Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Legal Responsibilities of Educators
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sheila" data-source="post: 124197" data-attributes="member: 23"><p><strong>B. Disciplinary History Triggering Need for Evaluation: A case in point</strong></p><p><em>Corpus Christi Indep. School District</em> (12)</p><p><strong>Facts:</strong> Parent charged that District denied a FAPE to 5 year old student by failing to timely recognize and evaluate suspected disability condition and need for special services. Kindergarten student with early history of behavioral difficulties, including hitting other children. Student's counselor had suggested referral for speech and language testing but parent disagreed. Counselor and principal then both agreed that student did not require services under the IDEA and did not need referral for IDEA special education eligibility</p><p><strong>Ruling:</strong> Based upon at least 31 recorded disciplinary referrals and a threatened suspension, the district should have been suspicious that student may have had a qualifying disability under IDEA. District was ordered to assess student for all suspected areas of disability and educational needs. Compensatory education may be appropriate if student is found eligible for special education.</p><p><strong>Key Concepts:</strong></p><p>District's child-find duty is not dependent on any request for special education testing, referral, or services, duty arises with district's knowledge of facts, such as disciplinary history, tending to establish a "suspected" disability and need for IDEA special education services.</p><p><strong>C. Short Periods of Discipline</strong></p><p>Some disabilities rights advocates have contended that even short periods of discipline constitute a change in placement, and thus are prohibited without having first provided the student with the due process of a team meeting. In fact, the IDEA as reauthorized, left open the possibility that all suspensions had to be preceded by a meeting to make a "manifestation determination." With the advent of the latest federal regulations, this provision was interpreted to preserve the ability of educators to recommend short-term disciplinary measures.</p><p>In the recent case of <em>Coventry (R.I.) Public School</em>, (13) the parent alleged that the district discriminated against a student based on his disability, ADHD/Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), by giving him detention for behavior related to his disability. The student received a one-time, half-hour detention for a "bag-popping" incident.</p><p>The Court reasoned that Section 504 requires district to evaluate a student with a disability prior to making a "significant change" in his or her placement. A change in placement is considered "significant" when actual or proposed disciplining of a student excludes the student from the educational program for more than ten consecutive school days. This detention was not a significant change in placement sufficient to trigger protection under Section 504. The Court's reasoning in this case applies with equal force to circumstances involving the short-term discipline of a student protected by the IDEA.</p><p><strong>D. Liability for Discipline Techniques</strong></p><p>The manner is which an educator disciplines a student may also give rise to a challenge that it violates a student's due process rights. For example, in the case of <em>Rasmus v. State of Arizona</em>, (14)a student with ADD and an emotional disability was locked in a small, lighted, unfurnished room, (the "time-out" room), where the student could hear and speak with the teacher, and could be observed by the teacher, as discipline for violent behavior. The Court found that the School's conduct did not violate the student's due process rights since the interference with his liberty interests was <em>de minimis</em>. The employees were also granted immunity by the court.</p><p>The decision by the Court in these circumstances was within the exercise of its discretion. There is no guarantee that another court would rule in accord with this decision.</p><p><strong>Key Concepts:</strong></p><p>An IEP written for a student with behavioral issues should contain interventions in the form of a Behavioral Intervention Plan. When the intervention is part of the IEP, it protects the student and the district from disagreement over whether or not the intervention results in a change in placement. A failure to set forth interventions leaves the educator with limited disciplinary options.</p><p>Educators should generally avoid creating new interventions for a student without first convening a team meeting.</p><p> </p><p style="text-align: center"><strong>Return to Table of Contents</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>V. Grading Special Education Students</strong></p><p>There has been a fair amount of discussion over the past few months with regard to the grading of educationally disabled students. Our goal here is to provide you with some benchmarks for grading students with educational disabilities.</p><p><strong>A. The Basic Rules</strong></p><p>There has been very little case law to provide definitive answers to educators' questions regarding grading of special education students. The Office of Civil Rights, ("OCR"), a division of the United States Department of Education, provided some guidance in this regard in a 1996 opinion, <em>Letter to Runkel</em>. (15)</p><p>OCR indicates that, unless modified on a student's IEP, each identified student is presumed to be assessed and graded as per the school's policies. Thus, there should be no informal grade modifications outside of those established through the IEP team process. Modified grades are possible, so long as the determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, and special education course grades are not categorically excluded. Under these constraints, a district may indicate course modifications or alternate grades.</p><p>A disabled student in a regular education classroom who receives special education accommodations or modifications may be given a modified grade, so long as that decision is made on an individualized basis by the team process and is specified on the student's IEP. A student's grade may not be modified solely on the basis of the student's special education status. If modified grades are permitted across the range of course difficulty, the grading system is likely to meet approval.</p><p><strong>Key Concepts:</strong></p><p>Educationally disabled students are entitled in most cases to a grade that is determined on the same scale used for the nondisabled students.</p><p>The grade should always consider the progress that is called for in the IEP.</p><p>An appropriate grading policy must provide adequate notice to parents and students, be simple to understand, and provide parents and students with informed choice as to whether to accept accommodations which affect grading, and provide opportunities for identified students to take courses at all levels in the district.</p><p><strong>B. Teacher Comments</strong></p><p>Beyond simply providing a letter grade, teacher comments on progress reports or report cards can be the impetus for complaints by parents and students. Comments are often necessary to convey specific information regarding a student's progress, or lack of progress, as well as to document a student's classroom behavior. However, teachers should use caution to assure that all comments are made timely and accurately, and should maintain records throughout the marking period. This will go far toward refuting any contention that a student is being discriminated against because of behavior related to his or her disability.</p><p>In the recent case of <em>Coventry (R.I.) Public School</em>, (16) an English teacher wrote the following comment on a student's report card: "behavior needs improvement". The parent complained that the comment was made solely because of parent filing a complaint, because all the student's previous comment reports had been good. The OCR found that the teacher's comments were not made in retaliation for the parent's action in filing a complaint. The hearing officer relied upon the teacher's testimony that the comment was warranted based on student's misbehavior on several prior occasions. In particular, the officer noted that there were at least two indications of some misconduct contained in teacher's prior reports.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sheila, post: 124197, member: 23"] [B]B. Disciplinary History Triggering Need for Evaluation: A case in point[/B] [I]Corpus Christi Indep. School District[/I] (12) [B]Facts:[/B] Parent charged that District denied a FAPE to 5 year old student by failing to timely recognize and evaluate suspected disability condition and need for special services. Kindergarten student with early history of behavioral difficulties, including hitting other children. Student's counselor had suggested referral for speech and language testing but parent disagreed. Counselor and principal then both agreed that student did not require services under the IDEA and did not need referral for IDEA special education eligibility [B]Ruling:[/B] Based upon at least 31 recorded disciplinary referrals and a threatened suspension, the district should have been suspicious that student may have had a qualifying disability under IDEA. District was ordered to assess student for all suspected areas of disability and educational needs. Compensatory education may be appropriate if student is found eligible for special education. [B]Key Concepts:[/B] District's child-find duty is not dependent on any request for special education testing, referral, or services, duty arises with district's knowledge of facts, such as disciplinary history, tending to establish a "suspected" disability and need for IDEA special education services. [B]C. Short Periods of Discipline[/B] Some disabilities rights advocates have contended that even short periods of discipline constitute a change in placement, and thus are prohibited without having first provided the student with the due process of a team meeting. In fact, the IDEA as reauthorized, left open the possibility that all suspensions had to be preceded by a meeting to make a "manifestation determination." With the advent of the latest federal regulations, this provision was interpreted to preserve the ability of educators to recommend short-term disciplinary measures. In the recent case of [I]Coventry (R.I.) Public School[/I], (13) the parent alleged that the district discriminated against a student based on his disability, ADHD/Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), by giving him detention for behavior related to his disability. The student received a one-time, half-hour detention for a "bag-popping" incident. The Court reasoned that Section 504 requires district to evaluate a student with a disability prior to making a "significant change" in his or her placement. A change in placement is considered "significant" when actual or proposed disciplining of a student excludes the student from the educational program for more than ten consecutive school days. This detention was not a significant change in placement sufficient to trigger protection under Section 504. The Court's reasoning in this case applies with equal force to circumstances involving the short-term discipline of a student protected by the IDEA. [B]D. Liability for Discipline Techniques[/B] The manner is which an educator disciplines a student may also give rise to a challenge that it violates a student's due process rights. For example, in the case of [I]Rasmus v. State of Arizona[/I], (14)a student with ADD and an emotional disability was locked in a small, lighted, unfurnished room, (the "time-out" room), where the student could hear and speak with the teacher, and could be observed by the teacher, as discipline for violent behavior. The Court found that the School's conduct did not violate the student's due process rights since the interference with his liberty interests was [I]de minimis[/I]. The employees were also granted immunity by the court. The decision by the Court in these circumstances was within the exercise of its discretion. There is no guarantee that another court would rule in accord with this decision. [B]Key Concepts:[/B] An IEP written for a student with behavioral issues should contain interventions in the form of a Behavioral Intervention Plan. When the intervention is part of the IEP, it protects the student and the district from disagreement over whether or not the intervention results in a change in placement. A failure to set forth interventions leaves the educator with limited disciplinary options. Educators should generally avoid creating new interventions for a student without first convening a team meeting. [CENTER][B]Return to Table of Contents[/B][/CENTER] [B]V. Grading Special Education Students[/B] There has been a fair amount of discussion over the past few months with regard to the grading of educationally disabled students. Our goal here is to provide you with some benchmarks for grading students with educational disabilities. [B]A. The Basic Rules[/B] There has been very little case law to provide definitive answers to educators' questions regarding grading of special education students. The Office of Civil Rights, ("OCR"), a division of the United States Department of Education, provided some guidance in this regard in a 1996 opinion, [I]Letter to Runkel[/I]. (15) OCR indicates that, unless modified on a student's IEP, each identified student is presumed to be assessed and graded as per the school's policies. Thus, there should be no informal grade modifications outside of those established through the IEP team process. Modified grades are possible, so long as the determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, and special education course grades are not categorically excluded. Under these constraints, a district may indicate course modifications or alternate grades. A disabled student in a regular education classroom who receives special education accommodations or modifications may be given a modified grade, so long as that decision is made on an individualized basis by the team process and is specified on the student's IEP. A student's grade may not be modified solely on the basis of the student's special education status. If modified grades are permitted across the range of course difficulty, the grading system is likely to meet approval. [B]Key Concepts:[/B] Educationally disabled students are entitled in most cases to a grade that is determined on the same scale used for the nondisabled students. The grade should always consider the progress that is called for in the IEP. An appropriate grading policy must provide adequate notice to parents and students, be simple to understand, and provide parents and students with informed choice as to whether to accept accommodations which affect grading, and provide opportunities for identified students to take courses at all levels in the district. [B]B. Teacher Comments[/B] Beyond simply providing a letter grade, teacher comments on progress reports or report cards can be the impetus for complaints by parents and students. Comments are often necessary to convey specific information regarding a student's progress, or lack of progress, as well as to document a student's classroom behavior. However, teachers should use caution to assure that all comments are made timely and accurately, and should maintain records throughout the marking period. This will go far toward refuting any contention that a student is being discriminated against because of behavior related to his or her disability. In the recent case of [I]Coventry (R.I.) Public School[/I], (16) an English teacher wrote the following comment on a student's report card: "behavior needs improvement". The parent complained that the comment was made solely because of parent filing a complaint, because all the student's previous comment reports had been good. The OCR found that the teacher's comments were not made in retaliation for the parent's action in filing a complaint. The hearing officer relied upon the teacher's testimony that the comment was warranted based on student's misbehavior on several prior occasions. In particular, the officer noted that there were at least two indications of some misconduct contained in teacher's prior reports. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Legal Responsibilities of Educators
Top