Monday, May 29, 2017
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Breaking: NCES Releases The Condition of Education 2017 #data
The National Center for Education Statistics of the Institute of Education Sciences has released "The Condition of Education : 2017." The report contains a wealth of information about education in the United States.
The following are some interesting findings of the report
About 16 percent of 25- to 64-year-olds who had not completed high school had one or more disabilities in 2015,
compared to 11 percent of those who had completed high school, 10 percent of those who had completed some college,
8 percent of those who had completed an associate’s degree, 4 percent of those who had completed a bachelor’s degree,
and 3 percent of those who had completed a master’s or higher degree. Differences in the employment and not-in-laborforce
percentages between persons with and without disabilities were substantial, amounting to about 50 percentage
points each. Among those who had obtained higher levels of education, the differences were smaller...
In 2014–15, the number of children and youth ages 3–21 receiving special education services was 6.6 million, or
13 percent of all public school students. Among children and youth receiving special education services, 35 percent had
specific learning disabilities...
The number of U.S. public elementary and secondary
students reported as homeless increased from 910,000
in 2009–10 to 1.3 million in 2014–15.6 During this time, the percentage of public school students who
were reported as homeless increased from 1.8 percent in
2009–10 to 2.5 percent in 2014–15... Seventeen percent of homeless students were identified
as students with disabilities under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), compared to
13 percent of all public school students...
From school years 1990–91 through 2004–05, the
number of children and youth ages 3–21 who received special education services increased from 4.7 million,
or 11 percent of total public school enrollment, to
6.7 million, or 14 percent of total public school
enrollment.1 Both the number and percentage of children
and youth served under IDEA declined from 2004–05
through 2011–12. The number and percentage of children
and youth served appeared to level off between 2012–13
and 2014–15. By 2014–15, the number of children and
youth served under IDEA was 6.6 million, or 13 percent
of total public school enrollment. In school year 2014–15, a higher percentage of children
and youth ages 3–21 received special education services
under IDEA for specific learning disabilities than for
any other type of disability. A specific learning disability
is a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations. In 2014–15, some 35 percent
of all children and youth receiving special education
services had specific learning disabilities, 20 percent
had speech or language impairments, and 13 percent
had other health impairments (including having limited strength, vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute
health problems such as a heart condition, tuberculosis,
rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia,
hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, or
diabetes). Children and youth with autism, intellectual
disabilities, developmental delays, and emotional
disturbances each accounted for between 5 and 9 percent
of children and youth served under IDEA. Children and
youth with multiple disabilities, hearing impairments,
orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, traumatic
brain injuries, and deaf-blindness each accounted for
2 percent or less of those served under IDEA. In school year 2014–15, the percentage (out of total
public school enrollment) of children and youth ages
3–21 served under IDEA differed by race/ethnicity. The
percentage of children and youth served under IDEA
was highest for those who were American Indian/Alaska
Native (17 percent), followed by Black (15 percent), White
and of Two or more races (both at 13 percent), Hispanic
and Pacific Islander (both at 12 percent), and Asian
(7 percent). In each racial/ethnic group except for Asian,
the percentage of children and youth receiving services for
specific learning disabilities combined with the percentage
receiving services for speech or language impairments
accounted for over 50 percent of children and youth
served under IDEA. The percentage distribution of
various types of special education services received by children and youth ages 3–21 in 2014–15 differed by
race/ethnicity. For example, the percentage of children
and youth with disabilities receiving services under IDEA
for specific learning disabilities was lower among Asian
children and youth (22 percent), children and youth of
Two or more races (30 percent), and White children and
youth (31 percent) than among children and youth overall
(35 percent). However, the percentage of children and
youth with disabilities receiving services under IDEA
for autism was higher among Asian children and youth
(20 percent), children and youth of Two or more races
(10 percent), and White children and youth (10 percent)
than among children and youth overall (9 percent).
Additionally, of children and youth who were served
under IDEA, 7 percent of Black children and youth and children and youth ages 3–21 in 2014–15 differed by
race/ethnicity. For example, the percentage of children
and youth with disabilities receiving services under IDEA
for specific learning disabilities was lower among Asian
children and youth (22 percent), children and youth of
Two or more races (30 percent), and White children and
youth (31 percent) than among children and youth overall
(35 percent). However, the percentage of children and
youth with disabilities receiving services under IDEA
for autism was higher among Asian children and youth
(20 percent), children and youth of Two or more races
(10 percent), and White children and youth (10 percent)
than among children and youth overall (9 percent).
Additionally, of children and youth who were served
under IDEA, 7 percent of Black children and youth and 7 percent of children and youth of Two or more races
received services for emotional disturbances, compared
with 5 percent of children and youth served under
IDEA overall. Among children and youth who received
services under IDEA, each racial/ethnic group other
than Hispanic had a higher percentage of children and
youth receiving services for developmental delays than the
overall percentage of children and youth receiving services
for developmental delays (6 percent)."
You should check out this amazing report. You can read the highlights of the report here. You can read the entire 386 page report here
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Special Education Law 101 - Part IV #LRE
In the previous posts in this series, we have introduced you to the requirement of FAPE. In this installment, we discuss the distinct but equally important requirement of LRE.
The Requirement of LRE (least restrictive environment)
The Requirement of LRE (least restrictive environment)
People are surprised to learn that IDEA does not mention the word "mainstreaming." IDEA does require, however, that to the “…maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities … are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” IDEA, § 612(a)(5). See, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 to 300.119.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue of LRE, but a number of Circuit Courts of appeal have provided some guidance. For example, the Fifth Circuit has developed a two pronged analysis: the first question is whether education of the student with a disability in the regular classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, can be satisfactorily achieved, and if it cannot, whether the school district has provided the student with interaction with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. Daniel RR v. State Board of Education 874 F.2d 1036, 441 IDELR 433 (5th Cir. 1989).
The Ninth Circuit has developed four factors which must be balanced to determine the LRE placement: (1) the educational benefits available to the student in a regular classroom, supplemented with appropriate aids and services, as compared with the educational benefits of a special education classroom; (2) the non-academic benefits of interaction with children who were not disabled; (3) the effect of the student's presence on the teacher and other children in the classroom; and (4) the cost of mainstreaming the student in a regular classroom. Sacramento City Sch Dist v. Rachel H by Holland 14 F.3d 1398, 20 IDELR 812 (9th Cir. 01/24/1994).
The Fourth Circuit has stated the rule this way: “The Act's language obviously indicates a strong congressional preference for mainstreaming. Mainstreaming, however, is not appropriate for every handicapped child …The proper inquiry is whether a proposed placement is appropriate under the Act. In some cases, a placement which may be considered better for academic reasons may not be appropriate because of the failure to provide for mainstreaming… In a case where the segregated facility is considered superior, the court should determine whether the services which make that placement superior could be feasibly provided in a non-segregated setting. If they can, the placement in the segregated school would be inappropriate under the Act. Framing the issue in this manner accords the proper respect for the strong preference in favor of mainstreaming while still realizing the possibility that some handicapped children simply must be educated in segregated facilities either because the handicapped child would not benefit from mainstreaming, because any marginal benefits received from mainstreaming are far outweighed by the benefits gained from services which could not feasibly be provided in the non-segregated setting, or because the handicapped child is a disruptive force in the non-segregated setting.” DeVries v. Fairfax County Sch Bd 882 F.2d 876, 441 IDELR 555 (Fourth Cir. 1989) See, In re Student With a Disability (JG) 116 LRP 25097 (SEA WV 6/18/15)
Recently the Second Circuit decided TM by AM & RM v Cornwall Central Sch Dist 752 F.3d 145, 63 IDELR 31 (2d Cir 4/2/14) and held that an LRE violation is a substantive (not procedural) violation of IDEA. The LRE requirement applies to Extended School Year programs in the same manner that it applies during the regular school year. Because ESY is necessary to prevent substantial regression, LRE fully applies even if the district does not offer a mainstream ESY program (can consider private programs).
LRE and FAPE are the twin towers of special education law.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Breaking: NCES Report on Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2016 #school safety
The National Center on Education Statistics of the Institute of Education Sciences released a report yesterday concerning school crime and safety.
The report addresses the numbers concerning crime, bullying, hate crimes and speech, school discipline and other related topics.
Concerning bullying, the report notes "Between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied at school during
the school year decreased from 28 to 21 percent. A higher percentage of female than of male students reported
being bullied at school during the school year in 2015 (23 vs. 19 percent)..."
Tables 19-1 and 19-2 compares disciplinary statistics and it shows that children with disabilities were about twice as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions as their non-disabled counterparts in school year 2011-2012. The same tables show that students with disabilities involved in disciplinary incidents in the same year were about twice as non-disabled students likely to be referred to law enforcement authorities.
You can read the entire 261 page report here.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Happy Mother's Day #mother's day
Happy Mother's Day!
To help us celebrate, here are some fun facts from our friends at the U. S. Census Bureau:
To help us celebrate, here are some fun facts from our friends at the U. S. Census Bureau:
Anna Jarvis organized the first Mother’s Day observances in Grafton, W.Va., and Philadelphia, Pa., on May 10, 1908. As the annual celebration became popular around the country, Jarvis became the driving force behind Mother’s Day and asked members of Congress to set aside a day to honor mothers. She succeeded in 1914, when Congress designated the second Sunday in May as Mother’s Day.
How Many Mothers
43.5 million
The number of mothers between the ages of 15 and 50 in 2014. These mothers gave birth to 95.8 million children. Source: Current Population Survey, June 2014 Fertility of Women in the United States: 2014, Detailed Tables, Table 2 www.census.gov/hhes/fertility/
3.9 million
The number of women between the ages of 15 and 50 in 2015 who had given birth in the past 12 months. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table B13002 https://factfinder.census.gov/
35.7%
The percentage of unmarried women ages 15 to 50 in 2015 who had a birth in the past 12 months. About 64.3 percent of women ages 15 to 50 who had a birth in the past 12 months were married. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table S1301https://factfinder.census.gov/
How Many Children
62.5
The number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in 2015, down 1 percent from 2014. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports, Page 4 www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/
22.3%
The percentage of women ages 15 to 50 in 2014 who had given birth to two children. About 42.4 percent had no children, 17 percent had one, 11.7 percent had three, and about 6.8 percent had four or more. Source: Current Population Survey, June 2014, Detailed Tables, Table 1 www.census.gov/hhes/fertility/
Characteristics of Women With a Recent Birth
3.98 million
The number of registered births in 2015, down less than 1 percent from 2014. Of this number, 229,715 were to teens ages 15 to 19. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports, Table 1 and Table 2 www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/
62.4%
The percentage of women ages 16 to 50 in the labor force in 2015 who had a birth in the past 12 months. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table S1301 https://factfinder.census.gov/
31.8%
The percentage of women with a bachelor’s degree or higher who had given birth in the past 12 months. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table S1301 https://factfinder.census.gov/
86.8%
The percentage of women ages 15 to 50 with at least a high school diploma or equivalent who gave birth in the past year. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table S1301 https://factfinder.census.gov/
63
The number of births in the past year per 1,000 women ages 15 to 50 with a graduate or professional degree. The number was 53 per 1,000 for women whose highest level of education was a bachelor’s degree. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table S1301 https://factfinder.census.gov/
Noah and Emma
The most popular baby names for boys and girls, respectively, in 2015. Source: Social Security Administration, Top 10 Baby Names of 2015 www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/
Mothers Celebrated
13,419
The number of florists nationwide in 2015. Since 2005, the number of florist establishments decreased from 21,135 to 13,419, a decline of 36.5 percent. The number of employees in floral shops also declined from 101,861 to 60,076 employees in 2015, a decline of 41.0 percent. Source: County Business Patterns: 2015 (NAICS 45311) https://factfinder.census.gov/
14,162
The number of employees of greeting-card publishers in 2015. Source: County Business Patterns: 2015 (NAICS 511191) https://factfinder.census.gov/
16,345
The number of cosmetics, beauty supplies and perfume stores nationwide in 2015. Perfume is a popular gift given on Mother’s Day. Source: County Business Patterns: 2015 (NAICS 44612) https://factfinder.census.gov/
22,160
The number of jewelry stores in the United States in 2015—the place to purchase necklaces, earrings and other timeless pieces for mom. Source: County Business Patterns: 2015 (NAICS 44831) https://factfinder.census.gov/
Stay-at-Home Moms
5.0 million
The number of stay-at-home moms in married-couple family groups in 2016. Source: America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2016, Table FG8 www.census.gov/data/tables/
Taking Care of the Kids
888,357
The number of people employed at one of the 74,589, child day care services across the country in 2015. In addition, there were 670,887 child day care services without paid employees in 2014. Many mothers turn to these centers to help juggle motherhood and careers. Sources: County Business Patterns: 2015 (NAICS 6244) https://factfinder.census.gov/
Nonemployer Statistics: 2014
Note: New statistics will be available at the end of May for Nonemployer Statistics.
Single Moms
9.8 million
The number of single mothers living with children younger than age 18 in 2016, up from 7.7 million in 1985. Source: America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2016, Table FG6 www.census.gov/data/tables/
421,861
The number of women ages 15 to 50 living with a cohabiting partner in 2015 who had given birth in the past 12 months. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table B13004 https://factfinder.census.gov/
Friday, May 12, 2017
Special Education Law 101 - Part III #FAPE
This is another post in our series which is an introduction to special education law. In the previous posts in this series we have looked at the sources of special education law and discussed the critical concept of FAPE. Today we look at some important decisions by U. S. Courts of Appeal taking FAPE in some interesting directions:
In Deal v. Hamilton County 392 F.3d 840, 42 IDELR 109 (6th Cir. 1//16/04), the Sixth Circuit held that where the school district had already predetermined the student’s program and services before the IEP Team meeting, the parents were denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the IEP process. Accordingly, the district denied FAPE for the student.
In Shore Regional High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. P.S. 381 F.3d 194, 41 IDELR 234 (3d Cir. 8/30/04), the Third Circuit held that a school district’s failure to stop bullying may constitute a denial of FAPE. Despite repeated complaints by the parents the bullying continued; the student became depressed and the school district developed an IEP. The harassment continued and the student attempted suicide. The Third Circuit agreed with the hearing officer that the unabated harassment and bullying made it impossible for the student to receive FAPE. (See our recent series on Bullying for a more detailed discussion.)
In Lillbask ex rel Mauclaire v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Educ. 397 F.3d 77, 42 IDELR 230 (2d Cir. 2/2/05), the Second Circuit ruled that an IDEA hearing officer has the authority to review IEP safety concerns. The court provided an expansive interpretation of the jurisdiction of the hearing officer, ruling that Congress intended the hearing officer to have authority over any subject matter that could involve a denial of or interference with a student’s
In CF by RF & GF v New York City Dept of Educ 746 F.3d 68, 62 IDELR 281 (2d Cir 3/4/14) The Second Circuit held that a procedural violation is only actionable as a denial of FAPE under IDEA if it
results in a loss of educational
opportunity for the student or it seriously impairs the parent’s participation in the IEP process. However, in LO ex rel KT v NYC Dept of Educ 822 F.3d 95, 67 IDELR 225 (2d Cir 5/20/16) the Second
Circuit clarified that the cumulative effect
of multiple procedural violations
(even if harmless themselves) constituted a denial of FAPE as in this case.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Saturday, May 6, 2017
Special Education Law 101 - Part II #FAPE
This is the second installment in our ongoing series which presents an Introduction to Special Ed Law.
The Requirement of FAPE (free and appropriate public education)
The basic requirement of the IDEA is that states and school districts must have in effect policies and procedures that ensure that children with a disability receive a free and appropriate public education, hereafter sometimes referred to as “FAPE.” IDEA, § 612(a)(1).
The IDEA defines “child with a disability” as a child:
(i)with a mental impairment, hearing impairments…, speech or language impairments, visual impairments…, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and
(ii)who by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.
IDEA, § 602(3)
The IDEA defines “FAPE” as:
special education and related services that:
(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;
(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;
(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school or secondary school education in the state involved; and
(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required (…hereunder.).
IDEA, § 602(9). See also 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.101 to 300.113.
The IDEA defines “special education” as:
Specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including
(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and
(B) instruction in physical education.
IDEA, § 602(29).
The Supreme Court of the United States issued the seminal decision interpreting the provisions of the IDEA in the case of Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley 455 U.S. 175, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 553 IDELR 656 (1982). The facts of the case were that the student had a hearing impairment. The parents requested that the schools provide a sign language interpreter for all of the student’s academic classes. Although the child was performing better than the average child in her class and easily advancing from grade to grade, she was not performing consistent with her academic potential. Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3039-3040.
Holding that FAPE required a potential maximizing standard, the District Court ruled in favor of the student. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. See, Rowley, 102 S.Ct. at 3040.
The Supreme Court reversed. Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3052. After a review of the legislative history of the Act and the cases leading to Congressional passage of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the Congress did not intend to impose a potential-maximizing standard, but rather, intended to open the door of education to disabled students by requiring a basic floor of opportunity. Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3043-3051.
The Supreme Court noted that the individualized Educational Program, hereafter sometimes referred to as the “IEP,” is the cornerstone of the Act’s requirement of FAPE.Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3038, 3049. The Court also notes with approval the many procedural safeguards imposed upon the schools by the Act. Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3050-3051. The Court also cautioned the lower courts that they are not to substitute their “…own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.” Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3051.
The Supreme Court held that instead of requiring a potential maximizing standard, FAPE is satisfied where the education is sufficient to confer some educational benefit to the student with a disability. Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3048. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the IDEA requires “…access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the …” child with a disability. Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct at 3048.
The Supreme Court instructed lower courts that the inquiry in cases alleging denial of FAPE should be twofold: First, have the schools “…complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Rowley, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 3051.
You can read the Rowley decision here.
Recently, the Supreme Court clarified the FAPE standard in Endrew F by Joseph F v. Douglas County Sch Dist RE-1, # 15-827, 69 IDELR 174, 137 S. Ct. 988, 580 U.S. ______ (2017). The Court held that the new gold standard for FAPE is: to meet its obligations under IDEA, a SD must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress in light of the child's circumstances. The court described this standard is a fact-intensive exercise. The question is what is reasonable not what is ideal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
