ses spring 2013 - all things considered
DESCRIPTION
So you want an Independent Educational Evaluation?TRANSCRIPT
1
All Things Considered
So You Want an IEE?
2
Overview IEEs: Legal Requirements OAH Decisions to Be Considered
Fremont USD: What constitutes unreasonable delay in responding to IEE request?
Anaheim City SD: What can go wrong when district rejects IEE to defend its evaluation?
Placentia-Yorba Linda SD: Do parents have unlimited amount of time to request IEE?
Garvey SD: To what degree do IEP teams have to “consider” the results of an IEE?
3
IEEs: Legal Requirements
Definition“An evaluation conducted by a qualified
examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child”
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(3)(i); Ed. Code § 56329
4
Obligations When Parents Request Funding of IEE Provide parents
Procedural safeguards notice Information about where an IEE may be obtained Criteria applicable to IEEs
May ask why they object to evaluation, but can’t require explanation
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)-(b); Letter to Anonymous (OSEP 2010) 55 IDELR 106
5
Obligations When Parents Request Funding of IEE “Without unnecessary delay” either:
File a due process complaintto show appropriateness of assessment
or Ensure that the IEE is provided
(unless it does not meet criteria)
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)-(b); Letter to Anonymous (OSEP 2010) 55 IDELR 106
6
Denying IEE Request
Send parents prior written notice advising them of decision
File for due process to show appropriateness of assessment If assessment appropriate, not required to
pay for IEE If assessment inadequate, must fund IEE
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(3); Ed. Code § 56329; 34 C.F.R. § 300.503
7
Agreeing to Fund IEE
Notify parents as soon as decision is made
Exchange information Contact evaluator Schedule IEP meeting (but can’t require
examiner’s presence)
Letter to Anonymous (OSEP 2010) 55 IDELR 206
8
Other Requirements for IEE Requests Must dispute completed assessment Only one IEE per evaluation Payment
Advance funding Direct funding Reimbursement
34 C.F.R. § 300.502; Ed. Code § 56329, subd. (b); Letter to Petska (OSEP 2001) 35 IDELR 191; Letter to Anonymous (OSEP 2010) 55 IDELR 106
9
Criteria for IEE Evaluators Can’t establish stricter rules than those
applied to own evaluatorsCan’t prohibit association with private schools Can’t require experience in the public schools May set licensing rules, provided same
licensure required for district evaluators
Letter to Petska (OSEP 2001) 35 IDELR 191
10
Criteria for IEE Location Geographic area must be
the same as that used for own assessments
Parents must have opportunity to show that evaluator from outside area is required for appropriate IEE
Letter to Anonymous (OSEP 2010) 56 IDELR 175
11
Criteria for IEE Cost Can establish reasonable cost criteria Parents must have chance to justify
selection of more expensive evaluator If costs exceed criteria, consider due process
Analysis of Comments and Changes to 2006 IDEA Part B Regulations, 71 Fed. Reg. 46690 (August 14, 2006); Letter to Petska (OSEP 2001) 35 IDELR 191
12
Obligation to ‘Consider’ IEE Must “consider” results of
IEE, provided it meets criteria
Law does not define meaning of “consider”
34 C.F.R. § 300.502(c)(1)
13
Case #1: Fremont Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2009) What Constitutes an “Unreasonable Delay”
in Responding to Parents’ IEE Request?
14
Case #1: Delay in Responding to IEE Background and Issue
District must, "without unnecessary delay," either initiate due process or provide IEE
Case examines actions (and inactions) during four-month period between IEE request and due process
Fremont Unified School Dist v. Student (OAH 2009) Case No. 2009040633, 109 LRP 31206
15
Case #1: Delay in Responding to IEE Facts
December: Parents ask for IEEDecember: District agrees to fund IEE but
with different agency and location January: Parents lose forms; District re-
mails January: Parents ask for agency criteria
Fremont Unified School Dist v. Student (OAH 2009) Case No. 2009040633, 109 LRP 31206
16
Case #1: Delay in Responding to IEE Facts
January – April: Sporadic communication; new program specialist assigned
February: Parents again ask for criteriaMarch: District sends SELPA excerpt on
IEEs, but no criteriaApril: District sends PWN refusing IEE
Fremont Unified School Dist v. Student (OAH 2009) Case No. 2009040633, 109 LRP 31206
17
Case #1: Delay in Responding to IEE Findings
Some portions of delay were fault of both parties
But Parents sought information that District never provided and had to start new dialogue with new staff
District ordered to fund speech and language IEE
Fremont Unified School Dist v. Student (OAH 2009) Case No. 2009040633, 109 LRP 31206
18
Case #1: Delay in Responding to IEE Lessons Learned
Long delays usually result in trouble
Avoid lengthy communication gaps
Perception of good-faith negotiations might not be viewed as such by parents
Fremont Unified School Dist v. Student (OAH 2009) Case No. 2009040633, 109 LRP 31206
19
Case #1: Delay in Responding to IEE Lessons Learned
Train team leaders on how to respond to IEE requests
Make sure evaluation criteria is documented and up to date – take into account retirements, relocation of evaluators
Fremont Unified School Dist v. Student (OAH 2009) Case No. 2009040633, 109 LRP 31206
20
Case #1: Delay in Responding to IEE Other Cases
C.W. v. Capistrano USD (C.D. Cal. 2012): Taking 41 days to respond to IEE request was not “unreasonable delay”
Los Angeles USD (OAH 2011): 53 day wait was not unreasonable because school wasn’t in session for 24 of those days
J.P. v. Ripon USD (E.D. Cal. 2009): Waiting more than two months before filing not unreasonable as parties were negotiating
Pajaro Valley USD v. J.S. (N.D. Cal. 2006): 11 week delay without valid explanation why was unreasonable
21
Case #2: Anaheim City School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2010)
What Can Go Wrong When District Rejects IEE and Defends Its Evaluation at Due Process Hearing?
22
Case #2: Defense of Assessment Background and Issue
Districts that reject IEE request must file for due process to defend assessments
ALJ examined District’s psychoeducational assessment and FBA, with mixed results
Anaheim City School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010010357, 110 LRP 36310
23
Case #2: Defense of Assessment Facts
District proposed various assessments for 8-year-old Student with autism and language delays
Retained clinical psychologist for psychoeducational assessment
Psychologist made some scoring errors and didn’t follow certain protocols
Anaheim City School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010010357, 110 LRP 36310
24
Case #2: Defense of Assessment Facts
IEP team adopted psychologist’s recommendations of SDC placement with ABA
Before IEP completed, District also conducted FBA
Parents objected to both assessments; asked for IEE
Anaheim City School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010010357, 110 LRP 36310
25
Case #2: Defense of Assessment Findings
Psychoeducational assessment: Not conducted by credentialed school psychologist Scoring errors shaped IEP teams services decisions
Must pay for psychoeducational IEE; FBA met all the rules
Anaheim City School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010010357, 110 LRP 36310
26
Case #2: Defense of Assessment Lessons Learned
Thoroughly review assessmentsbefore denying IEE request
If in doubt, weight costs/benefits
Caution IEP team against “off-the-cuff” yes/no responses to IEE requests
Anaheim City School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010010357, 110 LRP 36310
27
Case #2: Defense of Assessment Other Cases
Encinitas USD (OAH 2012): Parent unsuccessfully claimed assessors should have created artificial stressful situations to elicit specific responses
Brea Olinda USD (OAH 2011): Parent’s dispute concerned IEP team’s interpretation of assessments, not their substance; IEE denied
28
Case #3: Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) Do Parents Have an
UnlimitedAmount of Time to Request an IEE?
29
Case #3: Timeliness of IEE Request Background and Issue
How long is too long for parents to wait before requesting district fund an IEE?
ALJ asked to apply IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations for due process actions
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) Case No. 2012051153, 112 LRP 41903
30
Case #3: Timeliness of IEE Request Facts
January 2010: District completes triennial assessments for 16-year-old Student with autism
May 2012: Parents inform District of disagreement with assessments, request IEE
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) Case No. 2012051153, 112 LRP 41903
31
Case #3: Timeliness of IEE Request Facts
Three weeks later: PWN refusing to fund IEE
Offers to conduct early triennial assessment
Files for due process (not to defend assessment but to determine adequacy of response)
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) Case No. 2012051153, 112 LRP 41903
32
Case #3: Timeliness of IEE Request Findings
District does not need to initiate hearing when IEE request made for assessment more than two years old
Neither Congress nor California intended parents to be able to request IEEs “in perpetuity”
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) Case No. 2012051153, 112 LRP 41903
33
Case #3: Timeliness of IEE Request Findings
Exception to two-year limit not applicable; Parent not prevented from exercising rights
ALJ refused to require that District reference two-year limit on IEEs in procedural safeguards notice
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) Case No. 2012051153, 112 LRP 41903
34
Case #3: Timeliness of IEE Request Lessons Learned
Keep tabs on conditions thatmight require reassessment; may head off delayed IEE request
Objecting to IEE on timeliness grounds fruitful strategy; difficult to defend long-ago assessment
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) Case No. 2012051153, 112 LRP 41903
35
Case #3: Timeliness of IEE Request Other Cases Applying Two-Year
Limit
Student v. Sacramento Unified School District (OAH 2012) Case No. 2012040379, 112 LRP 57711
Atlanta Pub. Schools (SEA GA 2007) 107 LRP 59591 Salem Keizer School Dist. (SEA OR 2004) 109 LRP
65863
36
Case #4: Student v. Garvey School Dist. (OAH 2010) To What Degree Do IEP
Teams Have to “Consider”a Privately Obtained IEE?
37
Case #4: Obligation to ‘Consider’ IEE Background and Issue
One of very few decisions addressing what it means to adequately “consider” IEE
Did District denied FAPE by depriving Parents’ evaluator the opportunity to present results of IEE at IEP meeting?
Student v. Garvey School Dist. (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010011021, 110 LRP 44204
38
Case #4: Obligation to ‘Consider’ IEE Facts
Parents obtained social emotional development assessment at their own expense
District therapist reviewed report prior to IEP meeting
Time limitations prevented private assessor from explaining report to IEP team
Student v. Garvey School Dist. (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010011021, 110 LRP 44204
39
Case #4: Obligation to ‘Consider’ IEE Facts
Reconvened meeting: Private assessor began discussion of report 10-15 minutes before end of meeting
Time expired again before she could complete presentation and make recommendations
Parent claimed IEE not adequately “considered”
Student v. Garvey School Dist. (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010011021, 110 LRP 44204
40
Case #4: Obligation to ‘Consider’ IEE Findings
IEE was adequately “considered”
District therapist developed two speech goals based, in part, on IEE
Testimony: IEP team read all written reports submitted
Student v. Garvey School Dist. (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010011021, 110 LRP 44204
41
Case #4: Obligation to ‘Consider’ IEELessons Learned
Meaning of “considered” determined on case-by-case basis – document IEP meeting with accurate minutes
Never ignore an IEE; distribute report to all concerned
Remember: “Consider” doesn’t mean “accept”
Student v. Garvey School Dist. (OAH 2010) Case No. 2010011021, 110 LRP 44204
42
Case #4: Obligation to ‘Consider’ IEE Other Cases on Meaning of ‘Consider’
T.S. v. Board of Educ. of Town of Ridgefield (2d Cir. 1993) 20 IDELR 889: Not “every member of a body must read document . . . in order to collectively consider it”
G.D. v. Westmoreland School Dist. (1st Cir. 1991) 17 IDELR 751: “Consider” does not always require “substantive” discussion
Evans v. District No. 17 (8th Cir. 1984) 559 IDELR 381: IEE properly considered when read by special education director
43
Take Aways . . .
Consider all factors in IEE decision-making
Delays can be costly Make sure IEP team
knows how to respond Always keep lines
of communication open
44
Information in this presentation, including but not limited to PowerPoint handouts and the presenters' comments, is summary only and not legal advice. We advise you to consult with legal counsel to determine how this information may apply to your specific facts and circumstances .
45