Assessment, Individual Education Plans (IEP), Rights and more.......
 |
The Autistic Spectrum |
Educators for Social Responsibility. Learning (Dis) Abilities ~ Autism Polyxo.com is a resource driven by parents and professionals who are teaching children with autism. |
|
  “FAPE” for
the Autistic Child A FREE, APPROPRIATE AND
INDIVIDUALIZED PUBLIC EDUCATION I. INTRODUCTION II. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
OF THE IDEA III. OVERVIEW OF THE
IDEA IN COMPARISON TO SECTION 504 OF THE
REHABILITATION ACT AND
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) IV. QUALIFYING AS A CHILD
WITH A DISABILITY V. EARLY INTERVENTION
SERVICES FOR CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN
THREE YEARS OLD VI. SPECIAL EDUCATION VII. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROCESS VIII. APPROPRIATE EDUCATION IX. RELATED SERVICES
X. MAINSTREAMING, INTEGRATION,
FULL INCLUSION AND LEAST
RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT XI. MEDIATIONS AND DUE
PROCESS HEARINGS XII. OTHER IMPORTANT
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION XIII. CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------------- I. INTRODUCTION A. What is Special Education Law at Roberts, Adams & Jewell? 1. Special Education Law is a very focused legal practice area. As special
education attorneys, our aim is to empower parents of children with
disabilities to help their children achieve full potential in an educational
setting. Our firm strives to equip parents with self-advocacy skills. We hold seminars at parent
support group and regional center meetings, and provide
updated information on statutes and case law that regulate
special education on both the state and federal level. 2. A special education attorney represents children with disabilities at Individualized
Education Program meetings (also called "IEP" meetings), Due
Process Hearings and if the need arises in court proceedings. A special
education attorney represents the child's interests to ensure that he
receives all special education and related services (i.e., physical therapy,
speech therapy, etc.) available to him under the federal and state laws.
B. The State of California and Special Education 1. In the year 2000, Los Angeles Times reported that California is one of the worst states in terms of compliance with special education laws. One in every
ten children in Southern California has a disability that entitles
them to receive related services or Designated Instruction Services
(DIS). Related Services and DIS are two names that describe services given to children with disabilities that will help them to benefit
from their free appropriate public education. A school district's failure to
fund all necessary related
services to such a child is a violation of both state
and federal law. According to the Los Angeles Times there are currently
628,848 students receiving these services in California, approximately
8,291 of these children attend public school in Orange County.
C. What Laws Govern the Special Education Field? 1. There are both federal and state laws that govern the field of
special education. These
laws are: Þ The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") Þ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Þ The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Þ The California Education Code Þ Federal and state implementing regulations D. What Is The IDEA? 1. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") was enacted
in 1991 (an amended version of its predecessor the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act or EAHCA) to provide a free, appropriate and
individualized public education to eligible children with disabilities, given
in the least restrictive environment. In other words, IDEA is federal law and mandates that special education and related services are to be provided to children with disabilities at no cost to parents. 2. The IDEA was amended in 1997. The new IDEA focuses its attention on necessary related services (accommodations) for disabled children to have access to the general education curriculum. Previously, the law did not specifically
address general curriculum involvement of disabled students. The IDEA now focuses on improving teaching and learning
with a specific focus on the Individualized Education Program ("IEP")
as the primary means of developing a child's involvement in the
general curriculum. 3. The IDEA 1997 statutory language states "Over 20 years of research
and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with
disabilities can be made more effective by..having high expectations for
such children and ensuring their access in the general curriculum to the
maximum extent possible." 20 U.S.C. §1487 (5)(A). II. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE IDEA A. Civil Rights. IDEA is a "grant statute" that creates civil
rights. B. Substantive Protections. The IDEA requires: 1. All children with disabilities be given an education. 2. Education and Related Services must be provided up to the age
of 21 (California extends this to age 22). 3. Education must be free of charge to parents. 4. Education is not simply academic but includes self-help skills
and vocational skills. 5. Education must be provided in the "Least Restrictive
Environment" (LRE). 6. Education must be individualized and appropriate to the
child's needs. C. Procedure Protections. Procedural Protections of the
IDEA are: 1. A child's right to notice of a proposed decision about his
educational program. 2. Notice to parents of procedural protections and substantive
protections given to
them by the IDEA. 3. Right to an IEP. 4. Right to an administrative hearing, court hearing and the right to a record of the hearing. 5. Right for child to
remain in his educational setting until
dispute is resolved (Stay-Put
Provision). 6. Right to attorneys' fees if family is prevailing party at an
administrative hearing. III. OVERVIEW OF THE IDEA IN COMPARISON TO SECTION 504 OF
THE REHABILITATION ACT
AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT (ADA) A. Summary Of IDEA, Section 504, the ADA & CA Education
Code. 1. The IDEA is unique in comparison to Section 504 and the ADA in that the IDEA provides federal funding to states specifically for special
education programs and related services. 2. Section 504 is a non-discrimination
statute that makes it illegal for any programs receiving
federal funds to discriminate against an individual
based upon their disability. Section 504 requires public entities to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities as long as the accommodation doesn't fundamentally alter the program. 3. The ADA is similar to Section 504 except that there is no federal funding requirement. In other
words, even private entities (private schools) not receiving
federal funds are subject to the ADA's anti-discrimination
provisions and are mandated to provide reasonable accommodations
to disabled persons. 4. The California Education Code given educational rights similar to what the IDEA and Section 504 provide to children with disabilities. In some cases,
the California Education Code grants more rights and privileges
to children than federal law. IV. QUALIFYING AS A CHILD WITH A DISABILITY A. General Requirements. A child must
be assessed to determine whether he has a disability
that is covered under the IDEA, Section 504 and the
ADA or a combination of the three before related services
and special education will be provided. 1. IDEA Requirements. The IDEA covers people with the following disabilities:
"mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness),
speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including
blindness), serious emotional disturbance (hereinafter referred to
as 'emotional disturbance'), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain
injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; who,
by reason thereof, need special education or related services. The
term 'child with a disability'
for a child aged 3 through 9 may, at the discretion
of the State and the local educational agency, include a child experiencing
developmental delays." 2. Section 504 Requirements. Section 504 covers people with the following
disabilities: "any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment
which substantially limits one or more major life activities, (ii) has
a record of such impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment."
3. ADA Requirements. The ADA covers people with the same disabilities as
Section 504, but the ADA applies to public and private entities. B.Labeling And The IDEA. Some problems with the IDEA definitional requirements
include: Labels do not always
correctly represent the characteristics of the child. Labeling can stigmatize
a child in school. Labeling can create a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Labels do not help teachers
in finding an effective way to educate children. Some District's make
offers of placement and services to your child based on his/her label rather than his/her unique needs. V. EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES FOR CHILDREN YOUNGER
THAN THREE YEARS OLD A. General. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") establishes important rights for and provides support services for children with disabilities including children from ages zero to two years as well. B. Purpose. The purpose of a law that provides early intervention
services is to enhance the development of infants and toddlers
with disabilities and to minimize the potential for delay. It is also designed to reduce educational costs by minimizing the need for special education and related services after infants and toddlers reach school age. C. Infant/Toddler. An infant or toddler with a disability means an individual
younger than three years old who needs early intervention services
because they are experiencing developmental delays in one or more
of the following areas: cognitive development, physical or motor development,
social or emotional development, or adaptive development. If a child is experiencing such a delay a referral may be made orally or in
writing by a parent to the regional center or school
district. D. Process. Once a referral has been made, the regional center
or the school district must complete an evaluation and
assessment, hold a meeting to determine eligibility,
and develop an Individual Family Service Plan ("IFSP")
within forty five days of receipt of the referral. The IFSP identifies the services appropriate to meet the unique needs of the infant or toddler. The IFSP must
be in writing and will include a number of
items, such as: a statement
of the infant's present levels of development, a statement
of the family's concerns, priorities and resources, a statement of
specific services including how often, how much, method of delivery, and
dates for initiation of services. E. Responsible Agencies. In California, early intervention services are provided under public supervision and at no cost to families. The services
must be designed to meet the infant or toddler's individual developmental
needs. They may include such things as: special education,
speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy,
psychological services, parent and family training and counseling,
among others. Note that these services may be provided in the home, depending on the infant and family's needs. If there is a disagreement between
the parents and the district as to placement or early
intervention services, the parents may file for a due process hearing. If the IFSP is not being implemented or administered properly, the parents can file a compliance complaint to address the issue. VI. SPECIAL EDUCATION A. Definition. Special education is specifically designed instruction,
at no cost to the parent, designed to meet the unique needs of a
child with disabilities. Instruction can include classroom instruction, home instruction as well as instruction provided in hospitals and institutions. B. Individualized and Appropriate. One of the major principles
of the IDEA is that the education of your child must
be individualized and appropriate to your child's needs. In order for a school to receive federal funding
and support under IDEA, the state must have a policy that ensures
all children with disabilities receive a Free And Appropriate Education ("FAPE"). The IDEA requires that the
development of an appropriate special education program
and related services occur through the development of
an individualized education program "IEP"). VII. INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROCESS A. IEP. The IEP contains a written statement describing the child's present educational performance, short-term objectives and annual goals for development, specific services to be used, dates to begin and duration of those services, criteria, schedules, and procedures
for evaluating whether those objectives are being met. B. How Does It Start? To begin the IEP process and request special
education services for a child, a parent may simply write a letter to a
child's teacher, principal, or the special education administrative office. That letter tells the school that you are concerned about your child's educational process. The letter may also request that the school begin assessments for special education. The
school district must provide the parents with an assessment
plan within fifteen days of receipt of the letter.
Parents then have ten days in which to give consent to any assessments contained
in the plan. C. What If I Want A New
IEP? If a child is already receiving special
education services, a parent can request a new IEP be scheduled whenever
they feel it is needed. The parent simply requests in writing that a new IEP be scheduled and the timelines stay in place. The parent may also request new,
additional, or different assessments are done prior to the
IEP. An IEP is required to be held at least annually. D. What Should I Expect
At The Meeting? The IEP is developed at
a meeting. The school district must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of the student attend the meeting and have the opportunity to participate. The
school must give advanced notice of the meeting written
in the parents native language and the meeting must be at a
mutually agreed upon place and time, or by conference call at the parents
request. The statute is clear and holds that the parent of a child with a disability is an equal member of the IEP team. E. Who Can I Bring To
The Meeting? A parent may bring whomever
they wish to the IEP meeting including, but not limited to an attorney,
an advocate, a caseworker, or a friend. The school district must ensure that the following people attend the meeting: at least one parent,
at least one regular education teacher if the child
is or may be participating in a regular education environment,
at least one special education teacher, a district agency
representative who has authority to approve all funding
for related services, the persons who conducted
assessments of the child
or a person qualified to interpret those
assessments, and the
child if appropriate. VIII. APPROPRIATE EDUCATION A. What Is An Appropriate
Education? Unfortunately the term "appropriate"
as written in the statute is subjective and difficult to define. This is because the IEP is to be developed to meet the specific needs of the individual child, supported by such services as are necessary for that
child to benefit from the instruction. Noticeably absent
in the language of IDEA are substantive definitions
related to what levels of instruction are necessary. B. Different Standards Of "Appropriate". Some states require
that a child meet their maximum potential. Other states only open the door and
make access meaningful. California does not require a child to meet maximum potential. Instead,
California follows the federal standard. That
standard has been set forth in Board of Education v. Rowley. The Rowley standard holds that the state must provide the child with specifically designed instruction and supportive services necessary for that child to obtain some educational benefit from that instruction. Two
good measures to determine
whether a child is receiving an appropriate education
under this standard are: Þ If the child is mainstreamed in a typically developing classroom, the child should be progressing through grades with a grade average of at least a "C;" or Þ The second, and more common method, is if the child is meeting the short-term objectives and annual goals as set forth in their IEP. Þ However, in many cases children may meet the two above-referenced
criteria and still not be receiving FAPE for a number of reasons
such as inappropriate goals and objectives, differential grading, the
program does not address the child's specific areas of need among many
other reasons. IX. RELATED SERVICES "Related Services" (called "Designated Instruction and Services" or "DIS"
in California), are defined as any service that is necessary to help a child
benefit from her special education program. In other words, "to benefit from special education" generally means that the service must assist the child in making progress toward accomplishing the goals set out in the IEP. Examples of Related
Services include: A. Transportation (to & from school or alternative placement from the child's home). B. Speech-Language Pathology. C. Discrete Trial ABA/IBI or behavioral therapy. D. Psychological services. E. Physical and Occupational Therapy. F. Recreation (including therapeutic). G. Counseling services. X. MAINSTREAMING, INTEGRATION, FULL INCLUSION AND LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT A. Legal Development. Another fundamental principle of the IDEA is the requirement that children with disabilities receive their education with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible. While the term "mainstreaming" is
not found in the language of either the statute or its
regulations, the concept of the least restrictive environment is
provided for in the regulations. B. IDEA. Federal law provides in part that each local educational
agency must ensure that:".to the maximum extent appropriate,
children with disabilities, including children in public
or private institutions or other care facilities, are
educated with children who are not disabled, and special
day classes, separate schooling or other 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." C. Definitions. 1. "Mainstreaming" refers to the placement of a student with disabilities into the activities of regular classrooms with typically
developing peers. There is a strong congressional and judicial
preference for mainstreaming. Children should be nainstreamed even if to
accomplish such would require that special education staff be present, or
the use of supplementary aides and services would be necessary. 2. "Integration" generally refers to mainstreaming a student into a regular class as well as providing access to and participation in other activities within the school environment.
For example, a student may spend part of his
day in a special day class and another part of his day in a
regular classroom with typically developing peers. The student should have access to non-academic activities with typically developing peers, such as recess, lunch, and dances. Integration
is often used to describe
the idea of integrating
both the special day class and the regular
classroom as appropriately
as possible. This term would differ
significantly from the
concept of full inclusion. 3. "Full inclusion" refers to the total integration of a student with disabilities into the regular education program. This may be
accomplished with the
assistance of all necessary support services. Essentially,
the student with a disability is a member of an age appropriate regular
classroom full-time, with no assignment to a special day class. The student may not be in that class all of the time. He may need to leave in order to
receive the appropriate related services developed in his IEP,
such as physical therapy,
speech therapy, or occupational therapy. Remember
that LRE is an important concept in the IDEA. It is not the only consideration
for each child. Each child's education must be individualized
and appropriate for that child. 4. The Rachel Holland Test. In
considering whether a placement is appropriate for a
child, courts have generally looked at the four-factor analysis
found in the Rachel Holland case. This case establishes the four part Ninth Circuit test, which holds that the court must examine: a. Educational benefits available to child
in regular classroom supplemented with appropriate aides
and services as compared with educational benefits of
a special education classroom; b. Non-academic benefits to child of interaction
with children who are not disabled; c. Effect of presence on teacher and other
children in classroom in terms of disruptive behavior
and/or undue consumption of the teacher's time; and d. Cost of mainstreaming in regular classroom. Note that while the Rachel
Holland case mentioned that cost was a factor to be
considered in determining appropriate placement, it also held that providing
a part-time academic aide and making curriculum modifications would
have cost the school no more than special education placement. Generally the majority of the related services necessary for a child to be
placed in a regular classroom setting would cost the
district little or no expense. XI. MEDIATIONS AND DUE PROCESS HEARINGS A. Mediations 1. What Is A Mediation? A mediation is a voluntary, confidential,
and informal meeting at which the parties and an experienced,
impartial mediator attempt to resolve the dispute in
a non-adversarial atmosphere. The
mediator does not provide advocacy or legal advice to either side but facilitates
communication between the parties. The participation of the
neutral mediator increases
the possibility that the parties will reach a mutually
satisfactory resolution. 2. What Are The Benefits Of Mediation? The vast majority
of
disputes resolve through
mediation. Mediation is the preferred method of resolving
disputes for a number of reasons, including the following: a. The Continuing Relationship Between Parties- mediation helps to maintain a cooperative relationship in the future if the dispute is settled
by mutual agreement; b. Flexibility- mediation allows a great deal of flexibility in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement/written agreement. When a dispute goes to hearing, the
hearing officer makes the final decision that may not satisfy
either party; c. Immediate Implementation- if an agreement is reached in mediation, the resolution is written into the form of an agreement that same day and
can be immediately implemented. Hearing decision take much longer; d. Less Costly- mediation is less costly in terms of money, time and personal stress. B.
Due Process Hearings 1. What Is A Due Process Hearing? A special education due
process hearing is a
formal proceeding where the parties are given the opportunity
to present witnesses, documentary evidence, and oral and written
argument in support of their respective positions on disputed special
education issues. The due process system is designed to resolve disputes between educational agencies and parents of a child with a disability or a child suspected of having a disability. 2. How Does A Party Proceed To A Due Process Hearing?
When a party requests
a hearing, the Special Education Hearing Office notifies
the other party and sets a hearing date. At the same time, the Hearing Office automatically assigns a mediator to the case to give the parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute without going to hearing. If the dispute
is not resolved through mediation, or if one of the parties elects
not to mediate, the case proceeds to hearing. 3. What Is The Difference Between A Due Process Hearing And
Mediation? Compared to mediation, a due process hearing is a more formal,
trial-like legal proceeding. At the hearing, all parties are given a chance to present evidence and argument before an impartial hearing officer. The hearing officer
then issues a written decision, which is the final administrative
decision resolving the matter. XII. OTHER IMPORTANT TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION A. Behavior plans. B. Student Discipline, Suspension/Expulsion. NOTE: Pre-Expulsion Assessment (Cal. Educ. Code § 48915.5)- the pre-expulsion
assessment provision of this section provision was removed
from the 2003 California Education Code. Section 48915.5 no longer has a provision that requires a pre-expulsion assessment. Under the law as it exists now, a
district is not required to conduct an assessment prior
to removing a student with a disability from his or her current
placement. However, the procedural safeguards under 34 C.F.R. § 300.519 through § 300.529 still apply.
These provisions require a district to hold an
IEP meeting within 10 days of removing a student from his or
her placement. C. DTT v. TEECH v. IBI as a related service. D. Compliance Complaints/Due Process. E. SOL and Timelines. F. Stay puts. G. Attorneys Fees. H. Assessment and Testing. I. Medication XII. YEAR IN REVIEW-Case and Hearing Office Decisions that effect
autistic children A. Byron Union Sch. Dist., 35 IDELR 49 (SEA CA 2001) 1. Facts: Hearing Officer rejected the district's contention
that an 11-year-old student with autism required placement
in special day class in order to receive FAPE. Hearing Officer agreed with parents claim that student
was making progress in regular classroom, and that placement was
the LRE. 2. What This Means: Nonacademic benefits of a regular
education placement must
be considered in evaluating the student's LRE (least
restrictive environment). Interaction with peers should be considered as a factor. B.
Amanda J. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 35 IDELR 65 (9th Cir. 2001) 1. Facts: The district's failure to give parents copies of
evaluation reports violated
the procedural requirements of the IDEA and denied the
student FAPE. 2. What This Means: Procedural errors that prevent parents from
fully participating in
the creation of an IEP and result in lost educational opportunity
for the student will be considered a significant IDEA violation and
deprivation of FAPE. C. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 35 IDELR
21 (SEA CA 2001) 1. Facts: Parents removed their son from the district's
placement and unilaterally
placed him in a private school. Parents were only
awarded reimbursement for 70% of the private school tuition because
the private school lacked a therapy component and the parent did
not give the district proper notice of their intent to place the student in a
private school. 2. What This Means: Even if a school district denies a student
FAPE, parents must demonstrate
the appropriateness of a private placement prior to
enrolling their child in such a placement. D. Pleasant Valley Sch. Dist.,
35 IDELR 76 (SEA CA 2001) 1. Facts: District's OT services as set forth in IEP were not
designed to meet the
autistic student's unique needs and did not provide an
educational benefit. In addition to awarding compensatory OT, the hearing officer ordered the district to reimburse the parents' insurance company for the cost of their privately obtained OT. 2. What This Means: Parents of students with disabilities cannot
be required to utilize
their private medical insurance benefits when the use
of those benefits would cause them to incur a financial loss. E. Buckhannon Board & Care Home,
Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Services,
35 IDELR 160 (U.S. 2001) 1. Facts: The U.S. Supreme
Court held in Buckhannon that
prevailing party status
(for the purpose of recovering attorneys fees in ADA
and FHAA cases) was not appropriate when a party failed to secure judgment
on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but nonetheless
achieved the desired result because the suit brought about a voluntary
change in defendant's conduct. 2. What This Means: The
effect of this case on IDEA cases is
unclear because the decision
does not specifically mention the IDEA. But it
may affect IDEA cases in the future. Some Circuits have applied this reasoning to IDEA cases holding that parents cannot seek an award of attorneys fees and costs without an change in the legal relationship of the
parties such as an issuance of a Consent Decree. The 9th Circuit (this includes
California) has recently held that a legally enforceable settlement agreement
is sufficient. Please note as indicated below that in Student with a Disability v. Oxnard Union High, 37 IDELR 4 (C.D. Cal. 2002) this reasoning has been extended to include an IDEA case. F. Zasslow v. Menlo Park City Sch. Dist.,
2001 WL 1488617 (N.D. Cal. 2001). 1. Facts: Parents raised several issues
at a due process hearing. They
obtained the desired result on some of the issues, but not on all of the
issues. 2. What This Means: Under the precedent set in the 9th Circuit, parents do not have to prevail on every issue at due process to considered a prevailing party. To receive
an award of attorneys' fees it is sufficient that "some"
relief is obtained. 3. The 9th Circuit has frequently reiterated what has been
called the Significant Issue Test. This test comes from Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
424 (1983). Ninth Circuit case law generally adopted this approach, which allows parents to recover all of their attorney fees, as prevailing
parties, as long as they succeed on any significant
issue. Success is not limited to the due process hearing
context, but also extends to settlement and mediation. Therefore, parents' ability to recover attorneys' fees is broad. G. Johnson v. Special Education Hearing Office, 36 IDELR 207 (9th Cir. 2002). 1. Facts: Parents of a 3-year-old with autism was not allowed to
revise a stay-put order. The order allowed the district to provide services comparable
to those listed in the IFSP, rather than the exact same educational
program. 2. What This Means: Parents may not be entitled to the exact
same vendors and providers
under stay put. If a district provides a comparable
program, it may be enough. H. Student with a Disability v. Oxnard Union High,
37 IDELR 4 (C.D. Cal. 2002) 1. Facts: Court held that the parents' legally enforceable private
settlement was enough
for them to be declared the prevailing party for purposes
of attorneys fees. The Court also applied a three-year statute of limitations to the action. 2. What This Means: If parents reach a settlement with the
district prior to hearing,
they can be the prevailing party and may initiate a separate
action seeking to recover attorneys fees. Parents have three years to bring an action in district court for attorneys fees. 3. Warning: Districts are also aware of these recent decisions
regarding attorney fees
and costs. Unfortunately, some Districts will not severe
the issues of attorneys fees in their settlement agreements and may
even force parents to barter educational programming against their attorney
fees. I. Regan-Adkins v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist.,
37 IDELR 69 (9th Cir. 2002) 1. Facts: 9th Circuit
concluded that there is a legal presumption
in favor of educating
students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers
to the maximum extent possible. 2. What This Means: IDEA's mainstreaming provision directs
district not to remove
a disabled child from a regular classroom unless the
nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes
cannot be achieved satisfactorily. J. Goleta Union Elementary School v. Ordway,
166 F. Supp. 2d
1287 (C.D. Cal. 2001) 1. Facts: The district, under supervision of a district
administrator, unilaterally
removed a student from his placement under his IEP and
placed him in a residential facility. Parents were permitted to bring a claim against the district administrator for damages under § 1983,
for violating the student's Civil Rights. 2. What This Means: A separate action for damages against a
district official is
permissible. Parents may recover damages under § 1983 for
violating provisions of the IDEA. K. Gellerman v. Calaveras Unified Sch. Dist., 37 IDELR 125 (9th Cir. 2002) 1. Facts: Court held that the district did not have a legal
obligation to provide
a classroom aide of the parents' choice as long as the
aide selected is qualified. 2. What This Means: As
long as the district selects a qualified
classroom aide, they
are complying with the law. L. Robb v. Bethel Sch. Dist. #403, 37 IDELR 243
(9th Cir 2002) 1. Facts: Court held that parents could not bring a § 1983 action
for damages until they
exhausted their IDEA administrative remedies because
they raised issues that could be redressed by the IDEA administrative
process. 2. What This Means: This prevents parents from circumventing
the IDEA exhaustion of
remedies requirement by limiting their claim to only
money damages. The exhaustion requirement is excused, however, when allegations that cannot be redressed by the IDEA's administrative
procedure, such as abuse,
are involved. M. Porter v. Board of Trustees of Manhattan Beach Unified
Sch.
Dist., 37 IDELR 241 (9th
Cir. 2002) 1. Facts: Parents were not required to exhaust the IDEA
administrative process
after they obtained a due process decision. 2. What This Means: When parents prevail at due process under
the IDEA, they are not
further required to proceed through the
administrative process
before they file a court action. XIII. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the IDEA
is written to involve parents as equal members of the
IEP Team. Section 504, the ADA and the California Education Code work to fill in the any gaps for students with disabilities. At Roberts, Adams & Jewell, we believe that it is important that parents of children
with disabilities be fully informed as to their rights
and responsibilities under the law. Knowledge of the law can itself be the most powerful problem
solver for parents. We understand that parents of children with
disabilities will have
to work with their local school district for many years to
come. For this reason we strive to build a powerful relationship between a well-informed parent and an experienced legal representative. This relationship
will secure the appropriate services and protect the rights
of the disabled child. http://www.tacanow.com/specialedparentinfo.htm ******************************************
The umbrella term "autistic spectrum disorders" is used to acknowledge
that there is a range of disorders that share characteristics and includes both autism and Asperger syndrome. The focus of
this resource is on students in the middle rather than at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Autistic spectrum disorders are a group of pervasive developmental
disorders. They are relatively uncommon, can affect one person completely differently from another, and are life-long. Skill
development can be very uneven. For example, a person with one of the disorders may be extremely gifted in some academic areas
and yet show very poor ability in others. Another may have poor social and self-management skills. Every student with an autistic spectrum disorder will have a unique
range of abilities and needs. Each person on the autistic spectrum will show particular characteristics
to varying degrees and in unique combinations. All people with autistic spectrum disorders have what is referred to as the
"triad of impairments": Although it is relatively easy to describe the characteristics of
autistic spectrum disorders, diagnosis is a complex process because it is only in particular combinations of several of these
characteristics that the diagnosis is made. However, the earlier the diagnosis, the better the chances are of that person
receiving appropriate help and support. Autistic spectrum disorders are pervasive. This means they affect
the individual at school, at home, in play, fun and relaxation, on the sports field, within their family and, in the community
and while pursuing their special interests. Those who spend the most time with the student (especially their families) will
understand their abilities and difficulties, obsessions and phobias. They are likely to have developed many coping strategies
that, when shared, will help everyone to tune into the student's unique needs. How Teachers Can Make a Difference Good teaching can make a difference, and high expectations (as
long as they accept the child's difficulties) are as important ... in autism as for any other group. [Author Unknown] Finding practical and effective approaches to enable a student to
achieve their goals depends on identifying particular strengths and weaknesses, interests and aversions. Students with autistic
spectrum disorders are actively seeking to make sense of a confusing world. Their problem-solving strategies may appear unusual
to other people but not to them - they are simply working through a process. For most students, school is a rich social environment, which can
be surprising, stimulating, exciting and challenging. It provides opportunities for experimenting, engaging and learning. For almost all students with an autistic spectrum disorder, however,
school is a confusing, demanding and noisy place. It challenges their need for order and predictability. They can try very
hard every day to work out the rules and do the same things as other students, but their disability means that they can still
get it wrong, get laughed at and feel little sense of belonging or achievement. A normal day at school can leave them feeling
anxious, overloaded, distressed and with low self-esteem. Practical strategies can make a significant difference to the student,
through supporting their social and communication skills and adapting and interpreting the school environment to their needs.
The quality of life of someone with autism depends more on the
way we can adapt to their differences - rather than modify their efforts. [Author Unknown] People with autistic spectrum disorders are highly individual and
need equally individual packages of support. The first step towards providing support is for those working closely with the
student to assemble an individual profile, including unique skills and needs. The family, school support staff and specialized
team can then use this profile as the basis for individual education programs. The specialized team may include a specialist
teacher or a Resource Teacher: Learning and Behavior, and a special education provider such as Specialist Education Services.
No one person will have all the skills and expertise required. Together the team will provide the complementary skills required
to meet the student's needs. It is only by understanding the particular challenges faced by students
at school that teachers are able to make changes and use strategies that reduce stress and increase success. Each student with an autistic spectrum disorder is so unique that
it is hard to make any generalizations. There is no "one size fits all" approach. However the following are examples of some
strategies which have been found to be successful in overcoming the specific difficulties explained in the "triad of impairments".
When used in conjunction with an understanding of the individual student, teachers should find these strategies make a significant
contribution towards improving the learning environment and outcomes. Sometimes the channels get confused as when the sounds come through
as color, sometimes I know something is coming in somewhere but I can't tell right away what sense it is coming through.
[Author unknown] Students may be over reactive (hypersensitive) to things sensory
or under reactive. They may only be able to use or focus on one sensory channel at a time and/or have difficulty identifying
which sense is receiving a message. They may have one or more preferred sense that they rely on to give them information on
the world. Autobiographies from people with autistic spectrum disorders have
given us a unique insight into these difficulties. I have caught myself turning off the car radio while trying to
read a road sign or turning off the kitchen appliances so that I could taste something. [Author Unknown] Scratchy petticoats were like sandpaper scraping away at raw nerve
endings. [Temple Grandin] Strategies It was years before I realized that other people are guided
by their emotions during most social interactions. For me the proper behavior during social interactions had to be learned
by intellect. I became more skilled at social interaction as I became Many people with autistic spectrum disorders can only see the world
from their own point of view. Consequently they have difficulty in developing empathy or responding appropriately to the emotional
state of others around them. They use the same process for storing social messages as they do factual messages and are therefore
unable to generalize what they learn and apply this knowledge to other situations. I have great difficulty with new social situations if I cannot
recall a similar situation to use as a guide. After many years I have learned by rote how to act in a number of different
situations. [Temple Grandin] Strategies
It was ages before I realized that people speaking might be demanding
my attention. [Author Unknown] Some students can speak well but most of their language may actually
be repeating by rote something they have heard from videos, books or other sources. All students with autistic spectrum disorders
will have problems using language for social interaction. They process language (particularly oral language) slowly and with
difficulty and while they are listening, the words can also trigger a lot of irrelevant information. They tend to have difficulties
filtering out the unimportant details which means that by the time they are finally tuned to the same "channel" as the speaker,
the moment for responding has passed. Although the extent of these difficulties will vary, all students
with autistic spectrum disorders find verbal information a challenge and have difficulty in following multiple verbal instructions.
Teachers can help compensate for this by keeping directions to a minimum, providing clear instructions, and using visual cues.
Strategies
The aim must be not to fit pupils into the curriculum but to see
what aspects ... can be used to meet their needs. [Author Unknown] Students with autistic spectrum disorders often have restricted interests.
Some students have only one obsession eg, trains, and they are very difficult to motivate on other topics. Some subjects such as social studies are particularly difficult because
they require students to use perspective and insight, which are skills they may not possess. In other areas, such as science,
they may be capable but find skills such as prediction difficult and become very anxious because they cannot bear to be wrong.
Health education may be challenging for students with autistic spectrum
disorders, particularly for more able students going through adolescence. Students are prone to low self-esteem and depression
and often their lack of social skills are exacerbated at this time. Strategies Predictability Reality to an Autistic person is a confusing mass of events, people,
places, sounds and sights. There seem to be no clear boundaries, order or meaning to anything. A large part of my life is
spent in trying to work out the pattern behind everything. Set routines, times, particular routes and rituals all help to
get order into an unbearably chaotic life. [Therese Joliffe] A predictable daily environment will result in significant reduction
in anxiety and corresponding improvements in behavior. However, there will be inevitable changes of plan and times of transition
from one schedule or setting to another. It is crucial to find ways to prepare students for these changes. Students become very "tuned in" to particular thoughts, ideas and
routines and it is difficult for them to shift attention from one activity or setting to the next. Transition between activities,
locations and classrooms, between home and school, and between school and other environments needs to be carefully planned
and managed to achieve success. Students with autistic spectrum disorders also usually like logical
rules. They may be able to recite all of the class or school rules and become the class "police" by reporting infringements.
However, because they lack an understanding of the "why" of the rules, they are often unable to generalize the required behavior
appropriately. Strategies Overload is the single biggest problem for students in the school
setting. Positive learning outcomes will depend on the student having sufficient personal space, time to process instructions,
time to recover and feel success from their efforts, and appropriate rewards. Strategies
The most difficult behaviors occur when a student is trying to convey
that they are not coping with expectations or the situation. It is usually best to deal with behavior alternatives after the
incident has passed. The key is to explore what has triggered the response. It will almost
certainly be related to the student not understanding what is being asked of them, feeling that they are not being understood,
or going into "overload". They are often keen to "get it right" but they don't know what "it"
is unless it is explained to them. Programs for behavior change will include targeted teaching of social skills (and assistance
to generalize) as well as specific behavior alternatives. To be effective, these new behaviors often need to be scripted and
rehearsed. Students are unlikely to generalize new behaviors until they can understand the "why" as well as the "what". Some students may seem defiant, rude or non-compliant. They
will often actually be repeating something they have seen or heard and do not understand that it is not appropriate. Students
develop behaviors as a defense for aversive situations. It is therefore better to deal with difficult situations at the initial
stage, before the development of more challenging secondary behaviors. Behaviors such as repetitive flapping, pacing, spinning, singing
or laughing usually indicate a need for some respite or other help. Strategies
Below are some strategies for non-curricular activities which
students often find most difficult:
Working with a student with an autistic spectrum disorder requires
a team approach. It is highly advisable to draw on experiences from parents, families, and other professionals to develop
or add to an individual profile. This profile becomes the unique snapshot of the student and is likely to include:
Teachers who find the most success with students with autistic
spectrum disorders will:
"Standardized Tests and Students with An Autism Spectrum Disorder" Contributed by Rachel Loftin ~ Indiana Resource Center for Autism-Reporter What are standardized tests? Standardized tests can include a variety of tasks designed to garner
knowledge about an individual or group's knowledge, abilities or other traits. These sets of tasks are carefully assessed
to ensure that they validly and reliably
measure given characteristics. Typically, this process involves administering the test to a sample of individuals who are
representative of the population on whom the test will be used. Standardized tests may be administered individually or as a group. A discussion of group administered standardized tests, such as the I-STEP,
is certainly important but will not be addressed here. Students' scores on these tests have less impact on intervention and
programming decisions for individual students. Often, group administered tests serve only as a screening procedure for referring
students for special education eligibility assessments or, more obviously, for assessing the achievement of the school as
a whole. Group administered assessments are rarely adequate for assessing an individual student's academic performance. Because
they were developed with the needs of individuals with autism in mind, standardized assessments used to diagnose autism, such
as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) (Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 2000), are also omitted from this
discussion. What are individually administered standardized tests? Most state and local educational agencies require the use of individually
administered standardized tests when making special education eligibility decisions. Selected tests may include intelligence
tests (which yield IQ or ability scores), academic tests (which measure achievement), and personality tests (which yield emotional
or behavioral information). It is the responsibility of the school psychologist to select which tests will best provide information
to address the referral question. Once tests are selected, the school psychologist makes decisions about how to best administer
the instrument and interpret the results. Standardized assessment tools have rigid administration guidelines. The obtained
scores are only valid if these guidelines are followed. What does this have to do with autism? For students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), standardized assessments
present a host of difficulties. When testing children with ASD, it may be difficult or impossible to adhere to the administration
guidelines and still elicit the
student's best performance. Tests that are highly dependent on language comprehension, for example,
may be biased against students with ASD (Watson & Marcus, 1999). Specifically, tests that require lengthy verbal directions
and verbal responses are almost always inappropriate. Even on the performance subtests, receptive language skills are required
to understand the directions. The communication deficit faced by all students with ASD puts them at a disadvantage on tests
dependent on receptive and expressive language use. Other characteristics of Autism spectrum disorders affect the standardized
testing situation. In addition to language skill deficits, a student with ASD may lack other skills required in the testing
situation. Students with ASD, regardless of level of functioning, possess deficits in social skills. Standardized tests require
some level of social interaction. It may be difficult to perform well on an individually administered assessment without reciprocal
social interaction skills. Atypical interests, repetitive behaviors, stereotypic behaviors, disruptive behaviors, and inattention
may further complicate the testing situation. Aren't there any alternatives to standardized tests? Yes, school psychologists may choose to administer nonverbal intelligence
assessments to students with ASD, rather than altering the standardized administration procedures or foregoing the procedure
all together. The Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, 3rd edition (TONI-3) is a valid and reliable alternative that does not require
the examinee to read, write, speak, or listen. The Leiter International Performance Scale- Revised (Leiter- R; Roid &
Miller, 1997) is another option. The Leiter- R, which does not require the student to use or to understand speech, has few
timed items and will not penalize students for slow responses. While these instruments do minimize the communication difficulties
that may interfere with obtaining the student's true score, they do require social interaction skills, attention to task,
and other appropriate test taking behaviors that may be difficult for students with ASD. At times, it may be possible for the psychologist to forgo the use of
standardized tests during the assessment process (i.e., when the school district does not require the use of tests). Observations,
interactions with the student, his teachers and parents, and other alternative sources of information may provide valuable
information about areas of strength and areas needing improvement that can help guide the intervention and programming process.
Even when standardized assessments are used, these additional sources should be included in the assessment. What modifications can psychologists make to accommodate students
with ASD when standardized tests are used? Examiner: Allow time to meet the student before entering the testing session. This
may help to alleviate some anxiety and will allow you to better assess needed modifications. Sensory: Consider the student's sensory needs when conducting an assessment. For
example, if he finds printed materials too visually stimulating, cover a portion so fewer problems are visible. Routine: Testing involves a significant disruption in the student's school day.
For students on the autism spectrum, such disruptions can be very distressing. Consider meeting with the student in advance
of the testing session to introduce yourself and to explain the upcoming schedule change. If the student uses a schedule,
work with the teacher to include the testing session on his daily itinerary. Environment: If possible, administer the tests in a familiar environment for the student. Minimize all distractions. Open window blinds, noisy heating vents, unusual
smells, and other environmental distractions may have a significant impact on the student's scores. Time: When possible, allow extra time for the student to finish items. Directions: Consider the auditory processing delays of students with ASD. Standardized
directions are often lengthy and confusing. This can be particularly problematic for children with receptive language difficulties.
Make verbal directions as clear and concise as possible. It may be useful to use visual directions or prompts or to allow
the student to respond with gestures or signs. Motivation: To reduce the number of failures in a testing session, frequently' intersperse
new and challenging tasks with easier items. This may require administering items out of the standardized order or inserting
non test activities within subtests. It may also be helpful to use positive reinforcers to make the testing situation more
motivating for the student. Behavior: Koegel, Koegel & Smith (1997) suggest assessing whether the student
exhibits certain behavior that may interfere with the testing situation and then using positive reinforcers to reduce the
rate of the interfering behavior. For a student who engaged in the obsessive, self-stimulatory verbal behavior of speaking
in a "cartoon-like" voice, Koegel, Koegel and Smith allowed the voice only when responding to the test stimuli. The preceding modifications will likely improve the student's performance.
When administration of various intelligence assessments is altered to accommodate for motivation and attention variables,
some students who previously scored in the mentally retarded range with standard administration can score in the average or
low-average range of cognitive functioning (Koegel, Koegel & Smith, 1997). Employing such strategies will break the standardization
of the assessment tool, and you cannot generate standard scores. The psychologist will, however, garner much information about
the individual student's strengths and areas for improvement--information that will be crucial in making effective intervention
and programming decisions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Who Are We Working for Anyway? Avoiding Personal Agendas at Meetings
To Better Support Individuals Across the Autism Spectrum" Contributed by Kim Davis ~ Indiana Autism Resource Center-Reporter Gloria Smith goes into the conference room for a meeting about her
son. As she enters, she is faced with nine professionals sitting around the table.
Each one knows her child and who she is, but she is not sure who they all are. She has talked with the teacher, but has not
contacted anyone else. Her son, Adam, is her first child and has autism. At this meeting, Gloria will be asked to discuss
his IEP goals, and his behavior plan. Each professional has 10 or 12 other student meetings on their agendas. Time is important
to them, but meetings have been run efficiently in the past. The agenda is set and the meeting begins. There are multitudes of meetings surrounding a student with an autism
spectrum disorder (ASD) or, for that matter, any disability. Those meetings may include parents, school personnel, therapists,
case managers, waiver representatives, other family members, and agency representatives who provide support to the child.
Each person attending those meetings may enter the room with a personal agenda in mind. Each may believe his or her ideas are in the best interest of the child.
Participants may have a hard time letting go of those ideas, adapting them, or even listening to others. Meetings can become
long and involved, and can create tension among all participants. Tensions stem from each person's reactions to the student
based on his or her personal experience and perspective. Personal agendas create needless power struggles and personality
clashes that often result in the true needs of the person with autism/ Asperger's being forgotten and excluded from any discussion
or planning that takes place. Personal agendas cause participants to forget the main focus of the meeting... the student. Personal perspective and experience can impact the manner in which people
choose to look at and support individuals. Many times that unique perspective is skewed and does not allow one to see the
whole person and what is happening to them. Herb Lovett illustrates this concept in his book, Learning to Listen (p. 130):
The lives of people in distress (with disabilities) can take very different
directions depending on who is asked for help. A common problem for people providing services is figuring out who to call
when they are confused about what to do. For example, if Denise has started' hitting people, any number of things can happen
to her depending on who is asked to respond first. A medical practitioner might want to give her a drug, a psychologist might
assign a behavior program or a therapy appointment, an occupational therapist might want to assess her styles of sensory integration,
her family might want people to punish or placate her the program administrator might want to increase staff time with her,
and her service coordinator might want to send her to a residential treatment center out of state. Much of Denise's future
will rest on that first telephone call, but how do we know who to call first. Ideally, any one of these key people is comfortable
with giving a preliminary opinion and asking for further consultation to help rule out (or in) other contributing causes,
but sometimes consultants insist their expertise is the only information needed and will try to 'own' Denise and her situation.
Too often professionals work in isolation and rely entirely on a single way of understanding and responding to a behavior.
When they proceed to personalize their struggle to 'conquer' a behavior, this narrow focus can lead to the excesses that have
killed people in the name of therapy. At this point we recognize controlling and authoritarian ways of working for what they
ultimately are. . . inhuman. To create an atmosphere of collaboration and cooperation, people must
have open minds and be responsive to multiple positions. Open minds allow individuals to become a team working to create the
best possible situation for the child with ASD. There are many areas where schools and parents create tension and
confusion during school meetings. Observations from actual meetings between schools and parents illustrate some of the stumbling
blocks. For Schools: Meetings: Meetings are short, rushed, and nothing gets discussed for any length
of time. There are also times when the focus of the particular meeting is not clear to all involved. Meetings, whether formal
or informal, may not happen often enough to help the team, which includes the parents, understand specific issues surrounding
the child. Language: All professionals use jargon (words related to that profession). Special
education is full of jargon. Education professionals use this jargon on a daily basis, and assume that parents understand
what is being said. Jargon is often like a foreign language to parents and other non-school personnel. Number of People: There may be a number of education professionals at the school conference.
Most of these professionals know each other and have already discussed the specific student. They may have already formed
an "opinion" about the child and family. This sets a didactic versus supportive ('them and us1 tone for the meeting that makes
parents uncomfortable and less than trusting about what is being recommended. Assumption of Understanding: Even if families have been involved with the special education system
for a number of years, it does not mean that they always fully understand what is being discussed at the school meeting. Many
times parents are not asked if they understand what is being said or recommended, or given the opportunity to ask questions. Parent Training: Because parent education and training is often not a school priority,
the annual conference may involve a steep learning curve for parents about special
education services. Parents who have not received training may not understand the jargon or understand what is being recommended
for their child. Yet they are still asked to provide "informed parental consent." Becoming Complacent: Schools are responsible for coordinating and conducting numerous conferences
for students receiving services. Because of time constraints, conferences continue to be conducted in the same manner year
after year, and complacency ("the way we have always done it") is often mistaken for efficiency. For Family Members: Meetings: Parents may not realize the time and effort it takes to coordinate a
meeting that accommodates the schedules of teachers, therapists, administrators, paraprofessionals, and parents. When parents
fail to show up for their conference and do not contact the school in advance, not only is school staff time wasted but also
other students have been denied access to their teacher and/ or therapist. Language: The family bears a responsibility for understanding the program and services
being recommended for their child. The school team may assume that if the family does not ask questions, they must understand
and be in agreement. Families who are not informed participants in their child's conference may tend to make last minute changes
or demands that create frustration and confusion that circumvent the benefits of the proposed program. Dependency: It is important for families to take responsibility for making decisions
about their child and not pass that responsibility off to the educational staff. Gaining Knowledge: Parents may be asked by teachers to investigate certain important aspects
of their child's learning program by making phone calls, visiting sites, completing paperwork and using other methods. If
there is no timely follow through by the family, the school may be unable to proceed with all aspects of the child's program. Last Minute Changes: Not attending a meeting or not voicing a concern as soon as they occur
can create inconvenience and lead to unnecessary conflict. Changing one's mind after the teaching staff have been investigating
a certain curriculum, instructional technique, behavior plan, transition process or work site can create frustration, confusion,
and anger and also create inconsistencies in the child's program. Becoming Complacent: Parents as well as teachers can become complacent. Not attending meetings,
not asking questions, or letting things go without investigation because it is easier are all forms of parent complacency.
Assuming things will get done simply because the school has to provide services is an ineffective way to monitor a child's
progress and sends the message that parents are not part of the 'team.' Advocates with Personal Agendas: Advocates are useful in many instances by helping parents understand
situations, as well as assisting in reaching consensus in meetings. However, advocates who come to meetings with personal
agendas and hostile attitudes rather than focusing on the needs of the specific student can create unfortunate situations
for everyone involved. Threaten lawsuit: Sometimes tensions become so high that parents want to involve an attorney.
The threat of a lawsuit creates incredible stress between and among school staff and family. Honest relationships will suffer
and ultimately the child loses. Although legal alternatives are part of the due
process guarantees of special education law, it should be used as a last resort. It can be seen that stumbling blocks are not one sided. Schools and families
both can and should work together to help solve problems instead of creating new ones. Actually, school personnel and families each face other challenges that
are quite similar. They all share frustrations when it comes to being able to do what is best for the child. The following
table lists challenges that both families and schools face. Note the similarities.
Funding/Money:
To pay for materials,
personnel training, etc. Funding/Money:
To pay for
services, insurance and to
maintain family integrity Standards:
Rules that must be followed
are complicated. There are State and Federal
rules and regulations
to consider. Standards:
Family rules or standards may be complicated
by the views or opinions
of extended family members. Class
size: How to provide Individualized
and intensive Attention. Family
Size: How to provide Individualized
and intensive Attention. Differing
Priorities: Different Depending
On each students needs. Each has different priorities/needs
that may conflict
with the needs/ priorities
of Others. Differing
Priorities of Other Family Members:
Different depending on individual
and sometimes may conflict
with the priorities/needs of
others. Environment:
Room size, materials,
Interactions. Environment:
House/room size, Materials,
interactions. Time:
Lack of time to do it all. Time:
Lack of time to care for all. Training:
Time and money is an issue to obtain information. Training:
Time and money is an Issue
to obtain information. Politics:
Differing beliefs and values. Family
Culture: Differing beliefs and
values. Working together to solve problems rather than placing blame requires
that everyone realize multiple stressors and challenges faced by all. Instead
of turning meetings into a situation full of barriers and obstacles in which the child is lost, the way to success is to support
each other and build on individual strengths. It may be helpful to remember that all people have the best interests of the
child in mind regardless of their perspective. Most people would not intentionally do something wrong or bad. Everyone wants
what is best, but may have to overcome challenges in their job or family situation to do what is best. They simply may not
always have the tools or support to do it. What Can Schools and Parents Do to Enhance Meetings? How can meetings become more comfortable and create more meaningful educational
goals and situations for each child? Here are suggestions for schools and parents to consider to help meetings become more
productive and supportive of the student with an autism spectrum disorder. Suggestions for Schools: Come to meetings
with open minds, instead of with preconceived ideas about the child or others who are attending the meetings. There are always
multiple perspectives in any situation whether it is in the classroom, therapy, at home, or in the community. Openness allows
everyone to truly hear each other, and to learn about limitations and possibilities in each environment. Establishing
a relationship between school and home is a crucial step. This requires a joint effort between the teacher and the pBients.
It cannot be one sided. If a positive relationship can be established at the beginning of the school year and includes consistent
open minded listening and communication, meetings have a better chance of being productive. Listening
to each other is primary. Realize that everyone has something to say from his or her perspective. At the same time, remember
that each person's perspective is based on his or her experience and relationship with the student and is valid. Acknowledge
issues that the child faces and set priorities for the learning experience. Work
together to see the vision for that particular student. Remember that each year's work should be focused on the ultimate dream
or vision for that child. Discuss priorities
and see what needs to be addressed in school as well as at home. Be clear on
what behaviors or skills need to be considered so everyone is thinking along the same lines and not spinning their wheels.
The teacher
should make an effort to contact parents and meet at the beginning of the year as one way to create a joint effort. This informal
meeting allows all players to get to know one another and set a positive tone for the beginning of the school year. Reaching
out to each other is a wonderful first step. Ensure that
parents are included in scheduling meetings and in the planning process by offering to call parents about dates and times
prior to letters going out from the school. This can help them understand the schools specific system for arranging meetings. Create a 'safe'
environment for families at meetings. Realize the meeting room is filled with professionals who know each other and only one
or two family members. Professionals all know the family but often the family does not know all of the professionals. That
situation can be quite intimidating.Be sure the family knows ahead of time who will be there and provide introductions at
the beginning of the meeting. Be sure parents
understand what is being discussed throughout the meeting. Professionals often use jargon during Meetings and forget families may not use the same language. Be sure parents understand by asking what they
have heard. Restate any information that appears confusing to them. Provide parent
training both formally and informally beginning in early childhood through the transition years. There is so much for parents
to learn about the special education system and the adult service agency system. One meeting a year is not enough to truly
grasp a situation. Remember that reading material is not always the best option for sharing information. Phone calls, informal
meetings, home visits, or formal group instruction or monthly meetings may ultimately prove fruitful. If teaching
strategies or behavior support plans are not working or achieving desired outcomes, they need to be refined. Even if things
have "always been done this way", it may be best to revisit common practices and make adaptations. Finally, remember
that the dreams that families have for their child may be different from those of the school staff. It is important for the
school staff to hear family wishes, and then try not to push their views and values onto the family. Professionals can try
to learn to value what the family dreams and help them meet those dreams or augment them to support the child in the best
possible manner. Suggestions for Families: Families should
share all necessary information about their child including information about medications, diagnosis, and illnesses. If your
child is on medications be sure to tell school staff so they can be alert for side effects or changes in behavior. Share the
dreams for the future life of your son or daughter with the team. Opening up, and being totally honest is difficult for anyone.
It is often more difficult when sharing with a group of professionals. Yet, sharing dreams and hopes, as well as fears, allows
the team to understand family perspectives better. It creates a unique relationship that may increase the desire for' working together toward those dreams. Other team members may be parents
and also have dreams for their children; therefore they can empathize and understand the parent perspective better. When families
do not understand what is being discussed, ask questions during the meeting. Calling, e-mailing or writing to teachers at
school can also dissolve any confusion or miscommunication that may take place. Realize that during the school day it is often
challenging for teachers to make or take phone calls. It may be necessary to set up a phone date in order for discussion not
to be rushed. Try to understand
that your child's school may not always have the best PLAN, but try to start on common ground then adapt the plan as needed.
Know that sometimes the best PLAN may fail. After all, if the job of teaching students with autism or other disabilities was
easy, anyone could do it and no meetings would be necessary. Often teachers need to try several strategies before finding
one that works. It is frustrating for them, just as much as it is frustrating for the student and family. Allow them to try
different techniques with the students and realize there may be some trials before there will be success. We all learn through
our mistakes. Avoid threats
or lawsuits if possible. As stated, due process is a legitimate option and available for a reason. However, a lawsuit mayor
may not help. While it is important to advocate for your child, there may be better options than a lawsuit. Exploring mediation,
parent advocacy, or informal meetings can be alternatives. Establishing a relationship with the teacher at the very beginning
of the year and maintaining consistent contact can allow a more open and consistent dialogue between home and school. Finally. it
would be wonderful for both the family and school staff to make and to receive calls or messages with a positive content.
So often the only time contact is made, other than to set a meeting date, is when some crisis has occurred. Sharing positive
information can help in maintaining more trust and honest relationships between home and school. The ultimate goal of collaborative meetings should not be "How will you make
this work or happen: but instead it should be how can WE make this work together!!! When parents and school personnel work
together as a team, with respect and consideration for each other, severe disagreements are greatly minimized and ultimately,
the child is the winner! *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Assessment Addressing Student Problem Behavior Autism Research Institute's Form E-2 Check List and Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) Autism Treatment of Evaluation Checklist (ATEC) Functional Behavioral Assessments: What, Why, When, Where, and Who? at Wrightslaw Website. Guidance on Functional Behavioral Assessments for Students with Disabilities Resources and Research on Assessment
Not sure of the difference between a Section 504 Plan and an IEP? Basically a Section 504 is a list of modifications to be done in the classroom. It DOES NOT include any services such as resource or any other special education services. An IEP includes services AND modifications. Please click on underlined text to take you to the website described under each heading.
Individual Education Plan (IEP) Checklist for an effective IEP. Educational Implications:Ideas for Classroom Management ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (ERIC EC). IEP 4 U ~ Objectives by subject, curriculum, ability, etc. Parental Rights to an Individual Education Evaluation. Parent's Guide to Understanding Developmental Assessment. Preparing for your child's IEP. Sample Individual Education Plans Sample Individualized Education Program(IEP)and Guidance Document December 2002 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the law that guarantees all children with disabilities access to a free and appropriate public education. Complete text of the IDEA '97 Final Regulations Order a free copy of the IDEA Regs from this Government site.
Special Education Guide For Parents - Related Services Section 504 A chart comparing provisions of IDEA, 504, and the ADA Council of Educators for Students with Disabilities' PACER Center - Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights - Meeting the Needs of All Students Section 504 and IDEA: Basic Similarities and Differences. Special Education Fact sheets and information concerning IDEA. Teaching Students with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Effects. Special Education Parent Orientation Guide:Related Services for IEP State Departments of Education. State Directors of Special Education. Transition Services Guide TRANSITION GUIDE FOR WASHINGTON EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR (ESY) ESY is special education and related services beyond the normal school
year that are provided to a child with a disability - for instance, in the summer or during school vacations. A child must be given ESY services if the IEP Team determines that
the services are necessary to provide the child with a free appropriate public education. Appropriate services are individualized
to meet the needs of the student, take account of the child's potential as well as his or her deficits and learning needs,
and are reasonably calculated to yield meaningful education or early intervention benefit. Here are examples of children with disabilities for whom ESY is especially
important: Children who lose skills or behaviors relevant to the child's IEP
goals and objectives while school is out, and have difficulty catching up. (This is usually called "regression" and "recoupment.") Children who have not yet fully learned and generalized an important
skill or behavior, and who therefore need help learning and practicing that skill in the formal educational setting. Children whose disability makes them vulnerable to interruptions
in the educational program, and who are therefore at risk of withdrawing from the learning process. Children who have a degenerative condition and who need ESY to prevent
or delay loss of skills or behaviors. No! When considering the need for ESY services, the IEP Team must
pay particular attention to students with disabilities that are thought of as severe (that is, students with autism/pervasive
developmental disorder, serious emotional disturbance, moderate or severe levels of mental retardation, degenerative impairments
and severe multiple disabilities) and IEP goals that are associated with self-sufficiency and independence from caretakers.
IEP Teams may not limit their consideration of need for ESY services to students with particular types of disabilities or
particular IEP goals. School districts cannot limit the kind of ESY services students with
disabilities can get (for example, a district cannot say we provide special education, but no therapies); the amount of services
(for example, a district cannot say that we only offer 2 periods/week of physical therapy); or the duration of those services
(for example, a district cannot say we only offer 6 weeks of ESY in the summer). ESY eligibility and program decisions, like
all other decisions about special education and related services for students with disabilities, must be made on an individualized
basis by the IEP Team (which includes the parents), and the Team's decisions must be listed on the children's IEPs. At the annual IEP meeting for every child with a disability, the
IEP Team must raise and discuss whether the child needs ESY services. The IEP meeting to consider ESY for children with severe
emotional disturbances, autism, moderate and severe levels of retardation or multiple disabilities must occur no later than
February 28 of each school year. The Notice of Recommended Educational Placement, which contains the IEP Team's ESY determination
for these children, must be issued by March 31 of the school year. The February-March deadlines do not apply for other children
with disabilities, but a parent can request an IEP meeting to determine ESY eligibility at any time, and must get a written
decision regarding ESY which can be appealed on an expedited basis. A child does not have to experience a year of lost skills or other
damage to prove that he or she qualifies for ESY. Similarly, a parent does not need to prove that a child has lost skills
in the past. Districts must consider "predictive" data that these problems will occur if the child's education program is
interrupted. Some examples of this kind of predictive data are the opinions of doctors, educators, parents or others based
on their observations of the child or their experience with other children with similar problems. School districts should
also consider the child's year-to-year progress in past IEPs. It is important to plan ahead because data, reports, recommendations,
and other information can be crucial to the decision. Test results and "hard data" on regression and recoupment are helpful,
but are not required. Types of information that can also be helpful include evidence that the child has not progressed on
important goals in consecutive IEPs; reports, observations and opinions from educators, therapists or others having contact
with the student before and after interruptions in education; reports by parents of their experiences in the home; medical
or other agency reports showing progressive difficulties which get worse during breaks in
educational services; and results of tests, curriculum-based assessments, ecological life skills assessments and other equivalent
measures. Yes. The IEP should describe the goals and benchmarks for the ESY
program; all ESY services and their frequency; where the services will be provided and at what times; and the dates they will
start and stop. If the child needs related services (such as physical therapy or transportation), these must also be listed. If the school district does not agree to provide ESY, or wants to
provide fewer or different services from those desired by the parent, the parent may try to resolve the disagreement through
mediation, or request a pre-hearing conference and/or an impartial hearing. If the child had ESY last summer, he must be offered
the same program this summer, unless the parent agrees that the program should be changed or a Hearing Officer decides that
a change should be made. ESY is not limited to basic and self-help skills. It can include
academic or vocational programs. Some examples of ESY programs which have been provided to children are: tutoring, keyboarding,
camp socialization programs, and summer school. Funding for this brochure was provided, in part, by Pennsylvania
Protection & Advocacy, Inc., pursuant to the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, P.L. 101-496,
and the P&A for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, P.L. 99-319. Source url: http://www.psrn.org/esyfact.html *************************************
U.S. school policy against bullying http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/07-2000/PolicyDisabilityharassment.doc
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202 July 25, 2000 On behalf of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education, we are writing to you about a vital issue that affects students in school harassment
based on disability. Our purpose in writing is to develop greater awareness of
this issue, to remind interested persons of the legal and educational responsibilities that institutions have to prevent and
appropriately respond to disability harassment, and to suggest measures that school officials should take to address this
very serious problem. This letter is not an exhaustive legal analysis. Rather, it is intended to provide a useful overview of the existing legal and educational
principles related to this important issue. Why Disability Harassment Is Such an Important Issue Through a variety of sources, both OCR and OSERS have become aware of concerns about disability harassment
in elementary and secondary schools and colleges and universities. In a
series of conference calls with OSERS staff, for example, parents, disabled persons, and advocates for students with disabilities
raised disability harassment as an issue that was very important to them. OCR's
complaint workload has reflected a steady pace of allegations regarding this issue, while the number of court cases involving
allegations of disability harassment has risen. OCR and OSERS recently conducted
a joint focus group where we heard about the often devastating effects on students of disability harassment that ranged from
abusive jokes, crude name-calling, threats, and bullying, to sexual and physical assault by teachers and other students. We take these concerns very seriously. Disability harassment can
have a profound impact on students, raise safety concerns, and erode efforts to ensure that students with disabilities have
equal access to the myriad benefits that an education offers. Indeed, harassment
can seriously interfere with the ability of students with disabilities to receive the education critical to their advancement. We are committed to doing all that we can to help prevent and respond to disability
harassment and lessen the harm of any harassing conduct that has occurred. We
seek your support in a joint effort to address this critical issue and to promote such efforts among educators who deal with
students daily. What Laws Apply to Disability Harassment Schools, colleges, universities, and other educational institutions have a responsibility to ensure equal educational
opportunities for all students, including students with disabilities. This responsibility
is based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (Title II), which are enforced by OCR. Section 504 covers all schools,
school districts, and colleges and universities receiving federal funds.[1] Title II
covers all state and local entities, including school districts and public institutions of higher education, whether or not
they receive federal funds.[2] Disability
harassment is a form of discrimination prohibited by Section 504 and Title II.[3] Both Section
504 and Title II provide parents and students with grievance procedures and due process remedies at the local level. Individuals and organizations also may file complaints with OCR. States and school districts also have a responsibility under Section 504, Title II, and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),[4] which is enforced by OSERS, to ensure that a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) is made available to eligible students with disabilities. Disability harassment may result in a denial of FAPE under these statutes. Parents may initiate administrative due process procedures under IDEA, Section 504, or Title II to address
a denial of FAPE, including a denial that results from disability harassment. Individuals
and organizations also may file complaints with OCR, alleging a denial of FAPE that results from disability harassment. In addition, an individual or organization may file a complaint alleging a violation
of IDEA under separate procedures with the state educational agency.[5] State compliance
with IDEA, including compliance with FAPE requirements, is monitored by OSERS Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Harassing conduct also may violate state and local civil rights, child abuse, and criminal laws. Some of these laws may impose obligations on educational institutions to contact or coordinate with state
or local agencies or police with respect to disability harassment in some cases; failure to follow appropriate procedures
under these laws could result in action against an educational institution. Many
states and educational institutions also have addressed disability harassment in their general anti-harassment policies.[6] Disability Harassment May Deny a Student an Equal Opportunity to Education under Section 504 or Title II Disability harassment under Section 504 and Title II is intimidation or abusive behavior toward a student based
on disability that creates a hostile environment by interfering with or denying a students participation in or receipt of
benefits, services, or opportunities in the institutions program. Harassing conduct
may take many forms, including verbal acts and name-calling, as well as nonverbal behavior, such as graphic and written statements,
or conduct that is physically threatening, harmful, or humiliating. When harassing conduct is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates a hostile environment,
it can violate a student's rights under the Section 504 and Title II regulations. A
hostile environment may exist even if there are no tangible effects on the student where the harassment is serious enough
to adversely affect the student's ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program. Examples of harassment that could create a hostile environment follow. Several students continually remark out
loud to other students during class that a student with dyslexia is "retarded" or "deaf and dumb" and does not belong in the
class; as a result, the harassed student has difficulty doing work in class and her grades decline.
A student repeatedly places classroom furniture or other objects in the path of classmates who use wheelchairs, impeding
the classmates' ability to enter the classroom. A teacher
subjects a student to inappropriate physical restraint because of conduct related to his disability, with the result that
the student tries to avoid school through increased absences.[7] A school
administrator repeatedly denies a student with a disability access to lunch, field trips, assemblies, and extracurricular
activities as punishment for taking time off from school for required services related to the student's disability. A professor
repeatedly belittles and criticizes a student with a disability for using accommodations in class, with the result that the
student is so discouraged that she has great difficulty performing in class and learning. Students
continually taunt or belittle a student with mental retardation by mocking and intimidating him so he does not participate
in class. When disability harassment limits or denies a student's ability to participate in or benefit from an educational
institution's programs or activities, the institution must respond effectively. Where
the institution learns that disability harassment may have occurred, the institution must investigate the incident(s) promptly
and respond appropriately. Disability
Harassment Also May Deny a Free Appropriate Public Education Disability harassment that adversely affects an elementary or secondary students education may also be a denial
of FAPE under the IDEA, as well as Section 504 and Title II. The IDEA was enacted
to ensure that recipients of IDEA funds make available to students with disabilities the appropriate special education and
related services that enable them to access and benefit from public education. The
specific services to be provided a student with a disability are set forth in the students individualized education program
(IEP), which is developed by a team that includes the students parents, teachers and, where appropriate, the student. Harassment of a student based on disability may decrease the students ability to benefit
from his or her education and amount to a denial of FAPE. How to Prevent and Respond to Disability Harassment Schools, school districts, colleges, and universities have a legal responsibility to prevent and respond to
disability harassment. As a fundamental step, educational institutions must develop
and disseminate an official policy statement prohibiting discrimination based on disability and must establish grievance procedures
that can be used to address disability harassment.[8] A clear policy
serves a preventive purpose by notifying students and staff that disability harassment is unacceptable, violates federal law,
and will result in disciplinary action. The responsibility to respond to disability
harassment, when it does occur, includes taking prompt and effective action to end the harassment and prevent it from recurring
and, where appropriate, remedying the effects on the student who was harassed. The following measures are ways to both prevent and eliminate harassment:
Creating a campus environment that is aware of disability concerns and sensitive to disability harassment; weaving
these issues into the curriculum or programs outside the classroom.
Encouraging parents, students, employees, and community members to discuss disability harassment and to report it when
they become aware of it.
Widely publicizing anti-harassment statements and procedures for handling discrimination complaints, because this information
makes students and employees aware of what constitutes harassment, that such conduct is prohibited, that the institution will
not tolerate such behavior, and that effective action, including disciplinary action, where appropriate, will be taken.
Providing appropriate, up-to-date, and timely training for staff and students to recognize and handle potential harassment.
Counseling both person(s) who have been harmed by harassment and person(s) who have been responsible for the harassment
of others.
Implementing monitoring programs to follow up on resolved issues of disability harassment.
Regularly assessing and, as appropriate, modifying existing disability harassment policies and procedures for addressing
the issue, to ensure effectiveness. Technical Assistance Is Available U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley has emphasized the importance of ensuring that schools are safe and
free of harassment. Students can not learn in an atmosphere of fear, intimidation,
or ridicule. For students with disabilities, harassment can inflict severe harm. Teachers and administrators must take emphatic action to ensure that these students
are able to learn in an atmosphere free from harassment. Disability harassment is preventable and can not be tolerated. Schools,
colleges, and universities should address the issue of disability harassment not just when but before incidents occur. As noted above, awareness can be an important element in preventing harassment in
the first place. The Department of Education is committed to working with schools, parents, disability advocacy organizations,
and other interested parties to ensure that no student is ever subjected to such conduct, and that where such conduct occurs,
prompt and effective action is taken. For more information, you may contact OCR
or OSEP through 1-800-USA-LEARN or 1-800-437-0833 for TTY services. You also
may directly contact one of the OCR enforcement offices listed on the enclosure or OSEP, by calling (202) 205-5507 or (202)
205-5465 for TTY services. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. Enclosure - list of OCR enforcement offices [1] Section 504 provides: "No otherwise qualified individual with
a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded
from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
See 34 CFR Part 104 (Section 504 implementing regulations). [2] Title II provides that no qualified individual with a disability
shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs,
or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
42 U.S.C. § 12132. See 28 CFR Part 35 (Title II implementing regulations). [3] The Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has
issued policy guidance on discriminatory harassment based on race (see 59 Fed. Reg. 11448 (Mar. 10, 1994),) and sex (see 62
Fed Reg. 12034 (Mar. 13, 1997), ). These policies make clear that school personnel
who understand their legal obligations to address harassment are in the best position to recognize and prevent harassment, and to lessen the harm to students if, despite their best efforts, harassment
occurs. In addition, OCR recently collaborated with the National Association
of Attorneys General (NAAG) to produce a guide to raise awareness of, and provide examples of effective practices for dealing
with, hate crimes and harassment in schools, including harassment based on disability. See Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime, A Guide
for Schools, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, and the National Association of Attorneys General (Jan.
1999) (OCR/NAAG Harassment Guide), Appendix A: Sample School Policies. The
OCR/NAAG Harassment Guide may be accessed on the internet at www.ed.gov/pubs/Harassment/. These documents
are a good resource for understanding the general principle of discriminatory harassment.
The policy guidance on sexual harassment will be clarified to explain how OCR's longstanding regulatory requirements
continue to apply in this area in light of recent Supreme Court decisions addressing the sexual harassment of students. [4] 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. [5] 34 C.F.R. § 300.660 et seq. [6] For more information regarding the requirements of state and
local laws, consult the OCR/NAAG Harassment Guide, cited in footnote 3 above. [7] Appropriate classroom discipline is permissible, generally,
if it is of a type that is applied to all students or is consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and Section 504, including the students Individualized Education Program or Section 504 plan. [8] Section 504
(at 34 CFR § 104.7) and Title II (at 28 CFR § 35.107(a)) require that institutions have
published internal policies and grievance procedures to address issues of discrimination on the basis of disability,
which includes disability harassment. While there need not be separate grievance
procedures designed specifically for disability harassment, the grievance procedures that are available must be effective
in resolving problems of this nature. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Compiled by Frank Stepnowski,revised 7/30/05. This article outlines the regulations which permit parents to discuss
methodology at an IEP meeting. This is a continuing work in progress, which started in December 2000 and appeared in its first
form in the AutismNews newsletter in January 2000. I have over the months incorporated a number of findings from my
own research, as well as leads suggested by contributors to the Council of Parent Advocates and Attorney (COPAA).
I thought there was a need to compile all the different authorities regarding methodology into a single framework, with appropriate
references to legal authority. Although originally directed to Illinois law, this article can apply in any State covered by
IDEA. So the key provision of the changes is this:
Back on July 3, 1863, General Robert E. Lee sent orders to General
Ewell on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg to attack the Union position on Culp's Hill "if practicable." Ewell did
not know what that meant, and did not attack. The Union army was able to entrench itself on the hill and thus started
the second day of the battle with a strong position. The choice of words had a big impact on the outcome of the battle
and the war. The lesson is that if left "practicable" is left to the discretion of the School Districts, it just won't
happen; they will see that anything different from what they had been doing will not be practicable. The courts will
have to decide whether a modification is practicable. If current trends are followed, courts may use a "reasonable"
standard. In the Seventh Circuit, courts let school districts do anything as long as they act "reasonably." A
better interpretation would be "if not impossible," since "they are not allowed to make decisions based on 'cost prohibitive."
The methodology language of 1997 IDEA arose from the regulations,
as described in the article below. The regulation is currently being revised to comply with the statutory changes.
The proposed version would be 34 CFR 300.38:
One of the most important clarifications in recent Federal
law deals with methodology. As background, twenty years ago the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion interpreting the
prior law, in which it stated that as long as the school district had a reasonable methodology leading to a student's progress,
the parents could not require the school to adopt a different method. Schools often interpreted this decision to say
that the parents could not discuss methodology at an IEP meeting, even when the schools had no methodology.
In 1997, Congress wrote directly into the statute that the implementation
of IDEA was impeded by low expectations and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods
of teaching and learning for children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. sec. 1400 (c) (4). President Bush also
made the same sentiments when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act in January 2002: " . . . We need to know whether
the methodologies the teachers are using are working! . . ." To enable the definition of methodology, the 1999 Federal regulations
specify:
The regulations also speak in the future. The IEP must specify
the methodology "to be" provided, not that a methodology must be developed. The regulations make clear that the methodology
must be good enough so that the child can advance toward attaining the annual goals and to progress in the general curriculum.
Methodology is also described in the commentary Department of Education
filed with the Federal Regulations:
Case law recognizes that instructional methodology
can be an important consideration in the context of what constitutes an appropriate education for a child with a disability.
At the same time, these courts have indicated that they will not substitute a parentally-preferred methodology for sound educational
programs developed by school personnel in accordance with the procedural requirements of the IDEA to meet the educational
needs of an individual child with a disability.
In light of the legislative history and case law,
it is clear that in developing an individualized education there are circumstances in which the particular teaching methodology
that will be used is an integral part of what is "individualized" about a student's education and, in those circumstances
will need to be discussed at the IEP meeting and incorporated into the student's IEP. For example, for a child with a learning
disability who has not learned to read using traditional instructional methods, an appropriate education may require some
other instructional strategy.
Other students' IEPs may not need to address the
instructional method to be used because specificity about methodology is not necessary to enable those students to receive
an appropriate education. There is nothing in the definition of "specially designed instruction'' that would require instructional
methodology to be addressed in the IEPs of students who do not need a particular instructional methodology in order to receive
educational benefit. In all cases, whether methodology would be addressed in an IEP would be an IEP team decision.
Other changes to the definition of "specially
designed instruction'' are not needed. The distinction between accommodations that change the general curriculum and those
that do not, as one commenter requests, would be difficult to make because of the individualized nature of these determinations.
Regardless of the reasons for the accommodation or modification, it must be provided if necessary to address the special educational
needs of an individual student. The How is emphasized in the Q & A portion of the regulations:
In Bd of Ed of Paxton-Buckley-Loda Unit School District no. 10,
184 F.Supp.2d 790, 800-01 (C.D. Ill. 2002), the court found the District violated procedural safeguards when it simply chose
not to consider a methodology which would allow a regular preschool program in determining placement. Paxton (html).
In another case, the Illinois State Bd of Ed reports the hearing
officer ordered ABA/DTT, but I have not read the whole text yet. footnote.
In Zachary Deal vs. Hamilton County Dept. of Educ., the Tennessee
Hearing officer found that the school district's approach, which used some TEACCH but no ABA, was an inadequate methodology,
and ordered the district to use the parent's choice of ABA. The district committed a procedural violation by refusing
to even consider a workable methodology. A ruling that a district has committed a procedural violation is important
under Rowley because it is harder to reverse than a finding that a school district has chosen a wrong methodology;
courts generally give schools deference over choices of methodology. In another Gary Mayerson case, Bucks County Department of Mental
Health v. De Mora, (E.D. Pa. 2002), the court found that school district had failed to offer an appropriate program.
Since the school failed to provide enough trained therapists, and few therapists could be found in the community, the court
ordered that the parent should be paid for the time she spent educating the child in the ABA program. For more details
see http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/autism.bucksco.aba.mayerson.htm
and Gary Mayerson.
A court in the District of Columbia has written:
The plaintiffs here are not asking that Alex be provided with a level
of education or educational services designed to place him on footing commensurate with non-disabled children. Rather, we
have a school system that, for more than four years, has denied Alex even the “basic floor of opportunity” discussed
in Rowley, and a request that Alex be provided education to adequately compensate
for this denial. Alex is a severely autistic child who has been repeatedly mis-diagnosed and mishandled by DCPS. The School District position also contradicts common sense.
The regulations specify that the IEP should include related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to
the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program, modifications or supports. It boggles the mind
that the District could take the position that it should specify the supports and modifications which may be dependent on
the methodology but not specify the methodology itself.
To show the lengths a school will go, on September 8, 2002, a school
attorney was telling parents the text of the repealed regulations. She quoted and cited note four of the repealed regulations
that it was not anticipated that an IEP will include methodology. She never mentioned the content of the new regulations.
This was three and a half years after the old regulations were replaced. (She was also from the firm that fought the
TH case through three appeals.) If your school quotes "note four," just say it has been repealed, and cite the
new regulations.
Schools also resist paying for ABA because the home-based program does not qualify
as a State Board of Education approved school for which the State Board will reimburse the local school districts. footnote. One factor in the Peters v. Rome City School District (NY
Oct. 2002) was the lack of informed consent. The Parents had consented to the use of a time-out room to address behaviours
-- for three minutes. The parents were not informed that the room was a padded closet with torn padding and the smell
of urine, and the boy was sometimes there for an hour at a time. The jury hit the School District for $75,000 pain and
suffering. The district court erred in assuming that merely because the Deals
were present and spoke at the various IEP meetings, they were afforded adequate opportunity to participate. Participation must be more than a mere form; it must be meaningful. W.G., 960 F.2d at 1485; see also Knox County Sch.,
315 F.3d at OSEP on July 25, 2000, wrote:
In some cases, under the current regulations, in order to meet the
child's unique needs the IFS team may consider a particular methodology or instructional approach to be integral to the design
of an "individualized" program of services for the child. In such cases it would be appropriate for the IFS team to list
that specific methodology on the IFS.
After an IFS has been completed and the parents consent to the provision
of the identified services, the State is required to provide all services identified on the child's IFS and to ensure that
those services are implemented according to the IFS. Thus, if the IFS includes a specific methodology or approach, the State
would need to ensure that services are provided as stated in the child's IFS. and on the same date stated:
"Sec. 300.501 Opportunity to examine records; parent participation
in meetings.
Moreover, regulation 300.501 creates support for specifying
methodology in the IEP. The regulation specifically disallows schools from not only changing methods but even
discussing changing methods, when those methods are included in the IEP. How can the District pretend that an IEP cannot
include methodology when the regulation implies that it can? Methodology is part of the placement decision. As under current law, a child's IEP must include a statement of the
special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the
child. The Committee intends that, while teaching and related services methodologies or approaches are an appropriate topic
for discussion and consideration by the IEP Team during IEP development or annual review, they are not expected to be written
into the IEP. Furthermore, the Committee does not intend that changing particular methods or approaches necessitates an additional
meeting of the IEP Team." (House Report 105-95.) In a related issue, OSEP has issued a letter which includes:
Q: How should a request be worded for a child's IEP to insure
that a research based program appropriate to that child's specific reading problem is used and used in the manner that the
research demonstrates is most effective?
A: Dr. Stevan Kukic:
"The statute is clear that the option is
for a district to use a process using scientific, research based interventions for the identification of children as LD under
IDEA 2004. The test on the IEP is three fold:
Dr. Kukic is former Utah State Director of Special Education and
has just completed a five year term as chair of the National Center for Learning Disabilities' Professional Advisory Board.
He is currently the Vice President for Professional Services for Sopris West Educational Services. Dr. Kukic played an integral
role in the development of the new IDEA 04 provisions regarding specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility. As brother Roger suggests, One strategy to obtain effective services
at the IEP is to define the methodological needs precisely enough that the team has to choose your preferred "brand"
of methods anyway. It is rare that a particular "brand name" can be locked into an IEP, because school
folks are touchy about being "directed" to choose one product over another, even though they may have no
choice at all. (That is similar to what happened in the successive appeals in the T.H. v. Palatine case.
The District dragged on the proceeding with successive appeals not on the issue that they knew what to do, but only that they
did not want to be told what to do.)
If you go into your IEP meeting describing what the methodology "does,"
you may stand a better chance of getting what your child needs. Sticking firm on a brand name may
just exasperate the school members. For example, rather than insisting on "Lovaas," get the team to agree that the child
needs 40 hours per week of discrete trial training with data review, etc. They might use all the tools without using
the label. In other words, rather than fight over technicalities, you might focus on what the methodology
of your preference is designed to accomplish. It's a lot easier to come to agreement over function than
over form.
That is just one strategy. But if your child's IEP seems inevitably
headed to due process, you must document the proceedings. Cases have been lost where the courts found insufficient evidence
of the parents' requests for services. You must document that the schools have refused to consider proven methodologies.
Hopefully, however, by making the school think harder about what they are doing, the team may actually develop something that
works.
The IEP is not the guarantee of results. The school must provide
the services listed in the IEP, but the outcome can be uncertain. Courts differ on how realistic an IEP must be in predicting
whether an individual child will actually benefit from the services listed in the IEP.
The bad news is that courts grant deference to the school's choice
of methodologies. Lachman v. Illinois State Bd of Education, 852 F.2d 290, 296 (7th Cir. 1988). Reversing it is difficult.
In most circuits, you will have to show that the method chosen by the school would not reasonably calculated to lead to meaningful
academic progress. See School District of Wisconsin Dells v. Z.S., no. 01-3720 (7th Cir. June 28, 2002):
Another possibility suggested above in the Paxton and Deal
cases, is to show the school committed procedural violations by failing to even consider workable methodologies. More on this
trend later.
In one recent case, the parents prevailed when
the hearing officer took the situation out of the Lachman-Rowley quagmire when he found that the choice of programs
was not methodology at all. William Fabian v. Flossmoor School District 161, ISBE 2558 (Sept. 29, 2002,
Illinois).
Good Luck! Another article discussing methodology is http://www.reedmartin.com/askreedmethodology.html Section 226.75 Definitions The hearing officer found that the parents were justified in their
decision to remove the child following the “spraying” incident. The district was faulted in not offering the parent
another placement and for not appropriately addressing the child's needs for ESSAY. It was also found that the IEP goals and
objectives were appropriate but in need of much more detail on the academics. 20 U.S.C. sec 1453(c) Improvement strategies (i) the State
will prepare general and special education personnel with the content knowledge
and collaborative skills needed to meet the needs of children with disabilities, including how the State will
work with other States on common certification criteria; Source url: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One of the most important laws for people with disabilities is the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that protects individuals with disabilities from
discrimination in the workplace, school and other settings. Although the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals
with disabilities, an employee who requires accommodations in order to perform a job must disclose information about the disability
and the need for specific accommodations to the employer in order to be protected by the law. That's why it is important that
students develop the skills to do this effectively before they enter the workforce. A reasonable accommodation is any change or adjustment to a job or
work environment that permits a qualified individual with a disability to participate in the job application process and to
perform the essential functions of a job. Reasonable accommodations are usually less expensive than people think. In most
cases, an appropriate reasonable accommodation can be made without difficulty and at little or no cost. Examples of reasonable
accommodations include making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by an individual with
a disability; restructuring a job; modifying work schedules; acquiring or modifying equipment; providing qualified readers
or interpreters; or modifying examinations, training, or other programs. Source: http://www.pacer.org/swift/ada.htm
Although a few of these links specify they are geared toward children with ADD/ADHD, you'll find they will work with ASD children also. Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) Teaching Tips for Teachers Children-Special Needs ~ Vision, Learning, and Dyslexia SofDesign Dyslexia Training ~ Special programs for dyslexics and information regarding dyslexia. Teaching Tips for Children and Adults with Autism by Temple Grandin, Ph.D. ~ Assistant Professor
Independent Educational Evaluation Source url no longer working. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||