TOPICS• Child Find:• Racial Disproportionality• Independent Educational Evaluations• Delays due to Response to Intervention

• Individualized Education Program• Seclusion and Restraint• Suspension• Racial Disproportionality• School to Prison Pipeline

• Filing a Complaint• Complaint Investigator• Due Process Hearing Officer• District Court Resolution

CHILD FIND• Importance of Early Intervention• School District’s Responsibility

MATTHEW EFFECT

“For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”

DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION DATA (2010)African-American (14 % of population)

Hispanic (22 % of population)

White(55 % of population)

Mental Retardation

32.5 % 12.8 % 51.4 %Speech or Language Impairment

16.5 % 18.1 % 61.6 %

Visual Impairment 16.3 % 26.7 % 52.3 %Emotional Disturbance

28.5 % 11.9 % 56.7 %Orthopedic 14.2 % 20.6 % 61.4 %Other Health Impairment

18.9 % 9.8 % 68.4 %Specific Learning Disability

21.2 % 23.8 % 52.1 %Multiple Disabilities

18.8 % 12.6 % 64.8 %Hearing Impairment

16.2 % 24.9 % 52.9 %Autism 14.0 % 11.3 % 69.7 %Developmental Delay

23.7 % 9.6 % 59.4 %

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b) Parent right to evaluation at public expense.

(1) A parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency(2) Parent is entitled to evaluation at public expense unless agency demonstrates at a due process hearing that its evaluation is appropriate …(4) The public agency may ask for the parent’s reason why he or she objects to the public evaluation. However, the public agency may not require the parent to provide an explanation and may not unreasonably delay …(5) A parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees.

1977 TO 2004Exclusively used the “severe discrepancy” model. Missed some children with average or below average IQs who

struggled with reading.

2001Congress enacted No Child Left Behind.Focus of NCLB is “proficiency” as measured by single test.

Purpose is to raise performance of school as a whole, not to provide individualized services to a child.

2004Congress amended IDEA to require school districts to offer

Response to Intervention approach to determine which students have learning disabilities.

School districts allowed to use IDEA resources to help children who cannot meet proficiency standards.

ADEQUACY OF INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATIONAL PLANS

SECLUSION AND RESTRAINTCP 0231-2012(Heir Force Community School)(Cline) Very very strong findings criticizing a community school’s use of

restraintBut contrast with Columbus complaint (CP 0203-2012)(Cline)

CP 0231-2012 (HEIR FORCE COMMUNITY SCHOOL)Student was only in first grade but being subject to restraint frequently. School

threatened parent with disenrollment if parents contested suspension. Investigator documented a teacher noting that he or she actually sat on the student's chest which investigator describes as "potentially lethal." Complaint filed with Children's Services over alleged abuse of child.

SUSPENSION DATAAfrican-American

White

1998-99 0.36 % 0.2 %2002-03 2.38 % 0.74 %2005-06 2.78 % 0.67 %2007-08 4.11 % 1.09 %

OVERVIEW OF COMPLAINT RESOLUTIONSMay 2012 to May 2013:81 Complaints51 Pro-parent/student (63 %)30 Pro-district (37 %)Significant variation by investigator and

by school district

EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL ISSUES IN COMPLAINTS

1. Who is in attendance at IEP meetings2. Lack of parent communication/progress reports3. Poor scheduling of meetings with Parents4. Poorly Written IEPs5. Failing to have continuum of alternative placements6. Improper use of seclusion and restraint7. Obligations of community schools8. Failing to conduct evaluations/child find

BLAME THE MOTHERCP 0144-2012 (North Canton)

(Rensch) District blamed parent for

“effectively unilaterally removing the student from school” rather than acknowledging severity of student’s medical problems.

IHO AND SLRO OPINIONS1. SE 2603-2011, SLRO 2603-2012 (pro-District) Procedural violations but no finding of substantive harm School district removed services to allegedly help student function more independently2. SE 2609-2011, SLRO 2609-2011 (pro-District)(won’t discuss further) Longstanding dispute by parent whose child was sent to Educare District court cases under Horen v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Toledo Public School District3. SE 2662-2012, SLRO 2662-2012 (pro-Student) Found no FAPE for two years but still ordered no compensatory education IHO tried to apply new Ohio seclusion rules before they had gone into effect4. SE 2702-2012 (pro-District) Pro se parent who isn’t able to follow rules5. SE 2802-2013 (pro-Student, in part) Blamed mother but provided some relief for being forced to home school6. SE 2804-2013 (pro-District) Blamed mother Refuses to provide relief despite procedural violations

DISTRICT COURT CASESReversed IHO or SLRO: Gibson v. Forest Hills (transition services) P.C. v. Miford Exempted Village Schools (change in placement)Affirmed SLRO: Horen v. Toledo School District (Educare case) Hupp v. Switzerland of Ohio Local School District (FAPE issues;

procedural errors but no substantive harm) T.J. v. Winton Woods School District (SLRO reversed IHO; district court

affirmed SLRO)(same lawyer who brought P.C. v. Milford case)

CONCLUSION• These cases provide stark evidence of:• school districts writing entirely inadequate IEPs, • Blaming mothers for children’s challenges, • and use of entirely inappropriate seclusion and restraint.

• Racial and class disproportionality reflected in Ohio, as in nation.

• What can we do to improve professionalism of IHO and SLRO opinions in Ohio?

• What can we do to overcome race and class bias in special education process?