Image via WikipediaThanks to a heads up from an alert reader.The last post misstates the year of the CADRE conference in Eugene. It will be October 26 - 28, 2011.
Sorry about the typo!
Correction
Image via WikipediaThanks to a heads up from an alert reader.The last post misstates the year of the CADRE conference in Eugene. It will be October 26 - 28, 2011.
Sorry about the typo!
New Stop Added to the 2011 Jim Gerl Special Education Law Tour
Image via WikipediaI am pleased to announce another stop on the 2011 Jim Gerl Special Education Law Tour. I was recently informed that I will have the honor of being among the faculty for Showcasing Exemplary Practices: The Fifth National Symposium on Dispute Resolution in Special Education, convening October 26-28, 2010 in Eugene, Oregon. The Symposium is sponsored by CADRE, the National Center on Dispute Resolution in Special Education.
CADRE is the OSEP funded technical assistance agency for dispute resolution in special education. They do a great job. It is a place where I often go for help, and the folks who work there always come through for me. The CADRE website, which has a link on the lefthand side of this blog, contains a wealth of resources for mediators, hearing officers, state complaint investigators, IEP facilitators, due process and dispute resolution coordinators, and others involved in special education disputes. The website is very useful; check it out.
But CADRE's conferences are the best experience possible for people who deal with special ed disputes. The keynote speakers are world class mediators. The workshops at the professional Development Institute during the conference teach usable skills. This is one conference you shouldn't miss.
As always, I'd love to meet readers of this blog. If you'll be at the conference, or if you're in Eugene then, please say hello. And thanks for reading.
Special Education Law 101 - Part VI
Image via Wikipedia IEP Issues
Issues pertaining to IEPS are among the most frequent to appear in due process hearings. Here are some fundamental points:
Issues pertaining to individualized education programs are governed by IDEA §§ 612(a)(4) and 614 (d)-(f). See, 34 C.F.R, §§ 300.320-300.323, 300.324 – 300.328.
L.B. & J.B. on behalf of K.B. v. Nebo Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ., et al, 379 F.3d 966, 41 IDELR 206 (10th Cir. 8/11/2004). The IEP is the basic mechanism through which each child’s individual goals are achieved.
D.F. & D.F. ex rel N.F. v. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. 105 LRP 57524 (2d Cir. 11/23/05). The Court notes that the case raises an issue as to whether it is proper to utilize prospective or retrospective analysis of an IEP. The court stated that an IEP is a snapshot not a retrospective. In striving for appropriateness, an IEP must take into account what was, and was not, objectively reasonable when the snapshot was taken, i.e., at the time the IEP was formulated. Contrast, MS by Simchick v. Fairfax County Sch Bd 553 F.3d 315, 51 IDELR 148 (4th Cir 1/14/09).
New Stop Added to Jim Gerl 2011 Special Education Law Tour
Image via WikipediaWell another stop has been added to my 2011 Special Education Law Tour. I will be co-presenting a session on resolution sessions at the Arizona Director's Conference. The conference will be held from August 29 to 31, 2011 at the Wigwam Resort. You can learn more about this conference at the Arizona Department of education website
The tour is now well under way. As always I am having a great time traveling around the country. I am meeting many of our wonderful readers on the tour.
By the way next week, I will be in Columbia South Carolina. Because this stop is for meetings tat are not open to the public, it is not an official tour stop. But I am definitely looking forward to spending a few days in Columbia.
If you will be near any of my stops, please find me and say hello. In the meantime, thanks for your ongoing support!
Special Education Law 101 - Part V
Image via Wikipedia Common Issues in Due Process Hearings
Under the IDEA, a due process hearing may be requested with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or placement of the child, or of the provision of FAPE. IDEA, § 615(b)(6). The following are among the issues that are common in due process hearings.
a. Identification & Eligibility
Issues pertaining to identification and eligibility are governed by IDEA § 612(a)(3) and 614 (b)(4)-(6). See, 34 C.F.R, § 300.121- 300.125, 300.300, 300.306, 300.307 – 300.311.
In summary, to be eligible, a child must have one of the enumerated conditions(mental impairment, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities)(which adversely affects his education) and by reason thereof, he must need special education and related services.
Some important circuit court decisions:
Marshall Joint Sch Dist No 2 v. CD by Brian & Traci D 616 F.3d 632, 54 IDELR 307 (7th Cir 8/2/10) Seventh Circuit reversed HO who found student eligible solely upon physician’s opinion that the student could benefit from adaptive PE. The Seventh Circuit noted that a physician may not simply prescribe special education; IEPT must consider relevant factors.
Alvin Indep Sch Dist v. AD by Patricia F 503 F.3d 378, 48 IDELR 240 (5th Cir. 10/4/7) The fifth Circuit affirmed a holding that despite a fifth grader’s ADHD, he was not eligible for special education. The student consistently received passing grades, he succeeded on statewide tests and he was achieving in social situations. Accordingly, he did not by reason thereof “need special education and related services,” and, therefore, he was not a child with a disability as defined by the IDEA
Hood v. Encinitas Union Sch Dist 47 IDELR 213 (9th Cir. 4/9/7) The Ninth Circuit applied the Rowley standard to an eligibility issue. Where the student consistently received above average grades despite her disability, she received educational benefit, and therefore, was not eligible for SpEd. NOTE: One legal scholars has questioned whether the Rowley test is too restrictive for eligibility purposes, Weber, Mark "The IDEA Eligibility Mess," http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1206202
More Fun With Numbers: The Condition of Education 2011
Image via WikipediaTime for some statistics, or as we used to say in the old neighborhood, "satistics." The National Center for Educational Statistics, an arm of the United States Department of Education, has released its annual report, "The Condition of Education 2011." It is huge. If you like data, and educators collect all kinds of data, this report is for you
You can read the entire report or sections here. Please take a look. Thanks to our friends at NICHCY, the national clearinghouse for special ed information for the heads up about the report. The document has stats about education of all kinds not just special ed. Here are some highlights:
The number of kids receiving special education in 2008-2009 was 6.5 million, about 13.2% of all public school kids. I know that the next sentence is going to cause my buddy, Dr Data, to send me an email, but the percentage has decreased ever so slightly each school year since 2004-2005 when it was 13.8% of all children in school.
The LRE numbers are also interesting. In 2008-2009, the 5 of special ed kids in the general education environment at least 80% of the time is 58%. Those in gen ed 40-79 % are 21.7%. Those in gen ed 40% of the time or less are 15.1%. 3% are in separate schools. See Table A-7-2 for more LRE data, or to compare across school years or by categories of disability.
Reproduced below is Table A-7-1 which shows the number and percentage of 3 to 21 year olds served under IDEA by type of disability:
| Table A-7-1. Number and percentage distribution of 3- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, and number served as a percentage of total public school enrollment, by type of disability: Selected school years, 1980–81 through 2008–09—Continued | |||||||||
| Type of disability | 1980–81 | 1990–91 | 1995–96 | 2000–01 | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | 2006–07 | 2007–08 | 2008–09 |
| Number served as a percentage of total public school enrollment2 | |||||||||
| All disabilities | 10.1 | 11.4 | 12.4 | 13.3 | 13.8 | 13.7 | 13.6 | 13.4 | 13.2 |
| Specific learning disabilities | 3.6 | 5.2 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.0 |
| Speech or language impairments | 2.9 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.9 |
| Intellectual disability | 2.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Emotional disturbance | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| Hearing impairments | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Orthopedic impairments | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Other health impairments | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Visual impairments | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Multiple disabilities | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Deaf-blindness | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # |
| Autism | — | — | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Traumatic brain injury | — | — | # | # | # | # | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Developmental delay | — | — | — | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Preschool disabled1 | † | 0.9 | 1.2 | † | † | † | † | † | † |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
