April 2009

Case of the Month: Salem-Keizer School District, DP 08-120 (ODE, December 23, 2008) - high school math

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2008, there were 28 due process hearings filed in Oregon. All but five were settled or withdrawn for other reasons. This case is one of the five that went to hearing. Like most cases that go to hearing, it turns on what is "FAPE". Here, the question is whether a high school student with autism and a specific learning disability in math needed "exclusive one-on-one tutoring" in math for FAPE.

As a junior, the student took Algebra I and, predictably, had difficulty. In November, the parents filed a due process hearing seeking "exclusive one-on-one tutoring" for math. The district and parents settled, with the district providing one-on-one services for several months in the spring and for ESY in the summer.

Although the student had fulfilled his math requirement for graduation (he passed Algebra I with a "D"), he wanted to take another year of math to increase his chances of getting accepted to college. Again the parents filed a due process hearing to seek continuation of the one-on-one math tutoring.

This time the case did not settle and the ALJ agreed with the district that placement in the LRC academic support class was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits to the student, and one-on-one tutoring was not necessary.

Here are some of the factors that influenced the outcome of this case:

• The ALJ found the parent had limited credibility as a witness because the parent was "uncooperative and evasive during the hearing" and withheld documentation. The student's credibility was affected by poor memory and s/he was "overly influenced by Parent, who had a strong bias against District."
• The district's autism specialist gave expert testimony that the student could learn in the academic support class, and would benefit from peer involvement in that setting, which was less restrictive than one-on-one tutoring.
• The district offered to make one-on-one tutoring available in a separate space when needed in specific situations.
• The student's voluntary participation in band and other classes with background noise detracted from the premise that the student could not learn with other students in the LRC.
• Given the student's age and limited time left in public education, providing math instruction in the LRC would be more likely to prepare the student for future learning and living environments.
• The IDEA does not guarantee a placement that parents and students prefer. (Here, the student did not like for other students to know that he needed help in math.)
• An increase in math scores alone was not persuasive evidence that "exclusive one-on-one tutoring" in math was necessary for APE.
• Although staff held "pre-meetings" before some of the IEP meetings for the students, these pre-meetings were used to develop proposals and did not constitute "predetermination" of IEP or placement.

Lessons learned: On the surface, it is surprising this case went to hearing, but sometimes districts just feel enough is enough. The ALJ confirmed that what the district was offering was not only reasonable but also consistent with IDEA. Hopefully this lesson will not be lost on other families contemplating legal action.

March 2009

Case of the Month: T.P. and S.P. v. Mamaroneck School District (2nd Circuit)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This Second Circuit case from New York addresses the recurrent theme of "predetermination".

Here's the story: In preschool, the district provides this child with autism a regular preschool program for ten hours per week with an adult assistant, 30 hours of ABA services at home, and speech and occupational therapy. Now the child is transitioning to kindergarten. The parents want to continue home-based ABA services (25 hours per week) along with a full-time adult assistant at school and private OT and speech five times per week.

Not surprisingly, the June IEP team does not agree and the parents bring in an outside expert who supports their position. In July, the IEP team meets again to consider the expert's report and recommendations and modifies the IEP to include 10 hours of school-based ABA and various transition services during the summer. Just before the July IEP meeting, the district's behavior consultant reviews the expert's report and makes recommendations for services. The ultimate IEP reflects the behavior consultant's recommendations.

Parents request a hearing, and the district prevails through the two-tier hearing process. The federal district court rules for the parents, but the 2nd Circuit disagreed, supporting the hearing officer/ALJ decisions. In sum, the 2nd Circuit found the district did not "predetermine" placement by developing proposals in advance of the meeting. The district's actions at the meeting reflected a responsive posture, where the district made changes to the June IEP to add ABA services (at school) and transition services over the summer. The staff did not have a "take it or leave it" attitude, and the parents had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

Substantively, the court quoted from Rowley that school districts are not required to "furnish[] every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's potential". The court deferred to the well-reasoned findings of the hearing officer/ALJ that the IEP appropriately addressed the student's needs.

Lessons learned: The lessons here are pretty clear. Evidence of a good faith "give and take" over an IEPs contents suggests an open mind even if the results are not what the parents want for the child. Parents and district personnel alike are allowed to prepare for IEP meetings. Such preparation will not be considered "predetermination" as long as the preparation sessions are not decision-making venues, and IEP participants approach IEP meetings with some level of flexibility.
When the team does not reach consensus, the school must offer a reasonable solution that addresses the student's educational needs.

February 2009

Case of the Month: Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P. (10th Circuit)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This 10th circuit case from Colorado tells a story that sounds familiar: At age 2, Luke is diagnosed with autism. In kindergarten through grade 2, he makes progress at school in many areas but his behavior problems at home are "especially severe." He is sometimes violent at home and in the community, has sleep problems and inappropriate toileting behavior. In the fall of Luke's third grade year, Luke's parents are unsuccessful in convincing the district that he needs residential placement due to lack of generalization of his skills from school to home. The parents give the district notice, unilaterally place him at the Boston Higashi School (remember Ash?), and request a due process hearing.

The parents prevail through both levels of Colorado's two tier hearing system (five day hearing and review process) and federal district court. The state level ALJ noted that Luke had achieved nearly a quarter of the goals and objectives on his IEP, "was making slow [but] steady progress toward others" and overall was advancing on his goals at school, but was unable to transfer his learned skills and use them outside of school. It was this "generalization deficiency" that warranted residential placement.

The 10th Circuit disagreed, stating: "Though one can well argue that generalization is a critical skill for self-sufficiency and independence, we cannot agree with appellees that IDEA always attaches essential importance to it." In other words, when a child's skills in the school setting do not generalize to the home, "other resources [not IDEA] must be looked to." (The court distinguishes Ash v. Lake Oswego SD, a 1991 case from Oregon requiring reimbursement for residential placement at the Higashi School, because in that case the student's "generalization deficiencies or regression tendencies were so severe that they essentially prohibited any learning or progress on the student's IEP goals.") (emphasis added)

In sum, "a school district is not required to provide every service that would benefit a student if it has found a formula that can reasonably be expected to generate some progress on that student's IEP goals."

The parents filed for U.S. Supreme Court review on December 19, 2008.

Lessons learned:

* The opinion notes that the school district officials "expressed openness to revising Luke's IEP to include the parents' proposed goals" and to working with the parents' private expert to improve their special education program. The opinion also notes the ALJ's finding that the district made a "monumental and genuine effort" to improve Luke's performance in a number of areas affected by his autism. The district did not abandon its efforts to assist Luke in generalizing skills in the face of the parents' request for residential placement. The opinion implies that the district carefully monitored and reported on the student's progress. We can all learn from this district's experience.

November 2008

Case of the Month: M.M. v. Special School District No. 1, (8th Circuit, January 4, 2008, cert. denied October 20, 2008).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This convoluted case from the 8th Circuit (not precedent in Oregon), better known for its burden of proof holding, addresses interesting discipline and placement issues. The US Supreme Court just declined to review it.

The student, identified as emotional disturbed with academic and speech-language needs, was in seventh and eighth grade during the relevant time period. In seventh grade she was suspended from School A for fighting with another student and attacking a staff person who attempted to intervene. After a ten day suspension, the district moved her to School B without conducting an IEP meeting. The student completed the school year at School B, made academic progress, but made "insufficient" progress on her behavioral goals. At the beginning of eighth grade, the parent enrolled the student in an out of district charter school, but after one month returned her to School B.

The 8th Circuit found that the parent could not now raise objections to the "failure to review the IEP" before moving the student because the parents did not not request any changes to the IEP, did not protest the transfer, and did not request a due process hearing. The district did not deny FAPE because the student did not make progress on her behavioral goals: "When a child's primary disability is a behavior disorder, the school district does not violate IDEA simply because the child failed to achieve the IEP's behavioral goals."

After the student returned to School B, the district then held an IEP meeting and increased her time in special education settings to work on academic and behavioral goals. She was suspended several times that fall, resulting in IEP team meetings, an increase in time in special education settings and a new functional behavior assessment and behavior intervention plan. The student continued to make progress on her academic and speech-language goals, and continued to work on her behavior goals.

In January of eighth grade, the student was suspended for five days for attaching a vulnerable student. The IEP team, including the parent, agreed that School B was no longer appropriate and the district proposed moving the student to a special class for at least 60% of the school day at School C. The parent objected to the proposal because there were too many boys in this class. The 8th Circuit, disagreeing with the ALJ and the district court, found the district's proposal appropriate because the student's previous aggressive behavior all involved altercations with girls and there were no immediate openings in the classroom with more girls.

The district and parent agreed to try mediation. In the meantime, the student returned to School B, where she was suspended several more times. The district again proposed the move to the class as School C. The parent again refused.

In mediation, the parties agreed to a less restrictive placement at School D, where the student was almost immediately suspended. Again disagreeing with the lower court, the 8th Circuit found the district did not violate the IDEA by agreeing to try this less restrictive placement. After the suspension, the student returned to school D, where she did well for the rest of the school year. At that point the parent requested a due process hearing. At the hearing, the parent argued that the district should have offered an out of district placement. The ALJ and reviewing courts all rejected this argument, finding that the ED classroom was appropriate. However, the 8th circuit also found no basis for the lower court's award of compensatory education services, finding the parent rejected the district's offer of home instruction during suspensions.

Lessons Learned:

1. The IDEA discipline rules are as convoluted as the facts in this case. Often tensions are high, timelines are short, and options are limited. It's a good time to seek legal advice.

2. Although the district ultimately prevailed, it could have avoided one of the claims in this case by holding an IEP meeting before transferring the student to School B. The purpose of such a review would be to look at the behavioral goals and services and review the behavior plan to determine whether the goals, services and interventions are still appropriate in light of this new behavior or whether changes need to be made. The team might have decided that a lateral transfer (or change in location) was not sufficient and the student needed a more restrictive "change in placement" at that time.

3. The court would not likely have been as sympathetic to the district's position if the student had not been making progress on her academic and speech-language goals. Schools must address lack of progress and not wait until the annual IEP meeting. Here, the district impressed the court by its continuous efforts to address the student's behavioral needs by making changes to the student's program, proposing alternative placements, etc.

4. The district was able to demonstrate that it offered services to the student at home during further suspensions after the first ten school days of suspension. Although the parent refused these services, the court found that compensatory education services were not warranted. Just a reminder -- students who are suspended for more than ten school days in a school year, services must be provided services - both general education and special education.

a. For suspensions of more than ten days that are not a "pattern" - school personnel decide (in consultation with the child's teacher) on the amount and location for the services to be provided. OAR 581-015-2410(2).

b. For suspensions of more than ten days that are a "pattern" and the behavior is not a manifestation of the student's disability - the IEP team decides where the services will be provided. OAR 581-015-2415(5) and 581-015-2435.

c. For suspensions of more than ten days that are a "pattern" and the behavior IS a manifestation of the student's disability - the student must be returned to the placement from which the student was suspended unless the behavior is one of the "special circumstances" (drugs, weapons, serious bodily injury) that would justify a removal to an interim alternative educational setting, which must be determined by the IEP team. OAR 581-015-2415(4). [The student may also be moved to another setting if the parent and district agree, if the district gets an ALJ or court order for removal, or if the IEP/placement team decides on a change in placement.]

October 2008

Case of the Month: N.B. and C.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District (9th Circuit, September 4, 2008).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like Amanda J., this case out of Montana highlights the importance of careful reading of student records and ignoring suspected autism at your own peril.

In Oregon, as in many other states (but perhaps not all), teams are not required to find a student eligible in all applicable categories - one will do, but the team must evaluate in all areas of suspected disability and address all special education needs in a student's IEP (or IFSP for preschool children). OAR 581-01-2120(4).

In Hellgate, a 3 year old student moved in from out of state with an IEP calling for 12.5 hours per week of special instruction, including 2 hours per week of speech therapy. The parent also gave the special education director a copy of a private evaluation noting that the student exhibited characteristics of autism. The new district implemented the out of state IEP (see 34 CFR 300.323(f)) until holding an IEP meeting in mid-September. At that meeting, the team initiated an evaluation consisting of 6 weeks of observation by various service providers to gather more information to address the student's needs on the IEP. But the team did not initiate an autism evaluation, arguing later because the parent did not raise this as a concern. At the same time, the team reduced IEP services by more than half pending completion of the evaluation.

In November, when the team met again to review the assessment, the parents raised concerns about possible autism. The district referred the parents to an outside agency where the parents could obtain a free autism evaluation. In April, the outside evaluation was completed, indicating autism spectrum disorder, and the district increased the IEP services back to the move-in IEP levels.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district failed to meet its obligation to assess the student in all areas of suspected disabilities after becoming aware of the private evaluation, and that simply referring the parent to an outside agency was an abdication of the district's responsibility. Without the information related to autism spectrum disorder, it was not possible for the team to develop a plan reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit to the student. As a result, the Court awarded the parents with reimbursement for the costs of the private services they obtained that year.

The parents also asked for extended school year (ESY) services; the team did not reach consensus on this issue, resulting in a district determination that the student did not need ESY services based on a regression-recoupment analysis. The parents argued that the district's criteria was too narrow and should have been multi-factored.

Here, the Ninth Circuit found that the district's reliance on the regression/recoupment analysis was not an IDEA violation. Montana state policy permitted consideration of various factors in addition to regression/recoupment. The team discussed various factors, including whether the student was on the verge of breakthrough skills, as part of the regression/recoupment analysis. The court accepted the opinion of the district's witnesses, who had more contact with the student, and rejected the opinion of the parents' experts who testified generally about the need for year-round services for students with autism.

Lessons Learned:

1. Evaluate first, then base IEP team decisions on the evaluation. Here, the team acknowledged it needed more information to develop an appropriate IEP - so what was the basis for reducing services immediately?

2. If there are any evaluations in the student's record, or if any team member has an inkling of a suspicion that a student may have autism, particularly a preschool or elementary aged student, bring this information to the full attention of the team and make a very documented decision about whether to evaluate.

3. Because Oregon's regional autism program has specialists who assist districts and EI/ECSE programs with autism evaluations, it would be unlikely that a district or program would shift the responsibility to the parent to get an outside autism evaluation. But I can see this happening in other areas. If the team believes that an evaluation is necessary and does not have the capacity to conduct it, the district has the responsibility to ensure that it happens. This means taking on a direct role in contacting the outside agency, monitoring to ensure compliance with timelines, etc.

4. Take a look at your district's ESY policy. The federal regulation, 34 CFR 300.106, does not specify a criteria for ESY. The comments to the regulations indicate that a state "may use recoupment and retention as their sole criteria" but states have "considerable flexibility" in establishing state standards in this area. The Oregon regulation, OAR 581-015-2065, does not require consideration of factors other than regression-recoupment. However, if your state or district policy includes consideration of discretionary factors, the court may well hold you to consideration of those factors.

July 2008 - Student Health Plan or Section 504

Cases of the Month: Schaeffer (CA) Union Elementary School District and Douglas County (CO) School District RE-1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When may a district use a health plan instead of a 504 plan for a student with medical needs? Two fairly recent Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opinion letters provide some helpful guidance.

The first letter, Douglas County (C) School District RE-1, 107 LRP 36149 (OCR, September 8, 2006), concerned a kindergarten student with severe allergies. The district had a health care plan in place by the student's first day of kindergarten. The plan described the appropriate treatment in the event of allergic symptoms. The parent and staff also agreed on a set of actions and precautions to limit the student's exposure to dairy allergens in the classroom. In November, the parent asked for additional precautions. The principal and school nurse then met with the parent and offered a 504 plan to "formalize protections in place and, if justified by medical reports, . . . authorize additional accommodations." The school nurse contacted the student's allergist, who endorsed the current protections and did not recommend any additional actions. The district provided the parent with a copy of the district's 504 publication including "Section 504 policies, parent and student rights and procedural safeguards."

OCR concluded that the district did not violate Section 504: "[T]he District sought, received, and reviewed medical and other information to consider whether the services it was already providing met the Student's health and educational needs or whether it needed to proceed with the formal Section 504 evaluation and placement process. The District undertook steps to consider whether the Student had . . . a disability that would require the development of a Section 504 plan. The District determined that the Health Plan was appropriate and provided the complainant with the [Section 504] procedural safeguards."

Compare Shaffer (CA) Union Elementary School District, 107 LRP 61308 (OCR, January 19, 2007), concerning a sixth grade student with diabetes. The district's nurse had a developed a Health Care Plan for the student. The nurse, parent, and teacher reviewed the plan, and the nurse provided training on the plan to school staff. An incident occured when the teacher did not follow the provisions of the health plan. After repeated requests from the nurse and parent for a Section 504 plan for the student, the school principal offered a 504 plan to the parent without consulting the nurse. The parent did not agree with the 504 plan.

OCR concluded that the district violated Section 504 because:

1. There was no evidence that the district conducted an evaluation process before creating a Section 504 plan for the student;

2. There was no evidence that the district ensured that decisions were made by "a group of persons, including individuals knowledgeable about the student, the evaluation data, and the placement options"; and

3. The district unduly delayed development of the 504 plan.

Regarding the health plan, OCR stated that not only was it not followed appropriately, but "such a plan is not sufficient to substitute for a 504 Plan. Health plans, at least in this district, are developed without the procedural and due process protections of Section 504. There is no collaborative process for deciding how to evaluate the child, there is no collaborative process for deciding the meaning of the evaluation, and there are no standards...timelines...and most important, there are no procedural safeguards should a parent differ with the content of the plan."

Lessons Learned:

1. A stand-alone health plan may be an appropriate option for students with health conditions who do not meet the eligibility requirements for Section 504 or IDEA.

2. For students who meet the eligibility requirements for Section 504 or IDEA, an individual health plan may be an appropriate part of the 504 plan or IEP.

3. A health plan will not substitute for a 504 plan if the student meets 504 eligibility criteria, the health plan was developed in a unilateral manner without evaluation, and the district did not provide procedural safeguards to the parent.

June 2008 - Other health impaired eligibility

Case of the Month: Alvin Independent School District v. A.D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What circumstances may a team consider in determining whether a student with ADHD "needs special education services" to qualify as having an Other Health Impairment under the IDEA?

This Fifth Circuit case involved an 8th grade student with ADHD who had behavior problems at school resulting in several disciplinary referrals. At the same time, he had a difficult family situation and abused alcohol. His school behaviors culminated in theft and robbery at a school-sponsored event, resulting in recommendation for an alternative school placement. At the same time, he passed all of his classes (mostly A's, B's, and C's with one D) and the state assessment. The district found the student was not eligible because he did not "need special education services" as a result of his ADHD.

The court supported the district's decision. The student's passing grades and success on the state assessment demonstrated academic progress, which was an "important factor" in determining educational benefit. Despite his behavioral issues, he was "achieving social success in school". The court placed more weight on the testimony of teachers than on the doctors, "who based their opinions on faulty information culled from isolated visits, select documents provided by A.D.'s mother, and statements from A.D.'s mother about what she believed was happening in school." The district also convinced the court that much of A.D.'s behavioral problems were due to his alcohol abuse and family circumstances, not the result of ADHD. Alvin Independent School District v. A.D., 48 IDELR 240 (5th Cir., October 4, 2007).

Lesson Learned: School districts may take academic progress into consideration but must also consider social and behavioral needs. Schools should not "defer" to prescription pad recommendations for special education services, but should consider this information along with other information about the student's educational, social and behavioral needs. This case is a reminder that unacceptable behavior is not always disability related. Still, drawing the line is difficult, particularly with ADHD.