|
|
|
Susan Luger Associates Newsletter |
Happenings in the World of Special Education January 2010 |
|
When a District Makes an Offer
It is in the best interests of the child for the District and the Parent to put understandings in writing and for all jargon to be appropriately defined, and to have all questions answered in clear English (or the language of the Parent).
A school district in Colorado, acknowledging that a student required ABA services, made a verbal offer to modify services. The Federal District Court stated that the IEP, the governing document for FAPE, did not reflect any (verbal) modification and was hence a denial of FAPE.
The Court held that, when a District makes a verbal offer of services that differs from the written IEP, [the District] may confuse the parents as to the specific services to be provided. At best, such circumstances result in uncertainty, a sense of mistrust and could lead to litigation.
IEP guidelines to be used by Districts and Parents should include:
Identifying all services in the IEP -- specify what services, duration of sessions, number of sessions per week, number of students in the session, in- or out- of the class, who (in terms of credentials) will provide the service.
Have the IEP document define terms that are unfamiliar to the Parent -- terms which are everyday usage in the District can be jargon to outsiders. Parents deserve a clear and understandable written dialog as to the services their child is to receive.
The Parent should be free to ask questions of the District that are related to the child's IEP and education, and to expect a clear, everyday-English answers (actually, in the primary language of the Parent). That's why SLA sends along an Advocate with the Parent -- to ask those questions, to answer questions that the Parent may want to ask privately, to maintain the atmosphere of bi-directional communication. |
|
Student's Progress in noncertified facility warrants full reimbursement |
A student in California is diagnosed with autistic-like behaviors, ADHD and deficits in reading and social skills. The child was placed in a facility that was not a certified nonpublic school and was not certified to deal with the social skills deficit.
The School District balked at reimbursement, claiming the placement was not appropriate merely because it was a nonpublic agency rather than a nonpublic school certified by the state. Further, the claim was that the facility was not meeting all of the child's issues.
The facility provided small-group instruction to the student and, while the facility's certification did not authorize it to offer social skills training, the student progressed academically and became more confident and less anxious.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the yardstick for measuring whether reimbursement is proper under the IDEA is not whether a provider meets state educational standards but whether the placement affords the student educational benefits.
Citing Carter v. Florence County School District, the District Court noted that educational benefit is the proper standard for placement, not state requirements. Although Carter involved a private school, it is clear, the court reasoned, that proper placement is determined by educational benefit rather than adherence to strict standards. It was also clear that the student progressed in the program.
"The court is not persuaded that the distinction between a nonpublic school and a nonpublic agency is material to reimbursement in light of the facts of this case and the purposes of the IDEA," the court wrote.
The court also noted that the district provided no authority or reasons for making such a distinction. Finding the private program appropriate, the court awarded full reimbursement for the cost of the placement.
|
| Workshop News |
|
Workshops Scheduled |
|
On January 25, 2010 at 10AM, Dr. David Cooperman will present "Is It ADD or Is It Asperger's?".
January 25, 2010 at 10AM at the Susan Luger Conference Center. Registration has been filled.
On March 10, 2010, Andrea Silvia, our own double-threat advocate & attorney, will give workshop: The Essentials of a Multisensory Orton-Gillingham program.
Prior Workshops in the 2009-2010 Year
Dr. Nancy Eng spoke on 'Identifying Speech and Language Issues in Mono- and Bi-lingual Children' -- October 28, 2009.
Financial Consultant Stuart Flaum to discuss 'Special Need Trusts' -- November 18, 2009. Presentation available on request. | |
|
|
|
|
New Feature: Community Corner |
| Schools and Organizations can publicize upcoming events by contacting us. |
|
|
|
Service Dog Cannot be Barred from Classroom |
|
A 5-year-old boy with autism can attend school with his service dog over an Illinois district's objection. An earlier issue of this Newsletter presented a contributing article on service dogs for autistic children.
Because the IDEA is silent on the matter of service animals, each state may set its own statutes.
The Illinois Appellate Court ruled allowing students with disabilities to be accompanied by service animals at all school functions. |
|
|
| No, Blame Dad! No, Blame Mom! No ... |
| Strange goings on in blame for some bad genes |
Here is some strangeness -- depending on which parent passes along a gene, the genetic ramifications can contribute to disease risk or to disease protection.
Researchers have uncovered common genetic changes that were associated with diseases only when the change was inherited from a particular parent.
A variant of a gene inherited from the father increases the risk of developing breast cancer while the same variant inherited from the mother helps protect against breast cancer. Similarly for predisposition for a type of skin cancer -- inheritance from the father incerase the risk.
Exactly how this genetic variant can have two different effects is not understood. But researchers are working with this oddity.
This is a synopsis of an article in a December, 2009 issue of Science News.
|
| Share this Newsletter with your friends and colleagues by forwarding this email to them. |
If you learn of any newsworthy item related to Special Education, contact us with the information. |
|
|
|
|
End Notes
We are starting to approach the 2010-2011 School Year. The harbinger of the new year is the annual CSE review. Some are being scheduled as we speak. Current clients should have received several emails by now advising them of updating evaluations and other pertinent matters. (If you are a current client and receiving this Newsletter but did not receive the other emails, let us know -- we probably have you classified in the wrong group.)
The 'State of the Union' of SLA is summarized:
- SLA has introduced a new step to guide our 'newbies' (new clients) -- a case review following the consultation, where documents are reviewed and coordinated with parent aspirations. Our case reviewers are busy.
- Our advocates were busy at the CSE's, visiting programs, honing skills.
- Our affiliated attorneys were quite busy with litigation and settlement issues. In a few cases, our sort-of nemesis, SRO Paul Kelly, was busy denying parents' their rights. The attorneys made themselves quite busy by appealing Mr. Kelly's decisions to Federal District Court.
In-house, Bonnie, Louis, Ping, and Michelle are already overly busy -- pulling their hair out, in some cases.
Busy is good. Except Art's physics research is suffering terribly!
Sincerely,
Susan Luger Associates, Inc. | |
|
