Special Education Leadership Network Meeting

1. Special Education Leadership Network Meeting April 10, 2008

2. Agenda • Welcome and Celebrations • Legal Update • VI Case Load Issues for Region XIII • Indicator 7 – Recording Entry and Exit Data • Access to General Curriculum Initiatives • EIS Funds Data Collection • 2008-2009 Region XIII Sped Conference • 2008-2009 Planning • To Do List

3. HOW TO AVOID “PREDETERMINATION” CLAIMS Jim Walsh Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, P.C.

4. Where Does This Come From • In 2004, the 6th Circuit held that a school district in Tennessee had violated IDEA by “predetermining” certain issues discussed at an IEP Team meeting. • Ever since then, parents in litigation with school districts have frequently made the same argument.

5. Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education “The facts of this case strongly suggest that the School System had an unofficial policy of refusing to provide one-on-one ABA programs and that School system personnel thus did not have open minds and were not willing to consider the provision of such a program….The clear implication is that no matter how strong the evidence presented by the Deals the School System still would have refused to provide the services. This is predetermination.” 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004).

6. Three Years Later…. • Courts recognize that “predetermination” is not the same thing as “preparation.” • It is OK to prepare. • It is not OK to predetermine.

7. H.B. v. Las Virgenes USD • This 9th Circuit case from 2007 provides the best analysis. • “Predetermination occurs when an educational agency has made its determination prior to the IEP meeting, including when it presents one placement option at the meeting and is unwilling to consider other alternatives.”

8. More…. • “…a school district violates IDEA procedures if it independently develops an IEP, without meaningful parental participation, and then simply presents the IEP to the parent for ratification.”

9. Is This OK? *Before the meeting, the school decided that the student should be brought back from a private school to public school. *The school had a longstanding plan to move the student back to the district. *At the meeting, the district called for a discussion of the transition back to public school. *There was no discussion of alternatives.

10. What the Court Said “This establishes that the School District desired that the student return to a public school and believed that its proposed placement was appropriate. It does not, however, necessarily establish that the School District was unwilling to consider other placements.” H.B. v. Las Virgenese USD, 48 IDELR 31 (9th Cir. 2007)

11. Is the ISD a Human Being? • Notice that the court speaks of the district as if it were a person. The School District had a plan… The School District assumed… The School District desired…. The School District was unwilling… The School District must maintain an open mind…and be willing to consider alternatives.

12. The Challenge • The challenge is to run your ARDC meetings so that a neutral observer could review the records (minutes, other paperwork) and conclude that the district had an open mind.

13. Examples • “The Team discussed ___ possible placements and the pros and cons of each.” • “The chair asked the parents what alternatives they would like the Team to consider.” • “The Team agreed to __________ in response to parental input.” • “The parent said _____ and in response, the Team decided _________________.

14. VI Caseload Issues for Region XIIIDebra Leff

15. Indicator 7Recording Entry and Exit Data Brenda Bush

16. Access to General Curriculum Initiatives Stephaine Camarilla Amy Nichols

17. Access to General CurriculumNew 2008-09 Initiative Resource Redesign

18. Big Picture Thinking • How can we best support Districts and Charter Schools as they examine how students access the general education curriculum? • Instructional Level • Systems Level

19. New Initiative 2008-09 • Bundled Workshops/Coaching • Discovering Learning Disabilities • Data Analysis • Technical Assistance • Secondary Cohort Group • Survey

20. Resource Redesign For more information, please contact: Amy S. Nichols, Ph.D. Amy.nichols@esc13.txed.net 512.919.5160

21. EIS Funds Data Collection Shirley Sanford

22. TEA’s Informal Survey • 12 LEAs in ESC Region XIII added EIS funds in 2007-2008 WEB SAS application • TEA is seeking informally through the ESCs information for the following three questions

23. TEA’s Informal Survey • What specific issues are you targeting and what actual activities are being conducted related to the above targeted issue?

24. TEA’s Informal Survey • What EIS student identification and data collection processes does the LEA use?

25. TEA’s Informal Survey • What methods does the LEA use to track EIS funds?

26. 2008-2009 Region XIII Special Education Conference • Hold the Date: October 15, 16, 17 • Committee of 5 – 6 people • Meet at lunch at SELN Meeting on May 8 • Decide where, times, etc. • Set future dates in fall for planning agenda • Who would be interested in volunteering

27. 2008-2009 Planning Stephaine Camarilla

28. Planning 2008 - 2009

29. Survey • SPP Indicators • State Rate • Regional Rate • ESC Services/Products • Professional Development • Technical Assistance • Educational Products • SELN • Legend

30. Instructions • Identify the “Who” for 2008-09 • Identify the “How” for 2008-09 • Using the legend, identify the group that you determine should receive the services and/or products listed in the column headings • Prioritize the Top 3 • Please rank 1, 2 and 3

31. Survey Results • Results will be shared at the May SELN Meeting Thank you for assisting us with the survey!

32. TCASE Update Martie Rodriguez

33. Announcements & To Do List Shirley Sanford