Special Education Update: IDEA Does NOT Take a Summer Recess

Special Education Update: IDEA Does NOT Take a Summer Recess

by | Jun 19, 2024 | Special Education

Most educators were ready for a much deserved break as soon as the final school buses leave the building. While some things may resume at the start of the next school year, many mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Act and Ohio Operating Standards do not take a summer break.

1. The 60-day timeline applies: Even if parents request an evaluation at the end of the school year, districts may not wait until the start of the 2024-2025 school year to complete the evaluation. Schools have thirty (30) calendar days after a request for an evaluation to obtain parent consent and only sixty (60) calendar days after consent to complete the evaluation. After that,  the IEP must be completed in thirty (30) days.

 If, for instance, the District tells a parent, “The beginning of the year will include a lot of review. Let’s set some things in place and wait until after the first 9 weeks next year. Then we’ll evaluate.” Caution is warranted.  Schools may not use interventions to delay an evaluation, and a parent may successfully argue that the school may have violated its Child Find obligation. Potential consequences could include corrective action or the parent being declared the prevailing party in a due process complaint with an award of attorney fees.

 2. Consulting with private schools: Each school district must engage in meaningful consultation with representatives of nonpublic schools within their jurisdiction. Since this includes discussions of how the consultative process will operate throughout the school year, it may be beneficial to engage in those conversations while school is not in session.

 3. ESY services include data collection: While IEP teams have already made ESY decisions for eligible students, data collection and progress monitoring during these summer sessions may prove critical for informing future services for the student as well as the necessity for ESY services in the future. Moreover, such documentation is important to establish that students received the required specially designed instruction and related services over the course of the summer program.

4. Due process timelines prevail: In the unfortunate circumstance of a due process complaint at the end of the school year or during the summer months, there is no flexibility to wait until the commencement of the new school year. Indeed, the absence of IEP team members or other witnesses during the summer months is not a justification for delaying the due process complaint. Moreover, schools need to prepare to conduct a resolution session within fifteen (15) days of the notice of the due process – with or without staff participation.

EEOC Releases New Guidance on Workplace Harassment

EEOC Releases New Guidance on Workplace Harassment

by | May 23, 2024 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment

On April 24, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released new guidance on harassment in the workplace (“the Guidance”). The Guidance takes effect immediately. The Guidance sets forth the EEOC’s position on harassment that constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). Some of the major changes in the Guidance are as follows:

  • Sex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual identity and sexual orientation.
  • Unlawful harassment based on pregnancy or childbirth may include issues such as lactation and decisions regarding contraception and abortion.
  • Harassment based on “color” (including skin color pigmentation considerations) is prohibited
  • Conduct on video meetings can contribute to a hostile work environment
  • Conduct on non-work-related platforms, such as social media accounts, may contribute to creating a hostile work environment
  • A hostile work environment may be established by a single incident
  • Title VII prohibits “intraclass harassment,” (meaning harassment based on a protected characteristic but conducted by a member of the same protected class).

Why New Guidance? The Guidance was released to address the transformation in workplace environments due to the advent of the internet. Certain technological innovations, such as email and video conferencing, have become indispensable tools for business operations. In addition, the Guidance was released after the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that harassment based on gender identity or sexual orientation constitutes unlawful sexual harassment under Title VII. After the Court issued the Bostock decision, the EEOC convened a Select Task Force on Harassment in the Workplace and issued a report detailing its recommendations. This Guidance applies Bostock to the harassment context, explaining that harassment based on gender identity or sexual orientation constitutes unlawful sexual harassment under Title VII.

What Does This Mean for Your District? School districts should reevaluate their harassment policies considering the new Guidance. The Guidance itself encourages employers to have clear harassment policies and implement a safe and effective system for employees to report harassment. In addition, all employees should receive updated training on the new Guidance.

Read it Here! Science of Reading Professional Development Requirements Published

Read it Here! Science of Reading Professional Development Requirements Published

by | Apr 24, 2024 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Student Education and Discipline

 

 

 In late March, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce published guidance for districts on how to fulfill the staff training requirement for the new literacy improvement provision of HB 33.  The guidance may be accessed here. That provision mandates that teachers and administrators must complete professional development in the science of reading by June 30, 2025. This new guidance lays out how the training requirements can be met by staff through identifying the training topics, vendors, resources, and details for these select professional development opportunities. The training is available in online modules in the Department’s Learning Management System in addition to face-to face meetings with trained facilitators.

The guidance notes that teachers and administrators who completed similar training, notably the professional development that supports the requirements of Ohio’s Dyslexia Support laws, may also satisfy the HB 33 requirements. A training comparison chart is included in the guidance document.

Finally, the guidance provides some instruction concerning the stipend due to teachers for completing this professional development. Stipend amounts vary from $1,200 for all K-5 teachers, 6-12 English language arts teachers, and all intervention specialists, English learner teachers, reading specialists, or instructional coaches for grades K-12, to $400 for 6-12 teachers of subjects other than ELA.  Districts must first pay teachers the applicable stipend and then seek reimbursement from the Department.   HB 33 highlights that teachers shall complete the course “at a time that minimizes disruption to normal instructional hours. “

What this Means for Schools: Now that the guidance and course identification information is available, districts can commence planning to these required professional development opportunities.  Districts are cautioned to review their collective bargaining agreements and consult legal counsel to determine the appropriateness of using pre-arranged professional development days for this coursework in light of the stipend requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Education Update: Next at Bat: What’s Coming Up in 2024

Special Education Update: Next at Bat: What’s Coming Up in 2024

by | Feb 19, 2024 | Special Education

While most New Year’s resolutions are all but forgotten by now, several federal agencies have promised new rules or updates to rules to take effect sometime in 2024. Here’s a quick look at New Year’s resolutions – the federal addition, and their possible impact on special education.

Title IX – the long-awaited and much anticipated final Title IX rules are now scheduled to be published in 2024, giving the Administration ample time to review the over 240,000 comments on the proposed changes. Having had a sneak peek at the proposed rules, districts can expect that IEP and 504 teams will have a greater role in Title IX investigations and grievance resolution. The proposed rules specifically provide that a student with a disability involved in a Title IX proceeding will be best served by the Title IX Coordinator consulting with the student’s IEP team to 504 team throughout the implementation of the grievance procedures. This statement suggests that the role of the team will not be relegated to the beginning of the process or in developing supportive measures, but that the expectation is that the student’s IEP or 504 team will be involved and consulted throughout the entire process.

Section 504 – Proposed regulations for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 were promised in November 2023. While there have been no identifiable hints on what the new regulations will require, practitioners are hopeful for either clarification of procedural differences between the IDEA and Section 504 or clearer alignment between the two. The implications of these regulatory changes for special education are self-evident, as IDEA protections fall under the umbrella of Section 504. At this time, no new release dates have been offered.

FERPA – Likewise, the deadline for the proposed updates to FERPA’s implementing regulations has come and gone. Nonetheless, a new target is in sight, as the Department of Education identified a proposed release date of May, 2024. However, on January 12, 2024, the Department extended the time for comments to March 12, 2024. While this announcement did not include a new deadline for the release of the proposed regulations, this is a welcomed opportunity to raise questions and concerns about the practical side of implementing FERPA. Stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments electronically on or before March 12, 2024, at www.regulations.gov.

With so much at stake, districts must capitalize on every opportunity to become informed on the laws, rules, and decisions that shape our obligations toward students with disabilities. Ennis Britton is taking an active role in these discussions on a national level with three presentations at the upcoming LRP National Institute and School Attorney Conference in Savannah, Georgia this May. Please join Jeremy Neff for an in-depth look at “Successfully Mapping the Exit from IDEA Services” and reflections on “COVID Lessons Learned for Future Disruptions”, and Pamela Leist as she explains “Navigating Confidentiality Under IDEA,504 and FERPA”

Read it Here! Science of Reading Professional Development Requirements Published

Special Education Update: Sixth Circuit Confirms District Obligations for Dual Enrolled Students

by | Jan 10, 2024 | General, Legislation, Special Education

In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not require school districts to provide special education services or accommodations in dual credit courses offered at postsecondary schools. The decision stems from an appeal filed on behalf of a Kentucky student with Tourette’s Syndrome, autism, and other physical and cognitive conditions. After three years of accelerated courses in high school and a dual credit course at a local university, the student’s IEP team determined to focus on his transition to postsecondary education – pinpointing a “residential college experience” as one possible option. When Parents enrolled the student in a dual credit, dual enrollment residential program outside of the district, their request for on campus IEP services was denied. The family then filed due process, seeking reimbursement for the support services financed by parents. The hearing officer and the appeals board sided with the district. The ensuing court appeal was dismissed by the trial court.

On further appeal, the Sixth Circuit’s review highlighted several relevant points, beginning with the clear fact that the Act applies to “secondary,” not postsecondary education. Since the program at issue delivered college-level courses on a college campus, it was not covered under the IDEA. Following the guidance of the U.S. and Kentucky Departments of Education, the Court found that the mandate for a free appropriate public education did not include postsecondary education.

The Court also considered that the dual enrollment was in fact exclusively exercised in a college setting located some 130 miles from the student’s high school. As the district had no control over what classes the student took, what times services might be warranted, or where the services would be provided, the Court agreed that the Act did not obligation school districts to provide services at universities as opposed to the student’s high school.

Finally, the Court distinguished between the obligation to provide special education services for Advance Placement courses and doing so for the dual enrolled student. AP courses are available to high school students based on district-determined offerings and do not require enrollment in a postsecondary institution. However, the residential postsecondary program here caters to high school students but does not offer a secondary school education. Therefore, the dual enrollment precludes eligibility under the IDEA.

What this means for school districts: The facts in this case clearly establish that off- campus college credit programs do not oblige school districts to provide special education services. Accordingly, schools should carefully consider program location and the level of program control when suggesting postsecondary transitional services for high school students.