Facebook Goes Corporate on Our Special Education Law Group!

Image via Wikipedia

One of the great features of this blog has been the externality that because of the blog, I have been forced into the modern world of social networking.  On the lefthand side of the blog are a number of ways that we try to share information and resources through the "new" technologies.  Many people take advantage of the free subscriptions and get our posts by email or in a reader {or as a blidget (=blog + widget) in their own blog or website.} 

You can also get a mobile phone-friendly version of the posts.  You can read the headlines when there are new posts through Twitter. You can also join one of the spin-off special education law groups that we have created.  The LinkedIn group now has 950 members.  Many people read our posts via LinkedIn or Facebook.

Many interesting, and sometimes very vigorous, discussions took place on the wall of the Facebook special education law group.Unfortunately, Facebook in its extremely corporate wisdom has determined that even though our group has 900+ members, the group would be "archived" because we did not have constant discussions over trivial matters.  It is difficult to believe that a group with over 900 members, a group that provides a forum for parents and school officials, and all other special education stakeholders, can share resources and debate information was not "active" enough for the Facebook overlords. I guess that sharing of information is not a moneymaker! 

I thought that Facebook was a social network, a power to the people, grass roots, in your face, rock & roll, stick it to the man, underground, mellow kind of place.  I guess I was wrong; it is all about money!

If you were one of the members of the special education law group, the "archiving" of the group means that you need to rejoin.  Please do so.  I'd hate to lose good members to Facebook's administrative efficiency campaign.  If you were not a member, I understand that new members may still join the group.  Please email me or make a comment on the blog if you have any difficulties.  We will continue to share information about special education through the new technologies with, or without, the help of Facebook!

Related articles

• Wyoming is Current Stop on Jim Gerl 2001 Special Education Law Tour (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• Arizona Current Stop On 2011 Jim Gerl Special Education Law Tour (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• I Won't Back Down: The Blog Continues (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• Big CADRE Conference Coming This Fall (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• This Blog Under Attack; What We Do and What We Do Not Do! (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• Open letter to the 750,000,000 Facebook users (councilblogs.wordpress.com)
• Facebook privacy issues: Social network is watching you even when you're logged out | Mail Online (tomhuff.wordpress.com)
• Refusing Facebook has social cost (cbc.ca)

Special Education Law 101 - Part XII Expenses and Attorney's Fees

Image by Oxfam International via Flickr

This is another in our ongoing series on the basics of special education law.  These posts are meant to be an imtroduction for those new to the field and a refresher for the seasoned veterans.

Attorney's Fees

A prevailing parent can generally get their attorney's fees from a court. IDEA §615(i)(1)(3).  They are not awarded by hearing officers but are awarded by the court.  Since 2004, a prevailing school district may get attorney's fees from a parent or parent's attorney if the case was frivolous or filed for improper purposes. IDEA §615(i)(1)(3)(b)(ii)and(iii).

Expenses-Expert witness fees

                             In Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist Bd. of Educ v. Murphy   540 U.S. 291, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 45 IDELR 267 (6/16/06) the Supreme Court ruled that a parent who prevails in an IDEA case is not entitled to recover expert witness fees under the Act’s provision allowing recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The parents cited the legislative history of the Act- including the joint statement of the House/Senate Conference Committee which stated that “The conferees intend the term ‘attorney’s fees as part of the costs’ to include reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses...”  The 6-3 majority of the Court, however, rejected the parents’ argument, holding that “costs” is a legal term of art which does not generally encompass expert witness fees.  Because Congress used the legal term of art “costs,” rather than “expenses,” the Court found that there is no need to review the legislative history.  Thus the Court held that a prevailing parent in an IDEA case is not entitled to be reimbursed for expert witness fess.

Related articles

• GAO Audit Sparks Battle Over Attorneys' Fees in Environmental Cases (nytimes.com)
• Special Education Law 101 - Part XII Stay Put (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• Arizona Conference a Big Success (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• I Won't Back Down: The Blog Continues (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• New Stop Added to the 2011 Jim Gerl Special Education Law Tour (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• Section 504 and ADA - the Redheaded Stepchildren of Special Education Law (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)

Announcing the Jim Gerl 2011 Special Education Law Tour

Image by cseeman via Flickr

Last year I had some fun with my special education law tour.  As I speak at conferences around the country, I like to let readers know so that they can drop by and say hello.  I have met a lot of the readers of this blog this way.  I always enjoy meeting our readers, and I get a lot of ideas for future posts through this method.  

We will need a new name for this year's tour.  Last year, after soliciting suggestions from readers, we called it the Gerls Rock Tour.  Once again, I'm requesting your tour naming ideas.  Be creative enough, and we might just select your suggestion as the tour name.

The following list of speaking engagements does not include in-house functions (such as hearing officer trainings or mediator trainings that I conduct) because you cannot hear me speak there. I'm looking forward to the tour:

April 25 - 28        Council For Exceptional Children Annual Conference      National Harbor, Md

July 12 - 15         10th Seattle U. IDEA Hearing Officer Academy             Seattle, WA

July 26 -  27        5th Annual Wyoming Special Ed Law Symposium            Lander, WY


Please note that there are likely to be another stop or two on the tour. But these have already been agreed to and I'm sure to be there.  Please find me and say hello if you will be at any of these fantastic conferences.  I will add new conferences to the list on the lefthand side of the blog as they are determined.  You can register for these conferences through the links on those lists.

Related articles

• Tech Update: Facebook Special Education Law Group Now Has 885 Members (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• Special Education Budget Blues (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• My Powers are Beyond Your Comprehension - Part II (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)

Georgia Public Schools Ban Seclusion & Place Limits on Restraints

Image via Wikipedia

The Georgia State Board of Education last week enacted a broad policy on seclusion and restraints in the public schools of the state. The new state rules prohibit seclusion; the use of chemical restraints (like prescription psychotic drugs); mechanical restraints (like handcuffs); and prone restraints. The bill also regulates other restraints and requires parental notification when the restraints are used on a student. Here is a news article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Federal legislation has been passed by the House of representatives, but the Senate has not yet acted. Georgia is one of the first to pass its own state law on the topic. Look for more state to act given the senate's reluctance to take up such an important issue in an election year.

New Jersey families who oppose the use of seclusion and restraint have their own website. Missouri has required local school districts to develop written policies on seclusion and restraint. What is happening with regard to the regulation and control of seclusion and restraints in your state?

As I had predicted on these pages, seclusion and restraints is the hot button issue of this decade in special education law. Stay tuned.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Seclusion & Restraints Bill Passes House of Representatives (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)
• Seclusion & Restraints: Big Decision by Ninth Circuit (specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com)

Zemanta">

Digest of Education Statistics 2009 - More Fun with Numbers

Image via Wikipedia

The National Center for Education Statistics has released the 2009 edition of its Digest of Education Statistics. If you are interested in education and you enjoy numbers, this is the real deal. You can read the entire 732 page document here.

Here are some observations:
Of all special education students out of high school up to six years, 35.6% are living independently; 63.2% are currently employed; and 57% have received some postsecondary education. (Table 390).

In school year 2007-2008, 6.6 Million students aged 3 to 21 were in special education, which amounts to 13.4% of the student population. Table 52 includes this information as well as the stats for each school year from 1990-1991 to 2007-2008. Also Table 52 includes the numbers for each state.

In the fall of 2007, 15.4% of special ed students spent more than 60% of their time in the regular education classroom; 22.4% spent between 15 and 60%, and another 56.8% spent part of their day in regular education but less than 21%. (Table 51)

Table 110 has information about exiting special education. Table 166 has data regarding the compulsory attendance ages for all students and special education by state. Table 231 has stats concerning the distribution of post-secondary students by disability status and other characteristics.

There is a lot more. Many of the stats are broken down by state and many other variables. These are just some of the interesting numbers. I encourage you to review the report yourself. Despite my protests, numbers can be fun. Please tell me if you find any interesting numbers.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Special Education - What Is the Future If the Budgets Are Cut? (resource220.com)
• Your Kid's Education: Public or Private School? (blisstree.com)
• Enrollment Numbers Swell At For-Profit Colleges, Report Says (huffingtonpost.com)
• NCES Releases Digest of Education Statistics, 2009 (financialaidnews.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Special Ed Hearing Officer Qualifications - Part IV

Image by Joe Gratz via Flickr

Last week we discussed how the new qualifications for special education hearing officers pertain to the education and training of hearing officers. This week I'm going to look at a sample of a bunch of recent court decisions that have looked at the due process hearing system.

As I have mentioned in each post in this series, please note that I have a number of potential biases here. First, I am a hearing officer and/or a mediator for four states. Second, I do a lot of special ed law consulting for states. Third, I have conducted hearing officer trainings at national conferences, at regional trainings and for a number of individual states. I have trained hearing officers from every state. I have definite opinions here and my business interests could color my thinking. Although I do not believe that these interests affect my opinions, please keep this disclosure in mind.

The cases below show that state departments of education are often winding up in court because of concerns about their due process systems. While most states have escaped adverse consequences - other than the costs of litigation- the large numbers of cases definitely signals a trend.


Here are some of the key decisions handed down in calendar year 2009 involving state education hearing systems and related decisions:

Keene v. Zelman 53 IDELR 5 (6th Cir. 7/29/9) (unpublished) Parents brought a class action against Ohio SEA alleging illegal policies including improper HO training. Also alleged was that HOs were told to do nothing for the first 30 days and bill no more than one hour during that time. Sixth Circuit approved settlement that included an agreement to retrain HOs and an award of $81,000 vs SEA; Quatroche v. East Lynne Bd of Educ 604 F.Supp.2d 96, 53 IDELR 96 (D. Conn. 3/31/9) If allegation had been that an SEA system of HO training affected a number of dp hearings, parent would state claim for a systemic violation. Here the allegation was only one dp complaint, therefore no systemic violation; Chavez ex rel Chavez v. Bd of Educ of Tularosa Municip Schs 52 IDELR 229 (D.NM 2/24/9) SEA denied FAPE to student but parents not prevailing party; Emma L v. Eastin 52 IDELR 43 (N.D. Calif 2/24/9) Where LEA did miserable job of providing FAPE, and SEA is ultimately responsible for FAPE, court held SEA to an enhanced role; Delaware Valley Sch Dist v PW by James & Patricia W 52 IDELR 192 (M.D. Penna 5/5/9) Although parents may sue SEA for LEAs failure to provide FAPE, the LEA may not sue the SEA for indemnification and contribution under IDEA; DW v. Delaware Valley Sch Dist 109 LRP 80026 (M.D. Penna 12/29/9) Complaint alleging that SEA failed to properly monitor or supervise the LEA with respect to the provision of FAPE to a student stated a cause of action against the SEA; Stengle v. Office of Dispute Resolution 109 LRP 24455 (M.D. Penna 4/27/9) SEA did not violate First Amendment by cancelling contract of HO who who wrote articles about issues pending before her as HO; CG v. Commonwealth of Penna, Dept of Educ 53 IDELR 150 (M.D. Penna 9/29/9) Dist court certified a class action re the manner that SEA distributes IDEA funds; King v. Pioneer Regional Educ Service Agency 53 IDELR 196 (Georgia Ct App 11/5/9) State appeals court ruled that SEA’s general supervisory responsibilities under IDEA do not include being subject to tort-like damages; Independent Sch Dist No. 12 v Minnesota Dept of Educ 767 N.W.2d 748, 52 IDELR 265 (Minn Ct App 6/23/9)

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Are Expert Witness Qualifications? (brainz.org)
• Council of Administrators of Special Education Endorses Curriculum Advantage's Classworks K-12 Instructional Software (eon.businesswire.com)
• Train to Gain is money well spent (guardian.co.uk)
• How do you train your new biotechnology employees? (biotechblog.com)

Report: Pittsburgh Schools Identifying Too Many Students as Eligible for Special Education

Image via Wikipedia

A recent report commissioned by the Pittsburgh Public Schools concludes that it identifies too many students as eligible for special education. The report was conducted by evaluators of the Council of The Great City Schools, an association of very large school districts. A news article on the report by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is available here. You can read the entire report here.

The report authors noted that "...that too many teachers and staff members were using special education as an escape hatch when they did not know what else to do with students who were experiencing learning or behavioral problems..." The evaluators found that 19.2% of Pittsburgh students are identified as eligible for special education. This contrasts with a rate in the country as a whole of 12.1%.

One category of eligibility was noted in particular, emotional disturbance. 16.9% of Pittsburgh students were found eligible under this category. Nationwide the rate is 7.4%. Interestingly, nearly a third of the students referred for ED evaluations were from just seven schools.

It is interesting first of all that the Pittsburgh school board paid a lot of money to obtain this study. That has to be a good sign. Now that the problems are identified, the question is how they will be addressed.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pittsburgh schools to get $40M from Gates charity (seattletimes.nwsource.com)