special education, public school law, dr. w.a. kritsonis

8/14/2019 Special Education, Public School Law, Dr. W.A. Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/special-education-public-school-law-dr-wa-kritsonis 1/22

T H R E E

Special Education

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD



jargon of special educationp.l. 94-I42: passed in 1975 guaranteeing every

child with a disability free and appropriateeducation now know as Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA)

504: prohibits discrimination againstpersons with disabilities in programs thatreceive federal funds

FAPE: Free, appropriate public education

IEP: Individualized education program

ARD: Admission, review, and dismissal.

Placement: This refers to the instructionalarrangement in which the child iseducated.

LRE: Least restrictive environment



jargon of special education

Related Services: Special transportation and

other non-instructional services thatare necessary for the child to obtainbenefit from the educationalprogram.

Eligibility: Meeting certain criteria forfederally funded special educationprograms.

FIE: Full Individual Evaluation.

IEE: Independent Educational Evaluation.

ESY: Extended School Year

OSEP: Office of Special Education Programs.



Federal legislationChild Find

• School districts take an activerole in identifying and servingstudents with a need.

• Publicize the availability of special education services.

• Train teachers to identify thetypical signs of disability

• Reach out to private-schooladministrators and homeschoolers.



Federal LegislationEvaluation

• To avoid untutored labeling a FullIndividual Evaluation (FIE)

• ARD committee meets in order toeliminate unnecessary testing.

• Parents have the right to disagreewith decisions if so they are entitledto obtain an IndependentEducational Evaluation but can

force the district to accept data.



Federal LegislationEligibility

Two Requirements

1. Student must have a disability

that qualifies under the law

2. The student must as a result of

the disability need special

education services



Federal LegislationARD Committee

ARD Committee is composed of:1. The parent (s)

2. A regular education teacher

3. A special education teacher

4. Someone who can interpret theinstructional implications

5. A representative of the school district

6. Others in the judgment of the parents orthe school, have special knowledge or

expertise

7. When appropriate, the student



Federal Legislation

Individualized Education Program

• A statement of the child’s presentlevels of education

• Measurable annual goals, includingshort-term objectives

• Related services, supplemental aidsand services, program modificationsand supporters for school personnelthat provides services to the child

• Explanation for class exclusion• Modifications needed

• Dates services are provided

• Statement of how the parents will be

informed of child’s progress



Federal LegislationGeneral Curriculum

• Refers to the things theregular education studentsare expected to learn

• Special education studentsshould be taught as much aspossible, the same subject

matter that the regulareducation students aretaught.



Federal LegislationNCLB and Statewide Assessments

• Require states to hold all

students to the same academic

standards, and to demonstrate

“adequate yearly progress”(AYP) through statewide test in

certain subjects.



Federal LegislationLeast Restrictive Environment

• The law mandates that LRE,but it also mandates a fullcontinuum of alternative

placements, some of themhighly restrictive.

• Other terms Mainstreaming,

and Inclusion



Federal LegislationProcedural Safeguards

Four Aspects

1. Notice

2. Consent

3. The right to an IEE

4. The right to a Due ProcessMeeting



Federal Legislation Attorneys’ Fees

• Parents who “prevail” in a specialeducation dispute with a schooldistrict are entitled to recover

reasonable attorney fees.• Congress put some limits on

recovery of attorney fees in IDEA1997 and 2004.



Federal Legislation FAPE

Board of Education v. Rowley

established two things

1. School districts are not required

to maximize the potential of achild but rather provide someeducational benefit to the child.

2. How courts in the future would

examine disputes under IDEA



Federal LegislationRelated Services

• If a student needs theservices to attend school,and the service can be

provided by someone otherthan an M.D., then theschool district must provide

or pay for the service.



Federal LegislationExtended School Year Services

F d l L i l ti



Federal LegislationUnilateral Placements

This involves a disagreement between school and parent as to the appropriate placement

.

PARENTS vs. SCHOOL -PARENTS vs. SCHOOL -

ReimbursementReimbursement

I.I. Cost ReimbursementsCost Reimbursements

What the school believes

What the parent believes

II.II. Burden of Proof - ParentBurden of Proof - Parent

Prove IEP and/or Placement recommended by school is inappropriate

Parents prove their arranged IEP and Placement are appropriate

III.III. Factors faced by - ParentFactors faced by - Parent

Law presumes program recommended by school is appropriate

Law require school to propose a program that confer (reasonable

benefit)

School proposed program will be less restrictive than the private placement

IV.IV. Teague I.S.D. v. Todd L. (1993) DeniedTeague I.S.D. v. Todd L. (1993) Denied

Reimbursement Denied

School program appropriate

Restrictive vs. Non-Restrictive

V.V. Florence County School District Four v. Carter(1994)Florence County School District Four v. Carter(1994)

Facility

Argument

U S Supreme Court Reimbursement

VI.VI. IDEAIDEA 1997 Procedural Requirements1997 Procedural Requirements

School – Line of Defense (fix problem)Parent - Procedural Requirement Notice

Private Schooling – Assemble, evaluate, devise, and determine FAPE



Federal LegislationPrivate-School Children IDEA 1997IDEA 1997

Under child find the public school is required to evaluate students in private school for special education.

They are also required to spend a proportionate share of federal special education funds

I.I. Public to PrivatePublic to Private

Child Find

Proportionate Share

II.II. IDEA 1997IDEA 1997FAPE

Services

No Due process

Decisions by ISDLoss of rights

III.III. TexasTexasException

Dual Enrollment



Discipline of Students with Disabilities

The ARD committee must review all relevant information and then answer two questions:

1. Was the conduct of the student caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability?2. Was the conduct of the student a direct result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP?

I.I. Congress and Special EducationCongress and Special Education

Guarantee an appropriate education

Encourage safe classrooms free drugs

II.II. S-1 v. TurlingtonS-1 v. Turlington

U.S. Court of Appeals / Fifth CircuitStudent Behavior

Students Classification

Disability or Not

III.III. Supreme Court – Honig v. DoeSupreme Court – Honig v. Doe

Dangerous Behavior

Suspension Lengths

Injunction

“Stay Put” provision of IDEAThen Current Placement

IV.IV. Congress revision of Special Education discipline laws in IDEA 1997Congress revision of Special Education discipline laws in IDEA 1997

Congress enacted into federal law a requirement

Expellable Act

Congress nullifies major court decision

V.V. Common Wealth of Virginia v. RileyCommon Wealth of Virginia v. Riley

Congress Intervention revised IDEA Nondisabled vs. Disabled



DISCIPLINE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIESDISCIPLINE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

V.V. Continued…Continued…

Exception to “stay put”

Violation to Code of Conduct

Removal longer Than 10 days

Congress adopted statutory language

Cumulative rule

VI.VI. Concept of a “ManifestationConcept of a “Manifestation

Determination”Determination”

IDEA 1997

ARD Committee

Texas Legislature – TEC §37.0021

Restraint and Time Out

Time Out

Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of



Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

I.I. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973

Federal Money

Americans with Disabilities Act

Section 504 three pronged definition

Group 1Group 2

Group 3

II.II. 504 Special Treatment504 Special Treatment

Physical or Mental Impairment

ADD

LEP

Coverage of 504

III.III. Mitigating Measures - PerformanceMitigating Measures - Performance

Medication

Non Medication

IV.IV. 504 Eligible504 Eligible

PerformancePotential

Genuine physical or mental impairment

Major life Activity

V.V. IDEA vs. 504IDEA vs. 504

Standards for eligibility

Requirements



William Allan Kritsonis,PhD

special education, public school law, dr. w.a. kritsonis

Documents