Source: http://schoolkidslawyer.com/tag/law/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 21:33:49
Document Index: 429679029

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1414', '§1415', '§300', '§1415', '§300', '§1414', '§300', '§1414', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§6301', '§7801', '§6318', '§1401', '§300', '§1432', '§300', '§300']

law – Page 2 – SchoolKidsLawyer.com
Evaluations vs. IEP Meetings – A Very Important Distinction
A client recently told me they received a notice for an “evaluation meeting”. Huh? I asked, do you mean an IEP meeting? The client wasn’t sure because the notice said just that – evaluation meeting.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVALUATION MEETING!
Since I figured school districts are trying to confuse parents by using the terms “evaluation” and “IEP meeting” interchangeably, let me clarify the difference between the two for everybody.
IDEA is very specific about what an “evaluation” is and what an “IEP meeting” is. And they are in separate sections of the statute. Here is what that law says:
Evaluation, 20 U.S.C. §1414(a), (b), and (c)
Initial evaluation: “A State educational agency, other State agency, or local educational agency shall conduct a full and individual initial evaluation . . . before the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability under this subchapter.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(1).
In other words, before a student can receive special education and related services for the first time, the school must conduct an initial evaluation of the child. This is part of their “Child Find” responsibility if someone suspects that the child has a disability that impacts their education.
The next few subsections discuss the procedures used and the purpose of an initial evaluation (“to determine [eligibility] within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation”) and parental consent.
Reevaluation: “A local educational agency shall ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted . . . if the local educational agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrant a reevaluation; or if the child’s parents or teacher requests a reevaluation.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(2).
Thus, re-evaluation of a child must occur if the school believes a change in services is necessary or if a parent or teacher requests it. Here is a very important part:
Reevaluation MUST occur at least every three (3) years, but not more than once a year, unless the parents and school agree that reevaluation is not necessary.
20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(2)(B).
What does an evaluation involve? “In conducting the evaluation, the local educational agency shall use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent (to determine if there is a disability and what will be necessary in an IEP); shall not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining (disability or the education program); and use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(b)(2).
It means that the school must use valid testing methods and get input from the parents and others who know the child in performing the evaluation. The school can’t simply rely on what the teachers say.
This is where the trouble starts, because schools think that they can conduct an “evaluation” or “reevaluation” by simply having a meeting. They can’t.
IEP Meeting, 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)
IEP Meeting: The IEP Team (parents, at least 1 gen ed teacher who knows the child, at least 1 special ed teacher who knows the child, a representative of the school district who knows the resources available, a person who can interpret evaluation results, and possibly others) must assemble to develop an IEP for the child. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B) and (C). This is an IEP meeting.
The Team must meet to ensure that an IEP is in effect for each child with a disability in the school district by the beginning of the school year in the Fall. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(2)(A). The IEP meeting must occur “periodically, but not less frequently than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(4)(A).
So, hopefully you’re still with me. And you can see that the law is crystal clear that an evaluation is something different than an IEP meeting.
So why are schools getting this mixed up (maybe on purpose)?
One sentence in IDEA may be the culprit:
“To the extent possible, the local educational agency shall encourage the consolidation of reevaluation meetings for the child and other IEP Team meetings for the child.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(E).
The statute doesn’t explain what a “reevaluation meeting” is, but I think it refers back to the section quoted in Reevaluation above, namely a meeting to determine if a reevaluation is needed. It is not a meeting where an evaluation takes place, but rather to decide if one is necessary.
Nevertheless, ASK the school what they mean by an “evaluation meeting”. Ask them if they mean a meeting to decide whether reevaluation is necessary or if they mean an IEP meeting or a combined meeting. And, as always, DO IT IN WRITING!
If you want further information on this, get our book SchoolKidsLawyer’s Step-By-Step Guide to Special Education Law or contact us for a consultation.
Put Communications Between Teachers and Parents in the IEP
A new tactic being used by schools against parents of children with disabilities is to require / funnel all communications with the school through one person, usually the case manager. We’ve seen numerous questions by parents if this is illegal or whether parents can request two-way communication be listed as an accommodation in the IEP.
Yes it is, yes it can and it should be.
But you won’t find the requirement in IDEA. You’ll find it in ESSA. Read on.
Not in IDEA
IDEA does not have a requirement or regulation that says that there should be ongoing communication between teachers and parents of children with disabilities. Probably because Congress felt that such communication was basic common sense and they wouldn’t need to actually write it into a law.
What IS in IDEA is the following:
IDEA guarantees parents and their child with a disability numerous legal rights identified as “Procedural Safeguards”. See 20 U.S.C. §1415; 34 C.F.R. §§300.500-520. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is not only the child with the disability that has legal rights under IDEA, but the parents are also entitled to assert legal rights on their own behalf under IDEA. Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 127 S.Ct. 1994, 1996 (2007).
One of the key Procedural Safeguards is “an opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability . . . to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child.” 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1) (emphasis added.) The parents of a child with a disability are mandatory members of the IEP Team. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. §300.321(a)(1). Indeed, “the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child” is critical in developing the child’s IEP. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(1)(ii); see also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) (Parents play “a significant role” in the development of each child’s IEP.)
Parental participation in an IEP meeting is so vital, it is set forth twice in the IDEA regulations. 34 C.F.R. §§300.322(a), (c) and (d) (emphasis added); 34 C.F.R. §300.501(b)(1).
But that is all concerning parental participation in the development of an IEP. These provisions don’t discuss the daily, ongoing communication with the school.
Now, we look at ESSA . . .
In 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (2017) (“ESSA”). This was an amendment of the prior No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”).
The ESSA guarantees parents of a child with a disability to participate “in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities” and “play an integral role in assisting their child’s learning.” To accomplish that goal, parents are “encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s education at school . . . [and carry] out of other activities, such as those described in section 1116.” 20 U.S.C. §7801(39) (emphasis added.)
The activities referenced in “section 1116” state that parents may engage in to participate in their child’s education include, inter alia, ongoing communications between teachers and parents and classroom observation. 20 U.S.C. §6318(d) (emphasis added.)
Put Two-Way Ongoing Communication in Your Child’s IEP
Thus, since Congress deemed this so important that they wrote it into law, it is important enough to make it part of your child’s IEP. Show them the law quoted above. (Maybe even print out this article and bring it to the IEP meeting.) Tell them that you want this accommodation written into the IEP, especially if the school is trying to deny this right of access.
I’m quite sure that even teachers would welcome such ongoing dialogue. The key is not to abuse this right – don’t contact the teachers several times every day. Be reasonable as teachers have other students and their parents to meet this obligation. But, if you do so reasonably, there is no legal basis for a school to block such regular and common sense communication.
It’s no longer just common sense – it’s now the law.
Bullying and the Gebser Letter
You probably know what bullying is. You may not know what a Gebser Letter is or what it does. Sit down, grab your cup of coffee and read on.
First things first. It is now widely accepted as fact that children with disabilities are more likely to be bullied than their neurotypical and able-bodied peers. About 20% more likely, to be precise. A study was performed by Chad Rose of the University of Missouri College of Education and Nicholas Gage of the University of Florida examining 6,500 students from K-12 during the years 2011-13. Although the study did not include online bullying (which has now become more pervasive through social media), it found that students with disabilities were bullied more than other kids particularly in grades 3 through high school graduation.
More about the study can be found in this excellent article “Disabled children more likely to be bullied during school years, study says” by HealthDay News. There is even more helpful information on the statistics on bullying and harassment of students with disabilities at the National Bullying Prevention Center’s website.
It is also now widely accepted that bullying negatively affects a student’s ability to learn. It directly impacts that student’s education. The U.S. Department of Education’s official blog published an article called “Keeping Students With Disabilities Safe from Bullying” that highlighted a 2013 Guidance Letter on bullying. A year later, the USDOE’s Office of Civil Rights issued an even stronger Guidance on how schools should handle bullying.
What is a Gebser Letter?
In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in a case titled Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the opinion for a divided court. The Court decided that under Title IX, you cannot sue a school district for damages for bullying or harassment unless you have notified a school official who has the ability to take corrective measures on the district’s behalf of the misconduct and the school district is “deliberately indifferent” to the notice.
Out of that case came the very simple concept of preparing a letter – a so-called Gebser Letter – to provide the proper notice to the school. The only question was whether the school then acts with deliberate indifference to the conduct.
This case emphasizes our constant mantra in special education law – If it ain’t in writing, it never happened. Document everything!
We strongly urge you to consult with a lawyer on the proper format and language of a Gebser Letter and/or if your child has a disability and is the victim of bullying. We have provided a form Gebser Letter in our packet of special education legal forms, which are FREE to download, but remember that these forms do not constitute legal advice and are not a replacement for consultation with a lawyer in your state. But the letter could get the ball rolling for your child and you.
Free Special Ed Legal Forms on SchoolKidsLawyer.com.
You can also have a 30 minute consultation with us for $100 to discuss your child’s case.
Recently I was asked to explain what a “reasonable accommodation” is.
The person put the question in some context: Their child’s “special education school thinks a table in classroom with curtain is a reasonable accommodation for his bathroom needs. The class is coed teenagers with different cognitive and physical abilities.”
I doubt this is a “reasonable accommodation”, but let’s explore how we get there.
504 and ADA, not IDEA
First, “reasonable accommodation” is 504 and ADA language, not IDEA. Under IDEA, a school must develop an IEP that meets all needs of a student with a disability. This is not an ‘accommodation’; rather it is a legal requirement so that a child may receive a FAPE.
What does 504 require?
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (504 for short) is a federal law that prohibits a facility that receives federal funds from discriminating against a person with a disability. Under 504, a public school must ensure that a child with a disability has equal access to education and services. To accomplish that, the school must provide modifications to education and services or a “reasonable accommodation” to such student so that he/she is not discriminated against because of his/her disability.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is very similar to 504 and applies to schools equally. The purpose is to prevent and prohibit discrimination against students with disabilities, so it requires the same as 504.
How is “reasonable accommodation” defined?
Unfortunately, neither 504, ADA, nor their regulations define this specific term. We know from caselaw that schools are required to make reasonable accommodations according to a person’s disability unless such changes would fundamentally alter the nature of the school’s purpose, i.e. providing educational services.
There are obvious accommodations like making sure there is wheelchair access to all parts of the school for a student confined to a wheelchair. There are slightly less obvious accommodations like assigning a staff member or student to assure that child in a wheelchair can get out of the building in case of fire or a fire drill. But this is still reasonable.
Types of “reasonable accommodations”
There are several types of accommodations already determined to be reasonable. They fall under categories.
a. Accessibility: This includes the wheelchair example above and a special needs bus or transportation.
b. Service Animals: For children who need the assistance of a service animal, schools must allow access to accommodate that child’s needs.
c. Interpreters: Access to sign language interpreters or hearing aids for those who have hearing disabilities or access to other interpretors like Braile materials or interpreters when a child with a disability does not speak English.
d. Auxiliary Aids and Services: A school may need to provide a medical plan or extra access to a nurse for a child with diabetes, epilepsy, or other illness requiring medication and/or monitoring during the school day. Or perhaps a child’s disability requires a smaller classroom, less noise, less distraction, different lighting, etc.
e. Removal of Barriers: If doors or stairways or other typical structural aspects of the school are a barrier to a child with a disability, the school must find alternate ways to accommodate that student.
There are several others, but these are the major categories in which schools must provide accommodations.
Reasonableness is going to be determined by what the disability is and how it interferes with the child’s access to educational services. So, accommodation may be decided on a case-by-case basis, but, again, can’t change the fundamental purpose of the school.
Some guidelines (not legal advice):
– Identify your child’s specific needs
– Suggest an accommodation (don’t necessarily rely on the school to design one themselves, as it may not be appropriate)
– If the school finds your suggestion unreasonable, ask them to state why
– Ask the school to suggest an accommodation
– Provide medical documentation if appropriate
– Ask the school to respond to request in a reasonable time
Is the bathroom example in the question reasonable?
Although the person did not reveal what the disability of the child is, a desk in a room with other children with a curtain does not seem reasonable for numerous reasons: anxiety of the child because of the location; potential health risks because of unsanitary conditions; and may not appropriately address the need of the child.
Follow the guidelines above (and think of more yourself) to determine a reasonable accommodation that the school should make in order for your child with a disability to access the educational services. If the accommodation that the school provides seems shocking or inappropriate, it is not likely reasonable.
Websites for Parents of Twice Exceptional (2e) Kids
Identifying 2e Children https://www.brainbalancecenters.com/blog/2015/02/identifying-twice-exceptional-children/
Tips for Parents: Meeting the Needs of 2e Children http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10140
7 Myths About 2E Students https://www.understood.org/en/friends-feelings/empowering-your-child/building-on-strengths/7-myths-about-twice-exceptional-2e-students
Gifted Children With Learning Disabilities https://www.understood.org/en/friends-feelings/empowering-your-child/building-on-strengths/gifted-childrens-challenges-with-learning-and-attention-issues
2e Newsletter http://www.2enewsletter.com/index.html
NEA: Twice Exceptional Dilemma http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/twiceexceptional.pdf [PDF File]
Amazon.com Books on 2e Kids http://amzn.to/2jtknFy
Transportation is a Mandatory “Related Service” for Special Ed Kids That Need It
Under IDEA, transportation is a “related service” that must be provided to kids with an IEP.1 Transportation must also be provided to infants and toddlers as part of Early Intervention Services.2
Transportation includes travel between home and school; between schools (if the child attends more than one campus); travel within and around school buildings (if that is a challenge); and specialized equipment like ramps, lifts, or adapted buses if required to transport the child with a disability.3
What kind of transportation will be provided to my child? This depends entirely on what your child’s needs are. If your child has Sensory Processing Disorder, he/she may not be able to ride the regular large bus to school. If your child is in a wheelchair or has other physical impairments, he/she might require a specially-adapted vehicle. Alternatively, you as the parent may be reimbursed by the district if you provide the transportation agreed to by the IEP team.
Transportation needs should be discussed during an IEP meeting or 504 planning meeting. If the school district needs to send the child with a disability outside the school for services or places the child in an ‘out of district’ program or private school, the school district must also provide transportation to those services or program.
Learn more about how school buses and transportation for your child with a disability fits into planning for your child’s education and IEP in our book SchoolKidsLawyer’s Step-By-Step Guide to Special Education Law.
1. 20 U.S.C. §1401(26)(A); 34 C.F.R. §300.34(a).
2. 20 U.S.C. §1432(4)(E)(xiv); 34 C.F.R. §300.34(a).
3. 34 C.F.R. §300.34(c)(16).
New special ed case involving charter schools and attorney’s fees
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down an excellent decision on October 11, 2017 for parents of children with disabilities. In the case of H.E., et al. v. Walter D Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter School, et al., the Court held and reaffirmed its prior ruling that “success on a claim for procedural relief can constitute a victory ‘on the merits’ that confers ‘prevailing party’ status” allowing the parents an award of attorney’s fees.
Parents had children with disabilities enrolled at Walter D Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter School. The parents had alleged that the charter school was not providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to their children. The parents entered into a settlement agreement with the charter school whereby the school was to provide the children with compensatory education and contribute towards the parents’ attorney’s fees, but before the school could deliver on the agreement, it closed in 2014.
The parents filed a Due Process complaint against both the charter school and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PADOE), alleging that PADOE as the state agency was responsible to make good on the charter school’s agreement. However, the administrative hearing officer dismissed the parents’ case and held that the parents could not go after PADOE and had to get their relief through the charter school’s settlement claims process.
Parents filed an appeal in the federal district court seeking reversal of the administrative hearing officer’s decision plus attorney’s fees and costs for having the fight the battle. The federal court vacated the hearing officer’s decision and sent the case back to the hearing officer on the issue of compensatory education, but denied the parents’ claim for attorney’s fees because it was a victory on purely procedural matters, not a substantive claim, and therefor they were not “prevailing parties”.
The federal appeals court reversed the federal district court on that basis and said that parents were indeed prevailing parties and entitled to reimbursement of their attorney’s fees and costs.
Thankfully courts are beginning to recognize that these battles are difficult and expensive for parents to bear and their statutory right to be reimbursed for the costs and fees paid to fight these cases when they win should be honored. It is a re-balancing of the playing field.
The full decision can be downloaded from the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s website here. (It is a PDF file)