We’ve been working hard over the summer to bring you new tools for this upcoming new school year. To kick things off, we’re giving parents a free 45-minute training video titled, “3 Critical Errors that Even the Smartest Parents of Children with Special Needs Can Make in the IEP Process.” Watch it now and you’ll also get links to additional resources, including a free IEP goal-writing template that you can use to prepare for your IEP meetings, as well as during the meetings when IEP goals are being formulated by the IEP team.
UPDATE: Effective July 1, 2013, the Hughes Bill, which described the FAA procedures, was repealed and replaced with AB 86, which offers fewer legal protections to students with behavioral needs. Click here for more information about this change in the law. The material below now only applies to those students who were eligible for an FAA and possibly a PBIP prior to July 1, 2013. These students may currently have PBIPs in their IEPs, which remain in force until their IEPs are replaced at their next annual due date. Students with claims arising within the last two years from school agencies’ failures to comply with the Hughes Bill during the portion of the statutory period in which it was still in force may still bring claims regarding those failures, in which case, the material below is still applicable.
Click here to listen to the podcast version of this post.
As part of a series of articles regarding seclusion and restraint practices involving special education students across the nation, we’re starting out with a look at the regulations already on the books in California. We’re starting with these state-specific regulations because California is one of the few states to have regulations this specific and, as one of the most populous states in the nation, these laws impact a lot of kids. So, this information can potentially benefit a lot of students by helping their parents in their efforts to achieve appropriate behavioral interventions as well as help their educators understand their obligations, thereby preventing a lot of costly litigation that takes money away from actual instructional costs.
There is federal legislation pending to address this very issue. The lack of consistency among the states as to what constitutes a lawful restraint or seclusion varies so widely that what is regarded as child abuse in one state is considered perfectly acceptable in others.
Because California has such specific language in its regulations about one aspect of positive behavioral intervention, we wanted to examine these regulations more closely. Plus, I’ve been involved in a due process case in which an 8-year-old with autism was unwittingly provoked into an outburst by well-intended special ed staff with the whole thing culminating in a DARE officer who happened to be on campus handcuffing the boy in an effort to protect him from hurting himself. That whole incident involved both restraint and seclusion with disastrous results.
So, this issue is vivid in my mind right now after having met this sweet boy and his loving family, as well as in light of other work I’ve been doing recently that has also involved inappropriate behavioral interventions in public school settings in California as well as Texas. As advanced as humanity has become, we can still be a savage species when it comes to children, particularly those with disabilities.
The thing about California’s laws relative to the minimum requirements under the federal regulations is that California’s laws are specific to serious behavior problems, interpreted by most school districts to mean violent behaviors, where the federal regulations only specifically mandate behavioral assessment when a student is at risk of expulsion for behaviors that may be related to his/her disability. In both cases, that leaves a lot of latitude for things to get way out of control before a school district takes action, particularly in school districts that are reactionary to student needs once they’ve reached crisis proportions rather than proactive in preventing these kinds of problems from arising in the first place.
Click here to download the podcast version of this article.
There is a realm of conflict surrounding the use of 1:1 aides in special education and many local education agencies (“LEAs”) have developed their own assessment protocols to determine when a child really needs an aide to try and rein in this issue.
Sometimes these assessments just turn into a means of justifying to the parents a decision against aide support that was actually made by the LEA for fiscal reasons, so there are still issues with these types of aide assessments that need to be worked out.
Because these are LEA-made evaluations that are not bound by regulation and they aren’t scientifically validated standardized tests, LEAs can make them up however they want and some are better at researching best practices than others. But, even if it’s the best aide assessment in the world, none of that makes any difference if the aide support a child is given isn’t used well.
This past April, DisabilityScoop.com published an article about “educational malpractice” claims becoming potentially viable depending on the outcome of a case that has now worked its way up to the US Supreme Court, Addison v. Compton Unified School District.
I’m not going to go into the blow-by-blow details of the case. You can get all of that on the Wrightslaw web site, including PDFs of the filing documents and prior decisions.
What I will go into are the many reasons why I think Compton Unified’s decision to take this issue to Supreme Court is insane.
It’s that time of the school year when I think my head is going to explode. Every year from about the time of Spring Break to the end of the regular school year, all hell breaks loose as parents who have been paid lip service by their education agencies all year long realize, “OMG, the school year is almost over and my kid still can’t [plug in deficit skill area here]!
And then the emails and calls for our lay advocacy services start pouring in. Blogging during this time of the year is a particular challenge for me because I’m spread so thinly with casework.
But, the reality is that this is the time when constructive information about the special education process is most needed by parents. We can’t represent everybody and if there is a way to empower parents so they can effectively advocate for their children themselves, that is always preferred to parents having to pay us or anyone else to pursue appropriate educational outcomes for their kids.
So, today’s posting is about Response to Intervention, or RtI, with respect to assessment special education. Over the course of the current school year, I’ve seen more and more districts implementing RtI models and shooting themselves in the foot with respect to special education compliance, particularly the federal “child find” requirements, all at the same time.
Click here to download the podcast version of this article.
There is much confusion in many school districts about the assessment of visual processing disorders and appropriate remedies for needs that arise from visual processing disorders in special education students.
Many school districts do not provide expert assessment in visual processing at all, mostly because they don’t understand when expert assessment becomes necessary in order to render a FAPE. But, there is also an underlying fear that is sometimes very overt and other times left unspoken out of shame and guilt; it is the fear of the costs of any services that expert assessment may reveal is necessary for a given student.
Wrightslaw posted this video on their Facebook page and my nervous system went haywire when I saw it. I didn’t know whether to laugh or retch, so I was wracked with spasms as I watched it.
Created by the special ed law firm Frankel & Kershenbaum (http://davefrankel.com), this video is “A satirical and slightly sarcastic look at a typical conversation between the parent of a child with special needs and an official from the school district who isn’t quite getting it.”