Special Education Law IEP IEE FAPE OSEP LRE OCR MDT FBA 504 SLP DD COTA LD CIC Special Ed Acronyms “… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment “No otherwise qualified individual with disabilities in the United States…shall solely by reason of his/her disability be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance…” 29 USC 794 Vocational Rehabilitation Act 1973 You are the principal of Hokie High School. Your science department chair told you about a conversation that occurred this morning between her and one of her colleagues, Tom. When notified that Tom was expected to attend an IEP meeting as a representative of the regular ed staff. He said he doesn’t believe in “accommodations” and thinks the child in question is “just lazy” and is “working the system.” Case Study It is the duty of all schools to provide a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for every child between the ages of 3 & 21 who has identifiable disabilities Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act 1975 Free Appropriate Public Education Individual Education Plan Special Ed Services Related Services Due Process Least Restrictive Environment Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act - Provisions 1986 Attorney fees 0-3 program, optional 3-6 program essential Services for deafblind/ multi-handicapped Amendments 1990 TBI, Autism Transition services Prevent schools from using the 11th amendment ESY Extensive parent rights Discipline Access to regular curriculum/assessment Access to regular program Non-categorical eligibility Limits services to private school students 1997 IDEA NCLB coordination Special Ed services for children in private schools Changes eligibility definitions for LD Flexibility for intervention prior to eligibility determination (15%) Modified dispute resolution More refined disciplinary rules for students with disabilities IDEA 2004 Removal for 45 alternative placement for causing serious bodily injury at school Manifestation team, must include parents, district, and relevant members of IEP team Child can be in alternative placement until decision is made in hearing, or period of discipline ends Discipline Changes FAPE ESY Regression-Recoup Procedural safeguards IEPs ADHD LRE Private School Placement Court Cases Related services Discipline Stay-put provision Compensatory education Attorney’s and Expert fees Liability for reimbursement of parents EACHA 1975 Rowley 1982 SC Tatro 1984 SC Burlington 1985 SC Robinson 1986 Honig 1988 SC Timothy W 1989 1st C Zobrest 1993 SC Cases ACCESS FAPE Related Services Reimbursement Attorney fees Discipline Ability to benefit Parochial school Florence 1993 SC Reimbursement Oberti 1993 3rd Circuit LRE Holland 1994 9th Circuit LRE Garrett 1999 SC Related Services Van Clay 2002 7ircuit LRE Shaeffer 2005 SC Burden of Proof Arlington 2006 SC Non-Attorney fees Alvin 2007 SC ADHD Cases (continued) Henry Hudson v Rowley 1982 SC Defined FAPE EAHCA does not require maximum ed services, but a floor of opportunity Questions of methodology for provision of services are to be determined by state and local ed systems FAPE Irving v Tatro 1984 SC ◦ CIC is a related service Cedar Rapids v Garrett 1999 SC ◦ Continuous nursing service is a related service Related Services Parents of a medically fragile child are insistent that their child be totally integrated into the school mainstream. Due to a cardiac condition, it is possible that the child will have to be resuscitated at some point during the school day. Additionally, trach suctioning and naso-gastric tube feeding are required. The parents demand that a full time nurse be provided to ensure that their child receives the necessary medical attention. How would you handle this? Honig v Doe 1988 SC Discipline rights May suspend a child for up to 10 days with out violating the stay-put provision Why are suspension and expulsion procedures for students with disabilities different from those for non-disabled? Discipline During most of his years in the Shrenk School District, Tommy demonstrated no need for special education services. He had average grades and progressed from grade to grade. Although diagnosed ADHD, he was not on any medication. In high school he left school one day with friends, all of whom admitted to smoking marijuana at his home. Later the group returned to school, where Tommy used a pellet gun to shoot at another student on the school track. The student was not seriously injured. When Tommy was expelled his parents filed a due process complaint saying he should have been served as a special education student. What should the school do? Timothy W v Rochester 1989 Oberti v Bd of Ed 1993 Sacramento v Holland 1994 Beth v VanClay 2002 1st Circuit 3rd Circuit 9th Circuit 7th Circuit What are the factors in the 4 part Holland test? http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/rachel.htm LRE Florence v Carter 1993 SC ◦ Parent entitled to reimbursement for private placement (not parochial) Zobrest v Catalina 1993 SC ◦ Provision of services at parochial schools Foley v Special School District 1998 8th Circuit ◦ Voluntary parochial placement, no entitlement KDM v Reedsport 1999 9th Circuit ◦ Not entitled to services in parochial school Special Ed and Private Placements Martinez v School Bd 1988 11th Circuit ◦ Aids, risk v accommodation Timothy v Cedar Rapids 1999 8th Circuit ◦ 504 and transportation for choice Schaeffer v Weast 2005 SC Arlington v Murphy 2006 SC ◦ Burden of proof is on the party seeking relief ◦ Non-attorney fees are not reimbursable costs Additional Cases Issues Special Education Section 504 Identification Evaluation Due Process Discipline Enforcement If 504 and Special Education serve students with disabilities – what are the differences? IDEIA Section 504 Identification/ eligibility Specific categories; adversely affect ed performance Must affect major life activity; no need for sped Evaluation Comprehensive eval by MDT; Independent eval; re-eval every 3 years; no significant re-eval for placement change Evaluation from variety of sources documented; periodic eval; decisions do not require consent; Responsibility for FAPE IEP; educational benefit to student; placement in spec ed/gen ed; related services Plan; comparable ed; placement in gen ed; related services Due Process Impartial hearing and appointee for hearing; specific procedures; stayput; 10 day notice for change; requires parent consent Impartial hearing; hearing officer can be school staff; no stay-put: no prior notice for change; requires parent participation Enforcement OSEP OCR 504 vs Special Ed Be familiar with district policies and procedures regarding sped Ensure proper placement of qualified transfer students Make sure disciplinary actions conform with the law Complete assessments within time limits Checklists www.nichcy.org www.angelfire.com www.school.familyeducation.com http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/program review/TechnicalAssistance.aspx Resources