Special Education Law Blog - Education, Special, Law

Sleeping Hearing Officer; Internet Gotcha

sleep (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Many special education folks heard this week about a sleeping hearing officer.This is a sad story, and here is the link to the Fox TV story.

My first reaction to the story was that it was inexcusable for the hearing officer to doze off during the hearing. Imagine how the parents felt; were they getting a fair hearing? What if you were the school district and the ho was so interested by the testimony about your school that he took a nap? This can't be good!

I spend all year extolling the virtues of the special ed hearing officer. This kinda thing does not help me in that regard.

But another part of the story bugs me as well. Is throwing bottles and books on the floor the way to go? Also at what point did the lawyer decide to take some cellphone video and contact the 6 o'clock news? And of course anything with a "gotcha" flavor resonates on the internet. Cellphones and the internet are now a big part of our lives. They are bringing us the twenty-first century, including Arab Spring and widespread distribution of knowledge. But they also get us video of cats and games featuring angry birds, not to mention instant "gotcha" moments. There may be a dark side of the force.

None of this justifies the hearing officer's snoozing during the hearing. This cannot be tolerated. But I say that the whole mess fails the whiff test. What do you think?

Date Published:

Procedural Safeguards The Series - Part III

Image via Wikipedia

This is the third installment in a multi-part series on procedural safeguards under the federal special education law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I work a lot in this area, so it is near and dear to my heart. Despite the importance of procedural safeguards. however, many issues in this area are misunderstood. I hope that all of the different types of special education stakeholders who read this blog find the information in this series helpful. Please be sure to tell me what you think about the series.

Today's post concerns parental consent.

Parental Consent
Where the parent does not provide consent for the initial evaluation, the school district may invoke procedural safeguards, such as mediation or a due process hearing, to pursue such evaluation. Section 614 (a)(1)(D)(ii)(I). If the parent refuses to consent to services for the child, however, the school district shall not provide special education and related services to the child and the district may not invoke mediation or the due process hearing system. Section 614 (a)(1)(D)(ii)(II). Where the parent refuses to consent to services or fails to respond to a request to provide such services, the school district is relieved of the obligation to provide FAPE to the student and is not required to convene an IEP team meeting or to develop an IEP for the child. Section 614 (a)(1)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) and (bb).

OSEP has clarified that a school district must make reasonable efforts to obtain the informed parental consent for an initial evaluation and document these efforts in the same manner as documenting efforts to obtain parent participation in IEP team meetings. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46631 (August 14, 2006). A school district may, but is not required to, utilize the procedural safeguards to obtain parental consent for an evaluation although OSEP believes the override procedures should be used only in rare circumstances. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46632 (August 14, 2006).
The reasonable efforts required of a school district do not require the convening of an IEP team meeting, although a school district may convene an IEP team meeting in order to obtain informed consent. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46634 (August 14, 2006).
Where a child is home schooled or placed by his parents in a private school at their own expense, the school district may not use the procedural safeguards to attempt an override of lack of consent. 34 CFR Section 300.300(d)(4); 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46635 (August 14, 2006).

REVOCATION OF CONSENT

The federal Office of Special Education Programs made several changes to the federal IDEA regulations effective on December 31, 2008. The most significant change involved parental revocation of consent. 34 C.F.R. Sections 300.300 and 300.9 were amended to provide that parents are now permitted to revoke in writing their consent for the continued provision of special education and related services after having received services. School districts are no longer able to use mediation or a due process hearing to seek to override or challenge the parents’ lack of consent. School districts will not be deemed to be in violation of the ACT for denial of FAPE where the parent has revoked consent to the continued provision of special education and related services

Concerning the situation where a parent revokes consent and the student then gets disciplined, OSEP said the following in a June, 2009 Q & A document:
Question A-3: Do the discipline provisions apply if the child violates the school’s code of student conduct after a parent revokes consent for special education and related services under §300.300(b)?
Answer: No. Under §§ 300.9 and 300.300, parents are permitted to unilaterally withdraw their children from further receipt of special education and related services by revoking their consent for the continued provision of special education and related services to their children. When a parent revokes consent for special education and related services under §300.300(b), the parent has refused services as described in §300.534(c)(1)(ii); therefore, the public agency is not deemed to have knowledge that the child is a child with a disability and the child will be subject to the same disciplinary procedures and timelines applicable to general education students and not entitled to IDEA’s discipline protections. It is expected that parents will take into account the possible consequences under the discipline procedures before revoking consent for the provision of special education and related services. 73 Federal Register 73012-73013.

You can find the entire Q& A document here

Date Published: Feb 13, 2012 - 1:42 pm

Bullying of Kids With Disabilities - Part II

Image via Wikipedia

Bullying remains a hot button issue in special education law. This is the second post in the current series on this topic. Last week I discussed some of the key cases finding that bullying of children with disabilities can be a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (or IDEA as we often refer to it here.) With that analytical basis, we now turn to a more recent court decision.

The opinion in TK & SK ex rel LK v. New York City Dept of Educ 56 IDELR 228 (E.D.N.Y. 4/25/2011) is a must read.The case involves a twelve year old girl with a specific learning disability. Her peers ostracized her, pushed her and ridiculed her daily. They refused to touch any item that she had touched. Yes kids can be very cruel.

The Court held that when facing a situation in which a child with a disability is allegedly being bullied, a school district must take prompt and appropriate action including making an investigation and taking steps to prevent future abuse. In this case, the Court found that the district did nothing despite parent requests to discuss the problem. The Court held that where the educational benefit to the student was adversely affected by the bullying, FAPE had been denied. The Court awarded reimbursement to the parents for the tuition of the private school in which they had unilaterally placed the student.

In the next posts on this issue, I will quote some of the literature on bullying in America that was relied upon by the court in this case. You can review the entire opinion here.

Date Published: Feb 10, 2012 - 8:31 am

Procedural Safeguards The Series - Part II

Image via Wikipedia

This is the second installment in a multi-part series on procedural safeguards under the federal special education law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I work a lot in this area, so it is near and dear to my heart. Despite the importance of procedural safeguards. however, many issues in this area are misunderstood. I hope that all of the different types of special education stakeholders who read this blog find the information in this series helpful.Be sure to tell me what you think about the series.

Notice of Procedural Safeguards-

A copy of the procedural safeguards of the notice must be provided to the parents only one time per year, except that it must also be given upon initial referral or parental request for evaluation, upon the first occurrence of filing of a due process complaint, and upon request by a parent. Section 615(d)(1)(A). The regulations clarify that the notice must also be provided upon the parents’ filing of the first state complaint and on the date on which the decision to take disciplinary action is made. 34 CFR Section 300.504(a); 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46692 (August 14, 2006). The regulations also make it clear that a parent will receive more than one copy of the notice of procedural safeguards if they also request an evaluation or file a state complaint or due process hearing or they request a copy. 34 CFR Section 300.504(a); 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46692 (August 14, 2006). The local educational agency may also place a copy of the procedural safeguards notice on their website if they have one. Section 615(d)(1)(B). OSEP has noted that publishing the notice on its website does not relieve the LEA of the responsibility of offering the parent a printed copy of the notice unless the parent evidences a clear preference to obtain the information electronically 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46693 (August 14, 2006).

The procedural safeguards notice must include a full explanation of procedural safeguards, written in the native language of the parents (unless clearly not feasible) and written in an easily understandable manner, relating to the following:

`(A) independent educational evaluation;

`(B) prior written notice;

`(C) parental consent;

`(D) access to educational records;

`(E) the opportunity to present and resolve complaints, including--

`(i) the time period in which to make a complaint;

`(ii) the opportunity for the agency to resolve the complaint; and

`(iii) the availability of mediation;

`(F) the child's placement during pendency of due process proceedings;

`(G) procedures for students who are subject to placement in an interim alternative educational setting;

`(H) requirements for unilateral placement by parents of children in private schools at public expense;

`(I) due process hearings, including requirements for disclosure of evaluation results and recommendations;

`(J) State-level appeals (if applicable in that State);

`(K) civil actions, including the time period in which to file such actions; and

`(L) attorneys' fees.

Section 615 (d)(2).

OSEP has published a model Notice of Procedural Safeguards in order to reduce confusion about what must be included in the notice. 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46693 (August 14, 2006). The model notice is 44 pages long. The model notice form is available on the website: Although OSEP frowns upon dual filings of state complaints and due process hearings for the same incident, the regulations clarify that the notice of procedural safeguards must explain both procedures and the differences between the two. 34 CFR Section 300.504(c); 71 Fed. Register No. 156 at page 46693 (August 14, 2006). At a session I attended at a conference of ACRES ( the rural special education association) I learned that when put through software to determine the reading level necessary to read the model procedural safeguards, the researchers found a graduate school reading level was needed to comprehend these safeguards. So much for "easily understandable," no?

See also in general: Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Questions and Answers on Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures 52 IDELR 266 (OSERS 6/1/2009) and the NICHCY training module http://nichcy.org/laws/idea/legacy/module17.

Date Published: Feb 07, 2012 - 12:00 pm

Bullying of Kids With Disabilities - Part I

Image via Wikipedia

Bullying is a real problem in our society. Bullies often take advantage of those whom they perceive as weaker. The Columbine tragedy brought the problem to a higher level of public awareness, but the problem persists.

Kids with disabilities are often singled out by bullies. This has become one of the hottest of hot button issues in special education law. Several laws could be implicated, but my focus here will be upon whether bullying can constitute a violation of IDEA.

In the next installments, I'll discuss a well-reasoned recent decision, but first some background on the legal foundations for this analysis:

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

In the seminal decision by the Third Circuit in Shore Regional High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. P.S. 381 F.3d 194, 41 IDELR 234 (3d Cir. 8/30/2004) recognized that bullying could prevent educational benefit, and a school district’s failure to respond could constitute a denial of FAPE. See also, Gagliardo v. Arlington Central Sch Dist 489 F.3d 105, 48 IDELR 1 (2d Cir. 5/30/2007).

Shortly, thereafter the Second Circuit ruled that a student with a disability cannot receive educational benefit or FAPE if he is not in a safe environment. Lillbask ex rel Mauclaire v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Educ. 397 F.3d 77, 42 IDELR 230 (2d Cir. 2/2/2005).

These cases provide the analytical foundation.

Date Published: Feb 03, 2012 - 9:41 am

Procedural Safeguards - The Series - Part I

Image via Wikipedia

This is the first installment in a multi-part series on procedural safeguards under the federal special education law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I work a lot in this area, so it is near and dear to my heart. Despite the importance of procedural safeguards. however, many issues in this area are misunderstood. I hope that all of the different types of special education stakeholders who read this blog find the information in this series helpful.

Procedural safeguards are extremely important under our system of special education. In the first United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the predecessor of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400, et seq (hereafter sometimes referred to as the “IDEA”), the Court stressed the importance of procedural safeguards in the statutory system adopted by the Congress, noting that the procedural safeguards gave parents a “large measure of participation at every stage of the … process.” Board of Educ., Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 455 U.S. 175, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3038 and 3049, 553 IDELR 656 (1982). The court went on to emphasize that compliance with the Act’s procedural safeguards is a critical component of a free appropriate public education. Rowley, supra 102 S.Ct. at 3051.

More recently, the Supreme Court rejected an argument that school districts should have the burden of persuasion due to an advantage in information. The Court reasoned that Congress had leveled the playing field by requiring school districts to share information and protect the rights of parents by adopting the extensive system of procedural safeguards contained in the IDEA. “Schaffer v. Weast 546 U.S. _____,_____, 126 S.Ct. 528, 44 IDELR 150 (2005).

Section 615 of the IDEA is entitled “Procedural Safeguards,” and most procedural safeguards for parents are contained in that section. However, some procedural safeguards are found in other sections of the Act or in the federal regulations. In addition to the required Notice of Procedural Safeguards, Section 615(d), there are a number of specific procedural safeguards. The specific procedural safeguards include the following: independent educational evaluation , Section 615 (b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. Section 300.502; prior written notice, sections 615(b)(3)-(4) and (c)(1); informed parental consent, Section 614 (a)(1)(D); access to educational records, Section 615(b)(1); state complaints, 34 CFR Section 300.151, et seq; mediation, Section 615(e); child’s placement during a challenge or “stay put,” Section 615 (j); procedures for an interim alternative education, Section 615 (k); unilateral placement in private school when FAPE in issue, Section 612 (a)(10)(C); due process hearings, Section 615 (f); if a two tiered system, state appeals, Section 615 (q); civil actions appealing a due process decision, Section 615 (q); and attorneys’ fees, Section 615 (i)(C)(3).

Date Published: Jan 31, 2012 - 8:03 am

Procdeural Safeguards - The Series Returns!

Image via Wikipedia

A lot of the work that I do in special education concerns procedural safeguards. It is the heart of my work. In the past we have run a series that explains in our usual excruciating detail, what procedural safeguards are all about. Because of the importance of procedural safeguards to special education law, we will be running a revised and updated version of the series, beginning next week. If you would like to see something included, please let me know.

Also coming soon will be a mini-series on bullying of students with disabilities and IDEA. The issue of bullying is one of the current hot button issues in special education law. There were a few really interesting court decisions and hearing officer decisions last year, and I expect this issue to continue to see lots of activity. Let me know if you have any interest in the topic of bullying. Also please let me know about any recent bullying cases in your area- they sometime slip through the cracks.

NOTE: some subscribers report that my blog platform erroneously sent a post from October again last week. I'm sorry about that. I didn't do it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Please let me know if it happens again. Thanks.

Date Published: Jan 27, 2012 - 11:34 am

McMechen: Speed Trap!

English:MarcellusShalebankalongRt174jus...

Image via Wikipedia

OK so here in West Virginia, we are having a natural gas rush created by the Legislature's recent approval of the removal of natural resources from the Marcellus Shale deposit. As a result of this new gas rush, I could not find a motel in Moundsville for a recent hearing. Accordingly, I had to stay in Wheeling, to the North.

Therein lies the problem, squarely in between lies McMechen. I had to pass McMechen twice each day of the three day hearing. You would think that the story would more likely involve the venue of the hearing, the former state prison in Moundsville, a place so bad that the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled was cruel and unusual punishment.

Yet McMechen stole the headlines.I thought the speed limit was 65 mph along the highway known as Route 2. This seemed especially so in view of the many cars whizzing past me as I traveled along at a safe 55 mph.So it was to my great surprise when I was stopped by a very, very young police officer and issued a citation for traveling at 55 mph in a 50 mph zone.

So a warning to the traveler, if you must drive through the Northern panhandle of West Virginia, go slowly trough the speed trap also known as McMechen!

Date Published: Jan 23, 2012 - 5:15 pm

King Day

Today we honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was a great American, and his message still resonates today. In his later speeches, including his speech to the Memphis garbage workers just prior to his assassination, he focused increasingly on poverty and income inequality.

But he was known primarily as a strong advocate against all forms of discrimination. Disability discrimination is one of the topics that we frequently address on the pages of this blog. On this day of reflection, here are some links to previous posts on the topic of disability discrimination:

http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/disability-discrimination-part-i.html

http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/maybe-not-disability-discrimination.html

http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/big-changes-to-504-do-they-affect.html

http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-fape-under-504-fape-lite.html

http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/so-misunderstood-category-of-disability.html

http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tribute-to-senator-edward-m-kennedy.html

Date Published: Jan 16, 2012 - 9:47 pm

DOE Sends Annual IDEA Report to Congress

SealoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation

Image via Wikipedia

Last month the United States Department of Education sent its annual report on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act to Congress. Because of the slow movement in all things government, the report is for 2008 and most of the data is for the 2005-2006 school year. Nothin' like staying current.

The report contains a wealth of information. Here are some examples:

Among the key findings were:

In 2006, a total of 6,081,890 students ages 6 through 21 were served under IDEA, Part B. Of
these students, 5,986,644 were served in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Bureau of
Indian Education schools. This number represented 9.1 percent of the general population ages
6 through 21
In 2006, the largest disability category among students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA,
Part B, was specific learning disabilities (44.6 percent). The next most common disability
category was speech or language impairments (19.1 percent), followed by other health
impairments (9.9 percent), intellectual disabilities (8.6 percent) and emotional disturbance
(7.5 percent)
In 2005, 88.4 percent of full-time equivalent personnel (other than special education
teachers) who provided special education and related services for children and students ages
3 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were fully certified
Children and students ages 3 through 21 who were served under IDEA, Part B, under the
category of emotional disturbance had the highest rates of removal to an interim alternative
educational setting by school personnel for drug or weapon offenses (0.49 percent) and by a
hearing officer for likely injury to themselves or others (0.08 percent) in school year 2005–06, compared to children and students in all other disability categories

Other items that caught my imagination were the following: In 2006, North Dakota served 68.9% of students classified as emotional disturbance inside the regular ed class more than 80% of the time whereas Hawaii served 19.8% of students classified as emotional disturbance inside the regular ed class more than 80% of the time. (Table 33). In the same year Alabama served 7.6% of students classified as emotional disturbance in a residential facility whereas Arizona served 0.3% of students classified as emotional disturbance in a residential facility. (Table 33) In school year 2005-2006, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin 57.7% of special ed students aged 3-21 graduated with a regular diploma whereas in the same school year in Louisiana 14.0%. (Table 36) For the 2005-2006 school year the percentage of special ed kids aged 3-21 expelled or suspended for more ten or more days in the school year was 2.81% in North Carolina and 0.04% in California, (Table 39) I could go on!

You can look up these and similar statistics for your state in the report. Also the report contains a summary of research and evaluation conducted under IDEA provisions.

You can read the entire report here.

Date Published: Jan 09, 2012 - 10:08 pm

Accommodations on Standardized Tests: GAO Study Finds No Strategic Enforcement by DOJ

Image by biologycorner via Flickr
I'll admit that I may have a bias against standardized tests, I don't like them much.I prefer essay tests where one can expound a bit.

In any event, standardized tests are used and are generally required for admission to college and to professional schools. Most of us have taken them.

When students with disabilities take these standardized tests, they may be entitled to accommodations while taking the test. This includes both IEP requirements as well as ADA requirements.

A recent study by the federal watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, found that The Department of Justice lacks a strategic method of enforcement for its regulations concerning testing accommodations. Merely investigating individual complaints is not sufficient the study concludes.

If you deal with standardized testing, you should review this study. You can read the entire GAO study here. You can review a fact sheet here. A general statement by GAO about this study can be found here.

Date Published: Jan 03, 2012 - 5:51 pm

Happy New Year!

Image via WikipediaAs the year turns, it's time for reflection and resolutions.So think back upon last year and get ready for the new one, and most importantly chew the black-eyed peas carefully.

If anybody has a good special education resolution, we'd love to hear it. Please share.

To all of our loyal and fantastic readers, Happy New Year!

Date Published: Jan 01, 2012 - 9:38 am

Merry Christmas Everybody: Dreamin' of a White X-box; Lawyers, HOs & Reindeer!

Image via Wikipedia

I was giving some thought to my Christmas message. I will be spending the next ten days or so with my family, so I thought a big message would be impressive before I left. I had even thought about writing a parody challenging the increasingly commercial nature of Christmas. The possibilities were exciting...just imagine..."I'm Dreamin' of a White X-box"... This could have been fun!

I had written parodies before. Going back to high school when I penned "I've Got a Black Magic Marker" to that amazing Santana tune, "Black Magic Woman." So there was some hope. (Remember Cubs fan... delusional optimism..., etc.)

Luckily you were spared from this ordeal. A colleague wrote a parody that is way better and shared it with me. The imagery is impressive. But first the legal disclaimer: this is not my work and the opinions expressed are solely those of the author. The characters are fictional and any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is purely coincidental. No animals were harmed in the making of this post. (I could go on all day, but for additional legalese, please see the permanent disclaimer on the lefthand side of the blog!)

Here is a new version of Twas The Night Before Christmas, with a distinct special education due process hearing flavor:

Twas the night before [insert holiday of your choice],

When all through the house

Not a creature was stirring

Just a hearing officer* and a mouse.

The exhibits were hung by the chimney with care

In hopes that some insight would soon be found there.

The HO family was nestled all snug in their beds

While visions of [insert holiday symbol of your choice] danced in their heads.

And the HO in her** jammies, with draft Findings in her lap,

Knew that the pesky decision due date would preclude a nice nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter

The HO sprang from her desk chair to see what was the matter.

Away to the window, the HO flew like a flash,

Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash!

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

Gave the luster of mid day to objects below.

When, what to the HO’s wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature sleigh and eight attorneys (those dears!)

With a mind like a steel trap, so lively and quick,

The HO knew in a moment it must be a trick!

More rapid than eagles those attorneys they came

And the HO whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

“Now Susan! Now Mary! Now Lisa ! (and other vixen)

Now William! Now James! Now Robert! (but no one named Blitzen)

To the top of the porch! To the top of the wall!

Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.

So up to the house-top the attorneys they flew,

With a sleigh full of extension requests, and legal arguments too.

And then, in a twinkling, the HO heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little attorney hoof.

As the HO drew in her head, and was turning around,

Down the chimney the attorneys came with a bound.

They were dressed all in business suits, from their heads to their foot

And their clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

A bundle of extension requests they had flung on their back,

And they looked like a peddler, just opening her pack.

Their eyes-how they twinkled! Their dimples, how merry!

Their cheeks were like roses, their noses like cherries!

Their droll little mouths were drawn up like a bow,

And the pallor of their faces was as white as the snow.

The remnants of an adult beverage they swished around in their teeth,

As the alcohol vapors encircled their heads like a wreathe.

Their sweet earnest faces and flat little belly,

Were covered with ashes and soot, but yet not the least bit smelly!

They were cordial and amicable, exuding great class and great wealth,

At the pinnacles of their careers, the picture of health!

A wink of an eye and a twist of a head,

Soon gave the HO to know she had nothing to dread.

The attorneys spoke not a word, but returned straight to their work,

Engaging in “consensual rescheduling”, then turning with a jerk

They struck a compelling, attorney-like pose,

Then gave a nod to the HO, and up the chimney they rose!

They sprang to their sleigh, to the team gave a whistle

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But the HO heard them exclaim, ‘ere they drove out of sight,

We all want extensions, dear HOs, so for the HOs……….

A Good Night!

· *The generic use of “HO”, rather than a name, is used to protect the confidentiality of the HO.

· ** It is this Author’s preference to use the pronoun “she” or “her” rather than to engage in the cumbersome she/he, her/him dichotomy or to succumb to the traditional, sexist use of “him”.

http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-christmas.html http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/christmas-message-true-story.html

Date Published: Dec 21, 2011 - 6:36 am

Mediation vs Hearings: SpEd Dispute Resolution

Image by TomNatt via Flickr

This week I finished a decision from a due process hearing and I conducted a mediation. Dangerous combination. This got me to thinking about dispute resolution under IDEA. I have long contended that mediation is a better way to resolve special education disputes.

A due process is increasingly like a court trial. Very adversary in nature; lots of venom. There is of course plenty of place for venom in our society. (Otherwise we wouldn't really need lawyers would we?) I'm just not sure that the education of a child is one of them. Don't get me wrong, I love doing hearings. I have been doing some type of work as a hearing examiner, hearing officer, administrative law judge as a part of my job since 1979. I train hearing officers, special ed and others; I am a certified hearing official. But this is really not about me, it is about those kiddos with disabilities.

Mediation unlike the adversary hearing offers the possibility of repairing the troubled relationship between parent and school officials. Because education demands cooperation and collaboration between parents and the schools, mediation can really be a good way to go in the long run. I have talked to parents who won a due process hearing, but still felt like they had lost. There is an emotional cost in using the hearing process, and it can be significant.

There are situations that require the hearing process, but from my vantage point, mediation is often a better road.

What do you think?

Date Published: Dec 16, 2011 - 12:45 pm

New FERPA Regulations

Image by alancleaver_2000 via Flickr

The United States Department of Education has issued new and revised regulations pertaining to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, better known as FERPA, on December 2, 2011.

You can read the federal Register version here. A guide to the new FERPA regs for school districts and state departments of education may be found here. A similar guide for parents and children may be found here.

One of the forces behind the changes was the reform principle that states and districts should be able to analyze school performance without FERPA rules getting in the way. Clearly I'm summarizing, but you get the idea.

Date Published: Dec 10, 2011 - 4:44 pm

Feed: Special Education Law Blog - AggScore: 75.2

Summary: Special Education Law Blog

Sleeping Hearing Officer; Internet Gotcha

Procedural Safeguards The Series - Part III

Bullying of Kids With Disabilities - Part II

Procedural Safeguards The Series - Part II

Bullying of Kids With Disabilities - Part I

Procedural Safeguards - The Series - Part I

Procdeural Safeguards - The Series Returns!

McMechen: Speed Trap!

King Day

DOE Sends Annual IDEA Report to Congress

Accommodations on Standardized Tests: GAO Study Finds No Strategic Enforcement by DOJ

Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas Everybody: Dreamin' of a White X-box; Lawyers, HOs & Reindeer!

Mediation vs Hearings: SpEd Dispute Resolution

New FERPA Regulations

Visitor Rating: 7.6 (11) (Rate)

Story Clicks: 206

Feed Views: 266

Tags

Lenses (Add|?)

Comments (Log in to add)

Feed Details

Search FeedAgg.com

Feed: Special Education Law Blog - AggScore: 75.2

Summary: Special Education Law Blog

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Visitor Rating: 7.6 (11) (Rate)

Story Clicks: 206

Feed Views: 266

Tags

Lenses (Add|?)

Comments (Log in to add)

Feed Details

Search FeedAgg.com