IDEA, PART BRECENT PROGRAMMATIC FINDINGS AND

WAYS TO AVOID THEM CASE STUDIES

Bonnie Little Graham, Esq.bgraham@bruman.com

Jenny Segal, Esq. jsegal@bruman.com

Brustein & Manasevit, PLLCFall Forum 2012

CASE STUDIESB

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

RESOURCESIndividuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) Visit: http://idea.ed.gov/

Code of Federal Regulations 34 C.F.R. 300 (IDEA Part B)

Visit: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

SYLLABUS Child Find

Compton Unified Sch. Dist. v. Addison, 598 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 996 (2012).

IEP Review, Revision and Implementation Sumter County Sch. v. Heffernan, 642 F.3d 478 (4th Cir.

2011). Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M. P., No. 10-36065 (9th Cir. July 19,

2012).

Parentally Placed Private School Children E.S. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Sch. Dist., No. 10-4446 (2d. Cir.

July 6, 2012). Moorestown Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. S.D., 811 F. Supp. 2d (D.N.J.

2011).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FAILURE TO IDENTIFY (CHILD FIND)

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

COMPREHENSIVE CHILD FIND SYSTEM• All children ages 3-21 with disabilities

residing in the State, regardless of the severity of their disability, who are in need of special education and related services are identified, located and evaluated. 34 CFR § 300.111.

• Including:• Homeless Children • Wards of the State• Private School Students

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

COMPREHENSIVE CHILD FIND SYSTEM (CONT.)

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

Case Study

Compton Unified Sch. Dist. v. Addison, 598 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 996 (2012).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS

9th grade, student scored below the 1st percentile on standardized tests. School attributed it to being a “transitional

year.”

10th grade, student failed every academic subject, refused to enter the classroom, colored with crayons at her desk, and played with dolls. School saw grades and behavior as a “red flag.” Referred student to a mental health counselor

who recommended the student be assessed. Student’s mother was reluctant to have the

student “looked at,” and the school did not want to “push it.”

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS (CONT.) School did not assess the student, but

instead advanced her to 11th grade. In September of 11th grade, parent made a

written request to the school for an educational assessment and Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting.

Student found eligible for special education services.

Parent filed for due process seeking compensatory education services for school’s failure to identify the student and provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

ISSUE PRESENTED

Does a parent have a right of action if the school fails to identify a child with a disability in need of special education?

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S ARGUMENT

IDEA’s written notice procedures limit the scope of the due process complaint procedure. IDEA written notice requirement: A local education

agency (LEA) must provide written notice to a child’s parents whenever it “proposes to initiate or change” or “refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child…” 34 CFR § 300.503(a).

The district asserted that because it took no action, it had not refused to act and that the parent did not have a right of action.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

THE DECISION B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), District Court, and 9th Cir. all found in favor of the parent.

The jurisdictional requirements for an IDEA complaint are clearly set out apart from the notice provisions. A party may file a complaint on any matter

“relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of FAPE to the child.” §300.507(a).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FAILURE TO REVIEW, REVISE, OR IMPLEMENT THE IEP

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

IEP TEAM MEMBERS Required Members

Parent At least 1 regular ed

teacher, if child participating in gen ed

At least 1 special ed teacher/provider

LEA representative LEA can designate

member Individual who can

interpret evaluation results

May Be Required Individuals with special

knowledge or expertise of child

Related services personnel

Child, when appropriate Transition service

agency representatives

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

WHO CAN MISS AN IEP MEETING?

ALL members (required/not required) For all or part of meeting LEA and parent must agree in writing to excuse any

required member from an IEP meeting.§300.321(e).

Meeting without parent Permitted but need documentation of attempts to

arrange mutually agreed on time and place.§300.322(d).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

REVIEW AND REVISION OF IEPS

IEP Team must review IEP annuallyEncouraged to consolidate with reevaluation

meeting and other IEP Team meetings. §300.324(a)(5).Reevaluation must occur at least once every

3 years.§300.324(b)(1).

Revising IEP: After annual IEP meeting for School Year,

parent and LEA can agree not to convene meeting for changesCan develop written document to amend/modify current IEP

But, at parent’s request, must provide redrafted version with amendments incorporated. §300.324(d)(2).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

OTHER IEP REQUIREMENTS

LEA must Ensure that each teacher and service provider

responsible for implementation of the IEP has access to the IEP; and

Ensure that each teacher or provider is informed of: specific responsibilities in implementing IEP; specific accommodations, modifications and

supports required within the IEP; andany changes to child’s IEP.§300.323(d).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

PROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND RELATED SERVICES

Special Education Teachers Highly Qualified standard

If a teacher uncertified in special education is providing student with hours required by IEP, those hours do not count. §300.156(c).

Related Services Providers Highly Qualified standard not required

BUT -- need State approved certification, licensing or registration for the services provided.§300.156(b).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

WHAT ARE RELATED SERVICES?

Transportation, developmental, corrective and other supportive services required to help a disabled child benefit from special education.§ 300.34. Includes: interpreting services, physical and

occupational therapy, speech-language pathology and audiology, counseling, therapeutic recreation.

Excludes: surgically implanted medical device or replacement.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

CASE STUDY

Sumter County Sch. v. Heffernan, 642 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2011). B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

ISSUE PRESENTED Is it a denial of FAPE if a school has not fully

implemented a student’s IEP, but the student has made progress?

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS The student has autism. 2005-2006 IEP called for 15 hours per week

of applied behavioral analysis (ABA) therapy. At the beginning of the school year, the school

only provided 7.5-10 hours of ABA therapy. Student began exhibiting problematic “self-

stimulating behavior.” Parents removed the student for 1 month for

medical treatment. When he returned to school, the school hired a

board-certified ABA therapist, and the student’s behaviors improved.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS (CONT.) The student’s 2006-2007 IEP called for 27.5

hours per week of ABA therapy. In August 2006, the ABA therapist left the

position, and the school hired a certified special education teacher who was not trained in ABA therapy.

Student’s problematic behaviors returned. School hired a consultant to provide ABA training

to the teacher, but found the teacher to be resistant to the teaching approach.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS (CONT.):

In September 2006, the parents removed the student from the school and began homeschooling. They hired the student’s former ABA therapist to conduct an assessment. The therapist found that the student had

regressed since she had last worked with him.

The parents initiated due process proceedings alleging that the school failed to provide FAPE.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S ARGUMENT:

District acknowledged that it did not provide the student with all IEP-required hours of ABA therapy.

District argued that it delivered significant portions of the services required by the IEP and that the student received some educational benefit.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

THE DECISION B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

The 4th Cir. agreed that the failure to perfectly execute an IEP does not necessarily amount to the denial of FAPE However the failure to implement a material portion of

the IEP does deny FAPE.

Evidence that student made some gains in certain skill areas tested in spring 2006, however they were not significant enough for the court to determine that the student received some non-trivial education benefit.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

CASE STUDY

Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M. P.,No. 10-36065 (9th Cir. July 19, 2012). B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

ISSUE PRESENTED Must an LEA have the parents’ cooperation or

consent in order to revise the IEP?

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS Student has autism. Parents & school district had many disagreements

over IEP content and parents filed numerous due process complaints.

No agreement on 3rd grade IEP when 2nd grade IEP expired.

School district scheduled annual review meeting 6 months late. Parents did not attend, but submitted suggestions in writing and evoked “stay put.”

School district halted all effort to revise the IEP. Parents unilaterally placed student in private

school for the 4th grade and filed a new due process complaint alleging that the student had been denied FAPE due to the out-of-date IEP.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S ARGUMENT

The school acknowledged that the IEP was out of date.

But argued that the failure to develop an updated IEP was due to the parents unwillingness to cooperate.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

THE DECISION B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

The 9th Circuit found: School district had affirmative duty to review & revise

a child’s IEP on at least an annual basis regardless of the parents’ cooperation.

Noting that “nothing in the statute makes the duty contingent on parental cooperation with, or acquiescence in, the state or [LEA’s] preferred course of action.”

When the LEA received the parents’ responses and revisions to the draft IEP, it could: Continue to work with the parents to develop an IEP;

or Unilaterally revise the IEP and request a due process

hearing to have it determined appropriate.

The court recognized that parents evoked “stay put,” but reasoned that this “did not excuse [the school district] from its responsibility to have a statutorily compliant IEP in place at the beginning of the each school year.”

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

OTHER RELEVANT CASES

L.G. & E.G. ex rel. E.G. v. Fair Lawn Bd. of Educ., No. 11–3014 (3d Cir. June 28, 2012). Found that district did not violate LRE when

student’s IEP did not provide interaction with nondisabled peers

Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem, No. 10-20694 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012). Found that the district provided FAPE when

student did not pass writing test, but succeeded in mainstream classes

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO PARENTALLY PLACED PRIVATE

SCHOOL CHILDREN

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

PRIVATE SCHOOLS: EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION SERVICESParentally-placed private school children receive equitable participation services, not FAPE!

“Parentally-placed”? Voluntarily enrolled by their parents in private

schoolsNot referred to private schools by LEA to receive FAPE!

Not placed by parents seeking FAPE tuition reimbursement!

No individual right to equitable participation services Cannot file due process complaint based on an

individual right to services, BUT can file due process complaint on private school child find rights. §300.140.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

PRIVATE SCHOOLS: UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL Student attends public school and is

withdrawn from the public placement without consent or referral of the public agency.

LEA is not required to pay for tuition cost if it made FAPE available to student in timely manner. However, the student may still receive equitable services while attending the private school. §300.156(a).

If LEA did not make FAPE available to student before the unilateral placement, a hearing officer can require the LEA to reimburse the parents for some or all of the child’s private school tuition. §300.148(c).

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

CASE STUDY

Moorestown Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. S.D., 811 F. Supp. 2d (D.N.J. 2011). B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

ISSUE PRESENTED May a school district deny a request for

evaluations and IEP by a privately enrolled student whom the district knows is disabled and domiciled in the district on the grounds that the child has not re-enrolled in the public school?

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS Student has autism, received special education

services from LEA from 1999-2006.

During May 2006 IEP meeting, parents expressed concern over proposed levels of support and overall progress.

School agreed to re-evaluate student, but the parents opted to unilaterally place the student in a private school located within the district.

The parents requested reimbursement, but school refused.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS Student attended private school for the SY 2006-07.

During SY 2007-08, parents requested updated evaluations and an IEP meeting with LEA to determine whether to return to the district.

Parents wrote to LEA 3 times to schedule the evaluations and IEP meeting.

LEA replied to the 3rd letter refusing parents’ request. LEA referred them to another district with which it contracted to schedule an initial evaluation for the student.

Parents filed for due process seeking reimbursement for the SY 2006-07 for LEA’s failure to provide FAPE and for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years for failing to provide an IEP.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S ARGUMENT

IDEA permits a parent and the LEA to agree to longer than 60 days to conduct initial evaluations if the child: 1. enrolls in another school after the 60-day

time frame has begun; and 2. prior to a determination that the child is

qualified as disabled. It provided “equitable participation” to the

student in compliance with IDEA.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

THE DECISION B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

• U.S. District Court of NJ found:• LEA does not need to continue to develop IEPs

for child who has unilaterally withdrawn from the public school BUT

• If parents request evaluations because they would like to re-enroll him in the district, the district must develop an IEP.

• Court noted that parents were not seeking initial evaluation or additional services at the private school, but an IEP so that the student could potentially transfer back to the district.

• The LEA’s response “is particularly troubling because the district already knew [the student] was eligible for special education services.”

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

CASE STUDY

E.S. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Sch. Dist., No. 10-4446 (2d. Cir. July 6, 2012). B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

ISSUE PRESENTED During the IEP process, must a school district

consider the progress a student made while attending a private school?

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

FACTS: Student received special education services from

LEA from 2002-2006. Parents decided to unilaterally place student in

private school for SY 2006-07. Parents sought reimbursement for private school

tuition, alleging that student had not made progress during the previous 2 years at public school and LEA had not offered FAPE for SY 2006-07.

At end of SY 2006-07, the parents requested IEP meeting with LEA to design IEP for following year.

Parents argued IEP offered for SY 2007-08 did not take into account student’s progress made while at private school and that it was therefore an inadequate IEP.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S ARGUMENT

Student made progress while attending public school. The 2006-07 IEP would have provided FAPE.

Student showed little or no progress at the private school during SY 2006-07.

The 2007-08 IEP was adequate.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

THE DECISION B

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

• 2nd Cir. affirmed District Court’s finding that LEA provided FAPE for SYs 2004-06 and 2006-07 IEP was adequate.

• However, court concluded that because LEA did not take into account the progress the student made while attending the private school, the proposed 2007-08 IEP would have likely caused the student to “regress or make only trivial advancement.”

• Thus, the LEA failed to offer an adequate IEP and FAPE for that year.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC

QUESTIONSB

ruste

in &

Ma

na

sevit, P

LL

C

Disclaimer

This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice.  Attendance at the presentation or later

review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein &

Manasevit, PLLC.  You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation

without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.

Bru

stein

& M

an

ase

vit, PL

LC