It's the Law - Special Education Action

It’s the Law: Comprehensive Evaluations

Whether your child is receiving an initial evaluation for eligibility or being reevaluated at a later date, the evaluation must be a comprehensive evaluation.

In the case of initial evaluations, §300.301(a) of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) is your go-to regulation:

Each public agency must conduct a full and individual initial evaluation, in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.306, before the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability under this part.

IEP Teams Must Consider Assistive Technology Devices and Services Every Time a Student’s IEP is Developed, Reviewed, or Revised

Assistive technology (AT) devices and services must be considered every time a student’s IEP is developed, reviewed, or revised.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) clears up misconceptions about this requirement in its new guidance document “Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services” and the “Dear Colleague” letter accompanying it.

It’s the Law: IEP Implementation

IEPs are contracts.

IEPs are the responsibility of the school to implement from day one of the school year.

If you run into issues with the date of implementation and implementation by teachers, you’ll want to look at some of these regulations.

Students Must Meet These Requirements to Qualify for Special Education

Your child is struggling in school. You suspect he or she might need special education.

Are your child’s struggles and your gut feeling enough for your child to qualify for special education?

No. However, your gut feeling and your child’s struggles shouldn’t be discounted either.

Failing Grades Are Not A Prerequisite For Special Education Evaluations

Failing grades are not a prerequisite for special education evaluation and/or IEPs or 504s.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that child find must include “Children who are suspected of being a child with a disability under §300.8 and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade”. (Emphasis added. See 34 CFR 300.111(c)(1).)

Are Parents Members of IEP Teams and Eligibility Teams? Yes!

Parents are full members of IEP teams and eligibility teams. Their roles as members are not limited to basic participation and/or providing input. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates full membership on the teams, not just a seat at the table.

Parents have key roles in evaluations preceding eligibility determinations, in the actual eligibility determinations, and in IEP development following determinations. For evaluations, as one example, members must draw upon information from various sources, including parent input. This doesn’t mean schools simply have to consider parent input and then decide if they’ll use it or not. They are required to draw from parent input.

In this article, you’ll find federal regulations (as well as Viriginia regs for those in the area), that define and guarantee parents’ rights.

A Response to Intervention Cannot Be Used To Delay Or Deny An Evaluation For Special Education Services

What Is A Response to Intervention?

According to the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), in its 1.29.19 Letter to Zirkel, “IDEA does not define RTI . . . RTI is only mentioned in IDEA when determining eligibility for specific learning disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(2).”

However, the United States Department of Education has stated that, “States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of implementation of an RTI.”

Perez v Sturgis: Supreme Court Rules 9-0 in Favor of Michigan Student Who Was Denied Appropriate Special Education

In a rare 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Petitioner Miguel Luna Perez: An Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.

Today, just two months after oral arguments were presented, Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, which had to decide 1) whether, and in what circumstances, courts should excuse further exhaustion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) administrative proceedings under Section 1415(l) when such proceedings would be futile, and 2) whether Section 1415(l) requires exhaustion of a non-IDEA claim seeking money damages that are not available under the IDEA.

The case was based on the experiences of Miguel Luna Perez, who was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for years while attending Sturgis (Michigan) Public Schools (SPS). For 12 years, SPS advanced Miguel Luna Perez from grade to grade and inflated his grades to the point he repeatedly made honor roll, even though he couldn’t read or write—and then just before graduation told his family he would receive a certificate of completion but not a high school diploma.

Category: It’s the Law