Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Legal Update Sacramento Office 520 Capitol Mall Suite 400 Sacramento California 95814 Tel: 916.443.0000 Fax: 916.443.0030 *Our newest location:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Legal Update Sacramento Office 520 Capitol Mall Suite 400 Sacramento California 95814 Tel: 916.443.0000 Fax: 916.443.0030 *Our newest location:"— Presentation transcript:

1 Legal Update Sacramento Office 520 Capitol Mall Suite 400 Sacramento California Tel: Fax: *Our newest location:

2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 2 Overview Federal and State Law – Revocation of Parent Consent, Expanding 504 Eligibility, Alternative to CAHSEE Federal Court Cases – Assessment, Procedural Violations California Court Cases – Insulin Administration OAH – Right to Observe, Placement in an IAES, IQ testing, Discipline

3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 3 Amendments to the IDEA Parents may revoke consent to receipt of SPED services: 1.Parent revokes consent in writing 2.School district provides Prior Written Notice 3.School district discontinues services in a “timely manner” 4.Student is a general education student

4 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 4 Amendments to the IDEA Effects? –Student disciplined as a general ed. student –Student may be placed in any classroom where general ed. students are placed –No right to assessment, IEP, or services –School district not liable for FAPE cont.

5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 5 Amendments to the IDEA Prior Written Notice –Date when services will end –List of services that will no longer be provided –Where the student will be placed –Student will be treated as a general ed. student in all respects –General ed. modification/opportunities –See Appendix

6 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 6 Amendments to the IDEA After revocation… –Consider convening team to discuss transition, develop general education accommodations –Consider meeting with parent –Still must implement child find Notification yearly generally, every six months for more severely handicapped students

7 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 7 Questions About Parent Revocation of Consent When, exactly, to send the prior written notice? When, exactly, to discontinue services? Should you offer Section 504 services? What about divorced parents; one revokes, one doesn’t? And a lot more---

8 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 8 Practice Pointer School districts should make sure to amend their Notice of Procedural Safeguards to address parents’ right to revoke consent

9 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 9 Amendments to the ADA Definition of an “individual with a disability” under Section 504 conforms to the ADA Broadens meaning of “substantially limits” Expanded definition of “regarded as” –School districts: reasonable accommodations only to individuals who actually are disabled

10 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 10 AB 2040 Adds sections and to the Education Code October 1, 2010 – State Board of Education must adopt regulations that provide alternative means for students with disabilities to show mastery of the skills and knowledge required to pass the CAHSEE January 1, 2011 – Students may participate in the alternative means defined in

11 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 11 Ninth Circuit – #1 Parent informs district that student might have autism District refers parent to child development center for a free assessment Has the district fulfilled its obligation to assess? (N.B. and C.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District, 9th Cir. 2008)

12 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 12 No! Referral does not ensure that the student will be assessed Procedural violation  Denial of FAPE –District needed the assessment information to determine the student’s needs cont. (N.B. and C.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District, 9th Cir. 2008)

13 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 13 Another important note… 9 th Circuit distinguished between Rowley standard of “some educational benefit” and the heightened standard of “meaningful benefit” from the IDEA 1997 amendments New standard? Even if yes, is it very different? cont. (N.B. and C.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District, 9th Cir. 2008)

14 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 14 Ninth Circuit – #2 School district observed student in private placement for three hours District only allowed student’s private assessor to observe district placement for 20 minute increments Automatic denial of FAPE? (L.M. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 9th Cir. 2008)

15 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 15 No! Procedural violation must result in substantive harm –Rejected “structural defect” analysis –Assessor able to form opinion in 20 minutes –No substantive harm cont. (L.M. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 9th Cir. 2008)

16 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 16 Tenth Circuit District provided parent with draft IEPs Parent rejects all drafts and refuse to continue with IEP process Student’s IEP was never finalized Denial of FAPE? (Sytsema v. Academy School District, 10th Cir. 2008)

17 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 17 Not necessarily… Procedural violation? YES – but not a denial of FAPE –Parent unilaterally terminated the process before the district finalized its offer –Parent’s actions denied them the opportunity to participate, not district’s actions cont. (Sytsema v. Academy School District, 10th Cir. 2008)

18 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 18 Practice Pointer Document, document, document! –School districts should make sure to keep records of all attempts to work with parent to develop IEP –Show that parent terminated process, not the district

19 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 19 California Federal District Court – #1 Parent and district entered into settlement agreement which: –Waived claims through the school year –Required IEP meeting by May 30, 2005 School district held IEP meeting in Sept Did the district violate the settlement agreement? (Petersen v. SEHO, California Federal District Court, 2008)

20 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 20 Yes… but it does not matter! Even if the school district violated the settlement agreement, the waiver prevented the parent from challenging the violation (Petersen v. SEHO, California Federal District Court, 2008) cont.

21 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 21 California Federal District Court – #2 District Court affirmed OAH decision – if Parent wanted SPED services for their child, they MUST allow the school district to assess (T.B. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District, California Federal District Court, 2008)

22 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 22 California Superior Court Unlicensed personnel may NOT administer insulin to students (American Nurses Assoc. v. Jack O’Connell, California Superior Court, 2008)

23 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 23 Office of Administrative Hearings #1 Parent informed district they were placing Student in a private school and seeking reimbursement District wanted to observe student in placement, but parent would not allow an observation May the district observe? (Student v. Poway Unified School District, OAH 2008)

24 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 24 Yes! School district is entitled to observe if: –Parent places student in private school and requests reimbursement from the district (Student v. Poway Unified School District, OAH 2008) cont.

25 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 25 Office of Administrative Hearings #2 Student had a history of aggressive behavior School district wanted to place student in an IAES ordered by the hearing officer Parent did not believe the IAES was appropriate (Fort Bragg Unified School District v. Student, OAH 2008) What is the standard for determining whether an IAES is appropriate?

26 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 26 IAES Standard Allows student to receive educational services necessary to: –Participate in the general curriculum –Make progress towards IEP goals Allows student to receive behavioral services and supports cont. (Fort Bragg Unified School District v. Student, OAH 2008)

27 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 27 Office of Administrative Hearings #3 Parent of an African American student obtained a private assessment that included an IQ test (Student v. New Haven Unified School District, OAH 2007) Is the district required to consider the assessment in determining the student’s needs?

28 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 28 Yes! School districts MUST consider results of parentally obtained private assessments even if the student is African American and the assessment includes an IQ test –District could have redacted to eliminate reference to IQ test cont. (Student v. New Haven Unified School District, OAH 2007)

29 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 29 Office of Administrative Hearings #4 Student with ADHD and auditory processing disorder threatened coaches School determined student’s conduct was NOT a manifestation of his disability Was this determination correct? (Student v. Elk Grove Unified School District, OAH 2009)

30 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP 30 Yes, in this situation Student’s actions showed planning – not impulsive behavior stemming from ADHD Student demonstrated an understanding of the situation – auditory processing disorder didn’t lead to conduct Student could be removed from the school cont.

31 Thank you!


Download ppt "Legal Update Sacramento Office 520 Capitol Mall Suite 400 Sacramento California 95814 Tel: 916.443.0000 Fax: 916.443.0030 *Our newest location:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google