5. 5
New Cases – Behavior
Student v. Twin Rivers Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
Facts:
11-year-old fifth grade Student
Despite behavior interventions, Student continually
eloped from school
Placed on home instruction, but behavior issues
continued
General ed teacher assigned to home instruction was
not trained to address behavior problems
District contended Parent thwarted efforts
to conduct FBA
(Student v. Twin Rivers Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) Nos. 2014030894 and
2014050203, 114 LRP 37445)
6. 6
New Cases – Behavior
Student v. Twin Rivers Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
Decision:
ALJ found denial of FAPE
District failed to offer behavior supports in IEP despite
being aware of Student’s behaviors
Offer to assess Student’s behavioral needs did not cure
failure to provide appropriate interventions
Irrelevant whether Parent obstructed completion of FBA
ALJ awarded 34 hours of comp ed behavior services
District prevailed on other issues
(Student v. Twin Rivers Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) Nos. 2014030894 and
2014050203, 114 LRP 37445))
7. 7
Behavior
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
If staff are not appropriately trained
to address behaviors and there is
no cohesive plan in place to meet
behavior needs, general consensus
of courts and OAH is that Student
cannot benefit from his/her education
9. 9
Facts:
Parents of 3-year-old with hearing impairment advised
District they were “formally revoking” IEP; disagreed with
assessments and requested three IEEs
District treated Parents’ letter as revocation of consent
for all special ed services and denied IEE
Did not provide IEEs or seek due process
to defend assessments
Parents claimed denial of FAPE for refusal to fund IEEs
(Student v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014040723, 114 LRP
38493)
New Cases – Consent
Student v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
10. 10
Decision:
ALJ found that “plain language” of Parents’ revocation
pertained exclusively to IEP
Because Parents also notified District they would be
providing Student with another placement and would
seek reimbursement, District should have been aware
that FAPE dispute existed and that Parents did not
intend to revoke consent for eligibility
Revocation of IEP ≠ revocation of eligibility
District ordered to fund IEEs
(Student v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014040723, 114 LRP
38493)
New Cases – Consent
Student v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
11. 11
Consent
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
Revocations of consent can pose
difficult issues
Analyze language and circumstances
carefully to avoid erroneous
interpretations
13. 13
Facts:
Parents unilaterally placed third-grader in NPS shortly
after school year began
In November, District sent triennial assessment plan in
preparation for IEP meeting due in January
Meeting not held until late March
Parents arrived 45 minutes late, by which time Student’s
general ed teacher had left
Parent signed assessment plan at meeting and District
proposed transitioning Student back from NPS
(Student v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2013090347, 114 LRP
49843)
New Cases – IEP Meetings
Student v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
14. 14
Decision:
Failure to hold timely IEP meeting and failure to secure
presence of general ed teacher was procedural violation
that rose to denial of FAPE
Had meeting been held in January, Student may have
returned to District for second semester
General ed teacher was necessary because District
proposed change in Student’s gen ed services
ALJ ordered four months of NPS tuition reimbursement
ALJ rejected all other FAPE-based arguments by Parents
(Student v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2013090347, 114 LRP
49843)
New Cases – IEP Meetings
Student v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
15. 15
IEP Meetings
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
While some procedural violations
are “harmless” errors, if the
violations result in loss of
educational opportunity or
seriously infringe on parents’
IEP participation, they amount to a
denial of FAPE – and give rise to a remedy
17. 17
Facts:
11-year-old Student placed in group home by DCFS
after 14 unsuccessful foster homes and four
unsuccessful reunifications with Parent
Frequent psychiatric hospitalization due to aggressive
behaviors
After enrollment in District, Student was found eligible for
special ed (serious emotional disturbance)
IEP team recommended self-contained therapeutic
placement; Parent claimed placement was not LRE
(Student v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014070784, 114 LRP
49752)
New Cases – LRE
Student v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
18. 18
Decision:
ALJ found District’s proposed placement was LRE
Severity of behaviors justified need for therapeutic
setting
Parent failed to show how lesser restrictive setting
(general ed class with 1:1 aide or SDC) could meet
Student’s mental health needs
ALJ also rejected claim that selected placement was
inappropriate due to numerous incidents
of student runaways
(Student v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014070784, 114 LRP
49752)
New Cases – LRE
Student v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
19. 19
LRE
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
The LRE obligation does not
override the FAPE requirement
If placement discussed or proposed
at IEP meeting will not confer
educational benefit and a more restrictive
program is likely to provide such benefit, the
student is entitled to be placed in that more
restrictive program
21. 21
Facts:
11-year-old with ADHD, autism and SLD suspended
several times (totaling 10 days) for various incidents
Student also was removed from class on several
occasions for counseling, a threat assessment,
de-escalation of behaviors, and to take California
modified assessment
Parent claimed that all classroom removals exceeded
10 days and District should have conducted
manifestation determination
(Student v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. and Journey Charter School (OAH 2014) No.
2014060007, 114 LRP 38670)
New Cases – Manifestation
Determinations
Student v. Capistrano USD and Journey Charter Sch. (OAH 2014)
22. 22
Decision:
ALJ found Parent had erroneous belief that
all removals from classroom were tantamount
to in-school suspensions
Various removals (counseling, behavior de-escalation)
conformed to Student’s IEP and BIP
Threat assessment removal was not for disciplinary
purposes
District appropriately removed Student in effort
to implement IEP and BIP
(Student v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. and Journey Charter School (OAH 2014) No.
2014060007, 114 LRP 38670)
New Cases – Manifestation
Determinations
Student v. Capistrano USD and Journey Charter Sch. (OAH 2014)
23. 23
Manifestation Determinations
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
While it is important to keep
accurate count of days of removal,
it is also important to recognize
which removals are not “disciplinary
actions” and do not count toward
10-day threshold
25. 25
Facts:
3-year-old with cerebral palsy placed in integrated
preschool setting where children transitioned between
various locations for play activities
District protocol required close adult supervision with no
children unattended on playground
Staff planned to be near Student at all times due to her
balance and motor issues
Parents claimed District should have provided
accommodations and modifications to address safety
(Student v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014040312, 114 LRP
29153)
New Cases – Preschool Students
Student v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
26. 26
Decision:
ALJ found Student’s IEP should have addressed unique
safety issues
Despite District protocol, given adult/student ratio at the
preschool it was possible for adult not to be near enough
to Student to provide support at any given moment
Student’s unsteady balance and inability to step
backwards or side-to-side warranted IEP provision to
guarantee close supervision in classroom/playground
(Student v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014040312, 114 LRP
29153)
New Cases – Preschool Students
Student v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
27. 27
Preschool Students
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
When designing initial IEPs for
preschoolers, it is essential that IEP
team be aware of all of student’s
unique needs and address them in
the document
IFSP developed by Part C service provider can
serve as important guide
29. 29
Facts:
14-year-old with mood disorder had lived at various
residential treatment centers since age 7
Placements made through DCFS in response to violent
behaviors at home
No IEP team had ever determined residential placement
was necessary for FAPE
After DCFS discontinued funding, Parents made
unilateral residential placement and sought
reimbursement from District
(Student v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014020031, 114 LRP 36110)
New Cases – Residential
Placement
Student v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
30. 30
Decision:
ALJ denied reimbursement for residential placement
Upheld District’s proposed placement in small classroom
environment at nonpublic day school with ESY,
transportation and individual counseling
Student’s in-class behavior and emotional issues could
be addressed in day school setting
Classroom behavior did not trigger severe behaviors at
home
(Student v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014020031, 114 LRP 36110)
New Cases – Residential
Placement
Student v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
31. 31
Residential Placement
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
As the ALJ stated, “a district’s
responsibility under the IDEA
is to remedy the learning-related
symptoms of a disability, not
to treat other, non-learning
symptoms”
33. 33
Facts:
After dispute over IEP, Parents enrolled Student in
virtual charter school sponsored by another district
For next school year, Parents sought to transfer Student
back to District and provided registration information
District registered Student but did not enroll her because
she was still enrolled at charter school
Parents filed for due process, claiming District denied
FAPE by failing to assess Student following her transfer
back to District and by not funding IEE
(Student v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014060827, 114 LRP 44606)
New Cases – Transfer Students
Student v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
34. 34
Decision:
ALJ found Parents were not entitled to any remedy
If Parents wanted District assessment, they should have
first dis-enrolled Student from charter school
Student could not be simultaneously enrolled in two
districts
District had no obligation to assess, convene IEP
meeting, make FAPE offer or fund any IEE until Student
was enrolled
(Student v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014060827, 114 LRP 44606)
New Cases – Transfer Students
Student v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
35. 35
Transfer Students
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
Semantics can matter in
special education – especially
the distinction between
“registration” and “enrollment”
Obligation to provide FAPE does not begin
until district becomes the responsible LEA, i.e.,
once Student officially enrolls
37. 37
Facts:
11-year-old with ADHD and severe anxiety issues was
unilaterally placed at NPS
District reassessed Student prior to fifth grade, offering
public school placement with one-half day in general ed
classroom and one-half day in learning center class
Offered short-term behavior supports and access to
counseling to ease Student’s transition from small NPS
classroom
Parents rejected FAPE offer and sought reimbursement
(Student v. Ross Valley School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014020175, 114 LRP 49845)
New Cases – Transition Services
Student v. Ross Valley School Dist. (OAH 2014)
38. 38
Decision:
District violated FAPE because behavior supports were
inadequate to meet Student’s needs
Student was transitioning from small class size (four
students) to classroom with 30 students
Large classroom could exacerbate anxiety issues
Needed more than just a few weeks of behavior services
District ordered to reimburse for NPS for 2012-2013
District remedied deficient services in subsequent IEP
(Student v. Ross Valley School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014020175, 114 LRP 49845)
New Cases – Transition Services
Student v. Ross Valley School Dist. (OAH 2014)
39. 39
Transition Services
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
When Student is moving from small
private setting to large public school,
IEP team must anticipate and
address transition-related issues,
including need for additional supports
to help Student adjust to a big classroom
41. 41
Facts:
14-year-old homeless Student with OHI (for ADHD)
History of truancy in various districts
After sending Guardian several notices of excessive
absences, District referred Student to SARB
SARB referred Student to community day school
District did not mention on referral form that Student was
entitled to special ed services or had IEP
Guardian claimed manifestation determination should
have been held
(Student v. Rialto Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014040982, 114 LRP 38497)
New Cases – Truancy
Student v. Rialto Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
42. 42
Decision:
ALJ found SARB referral was disciplinary change of
placement and required MD review
Change of placement was result of Student’s habitual
truancy, a violation of code of student conduct
ALJ cited State SARB model handbook
Conducting MD is consistent with purposes of SARB – to
ensure all appropriate interventions are utilized
Note: ALJ also found Student’s conduct was
manifestation of his ADHD
(Student v. Rialto Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) No. 2014040982, 114 LRP 38497)
New Cases – Truancy
Student v. Rialto Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014)
43. 43
Truancy
Why Does This Case Matter to Us?
ALJ stressed that holding MD review
when SARB considers a change of
placement is consistent with
IDEA policy and the “responsibilities
assumed by districts when addressing
the special education needs of students”
45. 45
What Happened:
District conducted RTI but chose to use severe
discrepancy model to assess Student for SLD
9th Circuit found District met legal requirements in
conducting its evaluation and appropriately used RTI
data to corroborate assessment results
However, District violated IDEA by failing to ensure RTI
data was appropriately documented and by failing to
provide Parents with RTI data
Procedural violation amounted to denial of FAPE by
infringing on Parents’ ability to participate in IEP process
(M.M. v. Lafayette School Dist. (9th Cir. 2014) 64 IDELR 31)
Response to Intervention
M.M. v. Lafayette School Dist. (9th Cir. 2014)
46. 46
What Happened:
IEP team adjourned before completing discussion of IEE
obtained by Parents but after discussing goals
Parents filed for due process claiming team failed to
adequately consider their IEE
District reconvened IEP meeting without Parents (who
refused to attend) and finalized IEP based, in part, on
information previously discussed with Parents
Court found no predetermination (reversing ALJ)
IEP with partial parental input was better option than
proceeding indefinitely with outdated IEP
(Cupertino Union School Dist. v. K.A. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 64 IDELR 200)
Parent Participation
Cupertino Union School Dist. v. K.A. (N.D. Cal. 2014)
47. 47
What Happened:
Student with ED, who resided outside of district, was
hospitalized at psychiatric facility within District boundaries
District provided special ed services at hospital and IEP
team recommended residential placement upon release
District advised Guardian it was not responsible for placing
Student at residential facility
Court: District fulfilled responsibility by providing services
at hospital, but responsibility ended on discharge
At that point, district of residence assumes FAPE
obligation
(N.G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal. 2014) 64 IDELR 73)
Residential Placement
N.G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal. 2014)
48. 48
What Happened:
Student had genetic markers for cystic fibrosis
District removed Student from classroom citing safety
concerns (which later turned out to be unwarranted)
Parties “settled the matter” and Student returned to school
after missing two weeks
Court: No 504 or ADA violation resulted from removal
District acted in effort to preserve safe operation of its
school
Removal was reasonable given info District had at the time
(Chadam v. Palo Alto Unified School Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2014) 64 IDELR 168)
Health and Safety
Chadam v. Palo Alto Unified School Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2014)
49. 49
What Happened:
Teacher believed Parent was recording IEP meeting
without providing required 24-hour notice
Same day that Parent requested consultation with
psychologist (following Student’s school behavior
issues), District reported alleged recording to police
OCR found evidence of retaliation by District against
Parents for engaging in protected activity
District had no proof meeting was recorded and any
violation of 24-hour notice law was not criminal act
(San Carlos School Dist. (OCR 2014) 114 LRP 31014)
Retaliation
San Carlos School Dist. (OCR 2014)
50. 50
What Happened:
Parent complained to OCR about lack of accessible
bathroom at school where due process hearing was
being held
OCR reached agreement with CDE
CDE agreed to:
Make sure facilities where hearings are held are
accessible to individuals with disabilities
Adopt procedures for OAH to evaluate and respond
to requests for accommodations
(California Dep’t of Educ. (OCR 2014) 114 LRP 47368)
Accessibility
California Dep’t of Educ. (OCR 2014)
52. 52
OSEP/OCR Dear Colleague letters
OSEP: Districts must have child find policies in place to
identify, locate students in juvenile correctional facilities
Students must receive timely evaluations
Records must be transferred expeditiously
IDEA due process applies
IDEA discipline procedures apply to “removals”
OCR: Juvenile justice facilities must provide equal
access to coursework, provide 504 FAPE, meet needs of
ELs, avoid discriminatory discipline
(Dear Colleague Letter (OSEP 12/5/2014); Dear Colleague Letter (OCR
12/8/2014))
Incarcerated Students
53. 53
Letter to Reilly (OSEP)
Which party bears burden of proof in state compliance
complaint?
OSEP stated it is not consistent with IDEA for SEA to
treat compliance complaints like due process complaints
and assign a burden of proof to either party
Once complaint is filed, neither party has burden to
product sufficient evidence to persuade SEA to make
determination “one way or another”
SEA must independently review and weigh evidence
(Letter to Reilly (OSEP 11/3/2014))
State Complaint Procedures
54. 54
FAQs of Effective Communication (OCR)
Districts must apply IDEA FAPE analysis and ADA
“effective communication” analysis in determining how to
meet students’ communication needs
Services may be required under Title II even if they are
not needed to provide FAPE
Student need not be IDEA-eligible in order to qualify
under Title II
Under Title II, districts must honor communication choice
of student/family, unless it can prove alternative
aid/service is equally effective
(Frequently Asked Questions on Effective Communication for Students with
Hearing, Vision or Speech Disabilities (OCR 11/12/2014))
ADA “Effective Communication”
55. 55
Dear Colleague Letter (OCR)
Bullying can amount to disability-based harassment
and/or denial of FAPE under Section 504
When Student is bullied, Section 504 team must convene
to determine whether needs have changed such that
Student is no longer receiving FAPE
Team must look at additional/different services or change
of placement
If bullying results in disability-based harassment, there is
“strong likelihood” that Student is also being denied FAPE
(Dear Colleague Letter (OCR 10/21/2014))
Bullying and Section 504
57. 57
U.S. Supreme Court Update
January 2015: U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider
appeal in E.M. v. Pajaro Unified School District, effectively
ending dispute that had continued since 2006
9th Circuit ruled in 2014 that District acted reasonably when
it determined that Student with an auditory processing
disorder did not qualify for special education under the
category of SLD
Although court recognized that a student may be eligible for
special education under more than one category of
disability, it found that District also did not act
inappropriately by failing to qualify Student as OHI
58. 58
New Legislation
SB 1266 (EpiPens)
All schools must stock epiPens and restock
them as soon as used or when shelf-life expires
Provide to nurses and trained personnel
Districts must distribute annual notice for
volunteers to be trained to administer injections
Private schools have discretion to determine
whether or not to make epiPens available
59. 59
New Legislation
AB 420 (Suspensions/Expulsions)
Amends Ed Code section 48900(k)
Prohibits districts from suspending K-3 student
who disrupts school activities or commits act of
willful defiance
Prohibits recommendation for expulsion for
those acts for K-12 students
Prohibitions do not apply to commission of any
other act under section 48900.
60. 60
Thank you for attending!
And thank you for all you do for
students!!
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.
61. 61
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 .
62. 62
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 .