The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to grant review in a case about the degree of educational benefit that a special education student should receive under an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to satisfy the requirements of the (IDEA). “Clearly, the Supreme Court should hear this important case, as the requirement that a student receive an educational benefit goes to the heart of the IDEA,” says Marion Walsh.  Millions of children around the country certain are entitled to more than “some” educational benefit in public schools and the law should, at a minimum, require meaningful educational benefit.

On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States on this question.

The plaintiffs in the case Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 note  that currently the “courts of appeal are in disarray” on the matter of what constitutes a “free, appropriate public education,” as required for students with disabilities by IDEA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Endrew F., a Colorado student with autism, received a free, appropriate public education from the Douglas County school district because he received “some educational benefit,” and the court thus rejected reimbursement to the parents for the cost of private school. Reasoning that the IDEA is only “designed to provide a floor” of educational quality,  the hearing officer determined that the school district had provided Drew with a FAPE.  The parents had removed their son from public school after a dispute over the education he received under his IEP in the fifth grade.

In its decision, the appeals court acknowledged that other U.S. courts of appeal have adopted the higher standard of requiring an IEP to deliver a “meaningful educational benefit.” “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requires this standards and it should be applied uniformly across the country. The standard is still too low,” says Walsh. In requesting review by the Supreme Court, attorneys for Endrew F. argue that the Court should make use of the case to resolve the dispute over this salient issue.

As it has done with many IDEA cases that seem to present an important question, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in. The Solicitor General is under no deadline to file the requested brief, and observers say it is unlikely that a response will be filed before the court adjourns for the summer.

Learn more about our special needs planning and special education advocacy services at www.littmankrooks.com or www.specialneedsnewyork.com.

Was this article of interest to you? If so, please LIKE our Facebook Page by clicking here or sign up for our monthly newsletter.

By Sandi Rosenbaum, Educational Advocate, Littman Krooks LLP

Although special education students in New York can pass their Regents exams with lower scores than students without disabilities, they do not have the same ability to appeal if they fall short. One New York parent, whose son was one point away from passing a Regents test, is advocating for change.

Generally, students in New York who do not have disabilities must achieve a score of 65 or higher on five Regents exams in order to receive a diploma. However, such students can appeal up to two Regents exam scores as low as 62, provided they earn a passing course grade and demonstrate strong attendance. While a successful appeal does not change the Regents exam grade on the transcript, it does allow the school district to grant a diploma to students who have fallen short on the exam, but otherwise demonstrated mastery of the high school curriculum.

Students with disabilities benefit from the so-called “safety net” and must generally score 55 or higher to pass the Regents exams. On some exams, even a score as low as 45 may suffice if it is offset by another exam score of 65 or better, but this compensatory option does not apply to the Regents exams in English and Math. While the safety net provides meaningful relief to students with disabilities, those who approach, but do not achieve, a score of 55 on the English or Math Regents exams have no ability to appeal for a diploma as do students without disabilities who come within a similar margin of passing.

A Brooklyn resident and mother of an 18-year-old son with a learning disability, took action when her son was poised to come within one point of earning his diploma. He passed four Regents exams, earning scores as high as 79, but was unable to score higher than a 54 in algebra, even after taking the exam three times. She said that, as a high school diploma was essential for her son to be considered for many jobs that he would be capable of performing, she was determined that he would not be denied a diploma over one point on one exam at his anticipated graduation in June 2016.

New York officials responded to her concerns and said that the Board of Regents would vote on a rule in December to allow special education students to appeal for the right to a diploma if they achieve a score of at least 52. Officials said the change would not be a lowering of standards, but an inclusion of special needs students without diminishing their ability to achieve.

Practical Pointer: Students with disabilities may remain in school and continue to receive services until age 21 or until they earn a Regents or local diploma, whichever comes first. Parents must keep in mind that students may earn a Regents or local diploma and a Career Development and Occupational Services Credential, which attests to important work readiness skills and requires work experience. For many students with disabilities, graduating with a Regents or local diploma at 18 does not represent the best option and may deprive the student of the opportunity to develop needed work-readiness skills, as a school district’s mandate to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) ends when the diploma is earned. Thus, the decision to appeal must be considered carefully against the benefits the student may receive from potential additional year(s) of schooling while he or she pursues the score of 55.

It remains to be seen whether the opportunity for appeal will apply to both of the English and Math Regents exams simultaneously, or only for one or the other.

Learn more about our special needs planning and special education advocacy services at www.littmankrooks.com or www.specialneedsnewyork.com.

Was this article of interest to you? If so, please LIKE our Facebook Page by clicking here.

By Marion M. Walsh, Esq.

This September, many parents have dropped their children off for the first time at college and are adjusting to a new type of parenting and advocacy.  For all parents, particularly parents of students with disabilities, the transition brings great pride, but also a significant amount of concern and worry. By taking careful steps, you can ensure that you remain an effective advocate in your new capacity.

The transition from youth to adulthood brings important legal changes that all parents must know how to navigate when continuing to advocate for your child.   When your child turns 18, absent a guardianship, he or she becomes an adult and important rights transfer.  Most states, including New York, set the age of majority at 18.  This transfer has significant legal consequences.  Absent a guardianship, which is generally not appropriate for a student attending college, an adult who is not incapacitated has the right to make educational, medical and most other decisions for himself.  So, for example, if your child decides not to seek accommodations for his or her disability, you must respect this right.

This does not mean you have no role in your child’s education, but your child is driving all decisions and you must know what to expect.   Once the student is 18 parents are no longer automatically part of the process or are even apprised of progress, unless the student chooses to include them.

As you move forward for the next year, you must keep in mind these important legal changes, particularly if your child has a disability.

Five Tips for Transitioning to the Advocate of a Young Adult

1. Assist Your Child in Advocating, but Do Not Act as the Primary Advocate.

Remember, you are no longer your child’s primary advocate.  The advocacy role must change to your child.  Thus, ensure that your student has all the information he or she needs to access needed accommodations or care. Make sure your student registers with the Office of Disabilities on campus.However, if your student chooses to not disclose a disability or seek accommodations, this represents his or her decision and you can no longer require him or her receive accommodations or services.  You should not call professors to ask for extra help for your child you cannot require your child to be hospitalized, even in a crisis, unless he or she is a danger to himself/herself or others.  Parents act as supporters but are no longer the primary decision makers for your child.

2. Understand Different Legal Obligations of College.

You must understand the different legal rights of individuals after leaving public school, as an important first step.   As most are aware, if your child has graduated or aged out of special education services,  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act only protect students from discrimination, but do not require affirmative services.  If your child received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),  these services only extend through the school year in which the child turns 21 or graduates  –  whichever comes sooner (although you do still retain parental rights to advocate for past services with your school district).

Significantly, after high school, colleges are no longer required to provide a FAPE.  The post secondary school is only required to provide appropriate academic adjustments as necessary to ensure that it does not discriminate on the basis of disability. The appropriate academic adjustments must be determined based on the student’s disability and individual needs.    Academic adjustments may include auxiliary aids and services, as well as modifications to academic requirements as necessary to ensure equal educational opportunity. In addition, the college does not have to make adjustments that would fundamentally alter the nature of a service, program, or activity, or that would result in an undue financial or administrative burden. A college does not have to provide personal attendants, individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices or services of a personal nature, such as tutoring and typing.

3. Ensure that Your Child Signs FERPA and HIPAA Authorizations. 

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) protect privacy and require access to records.  These rights of access and privacy transfer to your student at 18 years of age.    FERPA rights transfer and a college will not send you records upon your request or speak to you unless your child has signed consent or another exception applies.   For example, if you can show the student is financially dependent with a tax return, the college has the obligation to share information with you.  Even with the consent, you will not automatically receive grades and records; you must request such records.  HIPAA rights transfer, and student consent will be required if the parties are seeking medical records from a physician or therapist.

Ensure that your child has signed FERPA and HIPAA waivers so you may obtain records and speak to school or hospital staff.  Make sure that you are familiar with the school’s policy.

4. Have Power of Attorney and Health Care Proxy Signed.

A Power of Attorney gives you the right to act on your child’s behalf in case your child becomes incapacitated.  This form represents an important tool to have when your child is in college and, in particular, if your child is living away from home.   In addition, it is best to have a Health Care Proxy and Advanced Directives signed as soon as possible, so that you can step in and make important medical or legal decisions, if your child becomes incapacitated at college.   Any adult must prepare for the unexpected.  You can talk to an experienced attorney about having your child sign a Power of Attorney, Health Care Proxy and Advanced Directives.

5. Remain an Involved Parent.

The transition to the parent of an adult does not mean that you cannot remain involved in your child’s life. Particularly if you are financially responsible, you have the right as a parent to set expectations and rules for how your child communicates and performs.  Parent weekends represent an important way to connect and you can join a parent networking group.  While it is unreasonable to expect direct communications with your child’s teachers, once you have the FERPA form signed, you may contact a dean about any concerns and ask for an appropriate amount of support or monitoring.

Learn more about our special needs planning and special education advocacy services at www.littmankrooks.com or www.specialneedsnewyork.com.

Was this article of interest to you? If so, please LIKE our Facebook Page by clicking here.

By Erica Fitzgerald, Esq.

If you are the parent of a child diagnosed with diabetes, it is crucial to familiarize yourself with your child’s rights. Having a developmental disability is not a prerequisite for protection under the law. Individuals with recognized disabilities, including diabetes, have the same rights to access programs and facilities as their non-disabled counterparts. This right to equal opportunity extends to the classroom. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), The Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”) and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) all ensure that students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate and succeed in school. These laws also provide a legal remedy for those experiencing discrimination and who are not receiving a Free and Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”).

Section 504 is a civil rights law that protects individuals from discrimination and entitles children diagnosed with disabilities that limit a major life activity, such as learning, to a FAPE designed to meet their individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of children without disabilities. However, “learning” is only one example of a major life activity which can be impacted by a disability. Even if your child has been diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes but continues to excel academically, he or she may still be eligible for accommodations and qualify for protection under Section 504. School districts have responsibilities to address the needs of your child with diabetes and to make sure he or she can attend school safely.

Section 504, IDEA and the ADA all consider diabetes to be a disability; therefore, it is illegal for schools and day care centers to discriminate against children with diabetes. However, the IDEA is only applicable under certain circumstances, if there is an educational impact and the child needs special education services. First, a student may have a cognitive or emotional disability in addition to diabetes which qualifies him or her for special education services under the IDEA. Second, a student without a comorbid disability may nevertheless qualify for special education services under IDEA as having an “other health impairment.” For example, a child with diabetes may experience frequent episodes of hypoglycemia and/or hyperglycemia which significantly inhibit the ability to concentrate, access instruction or attend school. Third, complications from diabetes may result in excessive loss of instruction time, rendering a child eligible for special education services under IDEA.

Failure to qualify for special education services and an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) under the IDEA does not mean a child with diabetes is not entitled to an individualized, written diabetes management plan which establishes the student’s medical needs and how the school will meet those needs. In addition, a student with diabetes should also seek to obtain a written plan developed pursuant to Section 504 (“504 Plan”) which establishes accommodations that a student with diabetes may need, such as permission to eat anywhere and anytime or carry a cell phone and use it in class, if needed. The 504 Plan can establish procedures and protocols to ensure that a student with diabetes can attend field trips and participate in athletics and extracurricular activities safely with appropriate assistance and supervision. Having a formalized 504 Plan will also ensure access to dispute resolution procedures should any issues arise. A school district remains responsible for providing a student with diabetes with a medically safe environment that offers the same educational opportunities enjoyed by peers even if the child is making meaningful progress academically. This includes providing the student with assistance with administering insulin and glucagon, checking blood glucose levels, and allowing the student to eat snacks during the school day. But a school district’s federal obligations to provide an equal opportunity to participate extend beyond the traditional school day and include non-academic and extracurricular activities as well. Thus, it is the responsibility of the school district to ensure that a child with diabetes has access to medical supplies and any necessary assistance not only at school but also on field trips, during extracurricular activities, and at after school clubs and sports.

If your child with diabetes attends a private or parochial school, these federal laws may not apply. Only schools that receive federal funding, or facilities considered open to the public, must reasonably accommodate the needs of children with diabetes. The standard applied to private non-religious schools, nurseries, day care centers, community based organizations, summer camps after school programs and special events is not the same as the standard to which public schools must adhere. Private schools that receive federal funds are only obligated to comply with minimal obligations such as the least restrictive environment mandate, comparable facilities requirement, and the requirement to provide an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities. They must provide minor adjustments to accommodate students with disabilities. Thus, it is important to understand your child’s rights and to advocate effectively for them.

Learn more about our special needs planning and special education advocacy services at www.littmankrooks.com or www.specialneedsnewyork.com.

Was this article of interest to you? If so, please LIKE our Facebook Page by clicking here.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA), statute expressly provides that students with disabilities are to be educated and included with their non-disabled peers to the “maximum extent appropriate.”  This requirement is sometimes referred to as the “least restrictive environment” (LRE) mandate of the Act, and it is one of only two “maximizing” provisions in the entire statute.   With this language, Congress intended to protect students with special needs from being ostracized or isolated from the general population and requires that students with special needs be included in the general education population to the greatest extent possible.

Specifically, the IDEA  provides that States must have in place procedures assuring that, “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”  See 20 U. S. C. §1412 (5) (B) as implemented by the Department’s regulations at 34 CFR §§300.550-300.556.
Recent Decision Mandates Inclusive Setting for Summer Program

Recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in T.M. v. Cornwall, 12-4301, held that the Congressional LRE standard applies to extended school year (ESY) services for students who are approved for twelve-month programs and who benefit from the LRE.    T.M., a student with autism was succeeding with support in a general education preschool setting during the school year.    However, for the summer, the district only offered placement in a self-contained special education classroom and offered T.M. related services only as part of the self-contained classroom experience.  T.M.’s parents rejected the summer placement because it was too restrictive and filed an Impartial Hearing.  The Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) ruled in the parents’ favor and the district appealed.  The State Review Officer (SRO), who tends to rule in favor of school districts, reversed the IHO’s decision and the parents appealed to the federal district court.  The federal district court affirmed the SRO decision.  T.M.’s parents then further appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and received the relief requested.

Like the drafters of the IDEA, the Second Circuit judges who ruled in T.M.’s favor intended to draft a decision that would help the many children diagnosed with Autism and other disabilities who have been approved for a 12-month program and who obtain a meaningful educational benefit from an inclusive environment.
LRE Mandate Can Have Unintended Effect

However, school districts often use the LRE provision against parents.  For example, recently, a parent filed an impartial hearing against a school district for failure to provide a free and appropriate education to a student with severe social, emotional and psychiatric conditions whose conditions were exacerbated due to the inappropriate program.  His psychiatrist, the district representative and his parent recommended a residential therapeutic placement for him, but the school district would not approve a residential placement arguing that it is not the LRE.  The school district then issued a placement at a non-public state approved therapeutic day program although his doctors and other professionals maintained that he would further regress there and that it was not appropriate.  Such a position by school districts causes unnecessary delay in providing the student with FAPE, burdensome litigation and extensive costs to both parties that could have been avoided.
In my legal practice, I have encountered several similar situations with regard to students who require specific accommodations, a 1:1 paraprofessional, have severe disabilities, or are diagnosed with Autism, but are high functioning.  In these cases, an inclusive environment may not be appropriate because the student will obtain a meaningful educational benefit only if a restriction is provided.  A mainstream or integrated setting does not work for all students with disabilities.  Each student’s needs are unique and must be treated as such.  It is important for school districts, IHOs and legislators to consider that the IDEA limits LRE only to situations when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services can be achieved satisfactorily.  A cookie cutter approach can be more harmful than beneficial when applying the LRE provision of the IDEA to a student’s individualized educational program.
The special education team at Littman Krooks LLP has extensive experience advocating for parents of children with various special needs and helping them to navigate the labyrinth of special education law including cases where school districts may use the LRE against the student.

Was this article of interest to you? If so, please LIKE our Facebook Page by clicking here.