SPECIAL

1
NYSATE/ NYACTE Spring Conference Gideon
Putnam Resort, Saratoga, NY April 27-28,
2006
Presented by
Stuart Knapp, PhD
Nyack College 845.358.1710
ext 762
SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW For TEACHERS Knowing
How To Stay Out Of Trouble 340-430 PM

stuart.knapp_at_nyack.edu
2

• Legal Issues in Special Educationfor P-12
  Teachers
• in Some Recent Developments(Indicators for
  Staying Out of Trouble)
• Presented by Dr. Stuart Knapp, Assoc. Professor
• Nyack College, Director Grad. Educ.
• 845.358.1710 ext. 762
• stuart.knapp_at_nyack.edu

2
3
A Quick Primer on the State Federal Court
System
4
The Limit of The Law
The US Supreme Ct. has ruled that IDEA
provides a basic floor of opportunity
for students with disabilities IDEA
does not require public schools to
maximize potential for students with
disabilities BOE v. Rowley, 458 US 176, 102 S.Ct.
3034 (1982)
5
6 Basic Principles of IDEA

• FAPE
• Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
• Procedural Due Process
• Parent Involvement
• IEP
• LRE

6
Topics to be Covered

• I. Discipline of Students w/Disabilities (SwD)
• II. Evaluation (Nondiscrim), Eligib.,
  Placement
• 1. FAPE (free appropriate public
  education)
• 2. LRE (least restrictive environment)
  
• 3. Inclusion (SwD full participat. in Reg
  Ed) (IEP)
• III. Procedural Safeguards (due process)
• 1. Parent Rights
• IV. Section 504

5
7

• Disciplining
• Students
• w/Disabilities

8
I. Disciplining Students w/Disabilities

• boy w/learning disability, a friend PROBLEM
  Randy
• 13 yr. old tear off jog pants of female student
  
• DISTRICT (IEP team) decides
• not a manifestation of disability
• recommend suspension
• placement in alternative school

9
I. Disciplining Students w/Disabilities

• PARENTS (Randys)
• Initiate due process hearing to stop suspension.

• HEARING OFFICER
• Ruled for District

• PARENTS
• Appealed to federal district court
  

10
I. Disciplining Students w/Disabilities

• FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
• Affirmed Hearing Officers decision,
  saying
• district acted appropriately in taking
  stern
• aggressive remedial action
• Noted that District had offered Parents
• opportunity to demonstrate that
  students
• behavior was linked to disability (nexus)
• Randy M. v. Texas City ISD, (SD Texas 2000)

11
Discussion/Conclusions re Student Discipline

• Teachers their districts must be clear
  current w/student behavioral assessments.
• Program placement decisions based on test results
  must reflect student-centered needs.
• Prior to a behavior-related change of placement
  for a student w/disabilities, a Nexus hearing
  must be conducted to determine if behavior
  related to disability. If not, regular ed.
  conditions apply.
• Maintain professional posture w/parents.

12

• Evaluation,
• Eligibility
• Placement

13
II. Evaluation, Eligibility Placement

• PROBLEM 1 (FAPE) Sadrach (S)
• 10 yr. old 4th grader w/multiple medical
  problems seizures, ADHD w/aggression,
• psychomotor delays, asthma, speech delays.
• PARENTS referred for SpEd evaluation while boy
  was in 2nd grade.
• DISTRICT rejected parent request, saying, average
  progress, problems not a significant impact on
  overall achievement.
• PARENTS when S in 4th gr., obtain independent
  medical eval., revealing severe learning
  disorders, e.g. Rdg.2nd gr Math problemsend
  1st gr.

14
II. Evaluation, Eligibility Placement

• DISTRICT rejected evaluators recommend. for SpEd
  eligibility. Districts eval. was in boys native
  Spanish, revealing FSIQ130, but maintained that
  ADHD seizure disorders do not negatively impact
  on academic progress.
• PARENTS initiate a due process hearing
• HEARING OFFICER (HO) rules for district. S
  ineligible for SpEd (district HO deny FAPE).
• PARENTS appeal to federal district ct.

15
Evaluation, Eligibility Placement
Fed. District Ct. reversed hearing officer
decision, saying 1. S eligible for SpEd
related services under OHI, LD
Speech. 2. S has continuing uncontrolled
seizure disorder which affects alertness
in class. 3. Districts own testing
revealed marked range between ability
achievement. 4. Disabilities adversely
impact educ. performance. 5. District must
develop implement IEP for S Corchado v. BOE,
Rochester CSD, NY 2000
14
16
II. Placement in LRE Inclusion PROBLEM
2 (LRE Inclusion) Due Process Hearing
(DPH) Guardian-inclusion in home school
District-placement in special school DPH
officer places Student w/ multiple disabilities
in a special development center. Guardian
appealed to federal ct.
Federal Court affirmed hearing officers
decision, finding special dvpmt. ctr. highly
specialized able to provide wide range of
services for child. Court also reasoned that
extent of childs disabilities would make benefit
to child in home school unlikely. Court refused
to hear districts plea of guardians hostility,
saying IDEA advocates for children through
parents, even hostile parents.
15
17
Discussion/Conclusions reEvaluation,
Eligibility Placement
Financial benefit of Best Practice relations

• An ounce of student-centered, district-initiated
  early intervention can avoid a pound (or more) of
  student-centered court-initiated litigation later
  on.

Non-Financial benefit of Best Practice relations

• Reputations are won, based on pro-active
  decisions
• made in CST meetings, annual reviews IEP
• meetings, or they are lost in re-active
  newspaper
• headlines, newscasts courtrooms.

16
18
III. Procedural Safeguards
19
III. Procedural Safeguards case 1

• Student (S) diagnosed w/ADHD, Oppositional
  Defiant Disorder (ODD), Depression in private
  school until 5th grade.
• District (D) eval. team finds S eligible for
  severe behavior handicap services
• IEP mtg. scheduled, but never held (no IEP)
• District proposed internal placement
• Parents (P) reject, locating independent
  residential psychiatrically oriented school.

18
20

• D faxes draft IEP proposing placement already
  rejected by P, further obligates D to pay only
  those costs beyond Ps insurance coverage.
• P enroll S in residential school
  independently, request due process hearing
  during Ss 7th grade to recover tuition costs.
• Hearing Officer (HO) finds that although D
  prepared no IEP, it could provide FAPE, ergo not
  liable for tuition reimbursement.
• Review Officer dismissed case P appealed to
  Fed. District Court.

19
21

• D moved to dismiss, as P didnt request hearing
  prior to independent placement. Fed. Ct. ruled
  for HOs decision. Both P D appealed to U.S.
  Ct. of Appeals of 6th circuit.
• 6th Circuit Ct. ruled
• D violated IDEA which requires convened IEP mtg.
  within 30 calendar days of eligibility
  determination
• D violated Ohio regs requiring IEP conference
  ASAP following referral.
• to reject Ds defense for failure to provide IEP
  due to parents lack of cooperation.

22

• IDEA regs. do not require parents to agree to
  proposed placement prior to IEP mtg.
• IDEA regs. do require dvpmt. of IEP without
  involvement of P if they refuse to cooperate
• P were denied meaningful opportunity to
  participate in IEP mtg. process
• district had not even offered a FAPE
• residential placement was most appropriate
• D obligated to reimburse P for tuition expense
  because D had defaulted on its IDEA obligation
• Knable ex rel Knable v. Bexley City School
  District, 238 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2001)

23
III. Procedural Safeguards case 2

• P of S w/learning disability in Rdg. resolved
  a DPH w/HO ordering D to provide S w/tutoring for
  5 hrs./wk.
• After a time, D provided 40 min./day, 5 days/wk.
• P sought (unsuccessfully) to obtain required amt.
  for 2 yrs, then initiated a DPH.
• HO held that he had no jurisdiction to enforce
  settlement agreements.

24

• HO counseled P to file complaint w/ SED
• P initiated law suit w/Fed. Trial Ct. to enforce
  settlement agreement.
• Fed trial Ct. upheld HOs decision
• P appealed to U.S. Ct. of Appeals 9th Cir.
• Appeals Ct. affirmed lower ct. HO, that
  jurisdiction to enforce compliance issues resides
  w/the SED compliance officer to pursue
  enforcement actions.
• Wyner v. Manhatten Beach Unified School
  District, 33 IDELR (9th Cir. 2000)

23
25
Discussion/Conclusions reProcedural Safeguards
(IDEA)

• Parents Rights
• opportunity to participate
• expect integrity of district
• Parents must be invited, but not required to
  attend
• P can deny D permission to test

• District Obligations
• provide P opportunity
• continue terms of agreement until changed by
  another mutual agreement (IEP)
• IEP mtg. held not later than 30 days following
  eligibility determination
• IEP conf. Within 5 days of referral

24
26
IV. 504 of Rehabilitation Act (1973)
27
IV. 504 of Rehabilitation Act (1973)

• What the law provides
• Prohibits discrimination against persons
  w/disabilities
• Requires schools employees to make reasonable
  accommodations for qualified individuals
  w/disabilities
• Does not require schools to lower their standards
  in order to do so.
• Prohibits exclusion of Ss w/contagious diseases
  (including HIV) if qualified to attend dont
  present a risk of harm to themselves or others

26
28
IV. 504 of Rehabilitation Act (1973)Case
1 secondary student athletics

• 17 yr. old student (S) in jr. yr. diagnosed
  w/clinical depression, determined to be disabled
  eligible for 504 services, including 12
  intervention strategies.
• (S) earned some incomplete grades in his courses.
  HS counselor sends note home to parent (P),
  proposing another 504 mtg. to pursue homebound
  instruction.

29
Case 1 secondary student athletics

• 504 mtg. was not held
• S tried out for basket-ball team but was not
  chosen for either varsity or jv teams.
• P brought suit against school alleging suggestion
  of homebound instruction was threat that S was

• excluded from
• basketball team as
• discriminatory result
• of his disability
• HO ruled for district
• P appealed to Fed. Ct.
• Fed. Ct. dismissed all
• claims against district

30
Discussion/Conclusions re Case 1 secondary
student athletics

• Letter to P by counselor was alert to P S of
  schools continuing concern for Ss welfare,
  progress success.
• Coachs decision not to place S on team was based
  on lack of competitive ability, not any
  disability
• prior 7th Circuit precedent has refused to define
  athletics as a major life activity
• Doe v. Eagle-Union Community Sch. Corp. 32 IDELR
  117 (S.D. Ind. 2000)

31
Case 2 HS student, alcohol eligibility

• HS athletic code calls for partial loss of
  athletic eligibility after 1 alcohol-related
  violation, loss of eligibility for 1 yr., after
  a 2nd incident
• school revoked Ss eligibility after an
  alcohol-related auto accident-his 2nd policy
  violation in 1 mo.
• S diagnosed as alcoholic sought reinstatement
  to sports eligibility
• Supt. BOE denied Ss request.

32
Case 2 HS student, alcohol eligibility

• P sued in Trial Ct. under ADA 504
• BOE moved for dismissal, noting that neither S
  nor BOE were aware of his alcoholism at time of
  violations, so discrimination could not have
  played role in revocation of eligibility. Ct.
  agreed.
• Ct also rejected Ss claim of schools refusal to
  grant reasonable accommodation to his
  disability, i.e. reinstatement
• Stearns v. BOE for Warren Twp HS District
  121, (N.D. Ill. 1999)

33
Case 2 HS student, alcohol eligibility

• Ct held that Ss request not reasonable, since it
  was at odds w/no alcohol rule.

• Discussion/Conclusions re Case 2 If school
  had been aware of alcoholism, it would have
• committed no violation of ADA or 504,
  since
• Rehabilitation Act authorizes schools to
  punish
• students for alcohol use, with or w/o
  disabilities, to the
• same extent of the law.
• The schools rule was intended to establish
  ideals of
• good sportsmanship and respect for rules
  
• authority.

34
DISCIPLINE Determine if Behavior related to
(slides 6-10) disability EVALUATION D
integrity-comply w/duty/time-lines ELIGIBILITY
Decisions must be student-centered
PLACEMENT Pro-active relations w/parents
(slides 11-16) Early intervention
decisions S stays put until IEP team
decision PROCEDURAL IEP mtg ? 5 days after
referral SAFEGUARDS IEP mtg ? 30 days after
eligibility slides 17-24) (IEP must be
prepared for implementation) 504
athletics NOT major life activity (slides
25-32) S use of alcohol prohibited w/ or
w/o disability
SUMMARY GUIDELINES
SUMMARY GUIDELINES
33
35
Discussion ! Questions! Comments! Concerns!
36
On behalf of your presenter STUART
KNAPP THANK YOU for joining me