Trends – At A Glance... State Complaints 2011-12 2012-13 Due Process Complaints 2011-12 2012-13 Number & Type2452747686 Complainants Parent 197 MPA 35 Other 13 Parent 219 MPA 38 Other 17 Parent 73 District 3 Parent 77 District 9 Dismissed17 1112 Withdrawn67805453 Final Decision Issued160172119 2 pending Allegations/District Found Noncompliant 763/317 42% 701/308 44% 41/22 54% 25/11 44% Expedited/appeal MDRN/A1521
Trends In Complaints Top 10 Issues State ComplaintsDue Process Complaints 1. IEP implementation1.Manifestation Determination Appeal 2. IEP Content2. IEP Implementation 3. Discipline3. Identification/Eligibility 4. Notice4. Evaluation (tie) Appropriate IEP (tie) Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) (tie)
Trends In Complaints Top Ten Issues State ComplaintsDue Process Complaints 5. Initial IEP – Evaluation Process 5. Extended School Year (ESY) 6. Child Find – Initial Evaluation6. Placement 7. IEE7. LRE 8. Behavior Intervention8.Other Unilateral placement Transition Overriding parent consent
Trends In Complaints Top Ten Issues State ComplaintsDue Process Complaints 9. Annual IEP 10. Consent Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Issues State Complaints Fully Adjudicated Due Process Complaints Child Find Initial evaluation Eligibility/evaluation: Initial eligibility/evaluation Eligibility determination IEE IEP Implementation Content Participants IEP Participants Content Appropriateness Implementation Notice Trend down this year
Issues State Complaints Fully Adjudicated Due Process Complaints Discipline FAPEFAPE: IEP Implementation Content Participants Notice Placement
34 CFR § 300.111 State Complaint Child Find OSE Finding: Noncompliance because the district failed to identify, locate and evaluate a student with medical, behavioral and academic issues.
Due Process Complaint Child Find ALJ decision: “As the (parents) actually state in their brief, significant truancy triggers the (district’s) Child Find obligations. The ALJ concludes that the (district) fell far short of fulfilling it’s Child Find obligations in this case and completely denied the student a FAPE for the 2011-2012 school year.”
Learning Moment Child Find You are responsible for what you see, what you hear, and what you say…
R 340.1722(2) State Complaint IEP Implementation OSE Finding: Noncompliance because the district had such a poorly constructed IEP there was no possible way for district staff to adequately provide and document 20 supplementary aids and services and 12 accommodations.
Due Process Complaint Appropriate IEP ALJ decision - two separate cases: 1. The ALJ found that the petitioners established by a preponderance of evidence that the student was denied a FAPE because the IEP lacked measurable goals and failed to provide an appropriate transition plan. 2. A school district cannot ignore it’s obligation under the IDEA to provide an education to a disabled student that is designed to meet his unique needs and prepare him to the limits of his potential for future education, employment and independent living. Not even when his parents say it’s okay.”
You write it, you own it! Learning Moment IEP Implementation
34 CFR § 300.503 State Complaint Notice OSE Findings - two separate cases: 1.Noncompliance because the district didn’t respond to parent requests in five allegations. 2.Same district was compliant in another complaint because the request for devices was basically a request for methodology.
Due Process Complaint Notice ALJ Decision: Several significant changes in the student’s educational placement were made and parents were not notified.
Dot each i and cross each t Send within the timeline Learning Moment Notice
34 CFR § 300.530 State Complaint Discipline OSE Finding: Noncompliance because the district failed to consider other appropriate options, failed to provide services and a transition plan to return the student to school. Additionally, the OSE found that the district denied the student a FAPE.
Due Process Complaint Discipline ALJ decision - two separate cases: 1.The petitioners established by a preponderance of evidence that the student’s disabilities caused or had a direct and substantial relationship to the conduct involved in the incident that led to the student’s removal. 2. Services during removal must be determined on an individualized basis.
Count the days; review relevant information; do it on time; invite the required people; document the decision Provide Services Learning Moment Discipline
34 CFR § 300.101 State Complaint FAPE OSE Finding: Noncompliance because the district didn’t document: time in program, provision of interpreters, provision of progress reports or implementing goals and objectives. The accumulation of the procedural violations constituted a denial of a FAPE.
Due Process Complaint FAPE ALJ decision: Multiple procedural violations constituted substantive violations resulting in a denial of a FAPE: No progress reports No review and revision of IEP or BIP Faulty assessment administration No ESY consideration Predetermined eligibility Evaluation delayed Didn’t consider medical diagnosis/private evaluation
A Free APPROPRIATE Public Education Learning Moment FAPE
Resources: Your local or Intermediate School District special education administration Office of Special Education Technical Assistance Line 1-888-320-8384 Michigan Special Education Mediation Program (MSEMP) http://msemp.cenmi.org/ http://msemp.cenmi.org/ Office of Special Education http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-6530_6598---,00.html http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-6530_6598---,00.html Problem Solving Process Due process Procedures Compliance Standards MI-SER Public Posting http://focus.cenmi.org/state-complaints/ http://focus.cenmi.org/state-complaints/