special education eligibility: an analysis7 appropriate assessments complete picture review of past...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Special Education Eligibility:Special Education Eligibility:An AnalysisAn Analysis
Prepared and Presented by Karen E. Samman
ACSA Conference 2013
2
Agenda
Why Does it Matter
The Foundation:
Appropriate Assessment
Eligibility Categories
Definition of Eligible Student
The Analysis
Case Studies (ED, OHI, SLI, and Autism)
3
Why Does It Matter?
Disproportionality
Race or Ethnicity
Corrective Actions
4
Why Does It Matter?
FAPE Considerations
Educational
Financial
5
Appropriate Assessments
Child Find
Identify in all areas of suspected disability
Assess identified suspected areas
A complete picture
Eligibility determination
6
Appropriate Assessments
Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional and developmental information about the child, including information provided by the parent, and information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities), that may assist in determining—
Whether the child is a child with a disability; and
The content of the child’s IEP
7
Appropriate Assessments
Complete Picture Review of past and current student records Review of parent provided assessments Conduct standardized testing Conduct non-standardized testing Observe student in classroom Observe student in other relevant areas such as play
ground, lunch room, on the bus Conduct parent/teacher interviews Conduct student interview
All of which are analyzed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the student
8
Appropriate Assessments
Distorted Picture
Failing to assess all areas of suspected disability
Poor choice of assessment instruments
Not following up on weaknesses identified during the assessment
Improperly administered test protocol
9
Appropriate Assessments
Distorted Picture
Failing to observe student
Failing to interview and/or get information from Teachers
Parents
Student
Service providers
Failing in the analysis
10
Eligibility Categories
1. Autism, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(1); 5 CCR 3030(g)2. Deaf-Blindness, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(2); 5 CCR 3030(b)3. Deafness, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(3); 5 CCR 3030(a)4. Emotional Disturbance, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(4); 5 CCR 3030(i)5. Hearing Impairment, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(5); 5 CCR 3030(a)6. Intellectual Disability, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(6); 5 CCR 3030(h)7. Multiple Disabilities, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(7)8. Orthopedic Impairment, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(8); 5 CCR 3030(e) 9. Other Health Impairment, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(9); 5 CCR 3030(f)10. Specific Learning Disability, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10); 5 CCR 3030(j)11. Speech or Language Impairment, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(11); 5 CCR 3030(c)12. Traumatic Brain Injury, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(12)13. Visual Impairment, including blindness, 34 CFR 300.8(c)(13); 5 CCR
3030(d)
11
Eligibility Categories
Adverse Effect on Education Performance Included in Definition
1. Autism 2. Deaf-Blindness 3. Deafness 4. Emotional Disturbance 5. Hearing Impairment 6. Intellectual Disability 7. Multiple Disabilities8. Orthopedic Impairment 9. Other Health Impairment
11. Speech or Language Impairment12. Traumatic Brain Injury13. Visual impairment, including
blindness
Adverse Effect on Education Performance Implicit in Definition
10. Specific Learning Disability
12
Definition of Eligible Student
Under IDEA 2004, the term "child with a disability" means a child evaluated in accordance with 34 CFR 300.304 through 34
CFR 300.311 as having mental retardation, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), an emotional disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and
who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services
34 CFR 300.8(a)(1)
13
Definition of Eligible Student
If a child has one of the disabilities identified at 34 CFR 300.8(a)(1), but only needs related services and not special education,
the child is not a child with a disability under the IDEA. 34 CFR 300.8(a)(2)(i)
However, if the related service that the child requires is considered "special education" under state standards, the child will be eligible under the IDEA. 34 CFR 300.8(a)(2)(ii)
14
Definition of Eligible Student
A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability
(1) If the determinant factor for that determination is: (i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential
components of reading instruction (as defined in Section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act);
(ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or
(iii) Limited English proficiency; and
(2) If the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under 34 CFR 300.8(a)
34 CFR 300.306(b)
15
Definition of Eligible Student
Students whose educational needs are due primarily to . . . temporary physical disabilities; social maladjustment; or environmental, cultural, or economic factors are not individuals with exceptional needs
Unless they otherwise meet eligibility requirements
Ed. Code § 56026(e)
16
Definition of Eligible Student
Remember:
A student with a disability must require special education by reason of such disability to receive related services under the IDEA
34 CFR 300.8(a)(1)
17
Definition of Eligible Student
What is special education?
18
The Analysis
Question 1: Does the student satisfy one of the 13 eligibility criteria?
Adverse effect on educational performance must be analyzed in answering this question
SLD
Discrepancy
RTI
Question 2: Does the student needs special education and related services?
19
The Analysis
In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability under 34 CFR 300.8, and the educational needs of the child, each public agency must: (i) Draw upon information from a variety of sources,
including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information about the child's physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior; and
(ii) Ensure that information obtained from all of these sources is documented and carefully considered
34 CFR 300.306(c)(1)
20
The Analysis
Adversely Affects Educational Performance
What does that mean?
Case-by case analysis
21
Case Studies: Adverse Effect
22
Student v. Tehachapi USDOAH Case No. 2005120939 (June 28, 2006)
Facts: Student was assessed in 8th grade and found ineligible In Student’s 9th grade year he was diagnosed with ADD In 10th grade he received poor grades because he did not
turn in homework, was frequently tardy and absent In 10th grade he passed both portions of the CAHSEE A 504 Plan was developed for student with only minor
accommodations recommended by a private psychologist Parents requested an assessment in September of
Student’s 11th grade year Student admitted homework was not a priority and he was
late at times because he would lose track of time Student loved soccer and was never late for soccer practice District again found student ineligible
23
Student v. Tehachapi USD
OAH held that
Student’s attention deficit disorder ("ADD") did not adversely affect his educational performance because his motivation was the primary factor behind his failing grades, rather than his ADD
OAH determined that Student was capable of arriving to class on time and completing his work; but that he refused to do so
24
Student v. Irvine USD, OAH Case No. 2009050088 (September 28, 2009)
Facts: Student was 16 years old and had Type 1 diabetes Student had history of tardiness, absences, failing to turn in
homework and long term assignments throughout elementary and middle school
In 9th grade Student failed almost all classes In previous years general education interventions had been
attempted Academic testing (WJIII) all in average range STAR scores proficient Student’s doctor provided input that his diabetes affects his
concentration because of blood sugar fluctuations In 10th grade student passed both sections of the CAHSEE
25
Student v. Irvine USD
OAH held that
Student’s diabetes adversely affected his educational performance because it caused him to be:
absent or tardy from school, and
caused him to fail to, or have difficulty with, completing and/or turning in in-class and homework assignments
26
Student v. Brea Olinda School District, OAH Case Nos. 2009050815 & 2009030124 (November 24, 2009)
Facts:
Student was a 12 year old student with ADHD
Became eligible for special education at 6 years old under OHI
Student was performing well in school, receiving all Bs and a C- in math
District assessment found that student’s academics were in the above average to high average range
Parents reported difficulty with homework and social skill related to student’s ADHD
STAR Testing in the advanced range
Parents reported that student would take 4 hours to complete hishomework
Student removed his ADHD medication patch when he went home because it adversely affected his appetite and cause insomnia
27
Student v. Brea Olinda School District
Facts:
Assessment demonstrated a discrepancy between parent and teacher ratings on the Conner’s Rating Scale, which the assessor did not analyze and explain
Assessor reported parent input it report but did not analyze and eplain
District wanted to exit student from special education and filed for a due process hearing
Parents did not agree to the exit from special education
28
Student v. Brea Olinda School District
OAH found that Student’s ADHD adversely affected his educational
performance because it prevented the student from focusing and attending to his work and from timely completing his homework Assessment report did not give proper weight to the above effects
of student’s ADHD
OAH stated that proper and timely completion of homework was an important aspect
of the student’s ability to access and benefit from his education because homework comprised 25% of his grade in one of his classes
the student’s difficulty focusing and paying attention prevented him from remaining in an advanced math class
29
Student v. Manteca Unified School District, Case No. 2009060164 (November 9, 2009)
Facts: Student is 14 years old with high-functioning autism, an
anxiety disorder, phobias regarding germs, a depressive disorder, and scoliosis of the spinal column
In 4th grade student moved into the District and was eligible as S and L
After 30 days, the IEP team in October 2004 found Student no longer needed speech and language services but was eligible under SLD
At the beginning of fifth grade, the District found that Student no longer needed special education and related services to benefit from his education and exited him
Parents consented to the exit
30
Student v. Manteca Unified School District Facts:
Two year later, the District agreed to assess Student at Parents' request
Parents were concerned that, despite Student's academic success, he had problems including
an obsession with perfection and
deficient social skills that interfered with his ability to be successful in school and in the community.
Parents informed the District that they suspected that Student had Asperger's Syndrome
Student was placed on a Section 504 Plan
Student was academically successful in all of his classes, his speech and language skills were within the average range for his chronological age and development, and he did not demonstrate autistic-like behaviors in two or more areas as required by law
District found him ineligible Regional Center found student eligible for services under autism
31
Student v. Manteca Unified School District Facts:
Parents presented the Regional Center assessment to the District
District reassessed student and again for the same reasons found ineligible
Private assessor found his eligible under autism
Parents filed for a due process hearing
32
Student v. Manteca Unified School District OAH held that:
A child is eligible for special education services if an IEP team determines that the child meets one of the educational eligibility categories, and if the IEP team determines that the adverse effects of the disability cannot be corrected without special education and related services; that is, that the degree of impairment "requires instruction, services, or both, which cannot be provided with modification of the regular school program." (Ed. Code, §§ 56026, subd. (b); 56333, 56337; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030.)
Thus, if Student exhibited any combination of the above autistic-like behaviors during the relevant time frames and the disorder adversely affects his educational performance to the extent thatspecial education is required, Student would meet the eligibility criteria. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5 § 3030, subd. (g).)
33
Student v. Manteca Unified School District OAH found that:
Student did not meet eligibility under autistic-like, and even if he did,
There was no adverse effect on educational performance, and He did not require special education Student was not eligible for special education
In determining adverse effect OAH examined: Standardized measure Grades over time which were As STAR testing which was advanced Section 504 accommodations and whether they caused an artificial
increase in grades or test scores Whether the content of the curriculum was modified in any way by
the Section 504 plan His ability to relate to and interact with his peers
34
Case Studies: Adverse Effect
Adverse effect on educational performance may be found when Is not due to lack of motivation
Impacts school attendance
It causes the student to fail to complete, and/or turn-in, class work and homework, and
It results in difficulty with focusing and/or attending that prevents the student from attending classes and timely completing his homework
35
Case Studies: Adverse Effect
Tips for Analyzing Adverse Effect Examine
all forms of academic performance (standardized measure, grades, STAR test, district-wide tests)
Work completion issues (homework or classwork) and determine why the work is not being completed
Truancy issues and absences (why?) and grades
Disciplinary issues (why?) and effect of educational performance
Inflation of grades through Section 504 Plan
Motivation of student
36
Case Studies: Requires Special Education
37
Hood v. Encinitas Union School District(9th Cir. 2007) 486 F.3d 1175
Facts: Student was 10 years old and performed at grade levels or
above in her classroom Student had difficulty with completing tasks, turning in
homework, and organization Student’s IQ tests show above average ability Student was diagnosed with a seizure disorder and ADD District conducted assessment District offered Student a 504 Plan, but determined Student
was ineligible for special education and related services Parents placed Student in an NPS Parents then filed for due process seeking reimbursement
for tuition and assessments
38
Hood v. Encinitas Union School District
SEHO denied Student’s requested relief
Hearing Officer determined Student’s assessments revealed that Student did not have an SLD or OHI that required special education and related services
Student’s needs could be met in the general education classroom
Parents appealed to federal court
District court upheld Hearing Officer’s decision
Parents had not shown that Student’s needs could not be addressed with modifications to the regular classroom
39
Hood v. Encinitas Union School District
SLD Student’s overall performance demonstrated that Student did not
require special education
Student does not qualify for special education because any severe discrepancy between ability and achievement appears correctable in the regular classroom
District not required to elicit optimum performance from Student
504 Plan accommodations were appropriate
OHI Even if Student had ADHD and seizure disorder, Student’s
impairments could be met in the general education classroom
9th Circuit affirmed district court’s judgment
40
Student v. Riverside USD, OAH Case No.
N2007020300 (November 2, 2007)
Facts: Student was 8 years old and had autism
He was initially found eligible under IDEA in preschool and placed in an SDC, without related services
Upon transition to kindergarten, the district recommended exit from special education
Mother did not agree so student remained in special education
His placement was general education with an IA
In kindergarten, he require very little support for academic work and no support for socialization
In first grade, he occasionally needed assistance with writing tasks but none for socialization
41
Student v. Riverside USD
Facts: At recess student appropriately played with other children
His grades were proficient or advanced in all areas
Student was found GATE eligible in second grade
In the GATE class student was describe as a student who could write well, followed directions, worked well with other students, and showed no frustration or signs of being overwhelmed
In the GATE class student had no issues with social interactions
District assessed student to determine whether he continued to be eligible for special education
District assessment found him ineligible for special education
District filed for a due process to exit student from special education
42
Student v. Riverside USD
OAH found that
Student with Autism Spectrum Disorder was not eligible for services under the IDEA because he did not require special education and related services
OAH based its conclusion on the fact that Student was able to succeed in the general education classroom
and in the GATE program, his classroom behavior was appropriate,and his social interactions with peers were appropriate
Student was able to work independently and in groups, follow teacher directions, and interact with peers during class and recess
Student’s needs could be met in a general education classroom and he did not qualify for special education services
43
Student v. La-Mesa Spring Valley, OAH
Case No. 2009050311 (August 20, 2009)
Facts:
Student attended preschool and had problems with socialization and impulse control
He was enrolled in a private kindergarten but had many difficulties
Parents then enrolled him in another private school, which did not have kindergarten so he was enrolled in the first grade
Homework was eliminated because he refused to do any
Parents requested an assessment but indicated that they did not believe that public school was appropriate for student
Student was functioning at first grade level academically
He had issues with transitions, was inflexible, would tantrum, and become frustrated
44
Student v. La-Mesa Spring Valley
Facts:
District conducted an assessment of student
Mother indicated that student had difficulty with transitions, was inflexible, did not follow directions, refused to do homework or anything repetitive
Student was observed in his private school where he interacted appropriate and was able to appropriately attend to classroom tasks
District found that he was not eligible for special education
A private assessment found that he was eligible as a student with Asperger’s Disorder
45
Student v. La-Mesa Spring ValleyOAH found that Autistic-like characteristics Student experienced outside of school
did not make him eligible for special education under the category of Autism
The evidence did not demonstrate Student required specialized instruction and services which could not be provided by modifying the regular school program because he received excellent grades and was able to excel in the classroom
OAH explained Student was able to function appropriately at school For example, Student remained on task, worked
independently, followed directions, maintained appropriate eye contact with his teacher and peers, was not distracted by the frequent loud noises or unruly classmates, and attempted social interactions with other children
Based on this, OAH concluded that he did not require special education services
46
Student v. Tustin USD, OAH Case No.
2008120809 (May 12, 2009)
Facts:
Student was 9 years old and eligible for special education underspeech and language impairment
Initial eligibility was at 3 years old
On an assessment in kindergarten, student met criteria for SLD
In second grade student was at grade level
STAR testing proficient
Triennial conducted in third grade
No discrepancy was found
All language scores in the average range, except he could not pronounce “r”
47
Student v. Tustin USD
OAH found that Student was no longer eligible for special education under the
category of SLI because Student’s mild articulation deficit was not impacting his education
Student did not require specialized instruction or the related service of speech therapy because the District’s general education program included a speech articulation clinic to address mild issues like Student’s mild articulation deficit
Student’s classroom performance was in the average range and he showed strength in reading and reading comprehension
Accommodations such as repeating instructions or providing instructions visually or in writing, could be implemented in thegeneral education environment without modification of the general education program.
Student did not require special education
48
Student v. Tustin USD
OAH further found that Student did not meet the eligibility criteria for the category of SLD, despite a weakness in one area of auditory processing
OAH determined Student’s academic performance was not significantly
impacted by this weakness Student made great progress in special education to the
point that he could be educated in a general education classroom without modification and without related services
Consequently, OAH found that student did not require special education due to a SLD
49
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.