Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80618691/Letter-to-Fisher
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 04:42:23
Document Index: 435542317

Matched Legal Cases: ['§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300']

OSEP Policy Letter to Mr. Joseph FisherJuly 6, 1994
1Mr. Joseph FisherAssistant CommissionerTennessee State Department of Education132 Cordell Hull BuildingNashville, Tennessee 37219-5335Dear Mr. Fisher:This is in response to your facsimile transmittal dated April 18, 1994, in which you request guidance inconnection with an inquiry made to your Office by the [ ] County School District (District) regardingstudents with disabilities placed at the [ ] Learning Center during the 1993-1994 school year. It is ourunderstanding that although the [ ] High School will remain open, the [ ] Learning Center, which theDistrict has operated as a separate wing at the [ ] High School, will be discontinued at the conclusion of the current school year. This program discontinuation is occurring because, as a result of State andFederal monitoring of the District's compliance with the least restrictive environment (LRE)requirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B), the TennesseeDepartment of Education (TDE) has advised the District that the separate wing known as the [ ] LearningCenter must cease to operate.It is our understanding that, for the 1994-1995 school year, individual placement determinations will bemade for the students involved. According to your letter, it is anticipated that as a result of individualized education program (IEP) reviews by the M-team, which, in Tennessee, constitutes the IEPteam and placement team, most students with disabilities currently attending programs at the [ ]Learning Center during the 1993-1994 school year will likely be determined to need programs for theupcoming school year that offer the same types and quality of services received by the students whenthey were placed at the [ ] Learning Center. However, the students will be placed in such programsconducted by the District that are located at the school they would attend if not disabled, unless theirIEPs require some other arrangement. For the majority of students currently placed at the [ ] LearningCenter, [ ] High School is not the school they would attend if not disabled. However, if it is determinedthat [ ] High School is the school that a particular student would attend if not disabled, programrelocation will be at [ ] High School, and not at the [ ] Learning Center, since the [ ] Learning Center willcease to exist at the conclusion of the 1993-1994 school year.In its final monitoring report issued in December of 1993, the Office of Special Education Programs(OSEP) found that TDE did not fully meet its responsibility under §300.550(a) to ensure that publicagencies establish and implement procedures that meet the requirements of §300.550(b) and 300.553.Final Monitoring Report at page 20. Based on its review of student records and interviews withadministrators and teachers, OSEP concluded that decisions regarding the extent of a child'sparticipation with children without disabilities in regular classes or nonacademic and extracurricularservices and activities were not being made on an individual basis.You have stated that "[ ] County has responded to the allegation by proposing to provide the exact sameservices, which have previously been provided at the [ ] Learning Center, at each of the [ ] County highschools." This raises serious concerns regarding whether these placement decisions are being made inconformity with the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirements at 34 CFR §300.550-300.554, if opportunities for interaction of these students with their nondisabled peers remains essentially the
2same. We want to emphasize that in order to implement the corrective action on page B-5 of OSEP’s
Final Monitoring Report, the District must ensure that individual determinations are made to ensurethat, to the maximum extent appropriate to their individual needs, children previously placed at the [ ]Learning Center are provided increased opportunities for interaction with their nondisabled peers, bothin academic and nonacademic activities.In your letter, several related questions are set out regarding this situation. These questions and OSEP'sresponses follow:What procedures must be followed when the LEA is required to close a school site to meet IDEAleast restrictive requirements because of State and Federal monitoring findings?(a) What form of written notice is required? (b) [Are there] any special considerations [that] theM-team would consider and (c) If parents disagree at the M-team meeting and ask for a dueprocess hearing, how would the "stay-put" provision apply?What would be the "stay-put" placement since [ ] Learning Center is closing? Does a change inphysical location from one school to another constitute a "change in placement" ascontemplated by IDEA when the educational program stated in the IEP remains the same?Exactly what is the definition of change of educational placement? Is it the physical location(classroom, building, etc) of the education and services or is it the education program that isstated in the IEP?If change of placement does not include physical location, then does it follow that assignment toa particular classroom or building is an administrative, and not an M-team decision?Under Part B, public agencies must ensure that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is madeavailable to children with disabilities in mandated age ranges, and that the rights and protectionsguaranteed by Part B are extended to eligible children and their parents. Consistent with theseresponsibilities, each child must receive an individualized program of specialized instruction and supportservices that is appropriate to his or her unique educational and related services needs. 34 CFR§300.121 and 300.8. Further, public agencies must ensure that to the maximum extent appropriate,children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes,separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educationalenvironment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regularclasses with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 34 CFR300.550(b)(1)-(2)
. Further, each child’
s placement must be determined at least annually, must be basedon his or her IEP, and must be in the school or facility as close as possible to the child's home. 34 CFR§300.552(a)(1)-(3). Unless a child's IEP requires some other arrangement, the child must attend theschool that he or she would attend if not disabled. 34 CFR §300.552(c). In implementing Part B's LRErequirements, the overriding rule in placement is that each child's placement must be determined on anindividual basis, and may not be based on factors such as the category of disability, configuration of theservice delivery system, availability of staff, or administrative convenience such as the category of disability, configuration of the service delivery system, availability of staff, or administrativeconvenience.
3The District must ensure that each student's IEP team (in Tennessee, the M-team) is convened todetermine an appropriate program of special education and related services for the child, includingannual goals and short-term instructional objectives, the specific special education and related servicesto be provided to the child, and, if applicable, needed transition services and the extent that the childwill be able to participate in regular educational programs. 34 CFR §300.346. The participants on theplacement team (in Tennessee, the M-team) must also select the, specific option from the continuum of alternative placements in which the child's IEP can be implemented, i.e., "education in regular classes,special classes, separate schooling, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions." 34CFR §300.551(b)(1).The placement team, (the M-team in Tennessee), must select a location, i.e., school or facility that thechild would attend if not disabled, if appropriate, or another school as close as possible to the child'shome, that is consistent with the student's IEP and the option on the continuum selected to implementthe student's IEP. It is these three components
the education program set out in the student's IEP, theoption on the continuum in which the student's IEP is to be implemented, and school or facility selectedto implement the student's IEP
that comprise a placement decision under Part B. As OSEP hasindicated in a prior policy clarification letter, once the placement team's decision, i.e., selection of theoption on the continuum and school or facility in which the student's IEP can be implemented, is made,the assignment of a particular classroom or teacher can be an administrative determination, provided
that determination is consistent with the placement team’s decision.
Part B also requires public agencies to afford children with disabilities and their parents specificprocedural safeguards, including the right of parents of children with disabilities to be given writtenprior notice that meets the requirements of 34 CFR §300.505 a reasonable time before the agencyproposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of thechild, or the provision of FAPE to the child. 34 CFR §300.504(a)(1)-(2). The term "change" in "educationalplacement" is not defined either in the Part B statute or regulations. Whether new placements proposedfor students as a result of the anticipated discontinuation of the [ ] Learning Center would constitute a"change in educational placement" for the students involved would have to be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis.In determining whether a "change in educational placement" has occurred, the public agencyresponsible for educating the child must determine whether the proposed change would substantially ormaterially alter the child's educational program. In making such a determination, the effect of thechange in location on the following factors must be examined: whether the educational program set outin the child's IEP has been revised; whether the child will be able to be educated with nondisabledchildren to the same extent; whether the child will have the same opportunities to participate innonacademic and extracurricular services; and whether the new placement option is the same option onthe continuum of alternative placements. If this inquiry leads to the conclusion that a substantial ormaterial change in the child's educational program has occurred, the public agency must provide priorwritten notice that meets the content requirements of 34 CFR §300.505, as required by 34 CFR§300.504(a).In certain instances, the question of whether a change in educational placement has occurred is easilyanswered. For example, if the placement team, the M-team in Tennessee, determines that a studentcurrently placed in a self-contained class at the [ ] Learning Center should be placed at the school
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. Letter to FisherDownload or PrintAdd To Collection74Reads0Readcasts0Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published bygrazdocFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Uncategorized.Rating:Upload Date:02/06/2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/80618691/Letter-to-Fisher02/06/2012pdftextoriginal
More From This User2 p.Letter to Finch Still Eligiblegrazdoc12 Reads9 p.HHS Ferpa Medical Records Lettergrazdoc31 Reads9 p.Educating Blind and Visually Impairedgrazdoc45 Reads4 p.Dear Colleague Osep Letter LREgrazdoc24 Reads2 p.Letter to Goodman grazdoc36 Reads3 p.Letter to Zirkel grazdoc34 Reads57 p.OSEP Accommodations Manualgrazdoc33 Reads2 p.Letter to Liebermangrazdoc30 Reads4 p.Dear Colleague Lettergrazdoc20 Reads3 p.Letter to Schad grazdoc32 Reads110 p.Iplan Directionsgrazdoc45 Reads3 p.Letter to Sarzynski Consent Evaluationgrazdoc39 Reads2 p.Letter to Koscielniak Must Evaluategrazdoc29 Reads2 p.Letter to Goldmangrazdoc25 Reads17 p.Oregon Nursing Decision Mittsgrazdoc11 Reads2 p.Letter to Mamasgrazdoc96 Reads3 p.Letter to Coxgrazdoc78 Reads3 p.Letter to Scheinzgrazdoc45 Reads6 p.letter to mintzgrazdoc39 Reads25 p.Non Regulatory Guidance on Consentgrazdoc75 Reads10 p.Letter to Huskgrazdoc2546 Reads