Wednesday, March 28, 2018

A Bad Example! #hearing officer

Part of what I do involves being a special education mediator, hearing officer and complaint investigator. Another part of what I do involves teaching/training others who do these jobs. When I am training- it sometimes helps to discuss best practices. Another way to learn these jobs is to look at cases that were not handled well, the bad examples.

Here is a bad example: an IDEA case goes to a due process hearing. The hearing officer limits each party to three witnesses. Let's stop there, this limit has an arbitrary ring to it, something that reviewing courts do not like. I understand time limits to ensure that a hearing is not unreasonably long, but three witnesses seems like a tough limit. But that was not the issue here...

The school district presented its evidence first. After the district's case, the parents move for judgment. This is the functional equivalent of of a motion for directed verdict in a civil trial. I really do not like these motions in an administrative hearing. There is no jury in an administrative hearing, and policy and constitutional considerations favor a full hearing and opportunity to be heard at the administrative level.  

In any event, the hearing officer considered the motion and requested briefs from counsel for the parties. Let's stop there, if a hearing officer is going to entertain one of these motions, briefs are a bad idea. There are timelines on the decisions in these hearings which are intended to achieve a prompt resolution of the dispute. Briefs on a mid-hearing motion delay the process unnecessarily. 

Once the briefs were received, the hearing officer denied the motion for judgment and ruled that the school district provided FAPE. What is wrong with this picture? 

The parents never had an opportunity to present their evidence. The hearing officer violated the statute and likely the procedural due process protections of the Constitution. The court reversed and remanded.

OK now that was a bad example. Any questions?   You can read the court decision at SW & JW ex rel WW v Florham Park Bd of Education 70 IDELR 46 (D.N.J. 5/24/2017).

Monday, March 26, 2018

Weekly Question!

Now that the Endrew F decision by the Supreme Court has been around for a while, has it made any difference in the education of children with disabilities? #FAPE

Sunday, March 25, 2018

Compilation of School Bullying Data #bully

The National Center for Education Statistics of the Institute of Education Sciences has released new data compilations about school bullying. The report includes data from the 2015 School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The Web Tables show the extent to which students with different personal characteristics report being bullied. Estimates include responses by student characteristics: student sex, race/ethnicity, grade, and household income. The U.S. Census Bureau (Census) appended additional data from the 2013–14 Common Core of Data (CCD) and the 2013–14 Private School Universe Survey (PSS) to the SCS to show the extent to which bullying victimization is reported by students in schools with different characteristics.2 School characteristics appended to the file are region; sector (public or private); locale; level; enrollment size; student-to-full-time-equivalent (FTE) teacher ratio; percentage of combined American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/ Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and students of Two or more races; and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch. Not all respondents in the SCS data file could be matched to a school in the CCD or the PSS.

The tables are grouped into three sections. Section 1 is an overview table, showing the number and percentage of students ages 12 through 18 who reported being bullied at school by type of bullying experienced (table 1.1). Section 2 displays estimates for the reported locations in school at which bullying victimization occurred, and the percentage distribution of the frequency, type, and impacts of bullying victimization reported by students ages 12 through 18, by selected student and school characteristics (tables 2.1–2.10). Section 3 displays the percentages of students who reported being bullied at school by student reports of other unfavorable school conditions; selected school security measures; criminal victimization at school; and personal fear, avoidance behaviors, fighting, and weapon carrying at school (tables 3.1–3.4).


You can read the entire 51 page report here.
Also available are data point reports on: student's feelings about safety; repetition and power imbalance in bullying at school;  and changes in bullying and hate words since 2007.

Monday, March 19, 2018

Weekly Question!

As we begin 2018, what will be the biggest issue in special education law? #hot button

Friday, March 16, 2018

Happy St Patricks Day #irish eyes are smiling

Always one of my favorite holidays- happy St. Patrick's Day.

To help us celebrate, here are some fun facts from our friends at the Census Bureau
Originally a religious holiday to honor St. Patrick, who introduced Christianity to Ireland in the fifth century, St. Patrick’s Day has evolved into a celebration of all things Irish. The world’s first St. Patrick’s Day parade occurred on March 17, 1762, in New York City, featuring Irish soldiers serving in the English military. This parade became an annual event, with President Truman attending in 1948.
The following facts are made possible by the invaluable responses to the U.S. Census Bureau’s surveys
. We appreciate the public’s cooperation as we continuously measure America’s people, places and economy. 

Did You Know?

The number and percentage of U.S. residents who claimed Irish ancestry in 2016. Source: 2016 American Community Survey


The number of foreign-born U.S. residents who reported Ireland as their birthplace in 2016. Source: 2016 American Community Survey


The percentage of the population of Ocean Bluff-Brant Rock, Mass., who claimed Irish ancestry in 2016. Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey


The estimated number of U.S. residents who spoke Irish Gaelic. Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey


Irish-American Graphic

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Educating Young Children With Disabilities #young kids with disabilities

We sometimes get questions about younger children with disabilities. Here is a video that discusses educating young children with disabilities that appeared on the website of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction:



What do you think of this resource?

Monday, March 12, 2018

Weekly Question!

As we begin 2018, what will be the biggest issue in special education law? #hot button

Thursday, March 8, 2018

New Survey on School Bullying #bully

We have written often about school bullying. For example, here is an index to a series on bullying of children with disabilities that we ran a few years ago.

A new survey commissioned by the cartoon network found that as of September 2017, school bullying is still prevalent. The key findings of the survey of 9 to 11 year old students included the following:
  • A large majority, 77 percent, reported witnessing bullying at some point.
  • 1 in 5 kids admitted to being a bully.
  • Only 14 percent strongly agreed that our nation's leaders model how to treat people with kindness.

 The study also interestingly found that three quarters of 9 to 11 year olds thought that caring about others was important. You can read the entire 30 page study here.

You can read the NPR account of the study here. A related story about stressed kids in the Trump era is available here.

Monday, March 5, 2018

Weekly Question!

As we begin 2018, what will be the biggest issue in special education law? #hot button

Friday, March 2, 2018

DOE Issues 39th Annual Report to Congress on Implementation of IDEA #IDEA

The federal Department of Education has released its 39th Annual Report to the Congress, The voluminous report is a wealth of data about special education. If you work in this area, this report contain s a lot of helpful information.

Here are just some of the key Part B findings:

In 2015, a total of 6,050,725 students ages 6 through 21 were served under IDEA, Part B, in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states. Of these students, 5,936,518 were served in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools. This number represented 8.9 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21. In 2006, the total number of students ages 6 through xxv 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, BIE schools, Puerto Rico, and the four outlying areas, was 6,081,890. In each year between 2006 through 2011, the number of students served was less than in the previous year. However, more students were served under Part B in 2012 and in each subsequent year through 2015. In 2006, 9 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 were served under Part B in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools. Between 2006 and 2010, the percentage of the population in these jurisdictions served gradually decreased to 8.4 percent. The percentage served remained at 8.4 percent until 2013, when it increased to 8.5 percent. In 2014, the percentage increased to 8.7 percent. In 2015, the percentage increased to 8.9 percent (Exhibit 19).
In 2015, the most prevalent disability category of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was specific learning disability (specifically, 2,348,891, or 38.8 percent, of the 6,050,725 students ages 6 through 21 served under Part B). The next most common disability category was speech or language impairment (17.3 percent), followed by other health impairment (15.0 percent), autism (9.1 percent), intellectual disability (6.9 percent), and emotional disturbance (5.7 percent). Students ages 6 through 21 in “Other disabilities combined” accounted for the remaining 7.2 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B (Exhibit 21). • The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under disability categories changed by less than two-tenths of a percentage point between 2006 and 2015 for all but three categories. The percentage of the population reported under autism increased by 0.5 of a percentage point and the percentage of the population reported under other health impairment increased by 0.4 of a percentage point. The percentage of the population reported under specific learning disability decreased by 0.6 of a percentage point (Exhibit 22). • Between 2006 and 2015, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of autism increased gradually from 0.3 percent to 0.8 percent. Between 2006 and 2015, the percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of autism all increased. Specifically, the percentages of these three age groups that were reported under the category of autism were 106 percent, 189 percent, and 209 percent larger in 2015 than in 2006, respectively (Exhibit 23). • From 2006 through 2015, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of other health impairment increased gradually from 0.9 percent to 1.3 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of other health impairment were 44 percent, 52 percent, and 80 percent larger in 2015 than in 2006, respectively (Exhibit 24). xxvi • From 2006 through 2015, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of specific learning disability decreased from 4 percent to 3.4 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of specific learning disability were 11 percent, 14 percent, and 9 percent smaller in 2015 than in 2006, respectively (Exhibit 25). 
For the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2015, specific learning disability was the most prevalent disability category, or as prevalent as any other category, for every racial/ethnic group. In particular, this disability category accounted for 44.7 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 25 percent of Asian students, 40.7 percent of Black or African American students, 46.8 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 51.3 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 34.7 percent of White students, and 34.3 percent of the students associated with two or more racial/ethnic groups. Speech or language impairment was the second or third most prevalent category for students ages 6 through 21 in every racial/ethnic group. The students served in this disability category accounted for 14.7 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 25 percent of Asian students, 13.1 percent of Black or African American students, 18.3 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 10.1 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 18 percent of White students, and 17.5 percent of the students associated with two or more racial/ethnic groups (Exhibit 28). • In 2015, a total of 5,737,952, or 94.8 percent, of the 6,050,725 students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the school day. More than 60 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B (62.7 percent), were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. A total of 18.7 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day, and 13.5 percent were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. Only 5.2 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated outside of the regular classroom in “Other environments” (Exhibit 29). • From 2006 through 2015, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day increased from 55.2 percent to 62.7 percent. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day decreased from 23.5 percent in 2006 to 18.6 percent in 2014. In 2015, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day increased to 18.7 percent. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day decreased from 16.3 percent in 2006 to 13.5 percent in 2014 and remained at 13.5 percent in 2015. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated in “Other environments” ranged from 5 percent to 5.3 percent during the years from 2006 to 2015 (Exhibit 30).

You can read the entire 330 page report here.