Legal Update

1. Legal Update *Our newest location: Sacramento Office 520 Capitol Mall Suite 400 Sacramento California 95814 Tel: 916.443.0000 Fax: 916.443.0030

2. Overview • Federal and State Law – Revocation of Parent Consent, Expanding 504 Eligibility, Alternative to CAHSEE • Federal Court Cases – Assessment, Procedural Violations • California Court Cases – Insulin Administration • OAH – Right to Observe, Placement in an IAES, IQ testing, Discipline ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

3. Amendments to the IDEA • Parents may revoke consent to receipt of SPED services: • Parent revokes consent in writing • School district provides Prior Written Notice • School district discontinues services in a “timely manner” • Student is a general education student ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

4. cont. Amendments to the IDEA • Effects? • Student disciplined as a general ed. student • Student may be placed in any classroom where general ed. students are placed • No right to assessment, IEP, or services • School district not liable for FAPE ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

5. Amendments to the IDEA • Prior Written Notice • Date when services will end • List of services that will no longer be provided • Where the student will be placed • Student will be treated as a general ed. student in all respects • General ed. modification/opportunities • See Appendix ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

6. Amendments to the IDEA After revocation… • Consider convening team to discuss transition, develop general education accommodations • Consider meeting with parent • Still must implement child find • Notification yearly generally, every six months for more severely handicapped students ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

7. Questions About Parent Revocation of Consent • When, exactly, to send the prior written notice? • When, exactly, to discontinue services? • Should you offer Section 504 services? • What about divorced parents; one revokes, one doesn’t? • And a lot more--- ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

8. Practice Pointer School districts should make sure to amend their Notice of Procedural Safeguards to address parents’ right to revoke consent ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

9. Amendments to the ADA • Definition of an “individual with a disability” under Section 504 conforms to the ADA • Broadens meaning of “substantially limits” • Expanded definition of “regarded as” • School districts: reasonable accommodations only to individuals who actually are disabled ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

10. AB 2040 • Adds sections 60852.1 and 60852.2 to the Education Code • October 1, 2010 – State Board of Education must adopt regulations that provide alternative means for students with disabilities to show mastery of the skills and knowledge required to pass the CAHSEE • January 1, 2011 – Students may participate in the alternative means defined in 60852.1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

11. Ninth Circuit – #1 • Parent informs district that student might have autism • District refers parent to child development center for a free assessment Has the district fulfilled its obligation to assess? (N.B. and C.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District, 9th Cir. 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

12. cont. No! • Referral does not ensure that the student will be assessed • Procedural violation  Denial of FAPE • District needed the assessment information to determine the student’s needs (N.B. and C.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District, 9th Cir. 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

13. cont. Another important note… 9th Circuit distinguished between Rowley standard of “some educational benefit” and the heightened standard of “meaningful benefit” from the IDEA 1997 amendments New standard? Even if yes, is it very different? (N.B. and C.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District, 9th Cir. 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

14. Ninth Circuit – #2 • School district observed student in private placement for three hours • District only allowed student’s private assessor to observe district placement for 20 minute increments Automatic denial of FAPE? (L.M. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 9th Cir. 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

15. cont. No! Procedural violation must result in substantive harm • Rejected “structural defect” analysis • Assessor able to form opinion in20 minutes • No substantive harm (L.M. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 9th Cir. 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

16. Tenth Circuit • District provided parent with draft IEPs • Parent rejects all drafts and refuse to continue with IEP process • Student’s IEP was never finalized Denial of FAPE? (Sytsema v. Academy School District, 10th Cir. 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

17. cont. Not necessarily… Procedural violation? YES – but not a denial of FAPE • Parent unilaterally terminated the process before the district finalized its offer • Parent’s actions denied them the opportunity to participate, not district’s actions (Sytsema v. Academy School District, 10th Cir. 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

18. Practice Pointer Document, document, document! • School districts should make sure to keep records of all attempts to work with parent to develop IEP • Show that parent terminated process, not the district ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

19. California Federal District Court – #1 • Parent and district entered into settlement agreement which: • Waived claims through the 2004-05 school year • Required IEP meeting by May 30, 2005 • School district held IEP meeting in Sept. 2005 Did the district violate the settlement agreement? (Petersen v. SEHO, California Federal District Court, 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

20. cont. Yes… but it does not matter! Even if the school district violated the settlement agreement, the waiver prevented the parent from challenging the violation (Petersen v. SEHO, California Federal District Court, 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

21. California Federal District Court – #2 District Court affirmed OAH decision – if Parent wanted SPED services for their child, they MUST allow the school district to assess (T.B. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District,California Federal District Court, 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

22. California Superior Court Unlicensed personnel may NOT administer insulin to students (American Nurses Assoc. v. Jack O’Connell, California Superior Court, 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

23. Office of Administrative Hearings #1 • Parent informed district they were placing Student in a private school and seeking reimbursement • District wanted to observe student in placement, but parent would not allow an observation May the district observe? (Student v. Poway Unified School District, OAH 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

24. cont. Yes! School district is entitled to observe if: • Parent places student in private school and requests reimbursement from the district (Student v. Poway Unified School District, OAH 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

25. Office of Administrative Hearings #2 • Student had a history of aggressive behavior • School district wanted to place student in an IAES ordered by the hearing officer • Parent did not believe the IAES was appropriate What is the standard for determiningwhether an IAES is appropriate? (Fort Bragg Unified School District v. Student, OAH 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

26. cont. IAES Standard • Allows student to receive educational services necessary to: • Participate in the general curriculum • Make progress towards IEP goals • Allows student to receive behavioral services and supports (Fort Bragg Unified School District v. Student, OAH 2008) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

27. Office of Administrative Hearings #3 • Parent of an African American student obtained a private assessment that included an IQ test Is the district required to consider the assessment in determining the student’s needs? (Student v. New Haven Unified School District, OAH 2007) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

28. cont. Yes! School districts MUST consider results of parentally obtained private assessments even if the student is African American and the assessment includes an IQ test • District could have redacted to eliminate reference to IQ test (Student v. New Haven Unified School District, OAH 2007) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

29. Office of Administrative Hearings #4 • Student with ADHD and auditory processing disorder threatened coaches • School determined student’s conduct was NOT a manifestation of his disability Was this determination correct? (Student v. Elk Grove Unified School District, OAH 2009) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

30. cont. Yes, in this situation • Student’s actions showed planning – not impulsive behavior stemming from ADHD • Student demonstrated an understanding of the situation – auditory processing disorder didn’t lead to conduct • Student could be removed from the school ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Fagen Friedman & FulfrostLLP

31. Thank you!