Name of School Child Was Supposed to Attend was Not Specified in IEP

In Davidson County Schools, 53 IDELR 240 (OCRXI, D. C. (NC) 2009), the Office of Civil Rights determined a North Carolina school district was out of compliance when it failed to provide transportation to a student with a disability despite the service being specied in the student's IEP. At the last IEP meeting for this student, the district recommended placement at the most appropriate school closest to the child's residence. Although the parent disagreed, she signed the IEP but enrolled her child in the school she preferred then provided transportation for two months until her car broke down. She filed an OCR complaint and was awarded compensation for the cost of transporting her child 500 miles. The district explained the failure to provide transportation was due to a miscommunication; however, the OCR still found in favor of the parent since the IEP did not specify which school the child would attend.

Stay-Put

In W.R. and K.R. exrel. H.R. v. Union Beach Board of Education, 53 IDELR 234 (D.N.J. 2009), the U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey determined parents of a 10-year old with multiple disabilities could not invoke the IDEA's stay-put provision. Although his parents preferred one-on-one instruction in the area of language arts, the district changed his service from this model to small group instruction with two other students. An administrative law judge later ordered the district to return to the one-on-one model and the parents requested stay-put when the district sought a reversal of the decision. The court determined stay-put could not be invoked since no fundamental change in placement took place and the student's IEP and classes were for the most part similar.

Searching Students With Disabilities on a Daily Basis is Unconstitutional

In Hough by Abbott v. Shakopee Public Schools, 53 IDELR 232 (D. Minnesota 2009), the U.S. District Court found that requiring daily searches of backpacks and clothing (and sometimes pat-downs) at a school for students with disabilities violated the 4th amendment rights of those students. Although some students had carried items on campus that were forbidden according to district policy, searching all students on a daily basis was determined excessive and unreasonable. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted limited searches of students who want to participate in extracurricular activities, (e.g., athletes); however, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schlitz wrote, "No student is entitled under law to play football or sing in the choir, but every [student with a disability] is entitled under the law to special education services."

District Did Not Schedule IEP Meeting at Mutually Agreed Upon Time

In Drobnicki by Drobnicki v. Poway Unified School District, 53 IDELR 210 (9th Circuit 2009), the school district drafted an IEP without parent input then scheduled an IEP meeting without consulting the parents to see if the time was good for them. When the district learned the parents could not attend at that time, rather than rescheduling, the district offered parental participation by speakerphone. The 9th Circuit Court claimed the school district did not fulfill their affirmative duty to schedule the IEP meeting at a mutually agreed upon time and place and further clarified that parental participation by phone conference is an option only if neither parent can attend the IEP meeting. This district's procedural violation ultimately denied the student FAPE.

District Develops IEP Despite Parents' Concerns

In Winkelman v. Parma City School District Board of Education, 53 IDELR 215 (N.D. Ohio 2009), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the school district against parents' FAPE claims. The court determined the school district made good faith attempts to develop IEPs for a child with autism despite a lack of cooperation from the parents. Records indicate that before the start of the 2004-2005 school year the district made two documented attempts to schedule an IEP meeting; however, the parents did not respond.

A third invitation letter was sent in September of 2004 at which time the parents filed a due process complaint claiming the district failed to have an IEP in place at the start of the school year. Although the district offered an IEP for the parents to review, the parents declined to read the IEP and stated they would homeschool that year. The following school year, the parents attended a meeting to develop an IEP for the 2005-2006 school year; however, when they learned their child did not qualify for Ohio's autism scholarship program they left the meeting. The district erred in assuming the parents declined the IEP and failed to verify the student would not be attending school that year. The parents enrolled their child in a private school for children with autism when the bus did not show up at their house the first day of school. U.S. District Judge Donald C. Nugent wrote, "The court finds it important to emphasize the great pains [the district] went through to comply with the complex laws that govern [IDEA] issues, expending a great deal of time and effort while experiencing continued difficulties with the cooperation of [the parents]."

Determining Compensatory Service Hours

In Reid v. District of Columbia, 43 IDELR 32 (D.C. Cir 2005), the court determined it is inappropriate to calculate the amount of compensatory special education services a student is entitled to by adding up hour for hour the amount of time services were missed. Rather, IEP teams must determine compensatory service plans based on students' individual needs. In Mary McLeod Bethune Day Academy Public Charter School v. Bland, 50 IDELR 134 (D.D.C. 2008), past psychoeducational evaluations (conducted in 2002 and 2005) revealed the student did not make educational gains over a 3 year period. A formula was used to approximate the amount of progress the student should have made over 3 years time based on educational capability. The court agreed that the proposed 3,300 hours of tutoring would compensate for the estimated loss of 1.5 years of educational progress the student should have made and would make up for the charter school's denial of FAPE.

Teams Must Consider Relevant Information When Conducting a Manifestation Determination Review

In re: Student with a Disability, 52 IDELR 239 (SEA WV 209), an independent hearing officer concluded a school district violated IDEA when conducting a manifestation determination review for a 13-year-old with ADHD and ODD who took a pill given to him by another student. The manifestation determination team failed to discuss pertinent information during their review including medications the student was taking or how the behavior was linked to the student's disability. Furthermore, the student shared he felt pressured to take the pill that was offered by a larger student. Another error on the part of the district was failing to include the school psychologist who completed the student's initial educational evaluation. IEP teams must be mindful to conduct thorough MDRs and to discuss all relevant information including the student's IEP, discipline reports, teacher observations, and parental input in an attempt to understand the function of the student's behavior.

Districts Are Not Obligated to Adhere to Indepentent Evaluators' Recommendations

In Shakopee Independent School District, 52 IDELR 210 (SEA MN 2009), parents of a 17-year-old student with dyslexia sought recommendations from two independent evaluators regarding appropriate methodology for reading instruction. Although both evaluators recommended a multisensory, systematic direct instruction approach (e.g. Orton Gillingham), the district offered to provide a program with goals focusing on reading and written expression and resource services in the form of direct instruction with modifications for reading and writing. While it was determined the district was not at fault for failing to adhere to the recommendations of the independent educational evaluators under IDEA, the district did err in not notifying the parents of its decision. Communication within the IEP team is imperative and ultimately results in best outcomes for students with disabilities.

Disability Harassment

In Sheridan County (CO) School District Number 2, No. 08-07-1188, 108 LRP 53143 (OCR 05/13/08), the Office of Civil Rights determined a district was not under obligation to respond to parental complaints of harassment toward a boy with autism for name-calling. The parent notified the teacher but felt her concerns were not addressed so she then went to other school officials including the assistant superintendent. After investigating, school staff informed the parent the issue had been resolved. Not satisfied, the parent filed an OCR complaint. OCR noted that the parent did not allege disability-based harassment due to his autism. If this would have been the case, the school district would have been obligated to respond by taking prompt and effective action to stop the harassment, remedy the effects of the harassment, and prevent its reoccurence.

Disability Harassment

Reports of harassment based on disability are very serious and school officials must investigate such reports promptly and thoroughly. In Westfield (MA) Public Schools, 53 IDELR 132 (OCR 2009), the Office of Civil Rights found that school administrators were irresponsible in three ways after receiving a report of possible disability harassment. First, although an investigation was inititated, administration did not seek statements from other students or teachers who may have observed the incident. Second, the allegations were not documented. And third, the parents of the student allegedly being harassed based on disability were never notified about the results of the investigation. Public school administrators must prompty investigate harassment charges related to a student's disabililty whenever there is suspicion of such activity.

Forest Grove...The Saga Continues

In Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 52 IDELR 151 (U.S. 2009) the Supreme Court ruled that parents could be reimbursed for unilateral placements even when their children have never received special education services in a public school setting. After the ruling, this case was sent to the District Court where U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman rejected the reimbursement request. It appears the parents enrolled their son in Mount Bachelor Academy due to his drug abuse and aberrant behavior and not necessarily for academic purposes. So, the decision ultimately boils down to the intention of the placement...is it educational or medical? The parents of T.A. are appealing this decision.

Guidelines for the Use of Seclusion and Restraint of Students with Disabilties is in Draft Phase

In a letter dated July 31, 2009, to Chief State School Officers, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote "I urge each of you to develop or review and, if appropriate, revise your State policies and guidelines to ensure that every student in every school under your jurisdiction is safe and protected from being unnecessarily or inappropriately restrained or secluded." In response to this request, a team consisting of various agency personnel throughout South Carolina was formed by the SCDE for the purpose of drafting guidelines on the use of seclusion and restraint. I am fortunate to be one of the draft reviewers and therefore received a copy of the work in progress this week with charge to respond by tomorrow. I read the proposed draft and highlighted actions our district would need to take to ensure adherence to the guidelines. All in all, I believe the team developed a thorough document defining several terms (e.g., seclusion, physical restraint, escorting, mechanical restraints). I am very pleased that the document opens with a description of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and how this system has the potential to reduce behavioral incidents that might escalate to Tier III. I am confident the finalized guidelines will provide a blanket of protection for students and school administrators dealing with crisis behavior.

A Visit to Wilderness Way Camp School For Girls

Monday morning I visited the Wilderness Way Camp School for Girls to do a walk-through observation of our special education services. It was a crisp, damp morning and felt so good to be out of my office and enjoying the beauty of Oconee County. The camp director escorted me through several trails down to one of two camp sites. I am thankful I had a guide and checked to make sure someone was going to be able to help me find my way back when my observation was over. I met the teacher and a student she was working one-on-one with then followed them to the tent that was used for their school house and other gatherings. I guessed the large circular table in the middle of the tent with long benches spaced all around fostered communication during group time. The teacher was instructing the student how to do order of operations when confronted with long, complicated equations. She taught her the mnemonic device "Please excuse my dear aunt sally" to help the student remember what to do first then next. As the student worked her way through the problem the teacher had her think out loud. This helped the teacher identify where the breakdown in comprehension took place. As I observed I thought about how some people are just born to teach. This teacher fits that bill. She used a caring yet confident tone of voice demonstrating mastery over the content she was presenting. It was obvious the student wanted to work hard for her teacher and not let her down. I thoroughly enjoyed my observation and look forward to returning to the camp for another visit.

A Visit to Tamassee-Salem Elementary

I really miss working with students. Every now and then I'll dream that I'm teaching a group children and vividly remember how sweet it is. I thoroughly enjoy getting into our special education classrooms and observing instruction. It reminds me of my first love...teaching. On Friday afternoon I was able to visit Tamassee-Salem Elementary and observe a resource class. The students and teacher were reviewing vocabulary words on a Smartboard from a recently read book titled Superfudge by Judy Blume. The teacher offered the students a choice to either make a sentence or provide a definition. Every now and then a student would need prompting..."Do you remember how the word was used in Superfudge?" The teacher was very kind and respectful toward her students when the target word was used incorrectly. She provided a definition then used the word in another situation relating the learning to a real-world experience. The teacher tapped into the Knowledge Dimension of Meta-Cognitive Knowledge in Bloom's revised taxonomy as she asked her students to evaluate their own knowledge level of the vocabulary words being studied. Having an understanding of the English language is essential to adademic progress across subject areas. Likewise, having an understanding of vocabulary is the key to unlocking the joy of reading. It was a delight to observe a thoughtful and effective teacher helping her students move past the barriers of unknown vocabulary so they could understand the literary elements of Superfudge. Great lesson!