LEARNING FROM STATE COMPLAINTS AND DUE PROCESS COMPLAINTS Office of Special Education Fall Forum 2013
Dec 14, 2015
LEARNING FROMSTATE COMPLAINTS AND
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINTS
Office of Special Education Fall Forum 2013
HARVALEE SAUNTODUE PROCESS COORDINATOR
RON GREINERSTATE COMPLAINT CASE MANAGER
HARMONEE COSTELLOCORRECTIVE ACTION CASE MANAGER
Introductions
Today’s Journey
Overview
•Changes
•Complaint Trends
•Complaint Issues
•Learning from
complaints
Changes you need to know about…
Trends – At A Glance...State
Complaints2011-12 2012-13
Due Process Complaints
2011-12 2012-13
Number & Type 245 274 76 86
Complainants Parent 197MPA 35Other 13
Parent 219MPA 38 Other 17
Parent 73District 3
Parent 77District 9
Dismissed 17 17 11 12
Withdrawn 67 80 54 53
Final Decision Issued 160 172 11 9 2 pending
Allegations/DistrictFound Noncompliant
763/31742%
701/30844%
41/2254%
25/1144%
Expedited/appeal MDR N/A 15 21
Trends In Complaints
Top 10 Issues
State Complaints Due Process Complaints
1. IEP implementation 1. Manifestation Determination Appeal
2. IEP Content 2. IEP Implementation
3. Discipline 3. Identification/Eligibility
4. Notice 4. Evaluation (tie) Appropriate IEP (tie) Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) (tie)
Trends In ComplaintsTop Ten Issues
State Complaints Due Process Complaints
5. Initial IEP – Evaluation Process
5. Extended School Year (ESY)
6. Child Find – Initial Evaluation 6. Placement
7. IEE 7. LRE
8. Behavior Intervention 8. Other• Unilateral placement • Transition• Overriding parent consent
Trends In ComplaintsTop Ten Issues
State Complaints Due Process Complaints
9. Annual IEP
10. Consent
Free Appropriate Public Education
(FAPE)
Issues
State ComplaintsFully Adjudicated Due Process Complaints
Child Find•Initial evaluation
Eligibility/evaluation:•Initial eligibility/evaluation•Eligibility determination•IEE
IEP •Implementation•Content•Participants
IEP•Participants•Content •Appropriateness•Implementation
Notice Trend down this year
Issues
State ComplaintsFully Adjudicated Due Process Complaints
Discipline Discipline
FAPE FAPE:•IEP ImplementationContentParticipants•Notice
• Placement
34 CFR § 300.111
State Complaint Child Find
OSE Finding:
Noncompliance because the district failed to identify, locate and evaluate a student with medical, behavioral and academic issues.
Due Process Complaint Child Find
ALJ decision:
“As the (parents) actually state in their brief, significant truancy triggers the (district’s) Child Find obligations.
The ALJ concludes that the (district) fell far short of fulfilling it’s Child Find obligations in this case and completely denied the student a FAPE for the 2011-2012 school year.”
Learning Moment
Child Find
You are responsible for what you see, what you hear, and
what you say…
R 340.1722(2)
State Complaint IEP Implementation
OSE Finding:
Noncompliance because the district had such a poorly constructed IEP there was no possible way for district staff to adequately provide and document 20 supplementary aids and services and 12 accommodations.
Due Process Complaint Appropriate IEP
ALJ decision - two separate cases:
1. The ALJ found that the petitioners established by a preponderance of evidence that the student was denied a FAPE because the IEP lacked measurable goals and failed to provide an appropriate transition plan.
2. A school district cannot ignore it’s obligation under the IDEA to provide an education to a disabled student that is designed to meet his unique needs and prepare him to the limits of his potential for future education, employment and independent living. Not even when his parents say it’s okay.”
You write it, you own it!
Learning Moment
IEPImplementa
tion
34 CFR § 300.503
State Complaint Notice
OSE Findings - two separate cases:
1.Noncompliance because the district didn’t respond to parent requests in five allegations.
2.Same district was compliant in another complaint because the request for devices was basically a request for methodology.
Due Process Complaint Notice
ALJ Decision:
Several significant changes in the student’s educational placement were made and parents were not notified.
Dot each i and cross each t
Send within the timeline
Learning Moment
Notice
34 CFR § 300.530
State Complaint Discipline
OSE Finding:
Noncompliance because the district failed to consider other appropriate options, failed to provide services and a transition plan to return the student to school.
Additionally, the OSE found that the district denied the student a FAPE.
Due Process Complaint Discipline
ALJ decision - two separate cases:
1.The petitioners established by a preponderance of evidence that the student’s disabilities caused or had a direct and substantial relationship to the conduct involved in the incident that led to the student’s removal.2. Services during removal must be determined on an individualized basis.
Count the days; review relevant information; do it on
time; invite the required people; document the decision
Provide Services
Learning
MomentDiscipline
34 CFR § 300.101
State ComplaintFAPE
OSE Finding:
Noncompliance because the district didn’t document: time in program, provision of interpreters, provision of progress reports or implementing goals and objectives.
The accumulation of the procedural violations constituted a denial of a FAPE.
Due Process Complaint FAPE
ALJ decision:
Multiple procedural violations constituted substantive violations resulting in a denial of a FAPE:•No progress reports•No review and revision of IEP or BIP•Faulty assessment administration•No ESY consideration•Predetermined eligibility•Evaluation delayed•Didn’t consider medical diagnosis/private evaluation
A Free APPROPRIATE Public Education
Learning Moment
FAPE
Resources:•Your local or Intermediate School District special education administration•Office of Special Education Technical Assistance Line 1-888-320-8384•Michigan Special Education Mediation Program (MSEMP) http://msemp.cenmi.org/•Office of Special Education http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-6530_6598---,00.htmlProblem Solving ProcessDue process ProceduresCompliance StandardsMI-SER
•Public Posting http://focus.cenmi.org/state-complaints/