A2Z
Announcements and Current Events
A2Z prevailed for an Autistic student in a 6 day Due Process
Hearing against Fullerton School District! See below for
details.
A2Z secured a reinstatement of ABA / DTT services for an 8 year
old with Autism, in a 2 day Fair Hearing against the Lanterman
Regional Center! See below for details.
We've moved! Our new office location is just a few
minutes away in Pacific Palisades. Our contact new address
is:
A2Z
Educational Advocates
881 Alma Real Drive, Suite 309
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
Special
Education Topic:
Deciphering Disciplinary Procedures Under IDEIA
by Mandy Favaloro, Attorney
When a student with an IEP is subject to disciplinary proceedings
certain guidelines apply to that student. In some circumstances
it is necessary for the IEP team to determine if the incident
which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings was a manifestation
of a child's disability – that is if it was directly
caused by or substantially related to his or her disability
or was caused by the district's failure to implement the
IEP. The district will then hold what is referred to as
a manifestation determination.
A school district is not required to conduct a manifestation
determination before suspending a child with an IEP or changing
his or her placement for 10 school days or less. If a
child with an IEP keeps getting suspended and it adds up to
10 days over the course of the school year, the district should
hold a manifestation determination. The district must
hold a manifestation determination when the removal of a child
with an IEP from their current placement constitutes a change
in placement for more than 10 days.
When a district conducts a manifestation determination it must
be held in a meeting, which includes the parents, relevant members
of the IEP team and other qualified personnel. The district
cannot hold a manifestation determination without a parent's
input. When deciding if a behavior was a manifestation
of a child's disability the IEP team must consider all
relevant information including evaluations and diagnostic results,
including those provided by the parents, observations of the
child, and IEPs
If the team determines that the child's conduct was a manifestation
of his or her disability the IEP team must either:
1) conduct a functional behavioral assessment
and implement a behavioral intervention plan for the child if
one has already not been conducted
OR
2) if a behavioral intervention plan
is already in place, it must be reviewed and modified to address
the behavior.
The district must then return the child to the placement he
was removed from unless the parents and the district agree to
a change in placement as part of the modification of the behavior
intervention plan.
If the behavior is determined to not be a manifestation of the
child's disability the district may implement relevant
disciplinary procedures that it would otherwise apply to a child
without a disability but the District must still provide that
child with FAPE even if in another setting and the child must
receive, if appropriate, a functional behavioral assessment,
behavioral intervention services and modifications so the behavior
violation does not reoccur.
Even if a child does not have an IEP but the district had knowledge
that the child had a disability before the incident occurred.
A district is deemed to have knowledge if a parent expressed
concerns in writing that the child needed special education
or requested an evaluation. If you are concerned that
your child may have a disability, you must put your concerns
in writing. You should document important phone conversations,
meetings, and telephone calls with notes or letters describing
what happened.
Case
Updates
Student
v. Fullerton School District:
A2Z
prevailed after a 6-Day Due Process Hearing for a 7-year-old
Autistic student against Fullerton School District, which was
represented by counsel. Issues included the placement
in the Least Restrictive Environment, related services, and
assessments. The ALJ determined that the District failed
to provide appropriate and sufficient supports and services
to ensure that the student could participate in general education
for part of his day. Parents were entitled to reimbursement
for privately funded services as compensatory education for
the District's failure to provide educational benefit.
The recommendations of the parents' private evaluator regarding
placement and services are to be implemented.
A.W.
vs. Lanterman Regional Center:
A2Z was successful in securing the reinstatement of ABA / DTT
services for an 8-year-old with Autism, in a decision following
a 2-day Fair Hearing against the Lanterman Regional Center.
The ALJ found that the Regional Center did not have sufficient
information about the child to determine that a reduction was
warranted. In addition to a reinstatement of the 6 hours
per week of services, the ALJ ordered a specific behavioral
analysis assessment to determine if additional hours were appropriate,
and how the services should be utilized. Parents'
concerns and goals for their child were to be taken into consideration
in this evaluation.
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 news@a2zedad.com
unsubscribe advocacy1
copyright
© 2006 A2Z Educational Adcocates. All rights reserved.
