So Misunderstood! Category of Disability Part I

This is the internationally recognized symbol ...Image via Wikipedia



Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or "IDEA," the category of disability plays one role only. To be eligible for special education and related services, a child must first have one of the enumerated disabilities and "by reason thereof" be in need of special education. IDEA Section 602(3).

That's it. Period. End of discussion.

Yet I have talked to many special education professionals who believe that services are determined by the category of disability. Once again, this is not correct. Once a child is eligible for special education and related services, she is eligible. Period. The question becomes what are the child's educational needs, {Needs too is a term of art -the question is what does the child need in order to achieve some (meaningful) educational benefit.}

Despite this small bit of clarity in the metaphysical realm that is special education law, I have had whole hearings where all parties agreed that the child was eligible under one category of disability, but the parents also wanted her "labeled" autistic. I kept asking what it mattered, but to no avail. Similarly I have seen school districts that have certain services only available to those children in the autism program, etc.

The notion of treating whole groups of people the same is inconsistent with the concept of individuality embodied in IDEA. Let's keep the "I" in IDEA and IEP! Indeed, the idea that it would be right to treat groups of people exactly the same because they share a category of disability is rooted in stereotyping. Stereotyping underlies most types of discrimination. Each child with a disability is an individual, and their individual needs , rather than their category of disability, should drive their educational program.

In the next post in this series, we will look at some of the caselaw on this issue.


Jim Gerl's Idols 2010 Tour- the Quest for a Name Continues

Close up of Yamaha Rock tour Custom badge.Image via Wikipedia

As regular readers know, my summer speaking tour still has no name. Summer is upon us and as most of you already know from the classic rock song- there ain't no cure for the summer time blues!

Seriously though, a number of you have already said you will greet me during one or more stops of my tour. I hope more of you will do so. I always like to meet the readers of this blog. Please stop me and say hello if you will be at any of my conferences.

Here is the schedule (for the back of the T-shirts- hint hint):

I have made a semi-permanent gadget on the left-hand side of the blog which states where I will be and includes registration links where available. PLEASE NOTE: none of the state departments of education or other agencies or sponsors of these conferences in any way endorse this blog. My comments, here and elsewhere, are my own and should not be taken to represent the views of the sponsoring organizations or any other entity. (That was what we call a disclaimer; there is a purpose for lawyers.)

From July 27 - 29, 2010, I will be at the Wyoming Special Education Leadership Symposium in Lander, Wyoming. I will be part of a panel discussing least restrictive environment issues; I will give a paired presentation with the highly regarded Julie Weatherly ( a big honor for me) on educational benefit and I will be doing a solo session discussing dispute resolution options.

I will attend the Utah Institute on Special Education Law on August 2 - 3, 2010 at the Eccles Center in Ogden, Utah, and I will do a (non-public) hearing officer/mediator training the next day.

From August 30 - September 1, 2010, I will be at the Arizona Special Education Directors Institute in Litchfield Park, Arizona. I will do repeat presentations on the role of the non-attorney advocate in IEP team meetings and due process hearings.

I will for the sixth straight year be a part of the faculty at the National Association of Hearing Officials Annual Conference from September 26 - 29, 2010 in Music City, Nashville, Tennessee. I will be presenting on the prehearing process and on ruling on objections.

Please book your trip now.


Breaking News: New GAO Report: More Needs to be Done to Provide Physical Education Opportunities for Children with Disabilities

Logo of the United States Government Accountab...Image via Wikipedia



The General Accountability Office of the federal government has released a new report on the limited opportunity for physical education for students with disabilities. By way of background, it should be noted that IDEA, the federal special education law, specifically includes physical education within the definition of special education. IDEA § 601(29)(B). Moreover, the federal regulations clarify that the school district must provide PE, if provides it to students without disabilities. 34 C.F.R. §300.108.

The GAO report found that students with disabilities participate in physical education but at a lower rate than their non-disabled peers. the report recommends that the Secretary of Education promote ways of sharing information among states and school districts concerning ways to provide additional physical education opportunities for children with disabilities. In addition, GAO recommended that the department of education clarify the legal responsibilities of the schools under federal law. The Department of Education agreed with both recommendations. You can read the report here.

Here is a one page synopsis of the report.

This could be a possible hot button issue in special education law. Stay tuned.


Enhanced by Zemanta

We're No. 2; Special Education Law Blog Named Second Best Special Education Blog

Matrix of some uses of blogs in educationImage by acroamatic via Flickr



A recent list of the top 40 Special Education Blogs ranks this blog as number 2! As the old television ad says, we try harder. But seriously, this is another big honor for this blog.

Here is the list. There are some amazing blogs on the list. We are honored to be named number two. You may want to check out the others.

If you like special education blogs, some of my favorites are listed on the lefthand side of the blog. There is also a widget with the headlines of the current CEC smartbrief and a link to the Blognet News Education News.

Another source for education information is the Blogger's Choice Awards. This blog was named Best Education Blog in the 2008 Blogger's Choice Awards. The website lists all kinds of blogs by category. You can also get to the website by going to the lefthand side of the blog and vote for us in the 2010 Blogger's Choice Awards.

I'm always impressed by the wide variety of special ed stakeholders who read this blog. Thank you and please keep reading.


Free Ning - the Demise of a Special Education Law Based Social Group

Original caption from NASA: "S103-E-5037 ...Image via Wikipedia



Bad news: soon the Ning based Special Education Law Group shall perish from the face of the Earth. It seems that Ning has decided to become a pay only service. It will no longer be free. I set up these social network groups solely for the purpose of bringing special ed law junkies together. I refuse, however, to pay for space of the internets! Call me old fashioned! As you can tell by the elevated level of sarcasm, I resent this!

If any of the Ning group members want to finance the group, you have my blessing. If not, we should be fine with the Facebook, LinkedIn, and Plaxo special education law groups. If you have not checked them out, please take a look. Theses groups have some good discussions and networking opportunities. There are links to all of them on the infamous lefthand side of this blog.

A related point:
The subscriptions to this blog are free. There are three types of subscriptions: you can receive all the posts by email, or you can get an RSS feed for a reader or aggregator, like NetVibes or Google Reader, or you can get a widget for your own blog or website. All are free.

Free Ning!



Time [...] for the wedding,...

Time [...] for the wedding, back next week. listen

Powered by Jott

Special Education Law 101- Part V Compensatory Education - Revisited

U.S. Route 101Image via Wikipedia

I have recently been rerunning a previous series on the basics of special education law. I hope that it has been a good basic course for some and an important review for others. Let me know what you think.

Today's final installment involves compensatory education

Special Ed Law 101- Part III Compensatory Education

Relief to successful parents in a special education case does not include money damages. In addition to reimbursement for unilateral placements, the most common relief awarded to a prevailing parent/student in a special education case. A hearing officer awards compensatory education as a remedy for denial of FAPE to the student. The prerequisite again is a denial of FAPE or some other violation of IDEA.

The method for determining the appropriate type and amount of compensatory education varies wildly among hearing officers. The most common method has been to determine the period of time equal to the deprivation of FAPE excluding the time reasonably required for the school district to have corrected it. Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist. 106 LRP 20056 (SEA Pa. 2/18/6). See also, Warwick Sch Dist 107 LRP 10896 (SEA PA 12/1/6); In Re Student with a Disability 106 LRP 65292 (SEA NY 10/31/6) (similar quantitative approaches).

The D.C Circuit, however, has developed a preferable qualitative standard for awards of compensatory education in order to place disabled students in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district’s violation of IDEA. Reid ex rel Reid v. District of Columbia 401 F.3d 516, 43 IDELR 32 (D.C. Cir. 3/25/05). The court rejected the hearing officer’s calculation awarding one hour of compensatory education for each day of denial of FAPE. The court also rejected the parents’ request of one hour of compensatory education for each hour of denial of FAPE. Instead, the court adopted a more flexible approach based upon the needs of the child who has been denied FAPE. For example some students might require only short intensive compensatory programs targeting specific deficiencies. Other students may require more extended programs, perhaps requiring even more hours than the number of hours of FAPE denied. Accordingly, the court remanded this matter for the submission of evidence as to the student’s deficiencies resulting from the denial of FAPE. Reid, supra. See also, West Lyon Community Sch Dist v. Northwest Area Educ Agency 107 LRP 30759 (SEA Iowa 5/9/7); Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County v. LM ex rel TD 45 IDELR 95 (E.D.Ky 3/6/6); BC by JC v. Penn Manor Sch Dist 46 IDELR 135 (Pa Commonwealth Ct. 8/15/6); Berkeley Unified Sch Dist 107 LRP 2566 (SEA Calif 12/28/6)(similar qualitative approaches). I find the qualitative approach to be better reasoned than the quantitative (hour for hour) method of calculating compensatory education.

Please note that that a prevailing parent/student cannot receive both reimbursement for educational services purchased and an award of compensatory education for the same violation of IDEA. Ambridge Area Sch Dist 106 LRP 60446 (SEA PA 10/2/6) The panel concluded that this would constitute impermissible double recovery.



Why Everybody Hates Special Education Law

welcome to urbanaImage by lauromaia via Flickr



I was giving a presentation last month and one of the participants yelled out, "but we still don't have an answer." This took me by surprise inasmuch as there is rarely an "answer" in special education law. To explain my point, I told the unhappy participant that special education law is more like metaphysics than it is like contract law. This may not have satisfied the participant, but it is true and I like the analogy.

Special ed law is new law as we have said here before. For me, "new law" is roughly defined as whatever didn't come over on the boat from England. Because special ed law is of a mid-1970's vintage, it is very new law. Older lawyers don't like new law, especially law that combines social policy. They like property and contracts- areas of the law where you can look at a set of facts and provide reasonably reliable advice to a client. Special ed law is not like that.

Special education law is a lot like the weather in Urbana, it changes frequently. In fact I have often commented on these pages about the "cycle" of special ed law. The statute was enacted, followed by federal regulations, followed by state regulations, followed by hearing officer decisions followed by court decisions, (both trial and appellate court opinions)(we even have ten by the Supremes). Then the statute, IDEA, is reauthorized and changed and the whole cycle repeats until we are pretty comfortable with the law, then the process repeats itself again. As I have said before, if certainty or red letter, hornbook law is your thing, you may not like special ed law. (I still think that there must be a Jeff Foxworthy joke in there somewhere, but I can't quite grasp of it!)

The ever-changing nature of it makes teachers, parents, administrators and many others hate special education law. It's slippery, and it's hard to get a handle on. How many cases, like the recent Supreme Court case of Forest Grove, have we seen where several of the decision makers disagree as to the result based upon the same set of facts? The answer my friend is in the eye of the beholder.

Only those who enjoy metaphysics, a shrinking number indeed, refuse to hate special ed law, or the "player" as we call it. We do have some guiding principles, but the rule of law model of applying a clearly established legal standard to any given set of facts doesn't really work here. Don't hate the player!


Enhanced by Zemanta

Special Education Law 101 - Part IV Revisited

The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as see...Image via Wikipedia

For the last few weeks, I have been running a repeat series I wrote a few years ago on the basics of special education law, with a few updates as appropriate. This is part three.

Today, I'm going to discuss unilateral placements.

Special Ed Law 101- Part III Unilateral Placements

among the relief that a due process hearing officer may award is reimbursement for a unilateral placement by the parents. In the case of Burlington Sch. Comm. V. Dept. of Educ., et. al. 471 U.S. 359, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 556 IDELR 389 (1985), the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether the IDEA permitted courts (and hearing officers) to award reimbursement to parents when the IEP developed by the schools is not appropriate and the parent removes the student from public school and places him in a private school that does provide FAPE. Noting that the statutory provisions of the IDEA confer broad equitable powers upon the courts to fashion an appropriate remedy, and the fact that judicial review of IDEA cases often takes years, the Supreme Court held that the IDEA does empower courts and hearing officers to award such reimbursement. Burlington, supra.

In Florence County Sch. Dist. v. Shannon Carter, et. al. 510 U.S. 7, 114 S.Ct. 361, 20 IDELR 532 (1993), the Supreme Court was faced with a unilateral placement case in which the public schools provided an inappropriate education leading to a unilateral placement at a private school that provided an appropriate education for the student but that did not meet some of the requirements of the SEA (specifically state approval of the private school.) The Supreme Court held that courts and hearing officers may award reimbursement in these cases. Carter, supra.

The IDEA now provides that a hearing officer or court may order an LEA to reimburse parents for a unilateral placement if the hearing officer or court finds that the LEA had not made FAPE available to the student in a timely manner prior to the enrollment in the private school. IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(ii). Such reimbursement may be reduced or denied if the parents failed at the last IEP meeting to reject the proposed placement and state their intent to enroll the child in private school at public expense, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(I)(aa); or if they fail to give written notice to the LEA of their rejection of the proposed placement and state their intent to enroll the child in private school at public expense 10 business days prior to removal, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(I)(bb); or if the parents fail to make the student available for an evaluation, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(II); or upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(III). Reimbursement shall not be reduced or denied for failure to give notice if the school prevented the parent from providing such notice, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(I)(aa); or if the parents were not provided with written procedural safeguards stating this notice requirement, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(I)(bb); or if compliance with the notice clause would likely result in physical harm to the child, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(I)(cc). Within the discretion of the hearing officer or court, reimbursement may or may not be reduced or denied if the parents are illiterate or cannot write in English, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(II)(aa); or if compliance with this clause would likely result in serious emotional harm to the child, IDEA, Section 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(II)(bb). See also, 34 C.F.R. Section 300.148.

The most recent decision by the supremes also involves unilateral placements. In Forest Grove Sch Dist v. TA 557 U.S. _____, 109 LRP 36046(6/22/2009). Many people had questioned how a student with serious cannabis abuse issues could be eligible, but that issue was not properly before the court. The only issue was whether the 1997 amendments provision {Section 612(a)(10)(C)(iii)} prohibited reimbursement for unilateral private school placements by parents whose child never received special education from a public school.

The court first reviewed its decisions in Burlington and Carter and renewed their holdings that where a school district denies FAPE and a parent's private placement is appropriate and the equities so permit, a court has broad equitable authority to award appropriate relief including reimbursement for private placements. It is interesting that both Burlington and Carter were unanimous decisions by the high court.

The issue then was whether the 1997 amendments required a different result in this case. the Supreme Court rejected the school district's reading of the statutory provision. The Court found that Section 612(a)(10)(C) did not prohibit reimbursement in other circumstances but rather just permits it in the common circumstance where a child is receiving special education in public school. The Court ruled that these statutory provisions were "elucidative rather than exhaustive." Slip Op at p. 11. (Justice Souter's dissent has some fun with this phrase noting that "When a mother tells a boy that he may go out and play after his homework is done, he knows what she means.")

The majority opinion goes on to note that the 1997 amendments do not impliedly repeal the Burlington and Carter decisions. The opinion notes that it would take more than Congress' failure to comment on previous decisions by the Supreme Court to effect a repeal by implication, which is a doctrine that is not highly favored in the law.

The court then notes that the school district position is inconsistent with the remedial purpose of IDEA and the 1997 amendments thereto. The strong purpose of providing children with a disability with a free and appropriate public education was paramount in the reasoning of the court in Burlington, Carter and this case.

In perhaps the strongest statement in the majority opinion, the Court states that immunizing a school district's refusal to find a child eligible "... no matter how compelling the child's need... would produce a rule bordering on the irrational." The court noted the anomalous result of the school district's position in that it would permit reimbursement where a district offered inadequate services but would leave parents without the remedy in the more egregious situation in which a district unreasonably denies a child access to such services altogether. In rejecting the availability of procedural safeguards provided by IDEA other than reimbursement as an alternative, the court once again noted that the "review process is ponderous."


Supreme Court Declines to Review NCLB Decision

West face of the United States Supreme Court b...Image via Wikipedia



The United States Supreme Court has declined to review the challenge to No Child Left Behind brought by several school districts and teachers unions. Technically, the court denied certiorari in the case of School District of Pontiac, Michigan v. Duncan, et al.

Previously, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit non-decision tied, 8 to 8, which let stand a U. S. District Court decision dismissing the case. The lawsuit challenged the law as an unfunded mandate. Here is Mark Walsh's blog entry on the case.

For now, at least, No Child Left Behind is safe. Look for the name to change soon though, as the "NCLB" brand has lost favor. It is unfortunate that important public policy decisions are reduced to advertising and marketing analysis, but hey, this is the twenty-first century, baby!

I have an idea, let's have a contest for the rebranding (ie, renaming) of NCLB. How about "every good boy does fine" (remember music class anybody?). How about "45% left behind"? Or perhaps, "God Bless the Child"? Maybe "the children are our future"? Surely, you can top these weak entries! Leave your ideas in a comment.


The Jim Gerl Too Legit To Quit Tour

Sunset in Lander, WyomingImage by Canon Chris via Flickr

My recent post on my upcoming summer tour got a very positive reaction. Last summer's IDEA Remedies Tour was a big success. By the way, if you'd like to organize a tour for your rock band, here is a helpful wiki. There is a lot of stuff on the internet.

As I stated in the last post: if you read this blog and you will be in any of these places while I am there, please let me know or come by and say hello. I always enjoy meeting readers of the blog. These are only the conferences that are open to the public although in some instances, my presentation may not be open to the public. Please check the registration sites for more specifics.

By the way, is it just me or are those "hello my name is" tags used at conferences getting smaller and smaller? This makes for embarrassing, and possibly inappropriate, stares as I desperately try to get the names of those whom I am talking to. To those of you who organize conferences, please consider using larger type on these name tags.

With due apologies to Hammer, I'm still looking for a better name for the tour. The "Too Legit to Quit Tour," really doesn't do it justice. (INSERT appropriate music here.)

I have made a semi-permanent gadget on the left-hand side of the blog which states where I will be and includes registration links where available. PLEASE NOTE: none of the state departments of education or other agencies or sponsors of these conferences in any way endorse this blog. My comments, here and elsewhere, are my own and should not be taken to represent the views of the sponsoring organizations or any other entity. (That was what we call a disclaimer; there is a purpose for lawyers.)

From July 27 - 29, 2010, I will be at the Wyoming Special Education Leadership Symposium in Lander, Wyoming. I will be part of a panel discussing least restrictive environment issues; I will give a paired presentation with the highly regarded Julie Weatherly (a big honor for me) on educational benefit and I will be doing a solo session discussing dispute resolution options.

I will attend the Utah Institute on Special Education Law on August 2 - 3, 2010 at the Eccles Center in Ogden, Utah, and I will do a (non-public) hearing officer/mediator training the next day.

From August 30 - September 1, 2010, I will be at the Arizona Special Education Directors Institute in Litchfield Park, Arizona. I will do repeat presentations on the role of the non-attorney advocate in IEP team meetings and due process hearings.

I will for the sixth straight year be a part of the faculty at the National Association of Hearing Officials Annual Conference from September 26 - 29, 2010 in Music City, Nashville Tennessee. I will be presenting on the prehearing process and on ruling on objections.

So there it is, please stop and say hello if you will be nearby. Again the name challenge- if you have a better name for my tour than Too Legit to Quit, please leave a comment.




Special Education Law 101 - Part III Revisited

A Blue Bird Vision school bus with a propane-f...Image via Wikipedia



For the last few weeks, I have been running a repeat series I wrote a few years ago on the basics of special education law, with a few updates as appropriate. This is part three.

Today, I'm going to discuss related services.

Special Ed Law 101- Part III


The IDEA definition of FAPE, as explained in Part I of this series, includes both special education and related services. This post involves a discussion of issues pertaining to related services.



Related Services

The IDEA defines related services as follows:
(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘related services’ means transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free and appropriate public education as described in the individualized education program of the child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education…
(B) EXCEPTION—The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device.
IDEA, Section 602(26). See, 34 C.F.R. Section 300.34.

So a related service is transportation or other developmental, corrective or other supportive services that are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. If the related service is required for the student to benefit from special education, FAPE requires that the school district provide the related service.

The issue of related services has resulted in two decisions by the United States Supreme Court. The first decision was Irving Independent Sch. Dist. v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883, 104 S.Ct. 3371, 555 IDELR 511 (1984). The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals holding that a procedure known as clean intermittent catheterization was a related service because the student could not attend school without it and, therefore, without the procedure she could not benefit from special education. Tatro, supra. The Supreme Court also affirmed the holding of the Court of Appeals that clean intermittent catheterization is not exempted by the medical services provision because the procedure did not have to be performed by a doctor, it could be done by a layperson with an hour of training. Tatro, supra.

The second decision was Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. 526 U.S. 66, 119 S.Ct. 992, 29 IDELR 966 (1999). In this case, the Supreme Court held that urinary bladder catheterization and suctioning of tracheotomy plus various monitoring was a related service. Garret F., supra. Applying the “bright line” test of the Tatro decision, the Court held that because the related services did not have to be performed by a physician, the medical services exclusion did not apply and the schools were required to provide the services for the student. Garret F., supra. The Court specifically and emphatically rejected the argument raised by the schools that the cost of providing the services was a defense. Garret F., supra.


Common Core Academic Standards Adopted

WILMINGTON, OH - DECEMBER 18:  Taylor Rolfe, a...Image by Getty Images via @daylife



The Common Core Academic Standards have been announced. You can review them here. The common academic standards for English and Math for grades Kindergarten to 12 were developed by the National Governor's Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. All but two states (Texas and Alaska) were involved in the development of the standards. Adoption of the standards is a required component of receipt of federal Race to The Top funding, but the federal government was not involved in developing the standards. Here is a news article. The common standards appear to have the endorsement of the teacher's unions as well.

This does have an impact upon special education. The FAPE requirement requires that special education be provided consistent with state standards and the definition of special education includes specialized instruction which requires adapting to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum. See 34 CFR §§ 300.17, 300.39.

What impact do you think that the core academic standards will have upon special education?