Under the IDEA "medical services" that are eligible "related services" are those specific "services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child's medically related disability that results in the child's needs for special education and other related services." 34 CFR 300.34(c)(5). Therefore, if the medical services is necessary for diagnostic purposes it is required under the IDEA.
The Supreme Court has adopted a bright line rule on this issue as well, finding that medical services that can only be delivered by a physician are not related services and that health care support services, which can be administered by a person other than a physician are related services under the IDEA and therefore the responsibility of the school district. See Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 555 IDELR 511 (1984), affirmed in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. by Charlene F., 29 IDELR 966 (1999).
The Department of Education clarified in the 2006 IDEA Part B regulations that school districts are responsible for "providing services necessary to maintain the health and safety of a child while the child is in school, with breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions (e.g., nursing services, suctioning a tracheotomy, urinary catheterization) if these services can be provided by someone who has been trained to provide the service and are not the type of services that can only be provided by a licensed physician." See Analysis of Comments and Changes to 2006 IDEA Part B Regulations, 71 Fed. Reg. 46571 (August 14, 2006). Thereofre, a medically fragile student, for example, would be eligible for health care related services that are supportive services the child needs to receive during the day in order to be able to attend school and thereby benefit from his or her education and should be noted in the child's IEP.
The Department of Education also clarified what type of medical services would not be related services. Specifically the DOE clarified that the optimization of a surgically implanted device's functioning, maintenance of the device or replacement of the device that requires the expertise of a licensed physician or an individual with specialized technical expertise beyond that typically available from school personnel (e.g., mapping of a cochlear implant) was not a related service. See id.; see also 34 CFR 300.34(b)(1). This does not limit, however, the right of the student with a surgically implanted device to receive other related services that are necessary for the child to receive a FAPE. It also does not limit the responsibility of the district to monitor and maintain devices that are need to maintain the health and safety of the child while he or she is being transported to and from school or is at school. Nor does it prevent the routine checking of a external component of a surgically implanted device to make sure it is functioning properly. See 34 CFR 300.113(b).
One related health service that a school district would likely responsible for would be vision therapy, if it was necessary to assist the child's educational needs and did not require administration by a physician. The decision about whether a student requires a related service such as vision therapy is, of course, a case-by-case determination for what is required for a FAPE.
For example, in Dekalb County Sch. Dist., the 11th Circuit ruled that a district's IEP for a student with a visual condition, which had not manifested itself in poor educational performance, prevented him from receiving FAPE. The court upheld an order to the district to pay for the student'svision therapy services. The evidence showed the student's significant visual problems would become much worse and interfere significantly with his ability to benefit from special education without the therapy. Therefore, the district was required to provide vision therapy in order to offer the student FAPE. See Dekalb County Sch. Dist. v. M.T.V. by C.E.V. and C.T.V., 45 IDELR 30(11th Cir. 2006). In Eugene Sch. Dist., however, it was determined that a student eligible for special education with Emotional Disturbance did not require vision therapy to benefit from his education as his above-average performance in reading comprehension undermined the parent's position that he required vision therapy to make academic progress. See Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 35 IDELR 52 (SEA OR 2001).
Showing posts with label FAPE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAPE. Show all posts
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Breaking Down the IEP: Measurable Annual Goals
The IDEA requires the written IEP document to include measurable annual goals to address the child's unique needs. Goals are based upon the child's present levels of performance, and should drive the child's services. Therefore, goals are often consider the "core" of the student's IEP.
Specifcially, the IDEA requires:
"a statement of measurable annual goal, including academic and functional goals, designed to (aa) meet the child's needs that result from the child's disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and (bb) meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability."
20 U.S.C. section 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II).
What are Annual Goals?
OSEP and the Appendix to the IDEA 1999 regulations both have defined annual goals as "statements that describe what a child with a disability can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a 12-month period, in the child's special education program." Letter to Butler, 213 IDELR 118 (1988); Notice of Interpretation, Question 4, Appendix A to 34 C.F.R. part 300 (1999 regulations).
What needs should be addressed?
Proper and complete identification of a child's unique needs is key to writing good goals for the IEP. Evaluation data, input from persons working with the child, and information about what the child should be able to do at this grade level, all may be relevant when developing proposed annual goals. If the team has considered all relevant information and drafted clearly stated and sufficiently comprehensive PLOP, then identifying areas that need to be addressed in annual goals will be much easier. By definition, goals should address a child's unique needs related to the following:
(1) IEP must include both academic and functional goals
As discussed in the previous posts, IEP teams are now explicitly required to address both academic and functional areas when developing a program for the child. "Educational benefit" has long been defined as including both academic and non-academic areas. Since ultimately the IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to the student, it logically follows that all components of educational benefit should be considered when determining what goals are necessary, even if those areas are not strictly related to academic progress.
Academic goals relate to what the child will be expected to learn and accomplish in the coming year in the areas of reading and language arts, math, social studies and history, and science.
Functional goals related to what progress the child will be expected to make in the coming year in areas, skills and activities that are non-academic and related to the child's day to day functional skills, like behavior, communication, independent living skills, social skills, etc.
(2) "Enable the child to make progress in the general education curriculum"
The IDEA specifically states that goals must be included for each child with a disability to meet the child's needs arising from the disability in order to enable that child to make progress in general education curriculum. There is nothing in the statute that indicates that this provision only requires to students who are in a general education classroom, or to students with a certain level of general intelligence and ability, or that it does not apply if the student has a "severe" disabilty.
The decision of what progress towards general education curriculum would be appropriate is of course an individualized decision based upon factors related to that individual child. Certainly, not every child will be able to meet grade level standards. However, every child can be given the opportunity to make progress in general education curriculum appropriate to their individual strengths and needs. Because this debate is a frequent issue in IEP meetings, it has been addressed more thoroughly in a previous blog post.
(3) "Meet other educational needs that arise from the disability"
The term "educational" is broader than merely academics. Educational benefit can include both academic and non-academic areas. It is important to remember this framework when considering the need for goals to "meet each of the child's other educational needs."
Other educational needs may include speech, language or communication deficits, social skills difficulties, behavioral needs, recreation and leisure, independent living, motor skills, etc. Focus on the "big picture" of what an educational program should be accomplishing, and utilize assessment data, PLOP, and input from team members to determine what areas need to be addressed.
Remember that the IDEA says "each of the child's other educational needs," not "the most important needs." The IEP team needs to make sure that the goals are attainable and appropriate, and it therefore may not be appropriate to have a huge amount of goals. However, when the District says "we only write goals to address the most important areas," or "we have to prioritize and pick only some areas of need to address," this isn't exactly conducive with the IDEA's language. Instead, the IEP needs to include a goal for each area of educational need a child has that arises from that child's disability.
What does it mean for goals to be "measurable?"
To be measurable, a goal must be written clearly with sufficient information to allow an objective person to understand what skill is being addressed and exactly what should be accomplished in order for the child to reach the goal. IEP teams should be wary of goals that are vague or that contain broad generalized statements about "improving" in an area or "increasing" a skill, without specifying what that means. A goal that says that the child will "improve" in his/her skills in a specific area provides little more information than what area of need is being addressed. Ask yourself how the child will improve, how it will be demonstrated, and what specific skill is being addressed.
If the IEP team has developed clear statements of the child's PLOP, writing measurable goals will be much easier. The PLOP can be used to establish clear baselines as a "starting place" for the proposed goals. If the baseline is clear, it is easier to determine how to write an annual goal that will ensure progress and will be measurable. For example, if the PLOP indicates that the child's current fluency rate is at 50 words per minute, the IEP team has enough information to draft a goal that would be at a higher rate, and has specific enough data to make that goal measurable (i.e. the child will read at a rate of 100 words per minute).
Avoid goals that are subjective, because these will not be clearly measurable by whomever is implementing the IEP. A good point of reference is to think "if I had to take this IEP to a new school district who had not been involved in this meeting, would they know how to implement this goal and measure it?"
Examples:
Measurable Goal: Child will engage in a conversation with a peer for 5 minutes, demonstrating at least two conversational turns and remaining on topic.
Vague / Not Measurable: Child will improve conversational skills with peers.
Measurable Goal: Child will demonstrate ability to read 50 new grade level sight words with 90% accuracy in 3 out of 4 trials.
Vague / Not Measurable: Child will increase reading of sight words.
What is the relationship between goals and services, instruction & the provision of FAPE?
IEP goals should drive specialized instruction and related services. The goals establish what the child is expected to learn and accomplish within the special education program. Once the goals have set forth a roadmap for the child, the IEP team must consider what specialized instruction and related services will be required to get there.
An IEP that is found to have insufficient or inappropriate goals will in many cases be found to deny a student FAPE. This is because when the IEP goals are not based on the child's needs, the program itself likely will not be able to meet the child's needs and provide educational benefit. Goals, therefore, have vital importance to the development of an overall appropriate program for an individual child!
Specifcially, the IDEA requires:
"a statement of measurable annual goal, including academic and functional goals, designed to (aa) meet the child's needs that result from the child's disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and (bb) meet each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability."
20 U.S.C. section 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II).
What are Annual Goals?
OSEP and the Appendix to the IDEA 1999 regulations both have defined annual goals as "statements that describe what a child with a disability can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a 12-month period, in the child's special education program." Letter to Butler, 213 IDELR 118 (1988); Notice of Interpretation, Question 4, Appendix A to 34 C.F.R. part 300 (1999 regulations).
What needs should be addressed?
Proper and complete identification of a child's unique needs is key to writing good goals for the IEP. Evaluation data, input from persons working with the child, and information about what the child should be able to do at this grade level, all may be relevant when developing proposed annual goals. If the team has considered all relevant information and drafted clearly stated and sufficiently comprehensive PLOP, then identifying areas that need to be addressed in annual goals will be much easier. By definition, goals should address a child's unique needs related to the following:
(1) IEP must include both academic and functional goals
As discussed in the previous posts, IEP teams are now explicitly required to address both academic and functional areas when developing a program for the child. "Educational benefit" has long been defined as including both academic and non-academic areas. Since ultimately the IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to the student, it logically follows that all components of educational benefit should be considered when determining what goals are necessary, even if those areas are not strictly related to academic progress.
Academic goals relate to what the child will be expected to learn and accomplish in the coming year in the areas of reading and language arts, math, social studies and history, and science.
Functional goals related to what progress the child will be expected to make in the coming year in areas, skills and activities that are non-academic and related to the child's day to day functional skills, like behavior, communication, independent living skills, social skills, etc.
(2) "Enable the child to make progress in the general education curriculum"
The IDEA specifically states that goals must be included for each child with a disability to meet the child's needs arising from the disability in order to enable that child to make progress in general education curriculum. There is nothing in the statute that indicates that this provision only requires to students who are in a general education classroom, or to students with a certain level of general intelligence and ability, or that it does not apply if the student has a "severe" disabilty.
The decision of what progress towards general education curriculum would be appropriate is of course an individualized decision based upon factors related to that individual child. Certainly, not every child will be able to meet grade level standards. However, every child can be given the opportunity to make progress in general education curriculum appropriate to their individual strengths and needs. Because this debate is a frequent issue in IEP meetings, it has been addressed more thoroughly in a previous blog post.
(3) "Meet other educational needs that arise from the disability"
The term "educational" is broader than merely academics. Educational benefit can include both academic and non-academic areas. It is important to remember this framework when considering the need for goals to "meet each of the child's other educational needs."
Other educational needs may include speech, language or communication deficits, social skills difficulties, behavioral needs, recreation and leisure, independent living, motor skills, etc. Focus on the "big picture" of what an educational program should be accomplishing, and utilize assessment data, PLOP, and input from team members to determine what areas need to be addressed.
Remember that the IDEA says "each of the child's other educational needs," not "the most important needs." The IEP team needs to make sure that the goals are attainable and appropriate, and it therefore may not be appropriate to have a huge amount of goals. However, when the District says "we only write goals to address the most important areas," or "we have to prioritize and pick only some areas of need to address," this isn't exactly conducive with the IDEA's language. Instead, the IEP needs to include a goal for each area of educational need a child has that arises from that child's disability.
What does it mean for goals to be "measurable?"
To be measurable, a goal must be written clearly with sufficient information to allow an objective person to understand what skill is being addressed and exactly what should be accomplished in order for the child to reach the goal. IEP teams should be wary of goals that are vague or that contain broad generalized statements about "improving" in an area or "increasing" a skill, without specifying what that means. A goal that says that the child will "improve" in his/her skills in a specific area provides little more information than what area of need is being addressed. Ask yourself how the child will improve, how it will be demonstrated, and what specific skill is being addressed.
If the IEP team has developed clear statements of the child's PLOP, writing measurable goals will be much easier. The PLOP can be used to establish clear baselines as a "starting place" for the proposed goals. If the baseline is clear, it is easier to determine how to write an annual goal that will ensure progress and will be measurable. For example, if the PLOP indicates that the child's current fluency rate is at 50 words per minute, the IEP team has enough information to draft a goal that would be at a higher rate, and has specific enough data to make that goal measurable (i.e. the child will read at a rate of 100 words per minute).
Avoid goals that are subjective, because these will not be clearly measurable by whomever is implementing the IEP. A good point of reference is to think "if I had to take this IEP to a new school district who had not been involved in this meeting, would they know how to implement this goal and measure it?"
Examples:
Measurable Goal: Child will engage in a conversation with a peer for 5 minutes, demonstrating at least two conversational turns and remaining on topic.
Vague / Not Measurable: Child will improve conversational skills with peers.
Measurable Goal: Child will demonstrate ability to read 50 new grade level sight words with 90% accuracy in 3 out of 4 trials.
Vague / Not Measurable: Child will increase reading of sight words.
What is the relationship between goals and services, instruction & the provision of FAPE?
IEP goals should drive specialized instruction and related services. The goals establish what the child is expected to learn and accomplish within the special education program. Once the goals have set forth a roadmap for the child, the IEP team must consider what specialized instruction and related services will be required to get there.
An IEP that is found to have insufficient or inappropriate goals will in many cases be found to deny a student FAPE. This is because when the IEP goals are not based on the child's needs, the program itself likely will not be able to meet the child's needs and provide educational benefit. Goals, therefore, have vital importance to the development of an overall appropriate program for an individual child!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Private Placements Part 3: Locate an Appropriate Unilateral Placement
In a unilateral placement case, when parents are seeking reimbursement for a private school placement, parents must demonstrate that the private placement the child is attending is "appropriate" for that child. This presents what the courts have deemed a "stringent but not impossible" task. Parents meet this burden by demonstrating that the private placement meets the child's needs and provides the child with educational benefit. Courts will look at whether the placement reasonably serves the child's individual needs.
This analysis is obviously fact-sensitive and varies in every single case. The "appropriateness" of the private placement is something parents need to keep in mind at every stage of this process, from deciding to disagree with the district's proposed placement, to searching for an appropriate alternative, to deciding if/when to seek reimbursement.
Things to Consider:
There are many things parents can consider when deciding on a placement. Its helpful to start out with a list of your child's unique needs as a starting place so that you can keep in mind how the different components of various options may (or may not) meet those needs. Then make a list of the things that would be required to be in a program for it to be appropriate for the child. Utilize your experts and evaluators during this stage if possible.
Examples of factors to think about include:
* Class size: does your child need a small class size with fewer peers? higher teacher:student ratio?
* Campus size / setting: does your child get overwhelmed in a large campus setting? are there safety concerns that may arise in larger settings?
* Specialized Instructional Methods: what specialized instructional programs does your child need? for example, does your child need specialized instruction for reading and is it available at this placement?
* Behavioral Components: what type of behavioral program does your child require? will class-wide behavior modification work? does your child require staff with certain training or experience to address his/her behavior?
* Social Skills Components: does your child need social skills instruction as part of a classroom curriculum component? in-the-moment training and facilitation throughout the day? does your child need access to appropriate social-models in terms of peers?
* Training of Staff: does your child require access to staff with specific training or experience working with kids with particular needs / disabilities?
Thinking about topics like these will help parents to ensure that if they are in the situation of having to choose a private alternative for placement, that placement is one that meets the child's needs so as to be considered "appropriate" when they are later seeking reimbursement.
Remember that the appropriateness of the private placement is only one factor, and only applies if the District's proposed placement is found to be inappropriate. While making a list of your child's unique needs and considering these factors when analyzing placement offers and options naturally will lead to some comparison between the District's placement and the private one, remember that comparing them is not the analysis the court will use. It is not enough simply to show that the private placement is "better," because ultimately you must show that the District's placement was not appropriate.
This analysis is obviously fact-sensitive and varies in every single case. The "appropriateness" of the private placement is something parents need to keep in mind at every stage of this process, from deciding to disagree with the district's proposed placement, to searching for an appropriate alternative, to deciding if/when to seek reimbursement.
Things to Consider:
There are many things parents can consider when deciding on a placement. Its helpful to start out with a list of your child's unique needs as a starting place so that you can keep in mind how the different components of various options may (or may not) meet those needs. Then make a list of the things that would be required to be in a program for it to be appropriate for the child. Utilize your experts and evaluators during this stage if possible.
Examples of factors to think about include:
* Class size: does your child need a small class size with fewer peers? higher teacher:student ratio?
* Campus size / setting: does your child get overwhelmed in a large campus setting? are there safety concerns that may arise in larger settings?
* Specialized Instructional Methods: what specialized instructional programs does your child need? for example, does your child need specialized instruction for reading and is it available at this placement?
* Behavioral Components: what type of behavioral program does your child require? will class-wide behavior modification work? does your child require staff with certain training or experience to address his/her behavior?
* Social Skills Components: does your child need social skills instruction as part of a classroom curriculum component? in-the-moment training and facilitation throughout the day? does your child need access to appropriate social-models in terms of peers?
* Training of Staff: does your child require access to staff with specific training or experience working with kids with particular needs / disabilities?
Thinking about topics like these will help parents to ensure that if they are in the situation of having to choose a private alternative for placement, that placement is one that meets the child's needs so as to be considered "appropriate" when they are later seeking reimbursement.
Remember that the appropriateness of the private placement is only one factor, and only applies if the District's proposed placement is found to be inappropriate. While making a list of your child's unique needs and considering these factors when analyzing placement offers and options naturally will lead to some comparison between the District's placement and the private one, remember that comparing them is not the analysis the court will use. It is not enough simply to show that the private placement is "better," because ultimately you must show that the District's placement was not appropriate.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Related Service: Assistive Technology
When people first think of assistive technology they think of the actual devices that a student uses in the classroom - ranging from a laptop computer to a pencil grip. But some devices requires that the student's IEP actually include a direct service in order for them to access those devices.
Under the IDEA assistive technology service means any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. See 20 U.S.C. 1401(2); 34 CFR 300.6. As with other services if the student is identified as needing special education and related services they are entitled to an individual evaluation for possible assistive technology devices. See Maynard Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 394 (SEA AR 1993).
Under the IDEA assistive technology service means any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. See 20 U.S.C. 1401(2); 34 CFR 300.6. As with other services if the student is identified as needing special education and related services they are entitled to an individual evaluation for possible assistive technology devices. See Maynard Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 394 (SEA AR 1993).
As with other services, it is the IEP team that makes the determination about whether a child requires either AT devices or services in order to receive a FAPE. See 34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(v); see also Letter to Anonymous, 24 IDELR 854 (OSEP 1996). If the team determines that a student with a disability requires a device or service to receive a FAPE the District is obligated to provide that device or service. OSEP has stated that when a child requires AT the IEP document must include a specific statement of such AT devices or services. See Letter to Anonymous, 18 IDELR 627 (OSEP 1991).
As with other areas of special education a parent can not unilaterally determine the device or service but rather the team makes a determination about what is appropriate. If there is a dispute, however, parents have the ability to present evidence that the preferred device or services is appropriate and the district's proposed device or service is not. Furthermore, while the cost of a device is a relevant in determining what AT devices or services to provide it cannot be the determining factor. See Greenwood County Sch. Dist., 52 IDELR 355 (SEA CA 1992). A school district, however, has no obligation to pay for AT services if there is an alternate funding source, such as private insurance or Medicaid.
Typically an AT service is linked to a particular AT device that an IEP team has determined is appropriate for a student. For example, if an IEP team determines that a student requires an augmentative communication device in order to benefit from his or her education then the district may need to provide direct instruction in that device to the student and/or training to other instructors and service providers on that particular device. On the other hand, if an IEP team determines that a student requires access to a computer in the classroom the student may not require an AT service to access that device.
Private Placements Part 2: When an alternative may be necessary
Unilateral placement cases are highly fact-specific and each case is unique. It is advisable that a parent seeking to place their child unilaterally and obtain reimbursement for the costs of that placement obtain assistance from a special education attorney or highly experienced advocate from the initial stages of this process. An attorney or advocate can assist the parent with following all of the necessary steps in the process along the way.
The previous post in this series talks about when and how a parent gives notice to the school district of their decision to place their child unilaterally at a private school. Prior to reaching the point of providing notice, parents must go through the process of determining that a private placement is necessary for their child. The case law recognizes that such a determination is made at the parents' financial risk; that is, there is no guarantee that the parent would ultimately be reimbursed. Therefore, the determination to take such a step should only be made when it is necessary, and must be done cautiously. This second part of the "private placement" blog series discusses factors and situations that may give rise to such a determination.
Parents have attempted to work with the District to find another suitable alternative
Generally, parents should not rush into a unilateral, private placement without first trying to work within the District's system to locate an appropriate alternative. This doesn't mean that every child has to necessarily "try" the District's proposed classroom before the private placement occurs. But it does mean that parents should work cooperatively with the District, attend and participate in IEP meetings, voice their concerns about placements proposed by the District, go and observe District programs when possible, and provide the District with input from private experts or independent evaluators. If the District has not been given the "opportunity" to provide the student with an appropriate program, ultimately it is likely that a judge will find that reimbursement is not appropriate.
Private placement should be considered, therefore, in situations where the parent has actively and cooperatively participated in IEPs and placement discussions and has made efforts to work with the District to secure an approrpiate publicly funded placement. Many parents only turn to a unilateral placement after visiting / observing all of the recommended placements by the District, having multiple meetings with the District about placement, voicing their concerns, etc, and then determining that there is no appropriate option within the District's alternatives and private placement is therefore necessary. To read an example of such a case, see Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 39 IDELR 56 (SEA NY 2002).
The District delayed completion of or implementation of an appropriate IEP, thereby denying educational benefit
In some circumstances, the district's unjustifiable delay in completing or implementing an IEP may cause such a loss of educational benefit to the student as to support the need for a private placement and reimbursment to parents. Consider whether the district has failed to complete an IEP at all, leaving it "in limbo" such that the student has no program in place. If this has happened, parents may be faced with a choice between leaving their child with no specialized program, or unilaterally placing the child in an appropriate program and seeking reimbursement. If the issue is not development of the IEP, but implementation, it is important to look at whether the component that has not been implemented was essential to the IEP, and the lack of that component meant that the program itself was no longer appropriate. Again, parents are then faced with a difficult choice between allowing their child to continue in the inappropriate program or unilaterally placing him/her. The cases on this issue are very fact specific, so it should not be simply assumed that any time the district fails to implement the IEP, unilateral placement will be justified. Again, it would be a good idea to have an expert opinion regarding the impact of the delay or non-implementation. For examples of such cases, read Board of Educ. of Chatham Cent. Sch. Dist., 39 IDELR 144 (SEA NY 2003 and Ms. M ex rel K.M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 39 IDELR 33 (D. Me. 2003).
Student has made no progress in the District's program
When a student has already been in a specific program offered and provided by the school district, and that program has proved to be inappropriate or ineffective, it may be time for parents to consider an alternative. This scenario necessitates looking objectively at the data and information about the child to adequately determine if there has been progress or not, and therefore usually requires an expert's opinion. If the student has been in the program / methodology, ask yourself if he/she has made little to no progress in the specific area being addressed. Also, it is important to look at what the District knew or should have been aware of with regards to the lack of progress. Is this a situation where ongoing progress reports, IEP documents and other data were demonstrating for a significant amount of time that no progress was being made, yet the district ignored such data and continued to offer the same kind of program? Or is it a situation where there was no clear data on an ongoing basis, so maybe no one was aware of the lack of progress until the child was reevaluated much later? An alternative placement may be more appropriate in a situation where not only was the district's program ineffective and inappropriate, but the district also continued to offer said program despite indication that it wasn't working. For an example of such a case, read Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. System, 108 LRP 13764 (11th Circuit 2008).
In some cases, there may be data and evidence that not only establishes lack of progress, but actual regression in some areas. If the child is regressing, rather than progressing, under the district's program, then parents may need to look for an alternative. In these situations, expert opinion would be critical to establish regression. Also, you should consider factors such as whether the district knew the child was regressing, how they responded, and whether they are now offering something different. Fo an example, read J.P. v. County Sch. Bd. of Hanover County, Va 46 IDELR 133 (E.D. Va. 2006).
District has offered a prospective placement that is not appropriate
Commonly, parents consider unilateral placements because of a dispute about what the district has offered prospectively. When the district's IEP and placement offer will not meet the child's needs or enable him/her to obtain educational benefit, the parents may need to consider rejecting that offer and unilaterally placing the child. Again, this is a very fact sensitive scenario, and the parents must consider the IEP offer carefully. An expert who can not only evaluate the child's unique needs, but also observe the proposed placement will most likely be necessary. It is important to look at what the child's identified unique needs are and evaluate the proposed IEP on whether or not it will meet those needs. Consider if there is a specific type of setting, for instance, that the child requires, or whether the child needs a therapuetic component to address his/her social / emotional needs. The totality of the factors will be considered in these situations to determine if the district offered FAPE, and ultimately if the parent is entitled to reimbursement for the unilateral placement. For examples of such cases, read Lamoine Sch. Comm. v. Ms. Z. ex rel N.S. 42 IDELR 172 (D. Me. 2005) and Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. for the City of N.Y. 35 IDELR 28 (SEA NY 2001).
Remember that whatever situation arises that causes parents to consider a unilateral placement, parents need to be careful and consider all of the district's options before making such a decision. Consult with experts, providers and persons who know your child. It may also be necessary to consult with a special education advocate or attorney.
The next blog in this series will discuss another issue in private placement cases, which is consideration of whether the unilateral, private placement is appropriate.
The previous post in this series talks about when and how a parent gives notice to the school district of their decision to place their child unilaterally at a private school. Prior to reaching the point of providing notice, parents must go through the process of determining that a private placement is necessary for their child. The case law recognizes that such a determination is made at the parents' financial risk; that is, there is no guarantee that the parent would ultimately be reimbursed. Therefore, the determination to take such a step should only be made when it is necessary, and must be done cautiously. This second part of the "private placement" blog series discusses factors and situations that may give rise to such a determination.
Parents have attempted to work with the District to find another suitable alternative
Generally, parents should not rush into a unilateral, private placement without first trying to work within the District's system to locate an appropriate alternative. This doesn't mean that every child has to necessarily "try" the District's proposed classroom before the private placement occurs. But it does mean that parents should work cooperatively with the District, attend and participate in IEP meetings, voice their concerns about placements proposed by the District, go and observe District programs when possible, and provide the District with input from private experts or independent evaluators. If the District has not been given the "opportunity" to provide the student with an appropriate program, ultimately it is likely that a judge will find that reimbursement is not appropriate.
Private placement should be considered, therefore, in situations where the parent has actively and cooperatively participated in IEPs and placement discussions and has made efforts to work with the District to secure an approrpiate publicly funded placement. Many parents only turn to a unilateral placement after visiting / observing all of the recommended placements by the District, having multiple meetings with the District about placement, voicing their concerns, etc, and then determining that there is no appropriate option within the District's alternatives and private placement is therefore necessary. To read an example of such a case, see Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 39 IDELR 56 (SEA NY 2002).
The District delayed completion of or implementation of an appropriate IEP, thereby denying educational benefit
In some circumstances, the district's unjustifiable delay in completing or implementing an IEP may cause such a loss of educational benefit to the student as to support the need for a private placement and reimbursment to parents. Consider whether the district has failed to complete an IEP at all, leaving it "in limbo" such that the student has no program in place. If this has happened, parents may be faced with a choice between leaving their child with no specialized program, or unilaterally placing the child in an appropriate program and seeking reimbursement. If the issue is not development of the IEP, but implementation, it is important to look at whether the component that has not been implemented was essential to the IEP, and the lack of that component meant that the program itself was no longer appropriate. Again, parents are then faced with a difficult choice between allowing their child to continue in the inappropriate program or unilaterally placing him/her. The cases on this issue are very fact specific, so it should not be simply assumed that any time the district fails to implement the IEP, unilateral placement will be justified. Again, it would be a good idea to have an expert opinion regarding the impact of the delay or non-implementation. For examples of such cases, read Board of Educ. of Chatham Cent. Sch. Dist., 39 IDELR 144 (SEA NY 2003 and Ms. M ex rel K.M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 39 IDELR 33 (D. Me. 2003).
Student has made no progress in the District's program
When a student has already been in a specific program offered and provided by the school district, and that program has proved to be inappropriate or ineffective, it may be time for parents to consider an alternative. This scenario necessitates looking objectively at the data and information about the child to adequately determine if there has been progress or not, and therefore usually requires an expert's opinion. If the student has been in the program / methodology, ask yourself if he/she has made little to no progress in the specific area being addressed. Also, it is important to look at what the District knew or should have been aware of with regards to the lack of progress. Is this a situation where ongoing progress reports, IEP documents and other data were demonstrating for a significant amount of time that no progress was being made, yet the district ignored such data and continued to offer the same kind of program? Or is it a situation where there was no clear data on an ongoing basis, so maybe no one was aware of the lack of progress until the child was reevaluated much later? An alternative placement may be more appropriate in a situation where not only was the district's program ineffective and inappropriate, but the district also continued to offer said program despite indication that it wasn't working. For an example of such a case, read Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. System, 108 LRP 13764 (11th Circuit 2008).
In some cases, there may be data and evidence that not only establishes lack of progress, but actual regression in some areas. If the child is regressing, rather than progressing, under the district's program, then parents may need to look for an alternative. In these situations, expert opinion would be critical to establish regression. Also, you should consider factors such as whether the district knew the child was regressing, how they responded, and whether they are now offering something different. Fo an example, read J.P. v. County Sch. Bd. of Hanover County, Va 46 IDELR 133 (E.D. Va. 2006).
District has offered a prospective placement that is not appropriate
Commonly, parents consider unilateral placements because of a dispute about what the district has offered prospectively. When the district's IEP and placement offer will not meet the child's needs or enable him/her to obtain educational benefit, the parents may need to consider rejecting that offer and unilaterally placing the child. Again, this is a very fact sensitive scenario, and the parents must consider the IEP offer carefully. An expert who can not only evaluate the child's unique needs, but also observe the proposed placement will most likely be necessary. It is important to look at what the child's identified unique needs are and evaluate the proposed IEP on whether or not it will meet those needs. Consider if there is a specific type of setting, for instance, that the child requires, or whether the child needs a therapuetic component to address his/her social / emotional needs. The totality of the factors will be considered in these situations to determine if the district offered FAPE, and ultimately if the parent is entitled to reimbursement for the unilateral placement. For examples of such cases, read Lamoine Sch. Comm. v. Ms. Z. ex rel N.S. 42 IDELR 172 (D. Me. 2005) and Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. for the City of N.Y. 35 IDELR 28 (SEA NY 2001).
Remember that whatever situation arises that causes parents to consider a unilateral placement, parents need to be careful and consider all of the district's options before making such a decision. Consult with experts, providers and persons who know your child. It may also be necessary to consult with a special education advocate or attorney.
The next blog in this series will discuss another issue in private placement cases, which is consideration of whether the unilateral, private placement is appropriate.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Related Service: Transportation
Under the law transportation is a related service akin to services such as speech and language, OT, PT, and counseling. See 20 U.S.C. 1401(a)(22). A school district is required to offer transportation services if it is required to assist the child with a disability to benefit from special education. See 34 CFR 300.24(15)(a).
Transportation includes: (1) travel to and from and between schools; (2) travel in and around school buildings; and (3) specialized equipment, such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps, if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability. See 34 CFR 300.24(b)(15).
Is my student entitled to transportation?
If a school district provides transportation to general education students then it must provide transportation to special education students to any program to which it assigns a special education student. That is a district can not discriminate against students with disabilities by not providing them with transportation services. However, if a school district, does not provide transportation to the general education students then it must decide on an individualized basis whether or not a student requires transportation as a related service in order to receive a FAPE. A school district must ensure that they consider the IDEA's LRE mandate in making transportation decisions.
Should my student's IEP include transportation?
If the student qualifies for transportation as a related service then the IEP should clearly explain the transportation. If a student is capable of using the same transportation services as a student without a disability the IDEA does not require transportation to be listed as a related service in the IEP. See Letter to Hamilton, 25 IDELR 520 (OSEP 1996).
The IEP team should also take into consideration other factors when offering transportation in order to assure that the IEP offers a FAPE. For instance the team should consider if the student requires specialized equipment such as a special or adapted vehicle, a lift, a ramp, seat restraints, security devices, such as a harness or vest, a car seat, air-conditioning and/or tinted windows.
The IEP team should also consider whether it is appropriate for personnel to assist the student. If the student requires personalized services within the classroom, then it would be appropriate for the IEP team to consider whether the student required personal assistance while being transported.
A school district should also consider whether a change in policy is necessary to accommodate a student with a disability, such as allowing a student with diabetes to have a snack on a bus.
Where will my child be transported to and from?
It depends on what is appropriate for the student. A student may be picked up from a bus stop if it is appropriate but if their disability prevents them from being at the bus stop then home to school transportation may be appropriate. For example, if the student does not understand potential safety hazards then it may not be appropriate for the student to be picked up at a bus stop.
A school district will also be obligated to transport a student for an extracurricular or nonacademic activity if it is related to the student's IEP goals and objectives.
How much time should a student be on a bus?
Neither the IDEA or Section 504 specifically address the appropriate length of bus rides for students with disabilities. In general, a school district must consider the length of a bus ride, proximity of student's home to placement and overall impact on the student. Some states regulate the length of a bus ride by establishing a maximum amount of time a student may be on a bus. Excessive travel time can result in a denial of FAPE as excessive daily commuting to a placement may suggest the need for a residential placement. What constitutes an excessive amount of time, once again, depends on the student, his or her disability, overall health condition and norms for the region. A general rule, however, is that the student's daily commute should not greatly exceed one hour each way. See e.g., Bonadonna v. Cooperman, 557 IDELR 178 (D.N.J. 1985); Covington Community Sch. Corp, 18 IDELR 180 (SEA IN 1991); Kanawho County (WV) Pub. Sch., 16 IDELR 450 (OCR 1987).
Furthermore, a school district should not shorten the school day to accommodate bus schedules for a special education student. See Palm Beach County (FL) Sch. Dist., 31 IDELR 37 (OCR 1998); Jim Thorpe (PA) area Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 78; Lincoln County (NC) Sch. Dist., 17 IDELR 1052 (OCR 1991). Students with disabilities must be given a comparable length of school day and week as non-disabled students, unless there is a compelling specific reason.
There may be other factors to take into consideration when determining the specifics of transportation as a related service for your student - if you need more help contact a special education attorney in your area.
Transportation includes: (1) travel to and from and between schools; (2) travel in and around school buildings; and (3) specialized equipment, such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps, if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability. See 34 CFR 300.24(b)(15).
Is my student entitled to transportation?
If a school district provides transportation to general education students then it must provide transportation to special education students to any program to which it assigns a special education student. That is a district can not discriminate against students with disabilities by not providing them with transportation services. However, if a school district, does not provide transportation to the general education students then it must decide on an individualized basis whether or not a student requires transportation as a related service in order to receive a FAPE. A school district must ensure that they consider the IDEA's LRE mandate in making transportation decisions.
Should my student's IEP include transportation?
If the student qualifies for transportation as a related service then the IEP should clearly explain the transportation. If a student is capable of using the same transportation services as a student without a disability the IDEA does not require transportation to be listed as a related service in the IEP. See Letter to Hamilton, 25 IDELR 520 (OSEP 1996).
The IEP team should also take into consideration other factors when offering transportation in order to assure that the IEP offers a FAPE. For instance the team should consider if the student requires specialized equipment such as a special or adapted vehicle, a lift, a ramp, seat restraints, security devices, such as a harness or vest, a car seat, air-conditioning and/or tinted windows.
The IEP team should also consider whether it is appropriate for personnel to assist the student. If the student requires personalized services within the classroom, then it would be appropriate for the IEP team to consider whether the student required personal assistance while being transported.
A school district should also consider whether a change in policy is necessary to accommodate a student with a disability, such as allowing a student with diabetes to have a snack on a bus.
Where will my child be transported to and from?
It depends on what is appropriate for the student. A student may be picked up from a bus stop if it is appropriate but if their disability prevents them from being at the bus stop then home to school transportation may be appropriate. For example, if the student does not understand potential safety hazards then it may not be appropriate for the student to be picked up at a bus stop.
A school district will also be obligated to transport a student for an extracurricular or nonacademic activity if it is related to the student's IEP goals and objectives.
How much time should a student be on a bus?
Neither the IDEA or Section 504 specifically address the appropriate length of bus rides for students with disabilities. In general, a school district must consider the length of a bus ride, proximity of student's home to placement and overall impact on the student. Some states regulate the length of a bus ride by establishing a maximum amount of time a student may be on a bus. Excessive travel time can result in a denial of FAPE as excessive daily commuting to a placement may suggest the need for a residential placement. What constitutes an excessive amount of time, once again, depends on the student, his or her disability, overall health condition and norms for the region. A general rule, however, is that the student's daily commute should not greatly exceed one hour each way. See e.g., Bonadonna v. Cooperman, 557 IDELR 178 (D.N.J. 1985); Covington Community Sch. Corp, 18 IDELR 180 (SEA IN 1991); Kanawho County (WV) Pub. Sch., 16 IDELR 450 (OCR 1987).
Furthermore, a school district should not shorten the school day to accommodate bus schedules for a special education student. See Palm Beach County (FL) Sch. Dist., 31 IDELR 37 (OCR 1998); Jim Thorpe (PA) area Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 78; Lincoln County (NC) Sch. Dist., 17 IDELR 1052 (OCR 1991). Students with disabilities must be given a comparable length of school day and week as non-disabled students, unless there is a compelling specific reason.
There may be other factors to take into consideration when determining the specifics of transportation as a related service for your student - if you need more help contact a special education attorney in your area.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Civil Rights in Education
Today is the 45th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance, including public schools. Ten years prior, in 1954, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, finding that "racially segregated schools are inherently unequal."
Education has been called the civil rights issue of our generation. Although we have come a long way since Brown, the Civil Rights Act, the subsequent Education of the Handicapped Act, and other legislation, there are still disparities in education that affect minorities, children living in poverty or homelessness, and children with disabilities.
Disability advocates should always be aware of the civil rights movement as the foundation for what we now do. Following Brown vs. Board of Education, courts began to recognize that other types of segregation and seclusion also existed, and the issue of access to education became an issue for persons with disabilities. Parents began raising equal education opportunity as a right that existed for their children, who had been prevented from even attending schools because of their disabilities. In 1972, a consent order was entered in a case involving the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children, requiring the public school system to ensure a free public program of education and training to children with "exceptional" needs. In the same year, Mills v. Board of Education was decided in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and found that exclusion from publicly supported instruction was unconstitutional. The Mills case established a substantive entitlement to a free and suitable publicly supported education. These two cases were based upon the principle that if a public education agency undertook to educate all of the children in its area, it could not then exclude children with exceptional needs simply because they require greater resources to educate. Within these foundational cases was also established the idea of a "preference" for placement within a regular, public school placement.
Today, inclusion in a regular public school placement is still an issue of contention for many students with disabilities. The right to placement in the "least restrictive environment" is a contentious issue in many cases. Separate public schools exist where students with disabilities are placed separately from their non-disabled peers, which some argue is tantamount to segregation. On the other hand, because publicly supported education must be appropriate for the unique needs of the individual students, sometimes a separate specialized setting is required.
In the extreme, some students are still denied access to school because of the severity of their disabilities. In my own career, I have known a child whose parents' only wish was for him to be able to attend his neighborhood school, and he was never allowed to do so.
The right to equal educational opportunity and access has come a long way since 1954 for the groups of persons who have historically been denied that access. Unfortunately, on a daily basis I am reminded how far we still have to go as a society to reach the point where exclusion, discrimination, and the denial of meaningful educational benefit, be it on the basis of race, disability, or poverty, no longer exists in our schools. Only when we eliminate discrimination in schools and ensure truly equal access to a meaningful education will society as a whole move towards greater inclusion of all persons.
Education has been called the civil rights issue of our generation. Although we have come a long way since Brown, the Civil Rights Act, the subsequent Education of the Handicapped Act, and other legislation, there are still disparities in education that affect minorities, children living in poverty or homelessness, and children with disabilities.
Disability advocates should always be aware of the civil rights movement as the foundation for what we now do. Following Brown vs. Board of Education, courts began to recognize that other types of segregation and seclusion also existed, and the issue of access to education became an issue for persons with disabilities. Parents began raising equal education opportunity as a right that existed for their children, who had been prevented from even attending schools because of their disabilities. In 1972, a consent order was entered in a case involving the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children, requiring the public school system to ensure a free public program of education and training to children with "exceptional" needs. In the same year, Mills v. Board of Education was decided in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and found that exclusion from publicly supported instruction was unconstitutional. The Mills case established a substantive entitlement to a free and suitable publicly supported education. These two cases were based upon the principle that if a public education agency undertook to educate all of the children in its area, it could not then exclude children with exceptional needs simply because they require greater resources to educate. Within these foundational cases was also established the idea of a "preference" for placement within a regular, public school placement.
Today, inclusion in a regular public school placement is still an issue of contention for many students with disabilities. The right to placement in the "least restrictive environment" is a contentious issue in many cases. Separate public schools exist where students with disabilities are placed separately from their non-disabled peers, which some argue is tantamount to segregation. On the other hand, because publicly supported education must be appropriate for the unique needs of the individual students, sometimes a separate specialized setting is required.
In the extreme, some students are still denied access to school because of the severity of their disabilities. In my own career, I have known a child whose parents' only wish was for him to be able to attend his neighborhood school, and he was never allowed to do so.
The right to equal educational opportunity and access has come a long way since 1954 for the groups of persons who have historically been denied that access. Unfortunately, on a daily basis I am reminded how far we still have to go as a society to reach the point where exclusion, discrimination, and the denial of meaningful educational benefit, be it on the basis of race, disability, or poverty, no longer exists in our schools. Only when we eliminate discrimination in schools and ensure truly equal access to a meaningful education will society as a whole move towards greater inclusion of all persons.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
A New Series: Related Services
Coming next week . . . we will be starting a series on related services. Each post will explore a different related service and issues specifically related to that service.
First up will be transportation so check back next week to learn more. If anyone has a related service they would like to know more about please leave a comment and we will do our best to find out more about it or share what we already know.
First up will be transportation so check back next week to learn more. If anyone has a related service they would like to know more about please leave a comment and we will do our best to find out more about it or share what we already know.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Fast Fact Friday: Specialized Instruction
Eligibility for an IEP is contingent upon (1) the child having an identified disability under one of the eligibility categories in federal and state laws, and (2) the child requiring, by reason of that disability, special education and related services. See 34 C.F.R. section 300.8(a)(1). "Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including (i) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and (ii) instruction in physical education." See 20 U.S.C. section 1401(29); 34 C.F.R. section 300.39(a)(1). Furthermore, special education can include related services, such as speech-language pathology, if that service is considered special education rather than a related service under state standards. See 34 C.F.R. section 300.39(a)(2).
What is "specially designed instruction?"
The IDEIA defines specially designed instruction as "adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction, (i) to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and (ii) to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of hte public agency that apply to all children." 34 C.F.R. section 300.39(b)(3).
Through the IEP process, Districts need to consider whether adaptations are needed in the content (i.e. what is being taught), or the methodology or delivery of instruction (i.e. how it is being taught) in order for the specific child's needs to be addressed and in order for that child to have access to general education curriculum. The IEP team should also consider whether the child needs "additional specialized instruction or related services" in order to make progress towards general education curriculum. See Letter to Anonymous, OSEP 2008.
"Specially designed" means designed with the specific child in mind. Specially designed instruction can include alternative methods of teaching the same curriculum to children with disabilities as to non-disabled students. It can include modified or adapted textbooks.
Under the IDEIA, special education (including specially designed instruction) should be "based on peer reviewed research to the extent practicable." 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(4). In certain cases, specially designed instruction can also include specialized instructional programs, like intensive reading programs, ABA or other methodologies, etc., if these specific instructional programs are required to meet the child's unique needs and ensure access to the general curriculum.
What is "specially designed instruction?"
The IDEIA defines specially designed instruction as "adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction, (i) to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and (ii) to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of hte public agency that apply to all children." 34 C.F.R. section 300.39(b)(3).
Through the IEP process, Districts need to consider whether adaptations are needed in the content (i.e. what is being taught), or the methodology or delivery of instruction (i.e. how it is being taught) in order for the specific child's needs to be addressed and in order for that child to have access to general education curriculum. The IEP team should also consider whether the child needs "additional specialized instruction or related services" in order to make progress towards general education curriculum. See Letter to Anonymous, OSEP 2008.
"Specially designed" means designed with the specific child in mind. Specially designed instruction can include alternative methods of teaching the same curriculum to children with disabilities as to non-disabled students. It can include modified or adapted textbooks.
Under the IDEIA, special education (including specially designed instruction) should be "based on peer reviewed research to the extent practicable." 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(4). In certain cases, specially designed instruction can also include specialized instructional programs, like intensive reading programs, ABA or other methodologies, etc., if these specific instructional programs are required to meet the child's unique needs and ensure access to the general curriculum.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Goals Related to General Education Curriculum
I hear lots of interesting things at IEP meetings, and recently I've heard several comments on the theme of including goals in an IEP to address general education standards.
In one meeting, a district resource teacher stated that "the law prohibited the IEP team from including goals in an IEP that were based on what would be taught within the general education curriculum."
Another teacher stated that goals related to general education were never appropriate for a student who is "severely disabled."
A district administrator stated that if all of the goals were based on regular education standards, rather than below grade level, this meant that the child should be exited from his IEP because clearly he didn't need special education.
Yet another claimed that "this district doesn't write IEP goals related to Science because no one has a Science disability."
At each of these meetings, I have patiently explained that the law requires IEP goals to address a child's unique needs in order to enable that child to make progress towards and participate in general education curriculum, and that if a child is expected to reach regular standards, but will require specialized instruction or related services to do so, then it would be appropriate to have a goal in that area. More and more, I am seeing IEP teams dismiss this request and insist that IEP goals cannot be written to address regular education standards. So, I've been compiling some information about this issue during these last few weeks of "IEP season" and I wanted to share that information with you.
What does IDEA say about this?
The IEP document must include a statement of measurable annual goals designed to meet the child's unique needs that result from the child's disability, to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. See 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(2).
In Appendix A to Part 300, at Question 4, the Office of Education stated that a public agency is not required to include in an IEP annual goals that relate to areas of general curriculum if the child's disability does not affect the child's ability to be involved in and progress towards the general curriculum in that area.
Nowhere in the law is there a statement that a child's IEP cannot or should not include goals related to the general education curriculum. Further, there is no disclaimer stating that the requirement that goals be included to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general educaiton curriculum does not apply if the child is severely disabled.
When should the IEP address general education curriculum standards?
An IEP should include goals for areas related to the general education curriculum if the student requires special education or related services in order to make progress or participate in that specific area.
Remember that the IDEA defines special education as specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the child. Specially designed instruction is defined as adapting as approrpiate to the needs of the child, the content, methodology or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. 34 C.F.R. section 300.39(a)&(b).
Look at your state's or district's expected standards for each grade level. (Click here for California Content Standards). Each state has content standards for each grade level that define what students are expected to learn in each academic content area. The question is not whether the ultimate goal is for your child to reach the same level at the end of the school year as the other students; the question is whether your child's disability impacts his/her ability to reach that level. If it does, then it may be appropriate to include a goal for that skill. Look to current evaluation data to determine what areas of the curriculum may be affected by your child's disability.
Start addressing this in the Present Levels of Performance (PLOP), and use that information to determine if a goal is needed. The IEP's statement of PLOP must include the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance including how the student's disability affects the student's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(1). For each area under PLOP, there should be a statement of how the student is currently performing as related to the grade level expectations based upon the content standards. This information can come from a variety of sources, including assessment data, classroom records, standardized testing, teacher input, progress reports, etc. Look at the PLOP to determine where there are areas where there is a "gap" between the grade level expectations and the child's functioning level.
What is the importance of including general education expectations in the IEP?
There is a preference in law and policy for including students with disabilities to the maximum extent possible in the regular education setting. Addressing general education curriculum expectations for students with disabilities, however, goes beyond the LRE debate. This issue is about the underlying goal of the IDEA to end the practice of "lowering expectations" for students with disabilities. Its about the ultimate goal of ensuring that students are educated in such a way that they are prepared for the world when they leave high school.
The IDEA "findings" state that "the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by... having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible, in order to meet the developmental goals and the challenging expectations that have been established for all children and... be prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives..." 20 U.S.C. section 1400(c).
No Child Left Behind reiterates this finding, noting that its purpose is to "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments." It goes on to indicate that this purpose can be achieved by "meeting the educational needs of low-achieving students, including students with disabilities." 20 U.S.C. section 6301.
Reflect on these considerations as you consider the appropriateness of IEP goals related to general education curriculum. A district team member once told me that the only way she would write an IEP goal related to a grade level math standard for a particular student was if the expectation was reduced from learning 30 numbers (as stated in the standard) to learning 15 numbers. When this kind of determination is made arbitrarily because of a misguided belief that grade level goals are not permissible, rather than based on any information about the child's actual levels of functioning, it is not conducive with meeting the purposes of the IDEA. Certainly, an arbitrary assumption that simply because a child is disabled, he could not possibly be expected to reach the grade level standard, is not "having high expectations for such children."
Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is the "I" in "IEP." The IEP must be individualized for the specific child based on his/her specific unique needs, strengths and levels of functioning, and considering information regarding how that child's specific disability affects his/her ability to progress in and participate in the general curriculum. The IEP must ensure that the child is able to make progress and receive a meaningful educational benefit. We should all be wary whenever we are told that "this district doesn't write those goals" or that inclusion of general education standards would "never be appropriate." Ultimately, whether the IEP should include a goal that is related to a general education content standard is an IEP team decision, and should be based on the specific scenario rather than any preconceived notions about the issue.
In one meeting, a district resource teacher stated that "the law prohibited the IEP team from including goals in an IEP that were based on what would be taught within the general education curriculum."
Another teacher stated that goals related to general education were never appropriate for a student who is "severely disabled."
A district administrator stated that if all of the goals were based on regular education standards, rather than below grade level, this meant that the child should be exited from his IEP because clearly he didn't need special education.
Yet another claimed that "this district doesn't write IEP goals related to Science because no one has a Science disability."
At each of these meetings, I have patiently explained that the law requires IEP goals to address a child's unique needs in order to enable that child to make progress towards and participate in general education curriculum, and that if a child is expected to reach regular standards, but will require specialized instruction or related services to do so, then it would be appropriate to have a goal in that area. More and more, I am seeing IEP teams dismiss this request and insist that IEP goals cannot be written to address regular education standards. So, I've been compiling some information about this issue during these last few weeks of "IEP season" and I wanted to share that information with you.
What does IDEA say about this?
The IEP document must include a statement of measurable annual goals designed to meet the child's unique needs that result from the child's disability, to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. See 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(2).
In Appendix A to Part 300, at Question 4, the Office of Education stated that a public agency is not required to include in an IEP annual goals that relate to areas of general curriculum if the child's disability does not affect the child's ability to be involved in and progress towards the general curriculum in that area.
Nowhere in the law is there a statement that a child's IEP cannot or should not include goals related to the general education curriculum. Further, there is no disclaimer stating that the requirement that goals be included to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general educaiton curriculum does not apply if the child is severely disabled.
When should the IEP address general education curriculum standards?
An IEP should include goals for areas related to the general education curriculum if the student requires special education or related services in order to make progress or participate in that specific area.
Remember that the IDEA defines special education as specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the child. Specially designed instruction is defined as adapting as approrpiate to the needs of the child, the content, methodology or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children. 34 C.F.R. section 300.39(a)&(b).
Look at your state's or district's expected standards for each grade level. (Click here for California Content Standards). Each state has content standards for each grade level that define what students are expected to learn in each academic content area. The question is not whether the ultimate goal is for your child to reach the same level at the end of the school year as the other students; the question is whether your child's disability impacts his/her ability to reach that level. If it does, then it may be appropriate to include a goal for that skill. Look to current evaluation data to determine what areas of the curriculum may be affected by your child's disability.
Start addressing this in the Present Levels of Performance (PLOP), and use that information to determine if a goal is needed. The IEP's statement of PLOP must include the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance including how the student's disability affects the student's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. 34 C.F.R. section 300.320(a)(1). For each area under PLOP, there should be a statement of how the student is currently performing as related to the grade level expectations based upon the content standards. This information can come from a variety of sources, including assessment data, classroom records, standardized testing, teacher input, progress reports, etc. Look at the PLOP to determine where there are areas where there is a "gap" between the grade level expectations and the child's functioning level.
What is the importance of including general education expectations in the IEP?
There is a preference in law and policy for including students with disabilities to the maximum extent possible in the regular education setting. Addressing general education curriculum expectations for students with disabilities, however, goes beyond the LRE debate. This issue is about the underlying goal of the IDEA to end the practice of "lowering expectations" for students with disabilities. Its about the ultimate goal of ensuring that students are educated in such a way that they are prepared for the world when they leave high school.
The IDEA "findings" state that "the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by... having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible, in order to meet the developmental goals and the challenging expectations that have been established for all children and... be prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives..." 20 U.S.C. section 1400(c).
No Child Left Behind reiterates this finding, noting that its purpose is to "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments." It goes on to indicate that this purpose can be achieved by "meeting the educational needs of low-achieving students, including students with disabilities." 20 U.S.C. section 6301.
Reflect on these considerations as you consider the appropriateness of IEP goals related to general education curriculum. A district team member once told me that the only way she would write an IEP goal related to a grade level math standard for a particular student was if the expectation was reduced from learning 30 numbers (as stated in the standard) to learning 15 numbers. When this kind of determination is made arbitrarily because of a misguided belief that grade level goals are not permissible, rather than based on any information about the child's actual levels of functioning, it is not conducive with meeting the purposes of the IDEA. Certainly, an arbitrary assumption that simply because a child is disabled, he could not possibly be expected to reach the grade level standard, is not "having high expectations for such children."
Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is the "I" in "IEP." The IEP must be individualized for the specific child based on his/her specific unique needs, strengths and levels of functioning, and considering information regarding how that child's specific disability affects his/her ability to progress in and participate in the general curriculum. The IEP must ensure that the child is able to make progress and receive a meaningful educational benefit. We should all be wary whenever we are told that "this district doesn't write those goals" or that inclusion of general education standards would "never be appropriate." Ultimately, whether the IEP should include a goal that is related to a general education content standard is an IEP team decision, and should be based on the specific scenario rather than any preconceived notions about the issue.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Switzer Learning Center
Yesterday, I visited and toured the Switzer Learning Center, a Nonpublic School (NPS) (for more about NPS placements - read our previous blog post from April 2009) in Torrance, California. Switzer if a specialized school for students grades 3 through 12 with learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, attention deficit disorders and behavioral disorders. It is an extremely small school, with currently around 92 students total.
Overview of the Program:
Switzer incorporates a clinical treatment program and behavior management throughout the school program. All students at all grade levels are on a behavior program that is based on reinforcement for positive behaviors, meaning that the students earn points for appropriate behaviors in each period of the school day. Additionally, the school keeps data on both negative or inappropriate behaviors and positive or "involvement" behaviors for every student, and utilizes a computer program to track progress and compare the student to the overall population of the school. The clinical treatment component also includes DIS counseling services for all students on a weekly basis, and availability of the counselors in the moment on an as needed basis.
There is one elementary school classroom, with students ranging from third through sixth grade, and one middle school class, with students from sixth through eighth grade. The high school classrooms are separate from the lower grade levels. The high school program includes six periods per day with the students changing classes and teachers for each class, similar to a traditional high school schedule. High school students can also be dually enrolled, either in a public high school in their home district, at the Southern California Regional Occupational Center (SCROC) in Torrance.
Other Things to Note:
Switzer is a good option for students who have behavior difficulties related to their disability.
It provides modified and individualized instruction within grade level curriculum standards, and also utilizes a specialized reading program, SRA-reading, to provide specialized intervention.
The behavior system is very positive and seems to be implemented consistently.
Switzer offers a diploma-bound curriculum, but does not provide the necessary classes and credits for a student to go straight into a 4-year university.
For more information about Switzer, visit their site directly at www.switzercenter.org. We can also help you with specific information about Non Public School placements.
Overview of the Program:
Switzer incorporates a clinical treatment program and behavior management throughout the school program. All students at all grade levels are on a behavior program that is based on reinforcement for positive behaviors, meaning that the students earn points for appropriate behaviors in each period of the school day. Additionally, the school keeps data on both negative or inappropriate behaviors and positive or "involvement" behaviors for every student, and utilizes a computer program to track progress and compare the student to the overall population of the school. The clinical treatment component also includes DIS counseling services for all students on a weekly basis, and availability of the counselors in the moment on an as needed basis.
There is one elementary school classroom, with students ranging from third through sixth grade, and one middle school class, with students from sixth through eighth grade. The high school classrooms are separate from the lower grade levels. The high school program includes six periods per day with the students changing classes and teachers for each class, similar to a traditional high school schedule. High school students can also be dually enrolled, either in a public high school in their home district, at the Southern California Regional Occupational Center (SCROC) in Torrance.
Other Things to Note:
Switzer is a good option for students who have behavior difficulties related to their disability.
It provides modified and individualized instruction within grade level curriculum standards, and also utilizes a specialized reading program, SRA-reading, to provide specialized intervention.
The behavior system is very positive and seems to be implemented consistently.
Switzer offers a diploma-bound curriculum, but does not provide the necessary classes and credits for a student to go straight into a 4-year university.
For more information about Switzer, visit their site directly at www.switzercenter.org. We can also help you with specific information about Non Public School placements.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
District obligations when you transfer schools
For any parent, the decision to transfer a child from one school to another is an overwhelming one. For parents of children with special needs, this decision is even more daunting. What does the school district have to do about your child's IEP? Does the new school have to assess? Does the new school have to hold an IEP meeting? Where should your child be placed in the mean time?
This blog is a brief overview of what the new school district must do, at least initially, to meet your child's educational needs. The following only applies to students, in California, who already have an IEP when they transfer.
1. Transfer from one district to another, within the same state
If you transfer within your same state to a new school district, then for up to 30 days the local educational agency must provide your child with FAPE. This offer of FAPE must include services comparable to those described in the previous IEP document and the new district should consult with the parents in determining what is "comparable."
At the 30 day point, the new school district must adopt the previously approved IEP that is consistent with the law.
2. Transfer from one district to another, within the same special education local plan area ("SELPA")
If you transfer districts, but you are within the same SELPA as the previous school (what is a SELPA?) the new district must continue, without delay, to provide services comparable to those described in the existing approved IEP unless the parent and the local educational agency agree to develop, adopt, and implement a new IEP that is consistent with the law.
3. Transfer from one state to another
If you transfer from another state into California, the local educational agency must provide the student with FAPE. These services must be comparable to those described in the previously approved IEP and the new district should consult with parents in determining what is "comparable."
In this scenario, the Education Code vaguely addresses assessments by stating that the local educational agency must provide FAPE until it conducts an assessment, if determined to be necessary by the local educational agency, and develops a new IEP, if appropriate, that is consistent with the law. However, there is no mandatory obligation that the new district conduct assessments.
4. Other Requirements
In addition to the above, the following requirements also apply:
So what does this all mean? If any confusion arises, remember, the bottom line is that the District still has the obligation to provide your child with FAPE. Even where there is an interim period, after the first 30 days, every child should be provided with an appropriate education to meet his or her unique educational needs.
What to watch out for? If you enter a new district and its offer of FAPE does not appear to be "comparable" to the placement and services in the previous IEP, then do not blindly accept the new district's offer. You still maintain all your parental rights. In this scenario, request a full battery of assessments and then an IEP meeting where those assessment results can be shared. It is important to keep in mind that the new school district does not yet know your child, so you may have to advocate harder than before to ensure it learns what your child's unique needs are, and what services are appropriate to meet those needs.
Any strategy? To avoid any additional confusion, in most cases, it is the best idea to ensure that before you transfer districts that you have an agreed upon and implemented IEP. However, this does not mean that you should consent to an IEP just for the sake of transferring - but where there is an appropriate IEP, make sure it is consented to and implemented before the transfer.
My situation is a little different.... Please, let us know if your scenario is not covered in the above, and we would love to participate in a discussion with you and other blog readers about what your options may be! (Contact special education attorneys)
This blog is a brief overview of what the new school district must do, at least initially, to meet your child's educational needs. The following only applies to students, in California, who already have an IEP when they transfer.
1. Transfer from one district to another, within the same state
If you transfer within your same state to a new school district, then for up to 30 days the local educational agency must provide your child with FAPE. This offer of FAPE must include services comparable to those described in the previous IEP document and the new district should consult with the parents in determining what is "comparable."
At the 30 day point, the new school district must adopt the previously approved IEP that is consistent with the law.
2. Transfer from one district to another, within the same special education local plan area ("SELPA")
If you transfer districts, but you are within the same SELPA as the previous school (what is a SELPA?) the new district must continue, without delay, to provide services comparable to those described in the existing approved IEP unless the parent and the local educational agency agree to develop, adopt, and implement a new IEP that is consistent with the law.
3. Transfer from one state to another
If you transfer from another state into California, the local educational agency must provide the student with FAPE. These services must be comparable to those described in the previously approved IEP and the new district should consult with parents in determining what is "comparable."
In this scenario, the Education Code vaguely addresses assessments by stating that the local educational agency must provide FAPE until it conducts an assessment, if determined to be necessary by the local educational agency, and develops a new IEP, if appropriate, that is consistent with the law. However, there is no mandatory obligation that the new district conduct assessments.
4. Other Requirements
In addition to the above, the following requirements also apply:
- The new school must "take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the pupil's records."
- Each local educational agency must ensure that assessments of individuals with exceptional needs are coordinated with the individual's prior and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible.
So what does this all mean? If any confusion arises, remember, the bottom line is that the District still has the obligation to provide your child with FAPE. Even where there is an interim period, after the first 30 days, every child should be provided with an appropriate education to meet his or her unique educational needs.
What to watch out for? If you enter a new district and its offer of FAPE does not appear to be "comparable" to the placement and services in the previous IEP, then do not blindly accept the new district's offer. You still maintain all your parental rights. In this scenario, request a full battery of assessments and then an IEP meeting where those assessment results can be shared. It is important to keep in mind that the new school district does not yet know your child, so you may have to advocate harder than before to ensure it learns what your child's unique needs are, and what services are appropriate to meet those needs.
Any strategy? To avoid any additional confusion, in most cases, it is the best idea to ensure that before you transfer districts that you have an agreed upon and implemented IEP. However, this does not mean that you should consent to an IEP just for the sake of transferring - but where there is an appropriate IEP, make sure it is consented to and implemented before the transfer.
My situation is a little different.... Please, let us know if your scenario is not covered in the above, and we would love to participate in a discussion with you and other blog readers about what your options may be! (Contact special education attorneys)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Residential Placements
What is a residential placement? When is it required? Who pays for the room and board cost? This blog will cover a basic overview of residential placements. Because often is is the student with mental health needs that need a therapeutic program like a residential school, this blog is part of our series for Children's Mental Health Awareness Day.
Residential schools can provide students with much needed consistency and intensity in their program, and can provide a therapeutic environment that may not be available in other settings. They exist on the "continuum of placements" under the IDEIA and state special education laws. Generally, residential placements are very restrictive settings, are very expensive, and are burdensome on the family unit, as the child has to be out of the home. Therefore, they are only appropriate as a consideration of the IEP team in situations where it is shown that they are required for that student.
Overview and Definitions:
A "residential placement" is a facility in which the student essentially lives at the school site and is in 24 hour custody. Residential schools are a type of therapeutic placement, and they provide a therapeutic component to address the student's mental health needs in conjunction with addressing the core educational curriculum and academics.
Students require residential placements for a variety of reasons and in a variety of situations. Residential placement is deemed appropriate when the therapeutic and residential components of the program are necessary in order for the student to receive an educational benefit. If placement in a residential program is necessary for the appropriate provision of special education and related services to the student, the program (including both therapeutic and educational components) must be provided at no cost to parents. Students who require residential programs are those for whom the educational needs and emotional needs are "intertwined" or "inseparable" from emotional needs, and a determination is made by the IEP team that the child requires therapeutic and habilitation services in order to "benefit from special education."
Some Basic Examples:
Student with extreme behavioral difficulties, who has been unable to learn appropriate behaviors in the school and community settings, or who is unable to generalize learned behaviors across settings to the extent that they are not able to benefit from the general education campus placement.
Students who require intensive 24-hour supervision and interventions to address aggressive, assaultive, destructive or self-injurious behaviors.
Students whose mental health needs are so significant that they impact their ability to participate in the school environment, attend school regularly, and function on a regular campus.
Students who have not made any progress in their emotional and behavioral goals in a less restrictive setting, and who require interventions across settings and in a therapeutic environment in order to benefit.
Payment for Residential Programs:
If a residential program is required for the student to receive FAPE, then it must be provided at no cost to parents. This does not mean, necessarily, that your school district will be paying the entire cost. Rather, states are permitted to have specific procedures and mechanisms in place to deal with funding for residential schools. In many states, there are cost-sharing arrangements between school districts (or "local education agencies" - LEAs), the state department of education (or "state education agencies" - SEAs), and / or other local or state government agencies. For example, in California, there are state-specific cost provisions that require the Department of Mental Health to fund the residential and therapeutic components of the program, if the child is eligible to recieve mental health services under the state's AB3632 provision.
Ultimately, it is the school district's responsibility to provide individual students with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). And the bottom line, therefore, is that if the student requires residential placement to recieve a FAPE, the District bears the burden of ensuring that it is provided at no cost to parents. There are certainly instances where a child may not qualify for eligibility under AB3632 or whatever program/agency the state has for mental health services, but still requires residential placement as part of their educational program. In those situations, the District must fund the placement, including the residential component, because to fail to do so would be a denial of FAPE to the student.
Residential schools can provide students with much needed consistency and intensity in their program, and can provide a therapeutic environment that may not be available in other settings. They exist on the "continuum of placements" under the IDEIA and state special education laws. Generally, residential placements are very restrictive settings, are very expensive, and are burdensome on the family unit, as the child has to be out of the home. Therefore, they are only appropriate as a consideration of the IEP team in situations where it is shown that they are required for that student.
Overview and Definitions:
A "residential placement" is a facility in which the student essentially lives at the school site and is in 24 hour custody. Residential schools are a type of therapeutic placement, and they provide a therapeutic component to address the student's mental health needs in conjunction with addressing the core educational curriculum and academics.
Students require residential placements for a variety of reasons and in a variety of situations. Residential placement is deemed appropriate when the therapeutic and residential components of the program are necessary in order for the student to receive an educational benefit. If placement in a residential program is necessary for the appropriate provision of special education and related services to the student, the program (including both therapeutic and educational components) must be provided at no cost to parents. Students who require residential programs are those for whom the educational needs and emotional needs are "intertwined" or "inseparable" from emotional needs, and a determination is made by the IEP team that the child requires therapeutic and habilitation services in order to "benefit from special education."
Some Basic Examples:
Student with extreme behavioral difficulties, who has been unable to learn appropriate behaviors in the school and community settings, or who is unable to generalize learned behaviors across settings to the extent that they are not able to benefit from the general education campus placement.
Students who require intensive 24-hour supervision and interventions to address aggressive, assaultive, destructive or self-injurious behaviors.
Students whose mental health needs are so significant that they impact their ability to participate in the school environment, attend school regularly, and function on a regular campus.
Students who have not made any progress in their emotional and behavioral goals in a less restrictive setting, and who require interventions across settings and in a therapeutic environment in order to benefit.
Payment for Residential Programs:
If a residential program is required for the student to receive FAPE, then it must be provided at no cost to parents. This does not mean, necessarily, that your school district will be paying the entire cost. Rather, states are permitted to have specific procedures and mechanisms in place to deal with funding for residential schools. In many states, there are cost-sharing arrangements between school districts (or "local education agencies" - LEAs), the state department of education (or "state education agencies" - SEAs), and / or other local or state government agencies. For example, in California, there are state-specific cost provisions that require the Department of Mental Health to fund the residential and therapeutic components of the program, if the child is eligible to recieve mental health services under the state's AB3632 provision.
Ultimately, it is the school district's responsibility to provide individual students with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). And the bottom line, therefore, is that if the student requires residential placement to recieve a FAPE, the District bears the burden of ensuring that it is provided at no cost to parents. There are certainly instances where a child may not qualify for eligibility under AB3632 or whatever program/agency the state has for mental health services, but still requires residential placement as part of their educational program. In those situations, the District must fund the placement, including the residential component, because to fail to do so would be a denial of FAPE to the student.
Friday, May 1, 2009
So what is a NPS anyways?
A Non-Public School ("NPS") is a privately operated, publicly funded school that specializes in providing educational services for students with needs so exceptional they cannot be met in a public school setting. (cacfs.org)
Can my child go to a NPS?
The decision to place a child in a NPS is an IEP team decision. In making a placement determination, the local education agency ("LEA") must ensure that a continuum of program options is available to meet the needs of your child. Thus, when a school district is making its offer to your child, it must consider all or any combination of the following:
Once your child is enrolled in a NPS, that NPS must provide all services specified in the IEP, unless the NPS and LEA agree otherwise.
NPS & the least restrictive environment ("LRE")
A frequently used phrase in special education is least restrictive environment.
Under the IDEIA, LRE is: "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities . . . are educated with children who are not disabled, and . . . removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(A).
Because NPS placement generally means that your child will not be educated with non-disabled peers, the IEP team should take into consideration your child's right to be educated in the LRE before placing him/her in a NPS. In accordance with the IDEIA and LRE, a NPS is appropriate if even with the use of supplementary aides and services, the student will not be able to access an educational benefit in the regular education environment.
Therefore, if you are at an IEP meeting and placement options are being discussed, and the resource, SDC and other supplementary aides/services available within the District are not appropriate to meet your child's unique needs and provide him/her with an educational benefit, then the appropriateness of a NPS should be discussed.
Can my child go to a NPS?
The decision to place a child in a NPS is an IEP team decision. In making a placement determination, the local education agency ("LEA") must ensure that a continuum of program options is available to meet the needs of your child. Thus, when a school district is making its offer to your child, it must consider all or any combination of the following:
- Regular Education
- Resource Specialist Program ("RSP")
- Designated Instruction and Services ("DIS")
- Special Day Classes ("SDC")
- Nonpublic, nonsectarian school ("NPS")
- State Special schools
- Instruction in other settings
- Itinerant instruction
- Instruction using telecommunication and instruction in the home, in hospitals and in other institutions
Once your child is enrolled in a NPS, that NPS must provide all services specified in the IEP, unless the NPS and LEA agree otherwise.
NPS & the least restrictive environment ("LRE")
A frequently used phrase in special education is least restrictive environment.
Under the IDEIA, LRE is: "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities . . . are educated with children who are not disabled, and . . . removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(A).
Because NPS placement generally means that your child will not be educated with non-disabled peers, the IEP team should take into consideration your child's right to be educated in the LRE before placing him/her in a NPS. In accordance with the IDEIA and LRE, a NPS is appropriate if even with the use of supplementary aides and services, the student will not be able to access an educational benefit in the regular education environment.
Therefore, if you are at an IEP meeting and placement options are being discussed, and the resource, SDC and other supplementary aides/services available within the District are not appropriate to meet your child's unique needs and provide him/her with an educational benefit, then the appropriateness of a NPS should be discussed.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Two Schools in Two Days
A2Z is often invited to open house events in Southern California to learn about and tour local non public schools. As these opportunities are made available to us, we will post to let you know about schools in your community and how they may be appropriate for your child.
Last week, I had the pleasure of touring two different schools in Los Angeles County: The Pacific Schools & Aviva High School
1. The HELP Group's Pacific Schools
Where: 15339 Saticoy Street, Van Nuys, California
What makes it unique: The Help Group's Pacific Schools are actually made up of 3 specialized programs: Pacific Ridge, Pacific Harbor and Project Six. In the Pacific Ridge and Pacific Harbor program, which are therapeutic day programs, the class size averages about 10 students with 2 adults. Various services, including family therapy, psychiatric services, counseling, speech and language services and Occupational Therapy are available on site. The Pacific Schools serve elementary, middle and high school aged students.
What I love about this school: The staff at the Pacific Schools place a strong emphasis on finding individualized incentives that are of interest to its students and using those things to help the student access his/her education. For instance, if your child is interested in playing instruments, sewing or guitar hero, these things would be made available as an incentive. For each program, there were "reward lounges" where students could play games, watch TV or use the computers. The importance of incorporating a child's interests into his/her program was a universal message across all three programs at the Pacific Schools. I believe that it was for this reason that the Pacific Schools had a personal touch where the personalities of the children were very evident.
2. Aviva High School
Where: 7120 Franklin Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046
What makes it unique: Aviva High School is one of the few all girl, non public schools in Los Angeles County. Aviva also has a residential treatment program that has 42 students enrolled in the high school. Aviva provides a range of on-site clinical and educational services. Aviva also offers a mandatory 6 week summer school program designed to enrich and broaden the students' reading, writing, and math skills and prepare them to pass the California HIgh School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Aviva High School has a maximum enrollment of 84 students. The maximum student:teacher ratio in class is 6:1. Over 95% of its students go on to post secondary programs, including universities and junior college.
Is it appropriate for your child? Aviva High School is appropriate for girls in grades 7 through 12 who need special academic, emotional, or behavioral support to maximize their educational potential. If your daughter requires a dual enrollment program, then Aviva may be the appropriate placement for her.
What I loved about this school: It was very clear that the staff at Aviva were dedicated not only to its students, but were also dedicated to working on improving the bureaucratic system that can often be an impediment to special education students. The staff at Aviva have forged relationships with individuals in the LAUSD system that are in charge of making important decisions, and are working with them to try to evoke a change in the system. This passion was not only present at the administrative level of Aviva, but was also apparent through the teachers, aides, and even hallway monitors at the school.
Last week, I had the pleasure of touring two different schools in Los Angeles County: The Pacific Schools & Aviva High School
1. The HELP Group's Pacific Schools
Where: 15339 Saticoy Street, Van Nuys, California
What makes it unique: The Help Group's Pacific Schools are actually made up of 3 specialized programs: Pacific Ridge, Pacific Harbor and Project Six. In the Pacific Ridge and Pacific Harbor program, which are therapeutic day programs, the class size averages about 10 students with 2 adults. Various services, including family therapy, psychiatric services, counseling, speech and language services and Occupational Therapy are available on site. The Pacific Schools serve elementary, middle and high school aged students.
- Pacific Ridge is a day program serving children and adolescents with special needs in the areas of emotional, behavioral and neurological challenges.
- Pacific Harbor is for students who internalize their feelings, such as depression and anxiety, and may display mild behaviors. This program is also appropriate for students with emotional disturbances that require more intensive and comprehensive mental health services.
- Project Six is a residential treatment center for adolescents with emotional and behavioral challenges.
What I love about this school: The staff at the Pacific Schools place a strong emphasis on finding individualized incentives that are of interest to its students and using those things to help the student access his/her education. For instance, if your child is interested in playing instruments, sewing or guitar hero, these things would be made available as an incentive. For each program, there were "reward lounges" where students could play games, watch TV or use the computers. The importance of incorporating a child's interests into his/her program was a universal message across all three programs at the Pacific Schools. I believe that it was for this reason that the Pacific Schools had a personal touch where the personalities of the children were very evident.
2. Aviva High School
Where: 7120 Franklin Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90046
What makes it unique: Aviva High School is one of the few all girl, non public schools in Los Angeles County. Aviva also has a residential treatment program that has 42 students enrolled in the high school. Aviva provides a range of on-site clinical and educational services. Aviva also offers a mandatory 6 week summer school program designed to enrich and broaden the students' reading, writing, and math skills and prepare them to pass the California HIgh School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Aviva High School has a maximum enrollment of 84 students. The maximum student:teacher ratio in class is 6:1. Over 95% of its students go on to post secondary programs, including universities and junior college.
Is it appropriate for your child? Aviva High School is appropriate for girls in grades 7 through 12 who need special academic, emotional, or behavioral support to maximize their educational potential. If your daughter requires a dual enrollment program, then Aviva may be the appropriate placement for her.
What I loved about this school: It was very clear that the staff at Aviva were dedicated not only to its students, but were also dedicated to working on improving the bureaucratic system that can often be an impediment to special education students. The staff at Aviva have forged relationships with individuals in the LAUSD system that are in charge of making important decisions, and are working with them to try to evoke a change in the system. This passion was not only present at the administrative level of Aviva, but was also apparent through the teachers, aides, and even hallway monitors at the school.
Friday, April 17, 2009
What About Methodology?
Methodology is a hot topic in cases, IEP meetings and discussions all across the country. With a plethora of programs available, emphasis on research, and an influx of stimulus package money intended to be used for programs and curriculum, the timing is ripe for more and more methodology disputes to emerge. We see these issues come up everyday, in situations ranging from parents who initially come to us because they want a specific methodology to due process cases involving school districts pretermining methodology. Mandy and I have given two presentations specifically on this topic recently.
Parents think of methodology in terms of programs and curriculum choices. Examples of particular "methodologies" are Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) or Discrete Trial Training (DTT) for students with autism, Lindamood Bell, Orton-Gillingham or the Wilson method for students with reading deficits. The list could go on and on. With a focus on research based interventions in not only IDEIA but also in No Child Left Behind, there are new programs or "methodologies" emerging all the time.
Here are some thoughts and ideas on these issues:
Methodology disputes arise when the disagreement is in regards to two or more options that could each appropriately meet the child's unique needs. As advocates and attorneys, we can go a long way towards dealing with these disputes simply by learning to anticipate and recognize when a school district is going to claim that the issue is solely related to methodology. School districts are given discretion in these cases, and are generally permitted to choose what methodology to employ, so long as the method chosen provides the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Anticipating these disputes and reframing the issue as being focused on FAPE, rather than a choice among programs, from the very beginning, is an excellent advocacy strategy.
Asking questions about the methodology choice can be very useful. The IEP team should be able to discuss what research exists to support the use of a particular program, who is trained to implement the program, and why a program was chosen over other methods. There may be perfectly valid justifications for a school district's choice, but parents need to understand that information in order to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.
Even though school districts have discretion in choices of methodology, that does not mean that procedural requirements under the law don't apply! School districts are not permitted to predetermine methodology for a particular student before an IEP discussion about the student's unique needs. They are also not permitted to have a blanket policy to refuse specific methodologies or programs.
Finally, remember that everyone needs to keep an open mind in these cases. Often both parents and school districts have very strong opinions about what will or won't work for a particular child. School districts could prevent a lot of these cases from being litigated if they would simply listen with an open mind to what parents and their experts are saying about the program and the child's unique needs. Parents should also keep an open mind about possible programs and about how those programs may possibly benefit their child. Not only might this result in preventing the dispute from ever arising, but it will also go a long way to helping the parents present their case down the line if in fact it results in litigation.
Parents think of methodology in terms of programs and curriculum choices. Examples of particular "methodologies" are Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) or Discrete Trial Training (DTT) for students with autism, Lindamood Bell, Orton-Gillingham or the Wilson method for students with reading deficits. The list could go on and on. With a focus on research based interventions in not only IDEIA but also in No Child Left Behind, there are new programs or "methodologies" emerging all the time.
Here are some thoughts and ideas on these issues:
Methodology disputes arise when the disagreement is in regards to two or more options that could each appropriately meet the child's unique needs. As advocates and attorneys, we can go a long way towards dealing with these disputes simply by learning to anticipate and recognize when a school district is going to claim that the issue is solely related to methodology. School districts are given discretion in these cases, and are generally permitted to choose what methodology to employ, so long as the method chosen provides the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Anticipating these disputes and reframing the issue as being focused on FAPE, rather than a choice among programs, from the very beginning, is an excellent advocacy strategy.
Asking questions about the methodology choice can be very useful. The IEP team should be able to discuss what research exists to support the use of a particular program, who is trained to implement the program, and why a program was chosen over other methods. There may be perfectly valid justifications for a school district's choice, but parents need to understand that information in order to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.
Even though school districts have discretion in choices of methodology, that does not mean that procedural requirements under the law don't apply! School districts are not permitted to predetermine methodology for a particular student before an IEP discussion about the student's unique needs. They are also not permitted to have a blanket policy to refuse specific methodologies or programs.
Finally, remember that everyone needs to keep an open mind in these cases. Often both parents and school districts have very strong opinions about what will or won't work for a particular child. School districts could prevent a lot of these cases from being litigated if they would simply listen with an open mind to what parents and their experts are saying about the program and the child's unique needs. Parents should also keep an open mind about possible programs and about how those programs may possibly benefit their child. Not only might this result in preventing the dispute from ever arising, but it will also go a long way to helping the parents present their case down the line if in fact it results in litigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)