1 / 15

Evaluation & Eligibility Special Education Laws Made Simple November 2013 – Austin, Texas National Business Institu

Evaluation & Eligibility Special Education Laws Made Simple November 2013 – Austin, Texas National Business Institute. Presented by Sarah S. Flournoy , J.D., Ed.D . Of Counsel, West & Associates, LLP. 2 Prong Test. Student has qualifying disability; AND ,

ophira
Download Presentation

Evaluation & Eligibility Special Education Laws Made Simple November 2013 – Austin, Texas National Business Institu

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evaluation & EligibilitySpecial Education Laws Made SimpleNovember 2013 – Austin, Texas National Business Institute Presented by Sarah S. Flournoy, J.D., Ed.D. Of Counsel, West & Associates, LLP

  2. 2Prong Test • Student has qualifying disability; AND, • Student requires special education services because of the disability.

  3. Procedural Safeguards • Timelines • Yes to RTI and No to Discrepancy Model • Committee determination • Specific findings must be made • Eligibility Determination Report in writing • Parent right to inspect, review, and participate • Recourse to mediation or due process hearing

  4. Evaluations • Necessary before providing services • Request by • Parent of a child; or, • Public agency • Collect information regarding both prongs of test; procedures used must address both • Reevaluation • At request of parent or teacher • Not more than once annually • At least every three years (unless agree otherwise)

  5. EvaluationsNotice/Consent • When necessary • For initial Evaluation • For provision of services • Both must be informed and in writing • One cannot serve for both • Denial of or failure to give • Initial Evaluation: district has recourse • Provision of Services: district has no recourse

  6. EvaluationsTimeline • Reasonable is five (5) days • Evaluation conducted w/in 60 days • Timeline excused if parent • Fails to present child • Removes child from district

  7. EvaluationsTest and Measurement Requirements • No single assessment tool or strategy • Varietyof sources • Evaluate levels • Functional • Developmental • Academic • Any instrument used look at • Cognitive • Behavioral • Physical • Developmental

  8. EvaluationsEvaluation Options and Procedures • Not the same as the determination report • Parent can disagree with district’s • Parent options • Request Independent educational evaluation (IEE) • Obtain their own EE • District options • Due process hearing on adequacy of district’s EE • Provide IEE at public’s expense • All EE considered in determination

  9. EvaluationsCommon Mistakes to Avoid

  10. Eligibility DeterminationsEligibility Categories • Autism • Deaf/Blind • Deafness • Hearing Impairment • Mental Retardation • Multiple Disabilities • Orthopedic Impairment • Serious Emotional Disturbance • Specific Learning Disabilities • Speech or language impairment • Traumatic brain injury • Visual impairment including blindness • Other Health Impairment

  11. Eligibility DeterminationsAdverse Educational Impact • No federal definition • Part of first prong of eligibility test • Definition includes: “…that adversely affects a child’s educational performance” • Educational performance? • Holistic • Academic

  12. Eligibility DeterminationsNeed for Special Education Services • Special Services in Texas • Instruction provided by professional and support by paraprofessional in regular classroom • Related services, which are developmental, corrective, supportive, or evaluative services, not instructional in nature • Based on variety of evidence

  13. Eligibility DeterminationsResponse to Intervention (RTI) and Discrepancy Model • Identification • Discrepancy model • Historical • Student’s score on general intelligence quotient test compared to score on achievement test • Response To Intervention Model (RTI) • 1997 Amendments require • Research based interventions

  14. Questions? Sarah S. Flournoy, J.D., Ed.D. Of Counsel, West & Associates, LLP 320 South R. L. Thornton Frwy, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75203 Sarah.f@westllp.com 214.941.1881

More Related