Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Index to Procedural Safeguards The Series

Special needs education transport services in ...Image via Wikipedia





A reader suggested that we provide an index to our recent series on procedural safeguards under the special education law.  It seemed like a good idea so here goes. 

I'm glad that you enjoyed the series. Procedural Safeguards are at the heart of the special education laws.

Here is the index:

October 18, 2010      Part I     Introduction
October 27               Part II    Notice of Procedural Safeguards
November 9             Part III   Parental Consent
November 16           Part IV   Independent Educational Evaluation
November 24           Part V    Prior Written Notice
November 29           Part VI   Dispute Resolution
December 13           Part VII  Facilitated IEPs
December 22           Part VIII Mediation
December 28           Part IX   State Complaint
January 4, 2011        Part X    Resolution Sessions
January 10               Part XI   Due Process Hearings
January 19              Part XII  Procedural Violations
January 26              Part XIII Attorney's Fees
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Rosa's Law: A Great Story

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 08:  U.S. President Barac...Image by Getty Images via @daylife

There was a big development in special education law last October. The Congress passed and the President signed Rosa's Law.  The law removes the offensive word "mentally retarded" from federal legislation and replaces it with "intellectual disability."  The changes include the statute that underlie special education law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  Here is the text of the law.  Here are President Obama's remarks when he signed the bill into law.

Rosa Marcellino, for whom the law was named, was on hand for the signing ceremony.  Rosa worked with her parents and siblings to get the offensive word removed from the laws first in Maryland and then in the United States Congress. Here is a report on the law by Disability Scoop. 

This is a big development in the law.  thanks to our friend Mark for suggesting this post.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

More Honors for This Blog

Fifty Paise CoinImage via Wikipedia


We are gratified by the response to this blog.  We have won some impressive honors. In 2008 we won first place in the education blog category of the Bloggers Choice Awards. We have won the prestigious Blog of the Day award.  We are also listed on the blogrolls of a number of highly respected blogs.  And we are found on some amazing tweet lists and facebook pages.  

Recently we were listed on another list of top blogs.  This time we were honored to be among the Fifty Best Blogs For special Needs Teachers.  Here is a link.  We are again overwhelmed by the great reaction we continue to receive.

But as always the very best reward we receive for this blog is the impressive array of special education stakeholders who subscribe to this blog and  who read our posts.  We are pleased that you find the resources that we share useful.  Thank you!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Middle Ground on FAPE: Why the Statutory Preamble Isn't Enough

Unofficial seal of the United States CongressImage via Wikipedia
Many readers have reacted to my call for a higher standard for FAPE by saying that the law already provides a potential maximizing standard.  They refer to the Congressional findings in IDEA.

One legal point here.  The courts rarely put any importance in the Congressional findings.  They are largely considered symbolic efforts by our elected representatives.  Why many of you have asked does Congress bother to stuff laws with nice sounding language that really doesn't do any good?  I suggest that you ask your congressman.  If you get a good answer, I'd love to hear it. Remember the old saw - there are two things that nobody such ever see being made: sausage and legislation.  I apologize in advance to those who feel that this is an insult to sausage.

The following is a quote from IDEA regarding the Congressional findings.  Tell me what you think,       



(c) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.
(2) Before the date of enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142), the educational needs of millions of children with disabilities were not being fully met because--
(A) the children did not receive appropriate educational services;
(B) the children were excluded entirely from the public school system and from being educated with their peers;
(C) undiagnosed disabilities prevented the children from having a successful educational experience; or
(D) a lack of adequate resources within the public school system forced families to find services outside the public school system.
(3) Since the enactment and implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, this title has been successful in ensuring children with disabilities and the families of such children access to a free appropriate public education and in improving educational results for children with disabilities.
(4) However, the implementation of this title has been impeded by low expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities.
(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by--
(A) having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible, in order to--
(i) meet developmental goals and, to the maximum extent possible, the challenging expectations that have been established for all children; and
(ii) be prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives, to the maximum extent possible;
(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home;
(C) coordinating this title with other local, educational service agency, State, and Federal school improvement efforts, including improvement efforts under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, in order to ensure that such children benefit from such efforts and that special education can become a service for such children rather than a place where such children are sent;
(D) providing appropriate special education and related services, and aids and supports in the regular classroom, to such children, whenever appropriate;
(E) supporting high-quality, intensive preservice preparation and professional development for all personnel who work with children with disabilities in order to ensure that such personnel have the skills and knowledge necessary to improve the academic achievement and functional performance of children with disabilities, including the use of scientifically based instructional practices, to the maximum extent possible;
(F) providing incentives for whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address the learning and behavioral needs of such children;
(G) focusing resources on teaching and learning while reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving educational results; and
(H) supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities.
(6) While States, local educational agencies, and educational service agencies are primarily responsible for providing an education for all children with disabilities, it is in the national interest that the Federal Government have a supporting role in assisting State and local efforts to educate children with disabilities in order to improve results for such children and to ensure equal protection of the law.
(7) A more equitable allocation of resources is essential for the Federal Government to meet its responsibility to provide an equal educational opportunity for all individuals.
(8) Parents and schools should be given expanded opportunities to resolve their disagreements in positive and constructive ways.
(9) Teachers, schools, local educational agencies, and States should be relieved of irrelevant and unnecessary paperwork burdens that do not lead to improved educational outcomes.
(A) The Federal Government must be responsive to the growing needs of an increasingly diverse society.
(B) America's ethnic profile is rapidly changing. In 2000, 1 of every 3 persons in the United States was a member of a minority group or was limited English proficient.
(C) Minority children comprise an increasing percentage of public school students.
(D) With such changing demographics, recruitment efforts for special education personnel should focus on increasing the participation of minorities in the teaching profession in order to provide appropriate role models with sufficient knowledge to address the special education needs of these students.
(A) The limited English proficient population is the fastest growing in our Nation, and the growth is occurring in many parts of our Nation.
(B) Studies have documented apparent discrepancies in the levels of referral and placement of limited English proficient children in special education.
(C) Such discrepancies pose a special challenge for special education in the referral of, assessment of, and provision of services for, our Nation's students from non- English language backgrounds.
(A) Greater efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities.
(B) More minority children continue to be served in special education than would be expected from the percentage of minority students in the general school population.
(C) African-American children are identified as having mental retardation and emotional disturbance at rates greater than their White counterparts.
(D) In the 1998-1999 school year, African-American children represented just 14.8 percent of the population aged 6 through 21, but comprised 20.2 percent of all children with disabilities.
(E) Studies have found that schools with predominately White students and teachers have placed disproportionately high numbers of their minority students into special education.
(A) As the number of minority students in special education increases, the number of minority teachers and related services personnel produced in colleges and universities continues to decrease.
(B) The opportunity for full participation by minority individuals, minority organizations, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities in awards for grants and contracts, boards of organizations receiving assistance under this title, peer review panels, and training of professionals in the area of special education is essential to obtain greater success in the education of minority children with disabilities.
(14) As the graduation rates for children with disabilities continue to climb, providing effective transition services to promote successful post-school employment or education is an important measure of accountability for children with disabilities. 

IDEA §601(c)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Big Reaction to My Call for a Middle Ground on FAPE Standard

View of Capitol Hill from the U.S. Supreme CourtImage via Wikipedia
In a post last week, I suggested that maybe there could be a FAPE standard that does not encompass either extreme. Since 1982, which is a long time when you are dealing with new law, when the U S Supreme Court decided Rowley, the FAPE standard has been that a school district must create an IEP for a child with a disability that is reasonably calculated to confer some educational benefit.  The court described this as the basic floor of opportunity. This case is the cornerstone of special education law.

The lower courts that decided Rowley before it reached the supremes ruled, based in part on explicit language in the legislative history of IDEA's predecessor, the EHA. that the standard was that a school district is required to maximize the student's potential.  Parents often argue that this should be the standard.  Many of us feel that our schools should maximize the potential of all children.  We are not willing, however, to pay the level of property taxes necessary to support such an education system.

Last week I suggested that maybe there can be a middle ground.  We received many thoughtful and heartfelt comments on the blog, numerous emails, and reactions on our related facebook special education law group.   I believe that this may be a debate worth having- especially with IDEA overdue for an overhaul.

As I have argued here before, special education law is new law.  New law is whatever did not come over on the boat from England. The cycle of change is a part of the deal: amendments to the law, new federal regs, new state regs, some hearing officer decisions, some court rulings.  Just when we all are pretty comfortable, it's time for reauthorization and amending the law once again.  The cycle of change continues.

So change is not foreign to this area of the law.  In fact we embrace it.  So why not reconsider the FAPE standard?  

This change would have to come from Congress.  One District Court held that the FAPE standard was outdated, after a very long delay the decision was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Congress will be eventually reauthorizing IDEA, it is overdue, and amendments will be considered.

So what do you think?  Please let me know.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 31, 2011

The Role of Poverty in Education - Revisited

Graph showing SAT scores in relation to family...Image via Wikipedia
I have said here before that my main problem with the education reform movement is that it  largely ignores the role of poverty upon a child's ability to learn. Even if we eliminated every bad teacher, and I concede that there are some bad teachers- I had a few myself!, children from poor families will still do worse on standardized tests than rich kids.  

Others have gone into more detail on this topic.  Poor kids come to school hungry and often scared. They are not read to by their parents and they don't have a lot of models for how to study. They have ready access to drugs, gangs and violence as the most apparent solution to problems.  They come to bat with more than two strikes.  

The best way to improve our schools would clearly be to eliminate- or at least to reduce- poverty.  We would no longer be # 18 or # 34 on the lists of national school systems. 

I was reminded of this issue last week when a poor black woman from Ohio was convicted of a felony for sending her kids to a richer school system.  The Judge sentenced her to jail time to make an example out of her.  You cannot put your poor kids in a rich school system.  Great! We cannot catch  Osama Bin Laden, but we sure got that Kelley Williams-Bolar! Here is a news article on her sentencing.

I'm not sure how this is a special education issue exactly, but I imagine that reducing poverty would help all education- special and otherwise.  Aren't we too great of a nation to allow our kids to have so little of a chance at getting an education?  

Am I wrong?  What do you think?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Procedural Safeguards The Series - Part XIII

LawyerImage via WikipediaThis is the final installment in a multi-part series on procedural safeguards under the federal special education law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I work a lot in this area, so it is near and dear to my heart. Despite the importance of procedural safeguards. however, many issues in this area are misunderstood. I hope that all of the different types of special education stakeholders who read this blog find the information in this series helpful. Be sure to tell me what you thought about the series.



Attorneys’ Fees


IDEA’04 changed the section on attorneys’ fees to provide that a school district or SEA may now recover their attorneys’ fees from the parent’s attorney who files a complaint that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation or who continues to litigate after the litigation clearly becomes frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Section 615 (i)(3)(B)(i)(II). Also, the statute now provides that a school district or SEA may now recover their attorneys’ fees from the parent or the parent’s attorney where the claim was presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Section 615 (i)(3)(B)(i)(III). The standard for an award against a parent’s attorney or a parent is very high, and it is unlikely that many awards of attorneys’ fees will be made against parent’s attorneys, and especially against parents without attorneys. These new provisions, however, may cause counsel who represent parents to decline borderline cases. There could also be awards in those rare cases in which parents clearly abuse the system. OSEP declined to clarify the standard for an award of attorney’s fees against a parent stating that judicial interpretations would likely vary on a case-by-case basis and should be left to the discretion of the court. 34 CFR Section 300.517(c)(2)(ii); 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46708 (August 14, 2006).

The provision permitting an award of attorneys’ fees to parents who prevail in a due process or court proceeding remains unchanged in IDEA’04. The regulations provide that attorney’s fees may not be awarded for attending IEP team meetings, except where they are convened as a result of judicial action, an administrative proceeding, or in the discretion of the state, for a mediation. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at pages 46708-09 (August 14, 2006).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: OSEP has also published a Question and Answer document, Questions and Answers On Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures For Parents and Children With Disabilities (OSEP Revised June 2009). The Q & A document is available at the OSEP IDEA website:

In addition, NICHY, also known as the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, has issued a series of training module on procedural safeguards. The training modules are available online here.





 

Enhanced by Zemanta