1 SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW For TEACHERS: Knowing How To Stay Out Of Trouble 3:40-4:30 PM NYSATE/ NYACTE Spring Conference Gideon Putnam Resort, Saratoga,

1

SPECIAL EDUCATION LAWFor TEACHERS:Knowing How To Stay Out Of Trouble3:40-4:30 PM

NYSATE/

NYACTE

Spring

Conference

Gideon Putnam Resort,

Saratoga, NY

April 27-28,

2006

Presented

by:

Stuart

Knapp, PhD

Nyack College

845.358.1710

ext 762

[email protected]

2

Legal Issues in Special EducationLegal Issues in Special Educationfor P-12 Teachersfor P-12 Teachers

in in Some Recent DevelopmentsSome Recent Developments(Indicators for Staying Out of (Indicators for Staying Out of

Trouble)Trouble)Presented by: Presented by: Dr. Stuart Knapp, Assoc. ProfessorDr. Stuart Knapp, Assoc. Professor Nyack College, Director: Grad. Educ.Nyack College, Director: Grad. Educ. 845.358.1710 ext. 762 845.358.1710 ext. 762 [email protected]@nyack.edu

2

3

A Quick Primer on the State & A Quick Primer on the State & Federal Court SystemFederal Court System

Final D ecisionState or BOE

Trial(District) Ct.

AppellateCourt

Suprem eCourt

StateCourt System

Final D ecisionALJ or BOE

D istrictCourt

C t. o f Appeals(Circuit Ct.)

Suprem eCourt

Federal (US)Court System

4

The Limit of The LawThe Limit of The LawThe US Supreme Ct. has ruled that:The US Supreme Ct. has ruled that:

•• IDEA IDEA providesprovides a “basic floor of a “basic floor of

opportunity” for students withopportunity” for students with

disabilitiesdisabilities

•• IDEA IDEA does not requiredoes not require public public

““schools to maximize potential” schools to maximize potential” for students with disabilitiesfor students with disabilities

BOE v. Rowley, 458 US 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (1982) BOE v. Rowley, 458 US 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (1982)

5

6 Basic Principles of IDEA

• FAPE

• Nondiscriminatory Evaluation

• Procedural Due Process

• Parent Involvement

• IEP

• LRE

6

Topics to be Covered

I. Discipline of Students w/Disabilities (SwD)II. Evaluation (Nondiscrim), Eligib., & Placement

1. FAPE (free appropriate public education)

2. LRE (least restrictive environment)

3. Inclusion (SwD full participat. in Reg Ed) (IEP)

III. Procedural Safeguards (due process)1. Parent Rights

IV. Section 504 5

7

I. Disciplining Students w/Disabilities

8

I. Disciplining Students w/Disabilities

• boy w/learning disability, & a friend PROBLEM: Randy

13 yr. old tear off jog pants of female student

• DISTRICT (IEP team) decides:–not a manifestation of disability–recommend suspension &–placement in alternative school

9

I. Disciplining Students w/Disabilities

PARENTS (Randy’s)– Initiate due process hearing to stop

suspension.

HEARING OFFICER – Ruled for District

HEARING OFFICER – Ruled for District

PARENTS – Appealed to federal district court

PARENTS – Appealed to federal district court

10

I. Disciplining Students w/Disabilities

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

– Affirmed Hearing Officer’s decision, saying

district acted appropriately in “taking stern

& aggressive remedial action”

– Noted that District had offered Parents

opportunity to demonstrate that student’s

behavior was linked to disability (nexus)

Randy M. v. Texas City ISD, (SD Texas 2000)

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

– Affirmed Hearing Officer’s decision, saying

district acted appropriately in “taking stern

& aggressive remedial action”

– Noted that District had offered Parents

opportunity to demonstrate that student’s

behavior was linked to disability (nexus)

Randy M. v. Texas City ISD, (SD Texas 2000)

11

Discussion/Conclusions re: Student Discipline

• Teachers & their districts must be clear & current w/student behavioral assessments.

• Program placement decisions based on test results must reflect student-centered needs.

• Prior to a behavior-related change of placement for a student w/disabilities, a Nexus hearing must be conducted to determine if behavior related to disability. If not, regular ed. conditions apply.

• Maintain professional posture w/parents.

12

II.II. EvaluationEvaluation, , Eligibility & Eligibility & PlacementPlacement

13

II. Evaluation, Eligibility & Placement

• PROBLEM # 1: (FAPE) Sadrach (S) 10 yr. old 4th grader w/multiple medical

problems: seizures, ADHD w/aggression, psychomotor delays, asthma, speech

delays. • PARENTS referred for SpEd evaluation

while boy was in 2nd grade. • DISTRICT rejected parent request, saying,

average progress, & problems not a significant impact on overall achievement.

• PARENTS when S in 4th gr., obtain independent medical eval., revealing severe learning disorders, e.g. Rdg.=2nd gr; Math problems=end 1st gr.

14

II. Evaluation, Eligibility & Placement

• DISTRICT rejected evaluator’s recommend. for SpEd eligibility. District’s eval. was in boy’s native Spanish, revealing FSIQ=130, but maintained that ADHD & seizure disorders do not negatively impact on academic progress.

• PARENTS initiate a due process hearing• HEARING OFFICER (HO) rules for district. S

ineligible for SpEd (district & HO deny FAPE).• PARENTS appeal to federal district ct.

15

Evaluation, Eligibility & Placement Fed. District Ct. reversed hearing officer decision,

saying: 1. S eligible for SpEd & related services under OHI, LD & Speech. 2. S has continuing uncontrolled seizure disorder which affects alertness in class. 3. District’s own testing revealed marked range between ability & achievement. 4. Disabilities adversely impact educ.

performance. 5. District must develop & implement IEP for SCorchado v. BOE, Rochester CSD, NY 2000

14

16

II. Placement in LRE & Inclusion PROBLEM # 2: (LRE & Inclusion)

Due Process Hearing (DPH) : Guardian-inclusion in home school District-placement in special school DPH officer places Student w/ multiple disabilities in a special development center.

Guardian appealed to federal ct.Federal Court affirmed hearing officer’s decision, finding special

dvpmt. ctr. highly specialized & able to provide wide range of services for child. Court also reasoned that extent of child’s disabilities would make benefit to child in home school unlikely. Court refused to hear district’s plea of guardian’s hostility, saying IDEA advocates for children through parents, even hostile parents. 15

17

Discussion/Conclusions re:Evaluation, Eligibility & Placement

• An ounce of student-centered, district-initiated early intervention can avoid a pound (or more) of student-centered court-initiated litigation later on.

Financial benefit of “Best Practice” relations

Non-Financial benefit of “Best Practice” relations

Reputations are won, based on pro-active decisions made in CST meetings, annual reviews & IEP meetings, or they are lost in re-active newspaper headlines, newscasts & courtrooms.

16

18

III. Procedural Safeguards

19

III. Procedural Safeguardscase #1

• Student (S) diagnosed w/ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), & Depression in private school until 5th grade.

• District (D) eval. team finds S eligible for “severe behavior handicap” services

• IEP mtg. scheduled, but never held (no IEP)• District proposed internal placement• Parents (P) reject, locating independent

residential “psychiatrically oriented” school.

18

20

• D faxes draft IEP proposing placement already rejected by P, & further obligates D to pay only those costs beyond P’s insurance coverage.

• P enroll S in residential school independently, & request due process hearing during S’s 7th grade to recover tuition costs.

• Hearing Officer (HO) finds that although D prepared no IEP, it could provide FAPE, ergo not liable for tuition reimbursement.

• Review Officer dismissed case & P appealed to Fed. District Court. 19

21

• D moved to dismiss, as P didn’t request hearing prior to independent placement. Fed. Ct. ruled for HO’s decision. Both P & D appealed to U.S. Ct. of Appeals of 6th circuit.

• 6th Circuit Ct. ruled: • D violated IDEA which requires convened IEP

mtg. within 30 calendar days of eligibility determination

• D violated Ohio regs requiring IEP conference ASAP following referral.

• to reject D’s defense for failure to provide IEP due to parents’ lack of cooperation.

22

• IDEA regs. do not require parents to agree to proposed placement prior to IEP mtg.

• IDEA regs. do require dvpmt. of IEP without involvement of P if they refuse to cooperate

• P were denied meaningful opportunity to participate in IEP mtg. process

• district had not even offered a FAPE

• residential placement was most appropriate

• D obligated to reimburse P for tuition expense because D had defaulted on its IDEA obligation

Knable ex rel Knable v. Bexley City School District, 238 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2001)

23

III. Procedural Safeguards case #2• P of S w/learning disability in Rdg.

resolved a DPH w/HO ordering D to provide S w/tutoring for 5 hrs./wk.

• After a time, D provided 40 min./day, 5 days/wk.

• P sought (unsuccessfully) to obtain required amt. for 2 yrs, then initiated a DPH.

• HO held that he had no jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements.

24

• HO counseled P to file complaint w/ SED

• P initiated law suit w/Fed. Trial Ct. to enforce settlement agreement.

• Fed trial Ct. upheld HO’s decision

• P appealed to U.S. Ct. of Appeals 9th Cir.

• Appeals Ct. affirmed lower ct. & HO, that jurisdiction to enforce compliance issues resides w/the SED compliance officer to pursue enforcement actions.Wyner v. Manhatten Beach Unified School District, 33 IDELR (9th Cir. 2000)

23

25

Discussion/Conclusions re:Procedural Safeguards

(IDEA)Parents’ Rights• opportunity to

participate• expect integrity of

district • Parents must be

invited, but not required to attend

• P can deny D permission to test

District Obligations• provide P opportunity• continue terms of

agreement until changed by another mutual agreement (IEP)

• IEP mtg. held not later than 30 days following eligibility determination

• IEP conf. Within 5 days of referral 24

26

IV.IV. § 504 § 504 of Rehabilitation of Rehabilitation

Act Act (1973)(1973)

27

IV. § 504 of Rehabilitation Act (1973)

What the law provides:• Prohibits discrimination against persons

w/disabilities• Requires schools & employees to make

reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals w/disabilities

• Does not require schools to lower their standards in order to do so.

• Prohibits exclusion of S’s w/contagious diseases (including HIV) if qualified to attend & don’t present a risk of harm to themselves or others 26

28

IV. § 504 of Rehabilitation Act (1973)Case #1: secondary student & athletics

• 17 yr. old student (S) in jr. yr. diagnosed w/clinical depression, determined to be disabled & eligible for § 504 services, including 12 intervention strategies.

• (S) earned some incomplete grades in his courses. HS counselor sends note home to parent (P), proposing another § 504 mtg. to pursue homebound instruction.

29

Case #1: secondary student & athletics

§ 504 mtg. was not held

S tried out for basket-ball team but was not chosen for either varsity or jv teams.

P brought suit against school alleging suggestion of homebound instruction was threat & that S was

excluded fromexcluded from basketball team asbasketball team as discriminatory resultdiscriminatory result of his disabilityof his disability HO ruled for districtHO ruled for district

P appealed to Fed. Ct.P appealed to Fed. Ct.

Fed. Ct. dismissed allFed. Ct. dismissed all claims against districtclaims against district

30

Discussion/Conclusions re: Case #1: secondary student & athletics

•Letter to P by counselor was alert to P & S of school’s continuing concern for S’s welfare, progress & success. •Coach’s decision not to place S on team was based on lack of competitive ability, not any disability•prior 7th Circuit precedent has refused to define athletics as a major life activity Doe v. Eagle-Union Community Sch. Corp. 32 IDELR 117 (S.D. Ind. 2000)

31

Case #2: HS student, alcohol & eligibility

• HS athletic code calls for partial loss of athletic eligibility after 1 alcohol-related violation, & loss of eligibility for 1 yr., after a 2nd incident

• school revoked S’s eligibility after an alcohol-related auto accident-his 2nd policy violation in 1 mo.

• S diagnosed as alcoholic & sought reinstatement to sports eligibility

• Supt. & BOE denied S’s request.

32

Case #2: HS student, alcohol & eligibility

• P sued in Trial Ct. under ADA & § 504

• BOE moved for dismissal, noting that neither S nor BOE were aware of his alcoholism at time of violations, so discrimination could not have played role in revocation of eligibility. Ct. agreed.

• Ct also rejected S’s claim of school’s refusal to grant “reasonable” accommodation to his disability, i.e. reinstatement

Stearns v. BOE for Warren Twp HS District #121, (N.D. Ill. 1999)

33

Case #2: HS student, alcohol & eligibility• Ct held that S’s request not reasonable,

since it was at odds w/no alcohol rule.

Discussion/Conclusions re: Case #2

* If school If school hadhad been aware of alcoholism, it would have been aware of alcoholism, it would have

committed no violation of ADA or § 504, sincecommitted no violation of ADA or § 504, since Rehabilitation Act authorizes schools to punishRehabilitation Act authorizes schools to punish students for alcohol use, with or w/o disabilities, to thestudents for alcohol use, with or w/o disabilities, to the same extent of the law.same extent of the law. ** The school’s rule was intended to establish ideals ofThe school’s rule was intended to establish ideals of good sportsmanship and respect for rules &good sportsmanship and respect for rules & authority.authority.

34

SU

MM

AR

Y &

GU

IDELIN

ES

DISCIPLINE • Determine if Behavior related to (slides 6-10) disability

EVALUATION • D integrity-comply w/duty/time-lines ELIGIBILITY • Decisions must be student-centered PLACEMENT • Pro-active relations w/parents &(slides 11-16) • Early intervention decisions

• S “stays put” until IEP team decisionPROCEDURAL • IEP mtg 5 days after referralSAFEGUARDS • IEP mtg 30 days after eligibility slides 17-24) (IEP must be prepared for

implementation)

§ 504§ 504 • • athletics NOT major life activityathletics NOT major life activity(slides 25-32)(slides 25-32) •• S use of alcohol prohibited w/ or S use of alcohol prohibited w/ or w/ow/o

disabilitydisability

SU

MM

AR

Y &

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

33

35

Discussion !Questions!Comments!Concerns!

36

On behalf of your presenter:

STUART KNAPP

THANK YOU

for joining me