students occur within 45 school days of the
parent signing consent. (100% Federal Indicator)
State Performance Plan Indicator 12: requires that children
entering the system at 3 years of age need to have an IEP by
their third birthday. (100% Federal Indicator)
If the campus observes a major change in a pattern of
behavior or academics, a parent meeting or ARD needs to be
called to address the changes.
If a campus program is not working or being effective, the
team needs to review it and make changes that would result in
different programming.
21
Special Education Implications in Katy ISD
Based on what was reviewed in these national cases, what
eligibility, child find and evaluation issues are you facing on your
campuses?
Please turn and discuss what you deal with in relationship to this topic
on your campus with someone sitting by you.
Are there any questions that can be addressed for the group?
If you would prefer to write your questions down and submit them to
us with an email address or phone number we can do this as well.
22
ARD Meetings
 Principal informed the mother in the ARD meeting that she would no
longer be permitted to contact her child’s teachers or other staff
members directly.
Court held that the principal’s action violated the parent’s right to
meaningful participation in the development of her child’s IEP.
LEA officials should have first warned the mother about excessive
communication and given her a chance to reduce emails/calls/contacts.
Stepp v. Midd-West Sch. Dist., 65 IDELR 46 (M.D. Pa. 2015)
23
ARD Meetings
 Parents of teen with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) re-scheduled an IEP meeting
multiple times.
LEA attempted multiple times, in multiple ways, to reschedule the IEP meeting, but
without success.
LEA finally convened the IEP meeting without the parents in attendance.
Court held that the LEA properly convened the IEP meeting without the parents,
given notice and attempts to re-schedule at a mutually convenient time/place.
A.L. v. Jackson County Sch. Bd., 64 IDELR 173 (N.D. Fla. 2014)
24
ARD Meetings
 At an ARD meeting the parents requested a private school placement for
their 3 year old Autistic child.
The district person chairing the meeting noted in the minutes that sending
the student to a private institution was an excellent idea.
Court found for the parent and ordered the school district to pay for the
private placement since they thought it was an excellent choice for the
student.
Blount County Bd of Educ. V. Bowens, 63 IDELR 243 (11th Circuit. 2014)
25
Administrator Points to Remember
 Be careful what you have put in the minutes of an ARD
meeting because this is the official record used when parents
take the district to mediation or due process hearings.
If a parent is constantly contacting teachers, staff members
please make an effort to discuss with them parameters of
contact. If this has been done and it continues, please contact
the special education dept. to discuss alternatives.
The rule of thumb on the number of attempts you need to
make before holding an ARD without the parent is generally 3
attempts with the third attempt including a registered mailed
letter with all the documented attempts.
26
Special Education Implications in Katy ISD
Based on what was reviewed in these national cases, what ARD
meeting issues are you facing on your campuses?
Please turn and discuss what you deal with in relationship to this topic
on your campus with someone sitting by you.
Are there any questions that can be addressed for the group?
If you would prefer to write your questions down and submit them to
us with an email address or phone number we can do this as well.
27
LRE Cases
An IEP for an elementary school student with Autism did not have
to specify the child’s classroom assignment so long as his IEP
described his program and services.
M.A. v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 64 IDELR 196 (3rd Circuit. 2014)
28
LRE Cases
Parents of an elementary school boy with autism alleged that he was being
educated in a “glass house” separated from his peer group.
Evidence showed that the student spent most of the school day in a general
education classroom, and was removed for a 5 to 10 minute “sensory breaks” to sit
in a glass enclosed vestibule near the classroom.
Court upheld the placement as LRE.
K. S. v. Strongsville City Sch. Dist., 63 IDELR 125 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
29
LRE Cases
The parents of a student with Autism disagreed with the staffing ratio in the
LEA requesting that the district match their private placement ratios and that
their child’s LRE rights were being denied.
Court stated that the requirement that students be educated in the LRE
applies to the type of classroom setting not the level of additional support a
student receives within the placement.
R. B. v New York City Dep’t of Ed., 65 IDELR 62 (2nd Circuit Ohio 2015)
30
Administrator Points to Remember
 The ARD committee should not ever specify a particular device,
program or classroom assignment. The ARD committee needs to
discuss the programming and placement but not in those specific
terms.
If a student has a cool off area or designated space to go when
they need a break from class, make sure that it is designated and
individuals are tracking the amount of time spent in the area.
Parents do not designate staffing on campuses or the ratio of staff
to students.
With LRE, the general rule is you start with the general education
classroom and than determine if a more restrictive placement is
needed.
Never tell a parent that we already know Brian is going into Life Skills
before the ARD meeting. Placement is the last thing determined based
on IEP goals and all the other supporting documents.
31
Special Education Implications in Katy ISD
Based on what was reviewed in these national cases, what LRE
issues are you facing on your campuses?
Please turn and discuss what you deal with in relationship to this topic
on your campus with someone sitting by you.
Are there any questions that can be addressed for the group?
If you would prefer to write your questions down and submit them to
us with an email address or phone number we can do this as well.
32
Monetary Damages
Court allowed the parents f a 29 year old women with severe
disabilities to pursue a damages claim against a school district.
The young woman had previously been awarded 3,180 hours
of compensatory education services plus a $209,000 trust for
educational services.
Chambers v. School Dist. Of Philadelphia, 64 IDELR 132 (E.D. PA. 2014)
33
Monetary Damages
Parents of a boy with Cerebral Palsy alleged that the teacher
dumped him out of his wheelchair rather than titling him to stand;
forced him to face the wall for punishment; called him names and
mocked him for smelling bad.
Court dismissed parent’s monetary claims against the district and
principal because parents failed to bring their complaints to the
LEA’s notice until after the school year ended.
C. S. v. Platte Canyon Sch. Dist. No. 1, 64 IDELR 110 (D. Colo. 2014)
34
Monetary Damages
High school girl with PTSD, ADHD, and ED was severely injured
and suffered permanent brain damage after jumping from a
moving school bus.
Girl had a lengthy history of ED and attempts to elope from the
bus.
Parents alleged that the district failed t properly supervise and
train the bus driver and aide and to adequately measure the girl’s
outbursts.
Court refused to dismiss the lawsuit seeking money damages
pursuant to Section 1983, Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.
Reid v. Prince George’s County Bd. Of Educ., 64 IDELR 142 (D. Md. 2014)
35
Administrator Points to Remember
 Mediation and Due Process Hearings in special education can
request attorneys fees, compensatory education, transfer to
another campus, reimbursement for private placements;
however, they cannot collect direct monetary damages for
themselves.
Section 504 parents can request direct monetary damages;
however, please refer to Ms. Bonnie Holland’s office on any
questions related to that area.
It is important to note that monetary expenses cannot come
out of the IDEA B grant it is taken from the general local
operating fund.
36
Private School Placement
Student with ED was unilaterally placed by his parents in a
residential facility ($7,000 per month).
Evidence showed that the primary purpose of the residential
facility was to treat reactive attachment disorder in children.
Court held that the school district was not responsible for
funding residential placement when the primary purposed was
for mental health rather than educational needs.
Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist. V. Douglas A., 65 IDELR 1 (5th Cir.. 2015)
37
Private School Placement
Parent of a 7 year old child with autism called the LEA prior to
relocating from Texas and asked about services.
Student services coordinator explained to the parent that the
LEA would likely conduct its own assessments upon enrollment.
Parent interpreted the conversation to mean that the LEA
would not serve the child until it completed its own evaluations.
Court held the LEA was not responsible for FAPE until the child
formally enrolled in school.
N.B. v. State of Hawaii, Dep’t of Educ., 63 IDELR 216 (D. Hawaii 2014)
38
Private School Placement
Parents of a teenage girl with LD in math sought
reimbursement of costs for a residential program.
Residential program did not offer specially designed instruction
to meet the girl’s disability related needs.
Court held that the LEA was not liable for the costs of the
residential placement because it was not “appropriate.”
E.M. v. New York City, Dep’t of Educ., 63 IDELR 181 (2d Cir. 2014)
39
Administrator Points to Remember
 In Katy ISD when parents chose to unilaterally place their
child in a private school placement. The central special
education department sends a letter home denoting that we
have a Katy ISD public school program available for the student
to attend at no cost to the parent.
This is in order to document that Katy ISD does have a
program that can meet their child’s needs and is ready, willing
and able to serve the student.
40
Procedural Issues
Mother of two elementary school students with PTSD alleged that the principal
and staff “humiliated” her when her children refused to enter their classroom by
suggesting; 1) calling the police to scare them; (2) spanking them; and (3) taking
them to a psychiatrist.
Principal also had mother cited for trespassing on school property.
Court dismissed mother’s claims for defamation due to deficiencies in the
pleadings and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Canders v. Jefferson County Pubs. Schs., 64 IDELR 36 (W.D. Ky. 2014)
41
Procedural Issues
School attorney may be sanctioned for ordering police to
remove a parent’s attorney from an ARD meeting.
After the ARD meeting, LEA officials allegedly attempted
to “bribe” the student by offering to buy him a tablet if he
would refrain from inviting the attorney to the next ARD
meeting.
Blackman v. District of Columbia, 64 IDELR 169 (D.D.C. 2014)
42
Procedural Issues
LEA rejected medical excuses submitted by the parents of
a 10 year old boy with seizure disorder and refused
parent’s request for homebound education services.
Law prohibits homebound education without a
diagnosed condition(s), certifies the severity, and includes
a projected date for return to school.
Court upheld the LEA’s actions.
Blackman v. District of Columbia, 64 IDELR 169 (D.D.C. 2014)
43
Administrator Points to Remember
 Procedural violations are often times not considered as high
level as compared to missing services for students.
Procedural violations are usually connected to not filling out
the ARD paperwork correctly or leaving a page out of the ARD
that tells the individual if they will or will not receive ARDed
services.
These are still violations and the district will be cited for them
they are just not as high priority as other violations that can be
committed by the district.
44
Perfect Educational System
School district provided an FM system as an accommodation to a deaf
education student.
The parents requested a speech to text transcription for their child
because they wanted to maximize the child’s potential under Title II
which allows the parent to chose their own device which can cost tens of
thousands of dollars per child.
K. M. v. Tustin Unified School District (9th Circuit. 2013)
45
Administrator Points to Remember
 There is a parent in Katy ISD that is using this same allegation
and not arguing that her child is not making progress. She
acknowledges she is making progress but not to the maximum
extent possible in the classroom.
Be aware that this is a new way to litigate a case and we are
beginning to see it being used in our own district.
46
Special Education Contacts
Kathy Williams
Director of Special Education Compliance
281-396-2606
kathrynwwilliams@katyisd.org
Christopher Rigdon
Director of Special Education Programs
281-396-2074
christopherrigdon@katyisd.org
Brian Malechuk, Ed.D.
Executive Director of Special Education
281-396-2625
brianemalechuk@katyisd.org
47