Weekly Update 1/8/2010
Lynn and Ryan
January 08, 2010
Dear Staff:
We hope you had a marvelous Christmas and a great start to the New Year!
Note: No job is ever worth risking your life. If the weather is such that you can't make it to your designated school (itinerants), please call and rearrange your schedule. Make it to the places you can go and make up the time when the weather is cooperative. I am very thankful that today (Jan. 5th) no one from our coop was in one of the accidents between Pratt and Greensburg. Tami was driving this route and said that it took her a long time to get where she was going because of the ice and the accidents. If the weather is such and you are on your way, call and tell the school that you will be late or you have to turn around and come back to your starting point. Above all, do not risk your life!
As you know, the negotiations are finished. Deb, Kim, Ryan, and I met Wednesday night to go over everything to check to make certain that all had been changed as agreed upon. Deb will be sending out the changes for votes for ratification shortly. The board will be given the opportunity to ratify the agreement on Jan. 18th at the regular board meeting. If every entity ratifies the agreement, new contracts will be coming out by the end of January.
We have a few items to share with you. Please read the entire blog before closing. Important dates are at the end.
From Law cases.
(Silly lawsuit) Some parents will try anything.
Removal of student for head lice does not constitute a change in placement.
A parent sued the school district under IDEA “change of placement” for having her child out of school for 19 days with head lice. Since this was not a disciplinary action, the student was not expelled or suspended, and the nurse was working with the child to get rid of the head lice (which didn’t happen quickly), the court stated that this was not part of IDEA under “change of placement” because of a disciplinary action.
Hold meetings when parents can attend. Document, document, document!
The court concluded in Drobnicki by Drobnicki v. Poway Unified School District, 109 LRP 73255 (9th Cir. 11/17/09, unpublished), that the school district violated IDEA's procedures by holding an IEP team meeting with no parent present and at a time that had not been agreed to. This alone was enough of a procedural error for the court to conclude that the student did not receive FAPE.
Obviously, if parents confirm that they will attend, you have an agreement on a meeting time and place. But parents might: 1) not respond at all; 2) respond by saying that they do not choose to come; or 3) respond by saying that the time and date is not agreeable.
In each of these cases, you should follow up. The school is the entity with the duty to provide FAPE, and that includes holding at least one annual IEP team meeting. The school is also responsible for doing whatever it can to encourage and facilitate meaningful parent participation.
Documentation of such efforts is not just suggested -- it is mandatory. The regulations say the school "must keep a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place." As IEP team leader, you serve your school well by making sure that your staff has made a good effort and has documented it well.
This one is really scary.
Supreme Court: Prior receipt of services not a prerequisite for reimbursement
Case name: Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 52 IDELR 151 (U.S. 2009).
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a decision reported at 50 IDELR 1 that the parents of a student with ADHD could seek reimbursement for their son's private placement despite the fact that he had never received special education services through the public school system. The High Court held that the IDEA's reimbursement provision, found at 20 USC 1412 (a)(10)(C), does not trump a court's broad authority to grant such relief as it determines is appropriate.
What it means: Just because a student has never received special education services or been identified as a child with a disability doesn't mean that his district is off the hook for private school expenses. A court can order reimbursement if it finds that the district failed to make FAPE available to the student. Districts should note, however, that parents must still demonstrate the appropriateness of the private placement and show that there are no equitable bars to reimbursement. Here, the Supreme Court instructed the District Court to reconsider whether the parents' failure to give notice of their son's private placement precluded reimbursement.
This one is very good and consistent with all we have learned.
IDEA's definition of transition services doesn't alter Rowley standard of FAPE
Case name: J.L. and M.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 52 IDELR 241 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ruling: Concluding that the IDEA's definition of "transition services" does not affect its definition of "FAPE," the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FAPE standard set forth in Rowley is still valid. The 9th Circuit vacated a decision reported at 46 IDELR 273 and remanded the case with instructions to apply the correct FAPE standard.
What it means: In Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 553 IDELR 656 (U.S. 1982), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that districts must provide students with a "basic floor of opportunity." While Congress has amended the IDEA five times since the Rowley decision, it has not altered the statutory definition of FAPE or expressed any disagreement with the Rowley standard. Had Congress intended the definition of FAPE to incorporate the references to self-sufficiency found in the definition of transition services, it would have amended the statute accordingly.
Mixed decision. Hopefully we will never be in this situation.
9th Circuit: Stay-put provision applies to all pending judicial proceedings
Case name: Joshua A. by Jorge A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 52 IDELR 1 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ruling: In a case of first impression, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that the IDEA's stay-put provision does not apply to disputes pending before Circuit Courts. The 9th Circuit held that a California district had to co-fund a child's in-home ABA program, as required by the child's last agreed-upon IEP, until his FAPE dispute was resolved.
What it means: The decision creates a split between two Circuit Courts as to the applicability of the stay-put provision. In Andersen ex rel. Andersen v. District of Columbia, 441 IDELR 508 (D.C. Cir. 1989), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit held that the stay-put provision only applies during due process hearings, state-level reviews, and reviews by state courts or federal District Courts. The 9th Circuit's view comports with the language of the Part B regulations, which require maintenance of a child's placement "during the pendency of any . . . judicial proceeding." 34 CFR 300.518 (a).
Unusual – Better to have a subpoena.
Need to investigate alleged abuse lets advocacy agency access student info
Case name: Disability Law Center of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 53 IDELR 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ruling: In a case arising out of the alleged mistreatment of students with developmental disabilities, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that FERPA did not preclude a protection and advocacy agency from accessing contact information for the students' guardians. The 9th Circuit reversed a decision reported at 48 IDELR 281 and remanded the case for further proceedings.
What it means: The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act gives P&A agencies the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with developmental disabilities. Neither the Developmental Disabilities Act nor FERPA offers guidance on how the two statutes interact. The 9th Circuit pointed out that P&A groups may need students' names and contact information to carry out their investigative duties. As such, the 9th Circuit held that the Developmental Disabilities Act provides a limited exception to FERPA, which generally requires parental consent to access student records.
Watch Senate Bill S.2860 and House Bill H.R.4247 (Federal level)
Both bill refer to Seclusion and Restraint. It would significantly impact student’s IEPs, behavior plans, disciplinary plans, etc. Watch this very closely! We never plan to use restraint or seclusion, but if it is a possibility, we have been told that the behavior plan must include that possibility as a last resort when the student is endangering himself or someone else. Conflicting rules are hard to determine.
With these two bills, the P&A (protection and advocacy) agencies that have grants through the federal government would be able to investigate seclusion and restraint complaints. The last law case mentioned would be part of this.
Transition. – From Special Education Connections – FYI
Identify and discuss measurable postsecondary goals. This should be based on input from the student, preferably in person at the meeting. To help students think through their measurable postsecondary goals, teachers need to provide students age- appropriate transition assessments that will help them identify their interests and preferences and what they would like to do after high school. It's important to discuss training, education, employment and, as appropriate, independent living.
· Discuss present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. This is where most meetings begin. If your team discusses present levels of performance before measurable postsecondary goals, data will be presented without context. When teams begin with the outcome, the focus is on student achievement and performance in the context of what the student would like to do after high school. Also, IEP teams need to focus these discussions on student strengths, not deficits. Deficits need to be discussed, because that is what drives the annual goals, but too often, teams overlook student strengths.
· Identify needed transition services. This portion of the meeting covers the student's course of study (based on measurable postsecondary goals) and coordinated set of activities (big-picture plans) in the areas of instruction, related services, community experiences, employment, and, as appropriate, daily living skills and a functional vocational evaluation. The coordinated set of activities should specify what will happen, when it will happen, and who needs be involved -- such as educators, student, parents and adult agencies -- to help the student achieve her goals.
· Develop measurable annual goals. Now that you have addressed the above areas, it's time to break down the measurable postsecondary goals and figure out what needs to be done this year. O'Leary suggests that teams create a spreadsheet that lists all the coordinated activities that relate to the student's postsecondary goals. Prioritize those goals for the current year, and list who is responsible for what areas. Identify those activities that are the responsibility of special education, and make sure you develop annual goals that match the IEP team's special education responsibilities.
Community forums
Jan. 20 - Barber County - Library at Medicine Lodge High School - 4:00ish
Feb. 3 - Comanche County - Coldwater High School - 4:00ish
Feb. 17 - Stafford County - St. John High School - Sherre's room - 4:00ish
Feb. 24 - Harper County - Chaparral High School - ??? 4:00ish
March 3 - Kingman County - Kingman High School - Library - 4:00ish
March 24 - Kiowa County - Greensburg - Jan Case's room - 4:00ish
Other events
Transition Compliance - Jan. 13th - SCKSEC office
Job-a-Thon - March 31st - Pratt Fairgrounds
