Advocacy
News, July 2005
|
In This Issue:
* A2Z Announcements
* A2Z Case Updates
* Special Education Topic: Changes in the World of Special
Education Law - How does it affect you?
|
ANNOUNCEMENTS
UPCOMING EVENTS:PAL TRAINING: A2Z announces its next Parent
Advocate Liason (PAL) class. PAL is a program geared towards
helping parents understand the IEP process in order to advocate
for their child more effectively. It is a "nuts and
bolts" program. You can read about the PAL program
on our website. The next PAL program will be in Santa Barbara,
in August 2005. Details to be announced on the website.
Congratulations Mandy Favaloro!Mandy, who has been an
advocate with A2Z for the past year, graduated from Pepperdine
School of Law in May 2005. Mandy will be rejoining A2Z
full time after taking the bar. We are very excited to
have her as a full time member of our team.
|
After a 2 year battle, Student is found eligible
for special education under the category of SLDStudent vs. LAUSD:
A2Z filed a complaint in the Federal District Court in the Central
District of California to appeal a Due Process decision finding
a student not eligible as SLD. On Summary Judgment, the Federal
District Court ordered a remand, finding that the Hearing Officer
had applied erroneous analysis to the issue. The case then went
back to Due Process, and a 3 day Due Process hearing was held
in December. On this Due Process, the Hearing Officer found
that the student currently met eligibility requirements for
SLD. Significantly, the Hearing Officer found in the second
case that the student demonstrates, and has demonstrated, a
processing disorder in the cognitive ability of expression.
This finding reversed the previous ruling, which was based on
the application of Cal. Code Regs. 3030(c) rather than Cal.
Code Regs. 3030(j).
Read more about this case on our website...
Due Process Hearings - Awaiting Decisions
SN04---- v. Walnut Valley: A2Z completed a Due Process hearing
involving a Kindergarten student with Autism. Major issue in
the case was eligibility - student was diagnosed with Autism
by outside assessments, but district denied eligibility under
Autistic Like Behaviors. A2Z is currently waiting for a decision
in this case.
SN05------ v. Simi Valley: A2Z completed a Due Process hearing
involving a middle school student with Autism. Issues include
FAPE for both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, and NPS placement. We
are currently awaiting a decision.
Open Due Process Cases
SN05----- v. Glendale Unified School District: Case involves
a preschool student with Autism, who has been attending a private
preschool. Issues include prospective placement and services,
ESY services, reimbursements, and stay put.
SN05---- v. Garden Grove Unified School District: Case involves
multiple issues for the educational program for student with
Autism. Parent has filed multiple compliance complaints, which
resulted in required corrective actions, and A2Z is working
with parent on seeking compliance with those actions. Through
Due Process, we are seeking FAPE, to include appropriate services
(Recreational Therapy, behavioral intervention through a 1:1
aide, sufficient speech therapy, educational therapy, etc).
Student requires appropriate supports and services to facilitate
his placement in the Least Restrictive Environment.
SN05----- v. LAUSD: Case involves an elementary school student
with a learning disability. School offered what was stated to
be their "maximum" program at that school, which was
only 2 hours per day of specialized services. A2Z is seeking
NPS placement to address severe processing deficits and other
unique learning needs.
SN05----- v. LAUSD: Case involves 5th grade student with a learning
disability. Student has made little to no progress under program
offered at elementary school, and will be transitioning to middle
school. Offer was for placement in SDC. Student is seeking NPS
placement.
SN05----- v. LAUSD: Case involves 5th grade student with learning
disabilities, possible Asperger's and epilepsy. Student needs
small, structured environment with intensive intervention and
research based methodology to address her unique deficits. Parents
disagreed with offer to place student in large public middle
school for next year.
SN05----- v. LAUSD: Case involves a middle school student with
Autism, who has previously been placed in NPS. Student is bright,
and at one time was identified by the school district as gifted.
He is currently not in a placement. A2Z is seeking appropriate
prospective placement and services, along with compensatory
education and reimbursements.
SN05----- v. Simi Valley: A2Z represents an elementary school
student with Cortical Vision Impairment (CVI). The issues include
prospective placement and services, as well as previous violations
of FAPE. The student requires an individualized program, supported
by persons with knowledge, training and expertise in educating
students with CVI. There is also an issue regarding proposed
assessments.
SN05---- v. LAUSD: Student is a middle school student with dyslexia.
She is to transition to high school next year. A2Z alleges that
the program offered, which is at a large public high school
and which did not take into account the recommendations made
by an expert, is inappropriate. Student seeks NPS placement
as FAPE.
SN05----- v. Capistrano: This is a LRE case involving a preschool
student with Down's Syndrome. Parents and A2Z are seeking placement
in the Least Restrictive Environment with appropriate supports
and services to facilitate interaction with non-disabled peers.
SN05----- v. Saddleback Valley: Case involves high school student
with Autism, and issues include appropriate placement and services.
Student is very bright, but due to his deficits arising from
his disability, requires the appropriate learning environment
in order to make progress. Further, he requires support to address
his social / emotional areas of need.
SN05------ v. El Segundo: A2Z represents an elementary school
student with Autism, and we are alleging that student has not
received FAPE at any time from the school district. Issues include
compensatory education and prospective NPS placement. There
are also issues involved that are outside the scope of Due Process,
including alleged injury to the student.
SN05------ v. SMMUSD: Case involves 18 year old student with
Autism. Issues include continuation of services, FAPE, etc.
SN05------ v. SMMUSD: In a case involving an elementary school
student with Autism, issues include FAPE - placement in the
Least Restrictive Environment, 1:1 Aide services, Occupational
Therapy, and other services. Previous FAPE issues are also involved.
SN05----- v. Conejo Valley: Student is a 4 year old with autism.
He has been attending a private preschool for the past year.
Issues in the current Due Process case involve prospective placement.
Parents rejected proposed placement in a half day, district
Kindergarten classroom, with "Enrichment Program"
in the afternoon because this placement is not based on the
student's unique needs.
SN05---- v. Fullerton: Student is elementary school student
with Autism. Parents are seeking placement in the LRE with appropriate
services and supports to ensure educational benefit and facilitate
appropriate peer interactions.
SN05---- v. Alhambra: Student is in elementary school and is
identified as Speech and Language Impaired. He has recently
been diagnosed with Autism. Parents are seeking placement in
the LRE with appropriate services and supports to ensure educational
benefit and facilitate appropriate peer interactions. Also seeking
identification under category of Autism.
Recent Settlement Activity:
Due Process Cases
A2Z has settled several Due Process cases recently,
including cases involving the following:
Student is 10 years old, has Autism, and has had extreme behavior
issues. In settlement, student was given a full-time trained
aide from an NPA, inclusion in some mainstream academics, remainder
of the time in SDC. Additional assessments are to conducted
by district providers who have specific training in autism.
Student is 12 years old with Autism, who was not accessing her
curriculum in the District's middle school placement. Settlement
included placement at an NPS plus reimbursements for privately
obtained assessments and services. New private assessments are
to be considered in the upcoming IEP.Student is a 3 year old
child with Autism and Apraxia of speech. The settlement included
25-hours of DTT at home and in a special program, 3-hours one
on one social training at home, 30-min per day of one to one
speech and 2 hours clinic based OT. Parents were reimbursed
for their out of pocket expenses for placement, services, transportation
and private assessments.Student is a 5th grader with Asperger's,
who was only identified within the last year. Based upon multiple
issues including child find violations, procedural violations,
and failure to provide FAPE, A2Z negotiated a settlement involving
prospective NPS placement and services.
Student is an elementary school student with High Functioning
Autism. He has had minimal services from his school district
for years. A2Z negotiated a confidential settlement agreement
involving funding for placement at an NPS, where his social
/ emotional needs can be addressed.In a case involving a 9 year
old with autism, A2Z fought for eligibility and FAPE. The school
district missed the diagnosis completely and found the student
not eligible, and the student was only recently been diagnosed
by outside assessments. The student has numerous areas of need
related to social functioning, behavior, and academics.
Student is an elementary school student with Autism.
A2Z had previously negotiated settlement in a case involving
placement in the LRE. That settlement included prospective placement,
services and assessments. After these terms were not implemented,
and student continued to be denied educational benefit, another
Due Process case emerged. A2Z negotiated placement in a NPS
that is appropriate for this student's unique educational needs.
Student is in Kindergarten and has a reading disability. She
does not know all 45 sounds, and has not made progress under
the program offered by the District, which was mainly consultative.
A2Z negotiated a settlement to include compensatory education
services and new assessments to address possible Central Auditory
Processing Disorder.More...
View more case updates and pending cases online at www.a2zedad.com.
<http://www.a2zedad.com>
Our cases are now organized by district and SELPA on the "news"
page. Please check it out and feel free to send us comments
on the user-friendliness of the site.Wondering where a pending
case went? If you are tracking cases on our website, you may
notice that some cases which you see as "pending"
never show up with a summary in the "settled" area.
There is an explanation! Some district's now insist on clauses
in the settlement that state we will not put anything about
the case on our website, so these cases are removed after they
settle.
Special Education Topic: Update on Changes in Special Education
Those involved in the Special Education field
are currently sorting through many transitions and changes.
To parents, this can seem overwhelming and confusing. What does
it mean to you and your kid? What resources are available to
help you through the process?While A2Z is by no means claiming
to be an expert on all of the confusing (and somewhat still
undetermined) changes, we offer the following information to
parents:
IDEA to IDEIA - What are all these "improvements"
all about?
As of July 1, 2005 the new Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (I.D.E.I.A.) of 2004 is in effect. I.D.E.I.A.
was signed in December 2004 by President Bush. There are numerous
sources of information about the new law on the web. If you
want to read the laws themselves, we suggest you start with
the U.S. Department of Education's page at http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html.
For a good user friendly comparison of IDEA to IDEIA, check
out Pete Wright's analysis at http://www.wrightslaw.com/idea/idea.2004.all.pdf.
Some of the Key Changes Include the Following:
* Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Eligibility - IDEIA replaces
the old model for eligibility - which was the discrepancy model
- to the "Response to Intervention" (RTI) model. How
exactly this will be implemented by the school districts in
eligibility decisions is yet to be seen. The new law leaves
the specific criteria to the discretion of the educational agency.
* Evaluations - IDEIA reiterates the idea that evaluations are
NOT just linked to academic performance. The new law explicitly
recognizes that the child's developmental needs must be assessed,
including academic, social and emotional needs. Evaluators must
look at all areas of functioning, not predominately academics.
* Parent Refusal - Under new law, if the parent refuses to consent
to the provision of services, the school district may not provide
special education services and may not initiate due process
to force services. (under previous law, school district could
file for DP if parent refused consent)
* Attorney's fees - Parents still may collect fees if they are
the prevailing party at Due Process. District may recover fees
from parents if the case is determined to be frivolous, unreasonable,
or without foundation... Exception applies if "to the best
of the person's knowledge, information, and belief," the
case was reasonable...
* Procedural Safeguards - reduced notice requirements regarding
district's notice to parents
* Due Process - requests must be clear and specific. Also, new
law gives school district the ability to resolve the complaint
outside of the hearing or even mediation - within 15 days of
the parent filing for the school district convenes an IEP meeting.
School district's have an additional 15 days then to resolve
the complaint.
* IEP requirements - loosened requirement for mandatory participants;
short term objectives no longer required; IEP can be amended
without a meeting if parents and school agree.
* Services - new law adds the statement "based on peer-reviewed
research to the extent practicable" with relation to services.
* Behavior - changes 45 day interim placement to 45 school days;
expands circumstances under which a school district can transfer
a child to an interim placement; shifts stay put to the alternative
setting
Tips for Parents:
* Read the Information available on the new law. Wrightslaw
is a good, user friendly resource.
* ASK QUESTIONS of your school district and ASK TO SEE THE NEW
PARENT'S RIGHTS GUIDE from your district. Read it.
* Remember that some things have changed to create lesser requirements
- but require parent consent. For example - although the law
allows for changes without an IEP meeting, this does not mean
that the school district can unilaterally change the IEP - you
have to consent in order for a change to occur without a meeting.
* When your district proposes a certain service or method -
ask to see evidence of the peer reviewed research that the decision
is based on.
SEHO to OAH - does it matter?
As of July 1, 2005, the Office of Administrative Hearings will
be administering and hearing due process cases. This is a change
from the previous system (Special Education Hearing Office).
Please see the OAH announcement located at http://www.oah.dgs.ca.gov/Special+Education/Default.htm.
Cases that were filed with the Special Education Hearing Office
(SEHO) prior to close of business on June 30th were transferred
to OAH as opened cases. For cases that commenced a hearing prior
to the close of business on June 30th, SEHO is finishing those
cases (completing the hearing, writing decisions for hearings
already held, etc). All cases filed July 1 or later are filed
with OAH.
What this means: Mostly, the switch from SEHO to OAH has meant
confusion and delays. Because of the confusion and the massive
number of cases filed in anticipation of the changes on July
1st, there have been scheduling delays with mediations and hearings.
It remains unclear how the switch will substantively impact
the outcome of the cases, if at all.
The state contracted with McGeorge (home of SEHO) to continue
to provide mediation services for Due Process cases through
the end of this year.
For A2Z Clients: If you have any concerns about the impact on
your case, please do not hesitate to contact us immediately!
LET
US ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. Call 888 IDEA-ADA (888-4332-232),
or email us at inquiry@a2zedad.com
for more information.
To
be removed from our mailing list, send the following
message to dania@a2zedad.com
unsubscribe advocacy1
copyright
© 2003 A2Z Educational Adcocates. All rights reserved.
