Monday, July 31, 2017
Friday, July 28, 2017
Breaking: New NCES Report on Crime, Violence, Discipline and Safety in the Public Schools #bullying #school discipline
The National Center of Educational Statistics of the federal Institute of Education Sciences has issued a report on crime, violence, discipline and safety in U.S. Public Schools 2015-2016. The report provides findings using data from
the 2015–16 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS:2016).
If you deal with school discipline or crime, you should study this report. The entire 83 page report is available here.
Among the findings are a troubling number of schools feel that IDEA and related state rules pertaining to the discipline of students with disabilities are hindering their efforts to deal with crime in public schools! according to the study, Among the factors that were reported to limit schools’ efforts to reduce or prevent
crime “in a major way,” three factors were more likely to be reported than others: a
lack of, or inadequate, alternative placements or programs for disruptive students
(30 percent); inadequate funds (28 percent); and federal, state, or district policies on
disciplining special education students (17 percent) (table 11).
Other key findings include:
• A higher percentage of middle schools reported that student bullying occurred at
school daily or at least once a week (22 percent) than did high schools (15 percent)
or primary schools (8 percent) (table 4).
• Of the schools with a student enrollment size of 1,000 or more during the 2015–16
school year, 27 percent reported cyberbullying among students daily or at least once
a week. This percentage is higher than in schools with lower enrollments. For
example, 8 percent of schools with enrollments of less than 300 students reported
cyberbullying (table 5).
• During the 2015–16 school year, 37 percent of disciplinary
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
ADA is 27 Years Old On July 26 #ADA
On July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodations, commercial facilities, telecommunications, and state and local government services.Today marks the 27th anniversary of this groundbreaking law.
To celebrate the birthday of ADA, here are some fun facts from our friends at the U S Census Bureau:
To celebrate the birthday of ADA, here are some fun facts from our friends at the U S Census Bureau:
Population Distribution
56.7 million
The number of people in the United States with a disability in 2010, representing 19.0 percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. People with a disability have a physical or mental impairment that affects one or more major life activities, such as walking, bathing, dressing, eating, preparing meals, doing errands alone or doing housework. A disability can occur at birth or at any point in a person’s life. Source: Americans With Disabilities: 2010
15.7 million
The number of people age 65 and older with at least one disability, according to data collected from 2008 to 2012, which makes up 39.0 percent of the population in this age group. Of this group, two-thirds had difficulty in walking or climbing stairs. The second-most cited disability was difficulty with independent living, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping. Source: Older Americans With a Disability: 2008-2012
19.4%
The percentage of the civilian noninstitutionalized population in West Virginia in 2015 with a disability — the highest rate of any state in the nation. Utah, at 9.9 percent, had the lowest rate. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table S1810http://factfinder.census.gov/
28.7%
The percentage of the civilian noninstitutionalized population in Pike County, Ky., in 2015 with a disability — among the highest rate in the nation for counties with populations of 65,000 or more. Kendall County, Ill., at 4.9 percent, had among the lowest rate. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table S1810 http://factfinder.census.gov/
22.4%
The percentage of the civilian noninstitutionalized population in Flint, Mich., in 2015 with a disability — among the highest rate in the nation among places with populations of 65,000 or more. Fishers, Ind., at 3.5 percent, had among the lowest rate. A place is a city, town, village or borough, either legally incorporated or not. Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table GCT1810 http://factfinder.census.gov/
Services for Those With Disabilities
2,833
The number of business establishments providing special needs transportation in 2012, up 20.7 percent from 2,347 in 2007. Such businesses may use specially equipped vehicles to provide passenger transportation. These businesses employed 61,605 people in 2012 and generated revenues of $3.5 billion. Employment was up 24.0 percent and revenues increased 27.7 percent since 2007. Source: 2012 and 2007 Comparative Economic Census Geographic Area Series (NAICS 485991
14,060
The number of business establishments that provided pet care (except veterinary services) in 2012. These businesses generated revenues of $3.4 billion. Among these businesses are those that train assistance dogs. Source: 2012 and 2007 Comparative Economic Census Geographic Area Series (NAICS 812910
25,964
The number of business establishments primarily providing services for the elderly and persons with disabilities in 2012. These establishments provided for the welfare of these individuals in such areas as day care, nonmedical home care or homemaker services, social activities, group support and companionship. These businesses employed 901,359 workers and generated $34.1 billion in revenues. In 2015, these businesses generated $40.7 billion in revenues. Sources:
2012 Comparative-Economic Census Geographic Area Series (NAICS 624120
)
2015 Service Annual Survey (NAICS 624120
)
, Table 2
7,832
The number of business establishments providing vocational rehabilitation services in 2012. These businesses employed 312,659 people and generated revenues of $12.4 billion. In 2007, there were 7,631 such establishments, employing 303,713 people and producing revenues of $11.5 billion. These businesses provide job counseling, job training and work experience to people with disabilities. Source: 2012 and 2007 Comparative Economic Census Geographic Area Series (NAICS 624310
)
2,344
The number of business establishments providing translation and interpretation services in 2012. These businesses employed 24,926 people and generated revenues of $4.2 billion. In 2007, there were 1,975 such establishments, employing 14,546 people and producing revenues of $1.9 billion. Among these businesses are those that provide sign language services. Source: 2012 and 2007 Comparative Economic Census Geographic Area Series (NAICS 541930
3,597
The number of business establishments providing home health equipment rental in 2012, down 4.4 percent from 3,762 in 2007. Such businesses rent home-type health and invalid equipment, such as wheelchairs, hospital beds, oxygen tanks, etc. These businesses employed 33,935 people in 2012 and generated revenues of $5.4 billion. Employment was up 2.8 percent while revenues decreased 7.8 percent since 2007. Source: 2012 and 2007 Comparative Economic Census Geographic Area Series (NAICS 532291
Specific Disabilities
Note: All statistics in this section come from the 2015 American Community Survey, measuring the civilian noninstitutionalized population. http://factfinder.census.gov/
10.8 million
The number of people age 18 and older in 2015 who reported being deaf or having significant difficulty hearing. Among the population age 65 and older, 6.9 million reported being deaf or having significant difficulty hearing.
6.8 million
The number of people age 18 and older in 2015 who had serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses. Among people age 65 and older, 3.0 million had serious difficulty seeing.
20.6 million
The number of people age 18 and older in 2015 who had serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Among people age 65 and older, 10.5 million had serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
12.9 million
The number of people age 18 and older in 2015 who had serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions due to a physical, mental or emotional condition. Among people age 65 and older, 4.2 million had serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions.
14.2 million
The number of people age 18 and older in 2015 who had difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping, due to a physical, mental or emotional condition. Among people age 65 and older, 6.9 million had difficulty doing errands alone.
7.5 million
The number of people age 18 and older in 2015 who had difficulty dressing or bathing. Among people age 65 and older, 3.8 million had difficulty dressing or bathing.
Older People With a Disability
Note: The source for this section is Older Americans With a Disability: 2008-2012
, which presents statistics from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
25.4%
The percentage of the population age 85 and older with a disability among the population age 65 and older.
More Than One-Third
The proportion of people age 85 and older with a disability who lived alone, is about one-fourth of those aged 65 to 74.
54.4%
The percentage of the older population who had not graduated from high school and had a disability, twice the rate of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (26.0 percent).
12.6%
The percentage of older Americans living in a household with a disability living in poverty, compared with 7.2 percent of the older household population without a disability.
Earnings
$21,572
The median earnings in the past 12 months for people with a disability. This is 69.0 percent of the median earnings, $31,872, for those without a disability. (Both figures pertain to the civilian, noninstitutionalized population age 16 and older, with earnings in the past 12 months.) Source: 2015 American Community Survey, Table B18140 http://factfinder.census.gov/
Mobility
Note: The source for the statistics in this section is Desire to Move and Residential Mobility: 2010-2011
, which come from the Survey of Income and Program Participation
.
12.5%
The percentage of householders with a disability who desired to move to another residence, higher than the corresponding figure of 8.2 percent for those without a disability. Those with mental disabilities were the most likely to desire to move (20.6 percent).
17.3%
The percentage of householders with a disability who desired to move to another residence and actually did so over a one-year period.
9.3%
The percentage of all householders with a disability who moved to another residence over a one-year period.
Monday, July 24, 2017
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Special Education Law 101 Part X #Unilateral Placement
This is another installment in our continuing series on the basics of special education law. Today we enter the mysterious world of unilateral placements. If the parents (or adult student) win a due process hearing, the two most common types of relief are compensatory education and reimbursement for a unilateral placement. Today we will take a look at the latter remedy.
Unilateral Placements
In the case of Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Dept. of Educ., et. al. 471 U.S. 359, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 556 IDELR 389 (1985), the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether theIDEA permitted courts to award reimbursement to parents when the IEP developed by the schools is not appropriate and the parent removes the student from public school and places him in a private school that does provide FAPE. Noting that the statutory provisions of the IDEA confer broad equitable powers upon the courts to fashion an appropriate remedy, and the fact that judicial review of IDEA cases often takes years, the Supreme Court held that the IDEA does empower courts to award such reimbursement. Burlington, supra.
In Florence County Sch. Dist. v. Shannon Carter, et. al. 510 U.S. 7, 114 S.Ct. 361, 20 IDELR 532 (1993), the Supreme Court was faced with a unilateral placement case in which the public schools provided an inappropriate education leading to a unilateral placement at a private school that provided an appropriate education for the student but that did not meet some of the requirements of the SEA (specifically state approval of the private school.) The Supreme Court held that courts may award reimbursement in these cases. Carter, supra.
In Forrest Grove Sch Dist v. TA 129 S.Ct. 2484, 52 IDELR 151 (U.S. 6/22/9) The Supreme Court held that it is not a prerequisite to reimbursement under IDEA that a child have been previously enrolled in and receive services from a public school. The Court noted that under its previous rulings in Burlington and Carter, courts have broad authority to grant appropriate relief when there has been a violation of IDEA. The Court held that the 1997 amendments do not limit that authority. The ambiguous language of the provision at issue was not sufficient to effectuate a repeal by implication of Burlington and Carter.
The IDEA now provides that a hearing officer or court may order an LEA to reimburse parents for a unilateral placement if the hearing officer or court finds that the LEA had not made FAPE available to the student in a timely manner prior to the enrollment in the private school. IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(ii). Such reimbursement may be reduced or denied if the parents failed at the last IEP meeting to reject the proposed placement and state their intent to enroll the child in private school at public expense, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(I)(aa); or if they fail to give written notice to the LEA of their rejection of the proposed placement and state their intent to enroll the child in private school at public expense 10 business days prior to removal, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(I)(bb); or if the parents fail to make the student available for an evaluation, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(II); or upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iii)(III). Reimbursement shall not be reduced or denied for failure to give notice if the school prevented the parent from providing such notice, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(I)(aa); or if the parents were not provided with written procedural safeguards stating this notice requirement, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(I)(bb); or if compliance with the notice clause would likely result in physical harm to the child, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(I)(cc). Within the discretion of the hearing officer or court, reimbursement may or may not be reduced or denied if the parents are illiterate or cannot write in English, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(II)(aa); or if compliance with this clause would likely result in serious emotional harm to the child, IDEA, § 612 (a)(10)(C)(iv)(II)(bb). See also, 34 C.F.R. § 300.148.
The general rule, then, is that reimbursement for a unilateral placement may be awarded where a parent/student proves the following:1) the school district denied FAPE to the student or otherwise violated IDEA; 2) the parent's private school placement for the student is appropriate; and 3) equitable factors do not preclude the relief. Forrest Grove Sch Dist v. TA 557 U.S. 230, 129 S.Ct. 2484, 52 IDELR 151 (U.S. 6/22/9)
Some interesting recent circuit court decisions have involved the second and third prongs of the analysis. For example in Sumter County Sch Dist 17 v. Heffernan ex rel TH 672 F.3d 478, 56 IDELR 186 (4th Cir 4/27/11) the Fourth Circuit noted that LRE concerns might not be weighted as heavily in the second prong of the unilateral placement reimbursement analysis; and in RL & SL ex rel OL v Miami-Dade County Sch Bd 757 F.3d 1173, 63 IDELR 182 (11th Cir 7/2/14) the Eleventh Circuit ruled that where LEA had predetermined the child’s placement, it was prevented from raising the third prong equities of the Burlington etc analysis in order to defeat claim for reimbursement.
In EM ex rel NM v. New York City Dept of Educ 63 IDELR 181 (2d Cir 7/11/14) The Second Circuit held that the fact that the parent had not paid any money toward the $85,000 tuition owed to a private school did not prevent reimbursement. Direct payment like reimbursement is within the scope of the equitable remedies available under IDEA.
In EM ex rel NM v. New York City Dept of Educ 63 IDELR 181 (2d Cir 7/11/14) The Second Circuit held that the fact that the parent had not paid any money toward the $85,000 tuition owed to a private school did not prevent reimbursement. Direct payment like reimbursement is within the scope of the equitable remedies available under IDEA.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Monday, July 17, 2017
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Special Education Law 101 - Part IX #discipline
This is the most recent post in the continuing series that is meant to be an introduction to special education law. In today's post we will be discussing discipline of students with disabilities. People often ask why disciplinary actions are regulated by the special education law. The reason is that before passage of the law's predecessor, it was common for school officials to exclude children with disabilities by expelling them and giving them long suspensions. This series of abuses was reflected in the legislative history of the law.
Discipline is one area that seems to cause folks to develop stomach problems (sorta like the rule against perpetuities in law school), but it isn't really as hard as we seem to make it. Let me know if this explanation helps.
Discipline Issues
The IDEA imposes special rules that govern the discipline of students with a disability. The basic rule is that a special education student may not have her placement changed (i.e., suspensions of more than 10 days or expulsion) for conduct that is a manifestation of her disability. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(F). If the behavior is not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the student may be disciplined in the same manner and for the same duration as children without disabilities. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(C).
One exception is that, regardless of manifestation, the schools may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting, sometimes referred to as “IAES,” for up to 45 school days if (1) the student possesses a weapon at school; or (2) the student possesses or uses or sells illegal drugs at school; or (3) the student has inflicted “serious bodily injury” upon another person while at school. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(G). The schools may also ask a hearing officer to change the placement of a student with a disability to an IAES if remaining in the current placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or others. IDEA, § 615(k)(3)(A) and (B).
Another cardinal rule in the discipline area is that regardless of whether the conduct of a student was a manifestation of the student’s disability, where a student with a disability is removed from his current placement, the schools must continue to provide educational services to ensure FAPE for the student and to enable the student to continue to participate in the general curriculum although in another setting. IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(D). See generally regarding discipline issues, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530 – 300.537.
The Supreme Court dealt with discipline issues and endorsed the stay put provision in the case of Honig v. Doe 484 U.S. 305, 108 S.Ct. 594, 559 IDELR 231 (1988). In that decision, the Supreme Court, noting the Congressional intent in preventing the exclusion of disabled students and reiterating the importance of the procedural safeguards under the IDEA, refused to read a dangerousness exception into the stay put provision. The high Court outlines the history of abuses of the discipline of kids with disabilities in that decision.
In District of Columbia v. Doe ex rel Doe 611 F.3d 888, 54 IDELR 275 (DC Cir 7/6/10) DC Circuit ruled that HO did not exceed his authority where he reduced a disciplinary suspension. HO reduced a 45 day suspension to an 11 day suspension noting the trivial nature of the infraction and finding that the more lengthy suspension denied FAPE to the student.
Dear Colleague Letter 114 LRP 1091 (US DOE & DOJ 1/8/14) The United States Departments of Education and Justice issued policy guidance for school districts and states to reduce unlawful discrimination in student discipline policies. This seems to be a conscious decision by the Administration to attack the school-to-prison pipeline problem. Although the thrust of the guidance is obviously to reduce racial discrimination in school discipline, the Dear Colleague letter notes specifically that the contents of the guidance also fully apply to discipline that discriminates against children with disabilities and other protected groups. (See footnote 4 on pages 2-3 of the Dear Colleague Letter). You can read the DOE blog article here. You can review the video by Secretary Duncan and the complete guidance package here. The Dear Colleague Letter is available here.
In an interesting development, two district courts in recent years have granted Honig v Doe injunctions restraining a dangerous student from attending school: Wayne-Westland Community Schs v VS & YS64 IDELR 139 (ED Mich 10/9/14); Seashore Charter Sch v EB by GB 64 IDELR 44 (SD Tex 9/3/14). Contrast, Troy Sch Dist v KM by Janice M & Warren M 64 IDELR 303 (ED Mich 1/16/15) Court denied Honig v
Doe injunction where SD did not demonstrate that maintaining student’s
placement was likely to result in injury to student or others. Incident occurred when SD did not implement IEP by providing a safe
person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
