This document provides summaries of frequently asked questions regarding special education discipline. It addresses topics such as determining when a series of short-term removals constitutes a change of placement, what constitutes "substantially similar" behavior, procedural requirements for removals that result in a change of placement, who should conduct manifestation determinations, how to document manifestation determination proceedings, timelines for returning a student to their prior placement if a behavior is found to be a manifestation of their disability, the types of behaviors that justify removal to an interim alternative educational setting, and whether a district can place a student in an IAES more than once during a school year. The document provides concise answers to each question along with practice pointers for implementing the legal requirements
The document discusses requirements and best practices for exiting students from special education. It covers three key areas:
1) Exiting based on determining a student no longer meets eligibility criteria, which requires reassessing the student in all suspected disability areas and documenting that the student no longer needs special education. Assessments must consider all available information and address all suspected areas of disability.
2) Properly convening IEP meetings, providing proper notice, and ensuring the IEP team makes exiting decisions rather than predetermining outcomes. Districts must also provide prior written notice of any decision to exit a student.
3) Case examples where districts failed to conduct comprehensive assessments, consider all relevant information, or provide proper
The document provides an overview of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigation and complaint resolution process under Section 504. It summarizes key steps in the OCR investigation including the complaint, jurisdiction determination, decision to close or pursue early resolution, investigation components, findings letter, resolution agreements, and monitoring. It also identifies common Section 504 issues that result in complaints such as procedural safeguards, evaluations and eligibility, bullying, discipline, accommodations, transportation, retaliation, and athletics. Practical response tactics for districts under investigation are outlined.
This document provides a summary of new developments in special education law from 2013, including three court cases. The first case found that California law allows trained, unlicensed school staff to administer insulin to students. The second case rejected a Section 504 damages claim regarding a student's suicide allegedly due to bullying, finding the school district did not demonstrate deliberate indifference. The third case refused to dismiss a damages claim where a student was allegedly constantly bullied and reports were ignored. The document discusses implications of these and other cases regarding administration of medication, bullying, procedural errors, residential placement, autism litigation, and other issues.
The document provides an overview of extended school year (ESY) services for students with disabilities:
1) ESY services are provided beyond the regular school year to prevent regression of skills over breaks and support receipt of a free and appropriate public education.
2) The IEP team determines if a student needs ESY based on likelihood of regression and recoupment difficulties, not on category of disability.
3) ESY services must be comparable in quality and scope to the student's program during the regular school year.
This document discusses serving students with medical needs. It covers three topics: 1) placing and serving students with medical needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE), discussing relevant laws, cases, and takeaways; 2) home/hospital instruction, outlining rules for general education and special education students; and 3) serving students with allergies or multiple chemical sensitivities, addressing eligibility for services under Section 504. For each topic, the document analyzes laws, case examples, and practical guidance for school districts.
SES Spring 2014 - Spotlight on Practice: Promotion, Retention, Grading and Gr...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document discusses promotion, retention, grading, and graduation policies for students with disabilities. It covers:
1. Promotion and retention decisions must follow district policy and consider individual student needs. IEP teams may develop individualized standards. Retention requires reconvening the IEP team to consider supports provided.
2. Grades for students with accommodations should not reflect them, while grades for students in modified curriculums should reflect achievement in the modification. Report cards and transcripts have different disclosure standards regarding disability status.
3. Graduation options include a regular diploma by meeting district standards or a certificate of completion. The IEP team must discuss graduation requirements. A regular diploma ends eligibility but
The document provides an overview of related services under IDEA and California law. It defines related services as transportation and other supportive services required to help a child with a disability benefit from special education. Specific related services discussed include physical therapy, occupational therapy, adapted physical education, transportation, and more. Case examples demonstrate how determinations of related service needs must be made on an individualized basis.
The document discusses requirements and best practices for exiting students from special education. It covers three key areas:
1) Exiting based on determining a student no longer meets eligibility criteria, which requires reassessing the student in all suspected disability areas and documenting that the student no longer needs special education. Assessments must consider all available information and address all suspected areas of disability.
2) Properly convening IEP meetings, providing proper notice, and ensuring the IEP team makes exiting decisions rather than predetermining outcomes. Districts must also provide prior written notice of any decision to exit a student.
3) Case examples where districts failed to conduct comprehensive assessments, consider all relevant information, or provide proper
The document provides an overview of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigation and complaint resolution process under Section 504. It summarizes key steps in the OCR investigation including the complaint, jurisdiction determination, decision to close or pursue early resolution, investigation components, findings letter, resolution agreements, and monitoring. It also identifies common Section 504 issues that result in complaints such as procedural safeguards, evaluations and eligibility, bullying, discipline, accommodations, transportation, retaliation, and athletics. Practical response tactics for districts under investigation are outlined.
This document provides a summary of new developments in special education law from 2013, including three court cases. The first case found that California law allows trained, unlicensed school staff to administer insulin to students. The second case rejected a Section 504 damages claim regarding a student's suicide allegedly due to bullying, finding the school district did not demonstrate deliberate indifference. The third case refused to dismiss a damages claim where a student was allegedly constantly bullied and reports were ignored. The document discusses implications of these and other cases regarding administration of medication, bullying, procedural errors, residential placement, autism litigation, and other issues.
The document provides an overview of extended school year (ESY) services for students with disabilities:
1) ESY services are provided beyond the regular school year to prevent regression of skills over breaks and support receipt of a free and appropriate public education.
2) The IEP team determines if a student needs ESY based on likelihood of regression and recoupment difficulties, not on category of disability.
3) ESY services must be comparable in quality and scope to the student's program during the regular school year.
This document discusses serving students with medical needs. It covers three topics: 1) placing and serving students with medical needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE), discussing relevant laws, cases, and takeaways; 2) home/hospital instruction, outlining rules for general education and special education students; and 3) serving students with allergies or multiple chemical sensitivities, addressing eligibility for services under Section 504. For each topic, the document analyzes laws, case examples, and practical guidance for school districts.
SES Spring 2014 - Spotlight on Practice: Promotion, Retention, Grading and Gr...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document discusses promotion, retention, grading, and graduation policies for students with disabilities. It covers:
1. Promotion and retention decisions must follow district policy and consider individual student needs. IEP teams may develop individualized standards. Retention requires reconvening the IEP team to consider supports provided.
2. Grades for students with accommodations should not reflect them, while grades for students in modified curriculums should reflect achievement in the modification. Report cards and transcripts have different disclosure standards regarding disability status.
3. Graduation options include a regular diploma by meeting district standards or a certificate of completion. The IEP team must discuss graduation requirements. A regular diploma ends eligibility but
The document provides an overview of related services under IDEA and California law. It defines related services as transportation and other supportive services required to help a child with a disability benefit from special education. Specific related services discussed include physical therapy, occupational therapy, adapted physical education, transportation, and more. Case examples demonstrate how determinations of related service needs must be made on an individualized basis.
This document provides an overview of federal and state laws governing student records and confidentiality. It discusses the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as the primary laws protecting student privacy. It defines an "education record" under these laws and outlines the rights of parents and students to access, amend, and control disclosure of education records. The document examines what types of records meet the definition of an "education record" and certain exclusions to that definition.
SES Fall 2012 - Spotlight on Practice: Can I Play Ball? Special Education, Se...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document discusses special education laws and regulations regarding student participation in extracurricular activities. It provides examples of cases that address whether schools have met their obligations to provide supports and equal access for students with disabilities to participate. The main points are:
- IEPs must address any supports or modifications needed for students to participate in nonacademic/extracurricular activities. Schools must consider supports as part of FAPE.
- Schools must provide disabled students an equal opportunity to participate, which can include supports even if not listed in the IEP/504 plan.
- Cases found violations when schools failed to properly consider supports at IEP meetings or implement IEP provisions for extracurricular activities.
-
This document discusses special education laws and responsibilities regarding students with disabilities and nonattendance issues. It covers California's compulsory attendance rules, defining truancy, child find obligations, eligibility determinations for students with emotional disturbances, addressing nonattendance in IEPs, and placement considerations. The document provides examples of court cases related to these issues and tips for IEP teams in evaluating and assisting students with nonattendance problems.
Spring 2014 Special Education in the Modern Age: Parent Participation in the...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document discusses ensuring parent participation in the IEP process. It covers:
1. Who qualifies as a "parent" under special education law, including divorced parents who both have rights to participate.
2. Conducting IEP meetings, including the right of parents to request meetings, receive proper notice, and have the meeting rescheduled if unable to attend. Meetings can only be held without parents if the district documents extensive efforts to secure their participation.
3. Developing the IEP, including the issues of predetermination where districts improperly decide issues before the IEP meeting preventing meaningful parent input, and the right of parents to request independent evaluations that the district must consider.
This document discusses eligibility categories for special education, focusing on Emotional Disturbance (ED), Other Health Impairment (OHI), and Specific Learning Disability (SLD).
It provides details on the federal and state definitions of ED and the five factors used to determine eligibility. Case studies examine issues around determining if a student's diagnosed mental illness or substance abuse is the primary cause of their difficulties. The document also discusses when "acting out" behaviors could indicate an ED versus social maladjustment.
For OHI, it explains that a medical diagnosis alone is not sufficient for eligibility and that the disability must actually limit a student's strength, vitality or alertness. The document concludes by noting that determining an
1) The document discusses four legal cases related to independent educational evaluations (IEEs).
2) The first case examined what constitutes an "unreasonable delay" when parents request funding for an IEE. The court found a four-month delay between the request and response was unreasonable.
3) The second case showed that districts must thoroughly review assessments before denying IEE requests, as the court found errors in the district's assessment and ordered them to fund the IEE.
4) The third case established that parents do not have an unlimited amount of time to request an IEE, setting a two-year statute of limitations.
5) The fourth case clarified that for an IEP team to
This document provides a summary of new decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) related to special education law. Key cases addressed issues such as behavior, discipline, eligibility, independent educational evaluations, individualized education program implementation, least restrictive environment, and student nonattendance. The summaries explain the facts, decisions, and significance of each case. Overall, the document aims to inform readers about recent developments in special education legal issues decided by the OAH.
SES Fall 2012 All Things Considered - Recent Decisions on the Written Offer o...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
1. The document discusses several cases related to the written offer of placement and follow through requirements.
2. In Student v. Buckeye Union School District, the court found that while the IEP did not need to provide an hour-by-hour account of services, it did need to specifically describe the goals that specialized academic instruction would target.
3. In Student v. West Covina USD, the court found a procedural violation that denied FAPE because required information like accommodations was left blank on the IEP, impeding parental participation.
This document discusses legal standards and emerging issues related to eligibility decisions for students on the autism spectrum. It provides an overview of key topics such as the definition of autism under IDEA and state law, appropriate assessment procedures, determining if criteria for autism are met, and whether a student requires special education. It examines case examples related to each topic and offers practice pointers for determining eligibility.
This document discusses legal requirements regarding the provision of one-to-one aides for students with disabilities. It summarizes two case examples where administrative law judges found that districts denied students a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to provide a one-to-one aide. The document also outlines lessons for determining a student's need for an aide, including collecting data, observing the student, and considering alternative supports before assigning an aide. Overall, the document provides guidance on when districts must provide a one-to-one aide as part of FAPE.
This document summarizes key aspects of transitions for students with disabilities from one educational setting to another. It discusses transitions from early intervention services to preschool, from preschool to elementary school, from one school district to another, and from high school to postsecondary activities. For each transition, it outlines legal requirements and considerations, including who is involved, required timelines, and what processes schools must undertake. It also summarizes a few relevant legal cases to illustrate issues that commonly arise regarding transitions.
SES Fall 2014: All Things Considered Serving Students With Hearing ImpairmentsFagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document provides an overview of legal standards and requirements for serving students with hearing impairments. It discusses the IDEA's definition of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as established in Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. It also examines California's higher standards for considering a student's preferred communication mode, providing assistive technology, and placing students in the least restrictive environment. Case examples are provided to illustrate how these standards have been applied regarding disputes over sign language interpretation, CART services, and oral vs. auditory-verbal therapy methods.
This document provides a summary of new decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) related to special education law. It summarizes 6 cases related to the following topics: behavior interventions, consent for assessments, timely IEP meetings, least restrictive environment analysis, manifestation determinations, and issues regarding transfer students. The summaries explain the key facts, decisions and significance of each case. The document aims to help schools understand and apply these recent legal developments affecting special education in California.
The document summarizes several recent decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) related to special education law and policy. Key cases addressed issues of consent for assessments, discipline procedures for students who bring weapons to school, eligibility determinations, qualifications of service providers like nurses and aides, and whether a residential placement was necessary to provide a free appropriate public education. The document provides concise summaries of these OAH decisions in 1-3 sentences for each case.
1) The document discusses the legal standards for determining eligibility for special education services under IDEA and California law. To be eligible, a student must have a qualifying disability and require special education as a result.
2) It examines what constitutes "special education", including the requirement for "specially designed instruction" to meet a student's unique needs. Case examples explore what types of support have been considered special education versus general education accommodations.
3) Through several case examples, it illustrates how courts and administrative hearings officers have analyzed whether students' needs could be met through general education or required special education, focusing on disability categories including autism, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairment, and other health impairment.
The document provides information about special education laws and procedures for families. It discusses:
- The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to ensure students with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education.
- The evaluation process, including consent forms, timelines, assessments, and team meetings to determine eligibility.
- Eligibility is determined by whether the student has a disability, is not making effective progress due to the disability, and requires specialized instruction.
- Key terms like "effective progress" and "specialized instruction" are defined.
This document discusses current regulations and models for determining eligibility for specific learning disabilities (SLD). It provides an overview of response to intervention (RTI) models and the pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach. The document reviews the legal definition of SLD and criteria for determining eligibility. It also addresses issues to consider in selecting an eligibility determination model and the role of comprehensive evaluations.
The document discusses the requirements around conducting a manifestation determination review (MDR) when a student with a disability faces a disciplinary removal. An MDR must be conducted for removals over 10 days or if a series of removals constitutes a pattern. The MDR team must determine if the behavior was caused by or related to the student's disability or a failure to implement the IEP. If related, all disciplinary removals are terminated and the student returns to their previous placement.
This document summarizes significant changes to special education law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 regarding Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), due process, discipline procedures, and response to intervention. Key changes include mandatory resolution sessions, allowing multi-year IEPs, clarifying transition services, expanding the 45 school day rule for weapons/drugs/injury offenses, and requiring response to intervention for evaluating learning disabilities. The document cautions that response to intervention implementation varies between school districts.
This document provides an overview of federal and state laws governing student records and confidentiality. It discusses the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as the primary laws protecting student privacy. It defines an "education record" under these laws and outlines the rights of parents and students to access, amend, and control disclosure of education records. The document examines what types of records meet the definition of an "education record" and certain exclusions to that definition.
SES Fall 2012 - Spotlight on Practice: Can I Play Ball? Special Education, Se...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document discusses special education laws and regulations regarding student participation in extracurricular activities. It provides examples of cases that address whether schools have met their obligations to provide supports and equal access for students with disabilities to participate. The main points are:
- IEPs must address any supports or modifications needed for students to participate in nonacademic/extracurricular activities. Schools must consider supports as part of FAPE.
- Schools must provide disabled students an equal opportunity to participate, which can include supports even if not listed in the IEP/504 plan.
- Cases found violations when schools failed to properly consider supports at IEP meetings or implement IEP provisions for extracurricular activities.
-
This document discusses special education laws and responsibilities regarding students with disabilities and nonattendance issues. It covers California's compulsory attendance rules, defining truancy, child find obligations, eligibility determinations for students with emotional disturbances, addressing nonattendance in IEPs, and placement considerations. The document provides examples of court cases related to these issues and tips for IEP teams in evaluating and assisting students with nonattendance problems.
Spring 2014 Special Education in the Modern Age: Parent Participation in the...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document discusses ensuring parent participation in the IEP process. It covers:
1. Who qualifies as a "parent" under special education law, including divorced parents who both have rights to participate.
2. Conducting IEP meetings, including the right of parents to request meetings, receive proper notice, and have the meeting rescheduled if unable to attend. Meetings can only be held without parents if the district documents extensive efforts to secure their participation.
3. Developing the IEP, including the issues of predetermination where districts improperly decide issues before the IEP meeting preventing meaningful parent input, and the right of parents to request independent evaluations that the district must consider.
This document discusses eligibility categories for special education, focusing on Emotional Disturbance (ED), Other Health Impairment (OHI), and Specific Learning Disability (SLD).
It provides details on the federal and state definitions of ED and the five factors used to determine eligibility. Case studies examine issues around determining if a student's diagnosed mental illness or substance abuse is the primary cause of their difficulties. The document also discusses when "acting out" behaviors could indicate an ED versus social maladjustment.
For OHI, it explains that a medical diagnosis alone is not sufficient for eligibility and that the disability must actually limit a student's strength, vitality or alertness. The document concludes by noting that determining an
1) The document discusses four legal cases related to independent educational evaluations (IEEs).
2) The first case examined what constitutes an "unreasonable delay" when parents request funding for an IEE. The court found a four-month delay between the request and response was unreasonable.
3) The second case showed that districts must thoroughly review assessments before denying IEE requests, as the court found errors in the district's assessment and ordered them to fund the IEE.
4) The third case established that parents do not have an unlimited amount of time to request an IEE, setting a two-year statute of limitations.
5) The fourth case clarified that for an IEP team to
This document provides a summary of new decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) related to special education law. Key cases addressed issues such as behavior, discipline, eligibility, independent educational evaluations, individualized education program implementation, least restrictive environment, and student nonattendance. The summaries explain the facts, decisions, and significance of each case. Overall, the document aims to inform readers about recent developments in special education legal issues decided by the OAH.
SES Fall 2012 All Things Considered - Recent Decisions on the Written Offer o...Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
1. The document discusses several cases related to the written offer of placement and follow through requirements.
2. In Student v. Buckeye Union School District, the court found that while the IEP did not need to provide an hour-by-hour account of services, it did need to specifically describe the goals that specialized academic instruction would target.
3. In Student v. West Covina USD, the court found a procedural violation that denied FAPE because required information like accommodations was left blank on the IEP, impeding parental participation.
This document discusses legal standards and emerging issues related to eligibility decisions for students on the autism spectrum. It provides an overview of key topics such as the definition of autism under IDEA and state law, appropriate assessment procedures, determining if criteria for autism are met, and whether a student requires special education. It examines case examples related to each topic and offers practice pointers for determining eligibility.
This document discusses legal requirements regarding the provision of one-to-one aides for students with disabilities. It summarizes two case examples where administrative law judges found that districts denied students a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to provide a one-to-one aide. The document also outlines lessons for determining a student's need for an aide, including collecting data, observing the student, and considering alternative supports before assigning an aide. Overall, the document provides guidance on when districts must provide a one-to-one aide as part of FAPE.
This document summarizes key aspects of transitions for students with disabilities from one educational setting to another. It discusses transitions from early intervention services to preschool, from preschool to elementary school, from one school district to another, and from high school to postsecondary activities. For each transition, it outlines legal requirements and considerations, including who is involved, required timelines, and what processes schools must undertake. It also summarizes a few relevant legal cases to illustrate issues that commonly arise regarding transitions.
SES Fall 2014: All Things Considered Serving Students With Hearing ImpairmentsFagen Friedman & Fulfrost
This document provides an overview of legal standards and requirements for serving students with hearing impairments. It discusses the IDEA's definition of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as established in Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. It also examines California's higher standards for considering a student's preferred communication mode, providing assistive technology, and placing students in the least restrictive environment. Case examples are provided to illustrate how these standards have been applied regarding disputes over sign language interpretation, CART services, and oral vs. auditory-verbal therapy methods.
This document provides a summary of new decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) related to special education law. It summarizes 6 cases related to the following topics: behavior interventions, consent for assessments, timely IEP meetings, least restrictive environment analysis, manifestation determinations, and issues regarding transfer students. The summaries explain the key facts, decisions and significance of each case. The document aims to help schools understand and apply these recent legal developments affecting special education in California.
The document summarizes several recent decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) related to special education law and policy. Key cases addressed issues of consent for assessments, discipline procedures for students who bring weapons to school, eligibility determinations, qualifications of service providers like nurses and aides, and whether a residential placement was necessary to provide a free appropriate public education. The document provides concise summaries of these OAH decisions in 1-3 sentences for each case.
1) The document discusses the legal standards for determining eligibility for special education services under IDEA and California law. To be eligible, a student must have a qualifying disability and require special education as a result.
2) It examines what constitutes "special education", including the requirement for "specially designed instruction" to meet a student's unique needs. Case examples explore what types of support have been considered special education versus general education accommodations.
3) Through several case examples, it illustrates how courts and administrative hearings officers have analyzed whether students' needs could be met through general education or required special education, focusing on disability categories including autism, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairment, and other health impairment.
The document provides information about special education laws and procedures for families. It discusses:
- The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to ensure students with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education.
- The evaluation process, including consent forms, timelines, assessments, and team meetings to determine eligibility.
- Eligibility is determined by whether the student has a disability, is not making effective progress due to the disability, and requires specialized instruction.
- Key terms like "effective progress" and "specialized instruction" are defined.
This document discusses current regulations and models for determining eligibility for specific learning disabilities (SLD). It provides an overview of response to intervention (RTI) models and the pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach. The document reviews the legal definition of SLD and criteria for determining eligibility. It also addresses issues to consider in selecting an eligibility determination model and the role of comprehensive evaluations.
The document discusses the requirements around conducting a manifestation determination review (MDR) when a student with a disability faces a disciplinary removal. An MDR must be conducted for removals over 10 days or if a series of removals constitutes a pattern. The MDR team must determine if the behavior was caused by or related to the student's disability or a failure to implement the IEP. If related, all disciplinary removals are terminated and the student returns to their previous placement.
This document summarizes significant changes to special education law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 regarding Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), due process, discipline procedures, and response to intervention. Key changes include mandatory resolution sessions, allowing multi-year IEPs, clarifying transition services, expanding the 45 school day rule for weapons/drugs/injury offenses, and requiring response to intervention for evaluating learning disabilities. The document cautions that response to intervention implementation varies between school districts.
This document summarizes significant changes to special education law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 regarding Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), due process, discipline procedures, and response to intervention. Key changes include mandatory resolution sessions, allowing multi-year IEPs, clarifying transition services, expanding the 45 school day rule for weapons/drugs/injury offenses, and requiring response to intervention for evaluating learning disabilities. The document cautions that response to intervention implementation varies between school districts.
Slide Show Hot Button Issues In Sped Law SES Forum ClevelandJames Hailey
This document summarizes significant changes to special education law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 regarding Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), due process, discipline procedures, and response to intervention requirements. Key changes include mandatory resolution sessions, allowing multi-year IEPs, clarifying transition services, expanding the 45 school day rule for weapons/drugs/injury offenses, and requiring response to intervention for evaluating learning disabilities. The document cautions that some changes like decreased IEP requirements and increased response to intervention use could weaken protections if not implemented carefully.
This document outlines discipline procedures for students with disabilities at Three Oaks Public School Academy. It discusses short-term suspensions of 1 day or less, long-term suspensions of over 10 days which require board approval, and expulsions which can only be done by the board. For students with disabilities, additional procedures include determining if there is a pattern of behavior, providing parents with notice and safeguards, holding a manifestation determination review meeting within 10 days, and determining placement in a free appropriate public education setting or interim alternative educational setting for over 10 days of removal. The goal is to teach self-discipline while following special education requirements around behavior intervention plans and placement.
The document provides terminology changes for special education terms to use a Star Wars theme (e.g. students become "young Jedi's", teachers become "Jedi Alliance"). It then outlines several principles and guidelines for disciplining students with disabilities, including developing reasonable rules, ensuring due process for suspensions/expulsions, conducting manifestation determinations, and continuing to provide education during disciplinary removals. Documentation of behaviors and response plans is emphasized.
The document provides terminology changes for special education terms to use a Star Wars theme (e.g. students become "young Jedi's", teachers become "Jedi Alliance"). It then outlines several principles and guidelines for disciplining students with disabilities, including conducting functional behavior assessments, developing behavior intervention plans, determining whether behavior is a manifestation of a disability, the process for suspensions and expulsions, and permissible vs non-permissible disciplinary actions. Resources on the topic are also provided at the end.
Discipline of students with disabilities -2 fundamentals, 3 special rules, an...David Garner
Got a student with disabilities who is in hot water? Avoid getting in hot water yourself by knowing the ins and outs of discipline under the IDEA—and how it differs from the standard procedures applied to students without disabilities. In this presentation, Dave Garner breaks down the nuances of discipline under the IDEA, and provides practical guidance on issues such as: Can a student with disabilities be expelled? Does a suspension constitute a change in placement? What if the misconduct is a direct manifestation of the student’s disability? What if the student claims to be disabled, but only after being “caught”? What are my options if the student presents a risk of danger to him/herself or others but has not yet acted out? Going beyond a mere summary of the IDEA regulations, Dave separates out "two fundamentals" that every busy administrator/practitioner should know by heart, and then dives into the "three special rules" of sped discipline, and helps practitioners in the trenches raise a red flag when a stickier issue requires closer attention.
1) Due process and Title IX are legal principles that require fair procedures be followed when making disciplinary decisions regarding students.
2) Procedural due process involves notice and a fair hearing, while substantive due process examines whether rules are fair, serve an educational purpose, and are applied equitably.
3) For long-term suspensions and expulsions, students have rights like presenting evidence and facing witnesses at an appeal hearing. Schools must demonstrate expulsion decisions are not racially motivated.
The document discusses student discipline laws and guidelines. It explains that student discipline is covered by Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code, which requires school districts to adopt student codes of conduct. It also discusses guidelines for creating clear and consistently enforced rules, as well as procedures for removing disruptive students from classrooms and schools. The document provides an overview of legal issues pertaining to student discipline.
Student discipline in schools - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Kritsonis
The document discusses student discipline laws and guidelines. It outlines rules that schools must follow when establishing student codes of conduct, such as making rules clear, consistently enforced, and carefully crafted when touching on protected behaviors. It also describes ways teachers can remove disruptive students from class and circumstances requiring suspension, expulsion, or placement in alternative education programs. Communication with law enforcement and use of corporal punishment are also addressed.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law that ensures services for children with disabilities. It governs how states provide early intervention, special education, and related services to over 6.5 million eligible children. IDEA was signed in 2004 and provisions took effect in 2005, establishing regulations around discipline, manifestation determinations, and disciplinary removals for students with disabilities. The regulations clarify authority and procedures regarding disciplinary actions and alternative placements. A manifestation determination must be made to establish if a behavior was related to a student's disability.
1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 prohibit discrimination against students with disabilities.
2) To be eligible for protections and accommodations under Section 504, a student must have a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity such as learning.
3) The effects of mitigating measures like medication cannot be considered when determining if a student has a disability. A Section 504 plan outlines appropriate accommodations to ensure equal access to education for students with disabilities.
S T U D E N T D I S C I P L I N E I N S C H O O L SWilliam Kritsonis
- The document discusses student discipline policies and guidelines for schools, including rules for student behavior, due process rights, and limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution and Texas Education Code.
- It outlines different types of disciplinary actions schools can take, such as teacher-initiated removals from class, suspensions, expulsions, and placements in disciplinary alternative education programs.
- Key factors in determining discipline include treating students fairly based on the seriousness of the offense, the student's age and record, and potential effects on the school environment. Consistent enforcement of rules is important.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Professor, PhD Program in Educational Leadership, PVAMU, The Texas A&M University System. School Law, Corporal Punishment, Due Process, Freedom of Expression
Student Discipline In Schools - School Law - Dr. William Allan KritsonisWilliam Kritsonis
- Student discipline in schools is governed by rules to maintain order and protect student rights, as outlined in the Texas Education Code and Constitution. Schools must establish clear, consistently enforced rules and provide due process for students.
- Teachers can remove disruptive students from the classroom temporarily. More serious offenses require placement in disciplinary alternative education programs. Expulsion is reserved for only the most serious situations like weapons or drug offenses.
- Schools must balance authority to enforce rules with protecting student civil liberties. The legal framework aims to keep students in school when possible through disciplinary programs instead of expulsion.
Section 504 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It requires schools to provide accommodations to eligible students to ensure equal access to the learning environment and activities. The key aspects of Section 504 include evaluating students for eligibility, developing accommodation plans, reviewing plans annually, reevaluating every three years, and establishing disciplinary guidelines for students with disabilities. Parents have certain rights under Section 504 including consent for evaluations and notice of referrals and placements.
This document provides information about student rights related to education and discipline. It discusses the right to education under the Washington State Constitution. It outlines different types of discipline a school can impose, such as suspension and expulsion, and the processes schools must follow to ensure student due process rights. The document also discusses new state laws that limit the duration of suspensions and expulsions and require schools to create reengagement plans for students to return to school after long-term discipline.
Baltimore City Public Schools Permanent Expulsion Policybiferguson
The document proposes revisions to the student discipline policy including the Board Rule 507 on suspensions and expulsions. Key points include:
1) Principals would be able to suspend students for up to 5 days but suspensions over 5 days would require approval from the Office of Suspension Services. The term "long-term suspension" would be changed to "extended suspension".
2) Procedural steps would be moved from the Board Rule to new administrative regulations covering topics like classroom management, suspensions, and expulsions of students with disabilities.
3) Criteria for permanent expulsions are outlined, including offenses related to explosives, arson, or serious safety issues. Expelled students under 16 could
Similar to SES Fall 2013 - Spotlight on Practice: Discipline Troublespots (20)
This document provides a summary of new decisions from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) related to special education law. It summarizes 6 cases related to the following topics: behavior interventions, consent for assessments, timely IEP meetings, least restrictive environment analysis, manifestation determinations, and issues regarding transfer students. The summaries explain the key facts, decisions and significance of each case. The document aims to help schools understand and apply these recent legal developments affecting special education in California.
This document provides a summary of recent legal updates in special education law, including new case law rulings and proposed legislation. Key points include:
- A district was found to have denied FAPE by delaying assessments for 18 months after a parent's referral and failing to develop adequate IEP goals and baselines.
- A district's duty to update an expired IEP is not contingent on parental cooperation, and the district should have continued working with parents or filed for a due process hearing.
- A principal was disciplined for sending inappropriate text messages about a student during an IEP meeting.
- Parents were not entitled to reimbursement for a residential placement where the primary purpose was to address medical needs
Looking for guidance on this new law which affects access and inclusion for transgender students? In this webinar, expert attorney Namita Brown, of Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost and ACSA legislative advocate, Laura Preston, will explain how you can successfully implement AB 1266 including resources available to assist you. Pointers will be given on how to help your board and staff communicate on this sometimes difficult topic. An update on the referendum circulated to repeal AB 1266 will be provided. All district and site administrators should log on for practical, up-to-the minute information on the legislation.
This document summarizes Assembly Bill 1266, which protects transgender students in California schools. It defines key terms like gender, gender identity, and transgender. It outlines the existing legal framework protecting students from discrimination based on gender. AB 1266 allows students to participate in sex-segregated activities and use facilities based on their gender identity. The document discusses some of the key issues schools may face in implementing the law, such as bathroom/locker room use, sports teams, records, and addressing opposition from parents, students or staff. It provides guidance on how schools should handle these issues to comply with the law while being sensitive to student needs and safety concerns.
This document discusses how cloud technology impacts K-12 education and human resources. It outlines how school districts are moving from district-owned devices and servers to allowing wireless devices on 3G and 4G networks through proxy servers. It also discusses how cloud computing and internet-connected devices could impact student-teacher communication and confidentiality of district records. The presenter emphasizes the importance of educating teachers and staff about appropriate device use and confidentiality with the shift to more cloud-based technologies.
The document provides an overview and comparison of California's Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 tax initiatives on the November 2012 ballot. It finds that Proposition 38 would generate more education funding overall but most would go directly to schools, while Proposition 30 funds would go to the state general fund to avoid further education cuts. Proposition 30 relies on sales and income tax increases while Proposition 38 uses higher personal income taxes. The document aims to objectively inform about the initiatives' impacts rather than advocate for either one.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
Walmart Business+ and Spark Good for Nonprofits.pdfTechSoup
"Learn about all the ways Walmart supports nonprofit organizations.
You will hear from Liz Willett, the Head of Nonprofits, and hear about what Walmart is doing to help nonprofits, including Walmart Business and Spark Good. Walmart Business+ is a new offer for nonprofits that offers discounts and also streamlines nonprofits order and expense tracking, saving time and money.
The webinar may also give some examples on how nonprofits can best leverage Walmart Business+.
The event will cover the following::
Walmart Business + (https://business.walmart.com/plus) is a new shopping experience for nonprofits, schools, and local business customers that connects an exclusive online shopping experience to stores. Benefits include free delivery and shipping, a 'Spend Analytics” feature, special discounts, deals and tax-exempt shopping.
Special TechSoup offer for a free 180 days membership, and up to $150 in discounts on eligible orders.
Spark Good (walmart.com/sparkgood) is a charitable platform that enables nonprofits to receive donations directly from customers and associates.
Answers about how you can do more with Walmart!"
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering.pptxDenish Jangid
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering
Syllabus
Chapter-1
Introduction to objective, scope and outcome the subject
Chapter 2
Introduction: Scope and Specialization of Civil Engineering, Role of civil Engineer in Society, Impact of infrastructural development on economy of country.
Chapter 3
Surveying: Object Principles & Types of Surveying; Site Plans, Plans & Maps; Scales & Unit of different Measurements.
Linear Measurements: Instruments used. Linear Measurement by Tape, Ranging out Survey Lines and overcoming Obstructions; Measurements on sloping ground; Tape corrections, conventional symbols. Angular Measurements: Instruments used; Introduction to Compass Surveying, Bearings and Longitude & Latitude of a Line, Introduction to total station.
Levelling: Instrument used Object of levelling, Methods of levelling in brief, and Contour maps.
Chapter 4
Buildings: Selection of site for Buildings, Layout of Building Plan, Types of buildings, Plinth area, carpet area, floor space index, Introduction to building byelaws, concept of sun light & ventilation. Components of Buildings & their functions, Basic concept of R.C.C., Introduction to types of foundation
Chapter 5
Transportation: Introduction to Transportation Engineering; Traffic and Road Safety: Types and Characteristics of Various Modes of Transportation; Various Road Traffic Signs, Causes of Accidents and Road Safety Measures.
Chapter 6
Environmental Engineering: Environmental Pollution, Environmental Acts and Regulations, Functional Concepts of Ecology, Basics of Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Hydrological Cycle; Chemical Cycles: Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus; Energy Flow in Ecosystems.
Water Pollution: Water Quality standards, Introduction to Treatment & Disposal of Waste Water. Reuse and Saving of Water, Rain Water Harvesting. Solid Waste Management: Classification of Solid Waste, Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid. Recycling of Solid Waste: Energy Recovery, Sanitary Landfill, On-Site Sanitation. Air & Noise Pollution: Primary and Secondary air pollutants, Harmful effects of Air Pollution, Control of Air Pollution. . Noise Pollution Harmful Effects of noise pollution, control of noise pollution, Global warming & Climate Change, Ozone depletion, Greenhouse effect
Text Books:
1. Palancharmy, Basic Civil Engineering, McGraw Hill publishers.
2. Satheesh Gopi, Basic Civil Engineering, Pearson Publishers.
3. Ketki Rangwala Dalal, Essentials of Civil Engineering, Charotar Publishing House.
4. BCP, Surveying volume 1
2. 2
What We’ll Cover . . .
Topics in 25 Q&As
Disciplinary Removals
Manifestation Determinations
Removals to an IAES
Disciplining Potentially
Eligible Students
3. 3
I. Disciplinary Removals
4 Categories of Removal
10 School Days or Less
>10 Cumulative Days – No Change of Placement
>10 Cumulative Days – Change in Placement
>10 Consecutive Days
4. 4
FAQ #1:
When Does a Series of Short-Term
Removals Constitute a “Pattern”?
(What Turns a “Type 2” Removal Into a
“Type 3” Removal?)
5. 5
Answer
Pattern of removals exists when:
Student’s behavior is “substantially similar” to
behavior in previous incidents; and
Considering other factors
Length of each removal
Total time Student has been removed
Proximity of removals to one another
District must “police itself” in
documenting and determining
when pattern exists
(34 C.F.R. §300.536)
6. 6
FAQ #1
Practice Pointers
Appoint administrator to determine
when/whether series of short-term removals
amounts to change of placement
Proper calculation of suspension time is critical
Know the rules for bus removals, in-school
suspensions and partial-day removals
8. 8
Answer
To determine if Student’s behavior if “substantially
similar” to behavior in previous incidents, consider:
Nature
Duration
Proximity in time
Pushing other students, throwing rocks, throwing
food, verbal threats were considered “substantially
similar” by ALJ
(Student v. Cloverdale USD (OAH 2011) No. 2010081062)
9. 9
FAQ #2
Practice Pointers
Use common sense when weighing whether a
student’s latest behavior is “substantially similar”
to past misconduct
Anticipate parents to challenge decision of no
substantial similarity – and be prepared to
support it
10. 10
FAQ #3:
So We Have a Change of Placement.
Now What Do We Have to Do?
11. 11
Answer
When a disciplinary change of placement
occurs:
Notify parents immediately
Provide parents with
procedural safeguards notice
Implement services starting on the 11th day of
disciplinary removal in the school year
Conduct MD within 10 school days
(34 C.F.R. §300.530(e),(h); 34 C.F.R. §300.503; 34 C.F.R. §300.504)
12. 12
FAQ #3
Practice Pointers
Be prepared to act quickly!
Once you determine a removal is a change of
placement, send notice to parents the same day
If possible, contact parents that day to schedule
MD review and IEP meeting
13. 13
FAQ #4:
Parents Have Revoked Consent to
Special Education Services. Are They
Still Entitled to Procedural
Safeguards?
14. 14
Answer
No . . .
Effect of revocation of consent is that District “is
deemed not to have knowledge that Student is a
Student with a disability.”
Student is subject to same disciplinary procedures
applicable to nondisabled students and not entitled
to IDEA protections
(34 C.F.R. §300.9(c); 34 C.F.R. §300.300(b)(4); Questions and Answers on
Discipline Procedures (OSERS 2009) 52 IDELR 231)
16. 16
Answer
ISS is not considered part of days of suspension
relevant for change of placement so long as
Student is:
Afforded opportunity to participate
in general curriculum
Continues to receive IEP services
Continues to participate with
nondisabled children to extent he or she otherwise would
have
(71 Fed. Reg. 46715 (Aug. 14, 2006))
18. 18
Answer
If transportation is part of Student’s IEP (i.e., a
related service)
Bus suspension treated as a removal for IDEA purposes
if district doesn’t offer other form of transportation
But California law requires districts to provide an
alternative form of transportation at no cost
If transportation isn’t related service, bus
suspensions not considered “removal”
(Ed. Code, §48915.5; 71 Fed. Reg. 46715 (Aug. 14, 2006); (Questions and Answers on
Serving Children with Disabilities Eligible for Transportation (OSERS 2009) 53
IDELR 268)
20. 20
Answer
Partial days of suspension count as
removals
No guidance as to whether each partial day
must be “rounded up” to full day when
counting the 10 days of removal
Many Districts “round up” as cautious
approach
(71 Fed. Reg. 46715 (Aug. 14, 2006))
21. 21
FAQ #7
Practice Pointers
Document all partial removals completely and
accurately
Make sure there is a record of the time, date,
and reason a student is sent home early
System should be in place to record all
disciplinary information, including office
referrals, detentions and in-school suspensions
22. 22
II. Manifestation Determinations
Legal Review
Required within 10 school days after proposed
removal that would be change of placement
MD decisions reached by team consensus; Parent
who disagrees may seek due process
Behavior is manifestation of disability if:
Caused by, or had direct and substantial relation to,
student’s disability; OR
Was direct result of failure to implement IEP
(34 C.F.R. 300.530(e))
23. 23
II. Manifestation Determinations
Legal Review (cont’d)
If behavior is manifestation of disability
Conduct FBA/Implement BIP
Return student to placement from which he/she was
removed, unless agreement otherwise
If behavior is not manifestation of disability
Subject to same sanctions as nondisabled student
Must continue to receive FAPE
(34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c)-(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c))
24. 24
FAQ #8:
Is a District Required to Provide a
Student with Services Following the
Suspension and Pending the MD
Review?
25. 25
Answer
Service obligation depends when MD is scheduled
and the number of days of previous removals
during school year
If removal pending MD exceeds 10 days, Student
must receive services to enable:
Continued participation in gen ed curriculum
Progress toward IEP goals
Alternative is to keep Student in IEP placement
pending MD
26. 26
FAQ #8
Practice Pointers
Accurate count of days of suspensions is
essential
If student suspended previously and MD not
scheduled until near end of maximum 10-day
period, services required on 11th day of removal
until MD occurs. Have a plan for serving student
during that time
27. 27
FAQ #9:
Who Conducts the MD? Is It the
Student’s IEP Team or Is There a
Separate “MD Team”?
28. 28
Answer
MD is conducted by “relevant members of IEP
team,” including Parent
Technically, law creates separate MD team
Practically, meetings to conduct MDs are
essentially IEP meetings
If “essential member” of IEP team
doesn’t participate or misses meeting,
IDEA violation occurs
(34 C.F.R. §300.530(e)(1); Student v. Fresno USD (OAH 2012) No.
2012020842)
29. 29
FAQ #9
Practice Pointers
Consider assembling entire IEP team for the MD
review since team will be required to convene in
any event regardless of results
Convening full team initially avoids scheduling
another meeting
30. 30
FAQ #10:
What Type of Information About the
Student Should Be Reviewed When
Conducting an MD?
31. 31
Answer
MD team must review “all relevant information in
Student’s file, including IEP, teacher observations,
and any relevant information provided by Parents”
District is required to obtain records for transfer
students
Consider possible existence
of other disabilities
(34 C.F.R.§300.530; 34 C.F.R. §300.323(g); Student v. Fresno USD (OAH 2012)
No. 2012020842)
32. 32
FAQ #10
Practice Pointers
Don’t rush the MD process even if issue
seems clear-cut
Rely on team member expertise about
characteristics of student’s disability
Identify behavior patterns consistent with prior
evaluations and data
Consider info from private evaluations
34. 34
Answer
At minimum, it is essential to document the
following:
When the team convened
Who was present
(and whether Parents attended)
What conduct was at issue
What decision was made
What information was used
Failure to document can lead to due process order
requiring MD be repeated
(In re: Student with a Disability (SEA NY 2011) 57 IDELR 59)
35. 35
FAQ #11
Practice Pointers
Also, keep the following records of the MD
process:
All contacts with parents to schedule meeting
All questions asked and answered concerning
relationship between misconduct and disability
All documents that were reviewed
36. 36
FAQ #12:
If It Is Determined that a Students
Behavior Was a Manifestation of His or
Her Disability, How Soon Must the
Student Be Returned to the Prior
Placement?
37. 37
Answer
Law doesn’t set timeline for how quickly Student
must be returned to placement from which he/she
was removed
But: Cases have held that failure
to return Student to current
placement “the same day”
of the determination violates
Student’s procedural rights
(Student v. Bellflower USD (OAH 2013) Nos. 2012060009 and 2012060628) [District
waited one week before returning Student]
38. 38
FAQ #12
Practice Pointers
All individuals involved in MD review should be
familiar with IDEA rules concerning returning
student to previous placement if behavior is
manifestation of disability
Leaving student in disciplinary setting, even for
a short time, can deny FAPE
40. 40
Answer
Most frequently litigated: Whether misconduct
stems from impulsivity or poor judgment related to
Students’ ADHD?
Recent OAH case examples:
Decision to smoke marijuana
Decision to sell Adderall medication
Decision to plant “dry ice bomb”
All required deliberate planning,
ALJs found
(Student v. Center USD (OAH 2012) No. 2011120587; Student v. Los Angeles
USD (OAH 2011) No. 2011050908; Student v. Poway USD (OAH 2010) No.
2010060622)
41. 41
FAQ #14:
Does a District Need to Conduct a New
MD Each Time It Proposes Suspending
a Student for the Same Type of
Conduct?
42. 42
Answer
Generally, yes . . .
Regardless of the conduct at issue, MD
must held be each time:
Student is removed for more than 10
consecutive days; or
Short-term removals constitute change of
placement (e.g., “pattern” of removals)
43. 43
III. Removals to an IAES
Legal Review
Districts may remove Student to IAES for not
more than 45 school days if Student (while at
school or school function):
Carries or possesses weapon
Possesses/uses illegal drugs or sells/solicits sale of
controlled substances
Inflicts serious bodily injury
Removal can be made whether or not behavior
is manifestation of Student’s disability
(34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g))
44. 44
III. Removals to an IAES
Legal Review (cont’d)
ALJ may remove Student to IAES for not more
than 45 school days if:
Maintaining current placement is substantially likely to
result in injury to Student or others
Court may grant temporary restraining order
(i.e., Honig injunction) to remove Student
considered dangerous
(34 C.F.R. § 300.532(b)(2); 20 U.S.C. §1415)
45. 45
FAQ #15:
What Is Considered a “Weapon” for
Purposes of Removal to an IAES?
46. 46
Answer
“Device, instrument, material or substance,
animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury”
Exclusion for pocket knife with blade less than 2½
inches
Cases:
“Adult size scissors” – yes
“Safety scissors” – no
(34 C.F.R.§300.530(i)(4); 18 U.S.C. §930(g); Student v. California Montessori
Project (OAH 2011) No. 2011030849)
47. 47
FAQ #15
Practice Pointers
Before making quick IAES decision, make sure
you understand definition of “weapon” in this
context
Look to personnel not connected with incident
for objective opinions
48. 48
FAQ #16:
What Are the Types
of Drug-Related Circumstances that
Justify Removal to an IAES?
49. 49
Answer
Important difference between illegal drugs and
controlled substances (i.e., prescription medication
possessed by individual for whom it’s prescribed)
Removal allowed for:
Knowingly possessing illegal drugs
Knowingly using illegal drugs
Selling, or soliciting sale of, controlled substances
Student who purchases and uses another
Student’s medication becomes a user of an “illegal
drug”
(34 C.F.R.§300.530(i)(2); Student v. Los Angeles USD (OAH 2011) No.
2011050908)
50. 50
FAQ #17:
What Is “Serious Bodily Injury” for
Purposes of Removal to an IAES?
51. 51
Answer
“Bodily injury that involves substantial risk of death,
extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious
disfigurement, or impairment of [bodily function or
faculty]”
Difficult standard to prove
Case-by-case basis, largely
depending on testimony of
victim (e.g., suffered extreme
physical pain)
(34 C.F.R.§300.530(i)(3); 18 U.S.C.§1365(h); Student v. Westminster School Dist.
(OAH 2011) No. 2010110730)
52. 52
FAQ #17
Practice Pointers
Remember: It’s not whether a student
“intended” to inflict serious bodily injury, it’s
whether such injury actually occurred
Pushing, slapping, fighting usually won’t qualify
53. 53
FAQ #18:
May a District Place a Student in an
IAES More Than Once
During the Same School Year?
54. 54
Answer
Yes . . .
IDEA does not “prohibit a child with a disability
from be subjected to a disciplinary suspension,
including more than one placement in a 45-day
[IAES] in any given school year, if that is necessary
in an individual case”
However, District may not unilaterally extend 45-
day IAES
(64 Fed. Reg. 12620 (March 12, 1999); 71 Fed. Reg. 46722 (Aug. 14, 2006))
55. 55
FAQ #19:
What If an IAES Removal Is Made at
the End of the School Year? Does It
Carry Over Into the Following Year?
56. 56
Answer
Yes . . .
If IAES removal is made with fewer than 45 school
days remaining in the school year, District may
require Student fulfill
remainder of IAES
placement when a new
school year begins
(71 Fed. Reg. 46722 (Aug. 14, 2006))
58. 58
Answer
IAES Students must continue to participate in the
general curriculum (although in another setting)
and progress toward meeting their IEP goals
IEP team makes ultimate determination of setting
“Participate” doesn’t require District to replicate all
services of Student’s normal classroom
If above criteria can be met, Student’s home can
be IAES, although it is highly restrictive
(71 Fed. Reg. 46716 (Aug. 14, 2006))
59. 59
FAQ #20
Practice Pointers
If student requires transportation as related
service, it likely also will be required to
and from an IAES
If IAES is a home setting, identify appropriate
services for this highly restrictive environment
and monitor instructional hours closely
61. 61
Answer
When maintaining current placement is
“substantially likely” to result in injury to Student or
others
District has burden of persuading
ALJ that removal is warranted
Unlike unilateral removals,
District can ask ALJ to renew
IAES placement for additional
45 school days
(34 C.F.R.§532(b)(2)-(3); 71 Fed. Reg. 46723 (Aug. 14, 2006)
62. 62
FAQ #21
Practice Pointers
If student’s threatening behavior constitutes
danger to others, seek ALJ-ordered removal
(unilateral removal provisions don’t cover threats)
When student is returning from IAES, make sure
appropriate strategies are in place and can be
implemented
63. 63
IV. Disciplining Students
Potentially Eligible for Special Ed
Legal Review
Student who has not been determined to be
eligible for special education can assert IDEA
protections if District had “knowledge” of disability
before behavior incident that gave rise to
Student’s removal
(34 C.F.R.§300.534(a))
64. 64
IV. Disciplining Students
Potentially Eligible for Special Ed
Legal Review (cont’d)
“Knowledge” exists if:
Parent “expresses concern” of need for special education
Parent has requested evaluation
Teacher/other personnel “express concern” about
“pattern of behavior”
No “knowledge” if Parent has refused evaluation or
Student evaluated and found not eligible
(34 C.F.R. § 300.534(b)-(c))
66. 66
Answer
Parent: “Express concern” of need for special ed
Must be in writing
Must be made to “supervisory or administrative
personnel” or to one of Student’s teachers
Teacher/personnel: “Express concern” over
“pattern of behavior”
Must be made directly to special ed director or other
“supervisory personnel”
(34 C.F.R. § 300.534(b)-(c))
68. 68
Answer
“Pattern of behavior”
Involves “recurrent, similar, or related events”
Implicates “outwardly observable characteristics and
actions”
Observed prior behavior doesn’t have to implicate
immediate discipline issues (e.g., child having
difficulty communicating with peers, which
ultimately results in fighting and suspension)
(Anaheim Union School Dist. v. J.E. (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2013, No. CV 12-6588)
69. 69
FAQ #23
Practice Pointers
Be alert to staff comments about student’s
behavior
If there are warning signs, involve parents ASAP
Make sure information is available on submitting
evaluation requests
Consider all information (grades, medical records,
disciplinary history) before determining student is
ineligible and proceeding with removal
70. 70
FAQ #24:
If a District Is Not Deemed to Have
“Knowledge” of a Student’s Disability,
May It Proceed with Its Proposed
Disciplinary Sanctions?
71. 71
Answer
Yes . . . Student may be subjected to disciplinary
measures applied to nondisabled students who
engage in comparable behaviors
Parent may ask for expedited eligibility assessment
No specific IDEA timeframe for completion, but “should
be conducted in shorter period of time than typical
evaluation”
If found eligible, Student entitled to IDEA disciplinary
protections
(34 C.F.R. § 300.534(d)(1)-(2); 71 Fed. Reg. 46728 (Aug. 14, 2006))
72. 72
FAQ #25:
What Is the Student’s Placement
During the “Expedited” Evaluation
Process?
73. 73
Answer
Until expedited assessment
is completed, Student
remains in disciplinary
placement determined
by District
Can include suspension or expulsion without
educational services
(34 C.F.R. § 300.534(d)(2))
74. 74
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 .
75. 75
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 .