Source: https://leasorcrass.com/category/blog/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:51:59+00:00

Document:
Blog Archives - Education Lawyers | Leasor Crass, P.C.
Did you know parents do not have a right to compel a school district to provide specific programming or employ specific methodology when teaching students with disabilities? According to a Special Education Hearing Officer’s interpretation of the IDEA, parents may provide meaningful input into the development of their child’s IEP, but are not entitled to dictate the outcome. When it comes down to a choice in methodology, deference is given to professional educators.
A due process hearing in June 2018 ruled on a dispute between a well-intentioned parent and a Texas school district. The central issue turned on whether the District’s proposal to implement a more holistic reading program and placement in a special education classroom for reading and math instruction was reasonably calculated to provide FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment, or LRE. The “methodological dispute” arose following a February 2018 ARD meeting that ended in non-consensus on the District’s proposals.
The parent stated the student was making progress in the student’s private reading program, funded by the parent, and argued the District should incorporate lessons from the private reading program into the student’s school day. In contrast, the District wanted to increase the student’s instructional time in a special education classroom for Reading and Math and provide the student with a more holistic approach to reading. The District argued the special education classroom provided the student with more one-on-one assistance due to the lower student/teacher ratio and the proposed reading program catered to the student’s visual learning skills, a strength discovered in prior evaluations.
The District’s proposed program, in this case, utilized the student’s individual strengths as a visual learner and would instruct at an appropriate pace while taking into account the student’s processing deficits. The program was based on 1) research, 2) the student’s educational history, and 3) the student’s assessed strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, this program satisfied the requisite IDEA standard and was reasonably calculated to provide the student with a meaningful educational benefit in light of the student’s individual circumstances.
On a related note, the Hearing Officer also conducted an analysis of the least restrictive environment and named several factors to be considered in making an LRE determination. The noted factors include the nature and severity of the student’s disabilities, academic achievement, non-academic benefits of placement in a regular classroom, overall experience in the mainstreamed environment, and the effect of the student’s presence in the regular classroom. With respect to the last factor, the Hearing Officer explained that two questions should be asked when evaluating the effect of the student’s presence in the regular classroom. The first is whether the student’s behavior is so disruptive the education of the other students is significantly impaired. The second question is whether the student requires so much of the teacher’s attention the rest of the class suffers. If the answer to these questions is yes, the balance leans in favor of placement in a special education classroom.
In this case, the evidence showed the student became consistently frustrated attempting to keep up with the student’s non-disabled peers and that frustration disrupted the student’s own learning and the learning of other students. The student needed a high-level of teacher assistance and became disruptive when they did not receive it. Additionally, the student became increasingly frustrated and disruptive when the teacher was helping other students. These factors along with others led to the conclusion that the student’s LRE was placement in a mix of general and special education classrooms as proposed by the District.
This decision is a good illustration of the law surrounding parental rights to provide meaningful input, but not to compel or dictate the actions districts take. Districts should listen to and understand what the parent desires, but ultimately the District has both the right and obligation to make an individual determination based on the student’s unique circumstances. Additionally, when making a determination as to a student’s LRE the Fifth Circuit’s two part test, as set forth in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Educ., should be followed. First, the analysis must be individualized and fact-specific. Second, careful consideration should be given to the nature and severity of the student’s abilities, disabilities, needs, and the district’s response to the student’s needs.
If you would like to read the full decision, click here and scroll down to Docket No. 146-SE-0218.
If you have any additional questions about this ruling or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Leasor Crass.
Although the title sounds like that of a bad heavy metal song, it actually refers to three very recent news topics on the legal front that may affect your school district.
Guns: If your school is a polling location, the Election Judge can carry at your school.
In Opinion No. KP-0212, Attorney General Ken Paxton answers the question on whether sections 46.02 and 46.03 of the Penal Code apply to presiding election judges licensed to carry a handgun under chapter 411 of the Government Code. Section 46.03 is the statute that prevents any licensed handgun carrier, other than law enforcement and certain other exceptions, from entering on to a school premise or attending a school related activity.
Because he can, the Attorney General opined that election judges who are licensed to carry may be on school premises with their handgun while performing their duties under the Election Code. The Attorney General based his opinion on a case that is over 100 years old. He stated that in performing their duties at the polling place, the Election Code gives presiding judges the power of a state district judge to enforce order and preserve the peace. More than 100 years ago, a Texas court addressed whether that statutory authority in a predecessor statute allowed presiding judges to carry arms to a polling location. See Hooks v. State, 158 S.W. 808, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913). That court concluded that because a presiding election judge had the same power as a district judge to enforce order and keep the peace, and because a district judge could carry arms to a polling location, the presiding election judge likewise had authority to do so. Id. Thus, in the event your school is used as a polling place, the official election judge may be armed.
The District could choose to discontinue the practice of unassigned epinephrine auto-injectors.
Although the District has been provided with a definition of “all hours the campus is open” in policy, it has not been provided with the definition of school-sponsored activity. The District could draft a regulation that defines school-sponsored activity.
The regulation might also include where to place the injectors, notice to parents, and who has access.
It is my understanding that TASB will be issuing a model regulation this month that addresses this issue. Additionally, TASB Legal Services is also in the process of creating guidance for districts on epinephrine auto-injectors that will address other requirements and considerations that stem from the finalized rules.
As written, this is a very onerous requirement. However, you might define school-sponsored activity as any meeting or event on school campus that requires a certified staff member to be present during that meeting. This might exclude PTAs and other groups. By placing this in a regulation, you are able to define as you wish and better control the provisions of use.
Finally, it should be noted that a person who in good faith takes, or fails to take, any action related to the administration of epinephrine auto-injectors is immune from civil or criminal liability or disciplinary action resulting from that action or failure to act. See Texas Education Code §§38.215 and 22.052(a), (b). Thus, if mistakes are made, then there is no liability for the District, only any publicity or political fallout.
Interlopers: Ejecting people from district property and their right to appeal.
In a final piece of news, the Texas Education Commissioner has updated the rules regarding the ejection of unauthorized persons on school grounds. Specifically, he has provided guidance on the appeal process, which was mandated by the legislature. The revised rule, 19 TAC §103.1207(h), requires a school district’s board of trustees to adopt a policy that uses the school district’s existing grievance process to permit a person refused entry to or ejected from property controlled by the school district to appeal such refusal of entry or ejection. The policy must permit a person appealing under this section to address the school district’s board of trustees in person within 90 days of the commencement of the appeal, unless the appeal is granted before the school district’s board of trustees considers the appeal. Additionally, subsection (g) requires a school district to post on the district’s Internet website and any campus websites a notice regarding the provisions of this section, including the appeal process set forth in subsection (h) of this section.
It is recommended that the appeal process link include the statement found in (h) and have links to Board Policies FNG (LOCAL) and GF (LOCAL). Although TASB will probably introduce a revision to Board Policy GKA (LEGAL) and (LOCAL) soon regarding the 90 day time limit to hear the appeal, districts should be mindful of the time limit if an appeal is filed in the interim.
It is worth noting that the Commissioner authored 19 TAC §103.1207(h) pursuant to Texas Education Code §37.105. This law has caused confusion and consternation among districts in that its requirements can be onerous and do not necessarily allow for immediate action. However, under a District of Innovation plan, districts may choose to be exempt from this section.
If you have additional questions regarding these three new pieces of law, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Leasor Crass on this or any other school law issue.
As detailed in a monitoring report released by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (“OSEP”) last month, TEA’s use of the 8.5 percent special education representation indicator was determined to have contributed to a statewide pattern of practices that violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) child find requirements, resulted in a failure to make FAPE available to all eligible children with disabilities residing in the State, and demonstrated a failure on the part of TEA to fulfill its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities under IDEA. TEA is now seeking “significant stakeholder engagement” regarding an initial draft of its plan to bring it back into compliance with IDEA. Detailed information about opportunities available for providing feedback (including a link to an online survey and calendar of upcoming stakeholder meetings) is available online here. This opportunity to provide input should not be ignored, as the plan has serious repercussions for public school districts.
Those wishing to review a full copy of OSEP’s 14 page monitoring report can access it here. However, the critical issue identified by OSEP can be summarized as a perceived widespread confusion on the part of local school districts with respect to the obligation to refer students for evaluation under IDEA as required by 34 CFR §300.111. Specifically, OSEP identified serious and systemic problems with how this “child find” mandate relates to Response to Intervention (“RtI”), Section 504, and the state’s dyslexia laws. The report emphasizes OSEP’s position that supports being provided in the general education environment through these and other programs cannot serve as a basis to delay or deny the referral of a struggling learner who is suspected of having a disability and needing special education and related services.
TEA will require every district and charter school to identify all students who were in RtI for 6+ months, only had a Section 504 plan, or were exclusively in a dyslexia or dyslexia-related program. Schools must connect with the parents of these identified students not yet in special education and notify them of the corrective action plan and opportunity for a special education evaluation. The cost of identifying and conducting assessments for students suspect of having a disability has always been the responsibility of the district, which will continue.
While well intentioned, implementing this proposal could prove problematic for local school districts. First, the plan doesn’t address incidents in which a district might have legitimate reasons for refusing to conduct an evaluation. Second, it doesn’t consider the logistical issues that might arise from attempting to complete a potentially massive number of evaluations within the statutorily imposed timeframe. Finally, districts should recognize that the “costs of identifying and conducting assessments for students suspected of having a disability” includes costs associated with the procedural safeguards provided to the parents seeking those evaluations. These costs include the obligation to provide an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public cost and/or the right to request a due process hearing in response to disagreements regarding the evaluation.
Despite its fundamental importance, Child Find has proved to be a deceptively complicated concept. While undeniably challenging, the potential benefit of developing clear, concise, and unambiguous guidance in response to OSEP’s findings should not be overlooked. In the meantime, if you have questions about your district’s responsibilities under IDEA and/or participating in TEA’s efforts to address OSEP’s concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the school attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §103
 §103
 §37
 §300