Charter School should have acted proactively to evaluate 504 eligibility for student who began to use a wheelchair
District Cannot Use Behavior Contract to Justify Disciplinary Change in Placement without Manifestation Determination
In Waynesboro (PA) Area School District, 112 LRP 26149 (OCR 02/17/12), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the fact a high school student with a learning disability had signed a behavioral contract did not allow the school district to change his placement without conducting a manifestation determination review (MDR). The student was African American and had been subjected to a number of incidents of racial harassment, some of which had resulted n physical altercations. The high school had made some effort to intervene with the harassing students and a counselor had worked with the student on how to handle these situations. In addition the student, his parent, the special education teacher, and acting assistant principal signed a Student Behavioral Contract with the student. The contract included a provision that the student would resolve conflict in a non-violent manner.
According to the district, the contract was drawn up because the student had been involved in several altercations, some of which, but not all, were the result of racial harassment. Unfortunately, the student later had a physical altercation with another African American student and, based on breaching the contract, his placement was changed to an alternative high school. Before the change in placement he was suspended for several days, bringing his total suspensions for the school year to twelve. Based on its belief that violating the Student Behavioral Contract justified the change in placement, the school did not conduct an MDR prior to changing his placement to the alternative high school.
The student’s parent filed a complaint with OCR alleging racial harassment and a violation of Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act because the district failed to conduct a manifestation determination before changing the placement, failed to conduct an evaluation prior to the change in placement, and failed to provide the parent with her procedural safeguards. The Office for Civil Rights found in the parent’s favor and required the district to provide the MDR and evaluate the students need for compensatory services to compensate for educational services he may have lost as a result of the illegal change in placement.
A child’s individualized educational program (IEP) must be reviewed annually. It is good that the IDEA requires at least an annual review of the IEP, but I hear that parents are frequently told by school district staff the IEP must, without exception, be completed within a year of the previous review. Parents are sometimes told that the IEP will expire if not reviewed within exactly one year of the last review date. Individualized educational programs are not like canned goods or medicine with an expiration date. They do not automatically expire. School districts can extend the time for the review if it is necessary to ensure the parent’s participation in the IEP meeting.
In Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education (9th Cir. June 13, 2013), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the parent’s right to participate in the IEP meeting was more important than the Hawaii Department of Education’s (Hawaii ED) need to meet the IEP annual review deadline. In this case, the parent had e mailed the special education coordinator the morning of the IEP meeting that he could not attend the meeting because he was sick and offered to re-schedule the meeting for either Wednesday or Thursday of the following week. Unfortunately, the special education coordinator believed those dates were three and four days past the annual review date. He tried to convince the parent to participate in the IEP meeting that morning by phone, but the parent said he was too sick and wanted to participate in person. Not wanting to disrupt the schedules of the other IEP participants, the coordinator decided to go forward with the meeting without the parent. The IEP changed the child’s placement from a private special education facility to a public high school workplace readiness program. The parent rejected that IEP because it was created without his participation and requested a due process hearing. The hearing officer and the district court ruled in favor of the district and the parent appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals ruled for the parent. The court rejected the argument that the IEP meeting had to be held by the annual review deadline. Because the parent was willing to meet the following week, the court said, the Hawaii ED should have accommodated the parent, rather than deciding it could not disrupt other team member’s schedules. The court acknowledged that there were competing requirements under the IDEA to hold the IEP meeting by the annual review date and to ensure parent participation. But, the Hawaii ED should have considered which of the two courses of action was less likely to result in a denial of a free appropriate public education for the student. Moreover, the court pointed out that the Hawaii ED could have continued the student’s services after the review date had passed. Given the importance of parent participation in the IEP process, the Hawaii ED’s decision to proceed without the parent was clearly not reasonable under the circumstances. The 9th Circuit sent the case back to the district court to consider the parents right to tuition reimbursement for the placement in the private program.
In Sutherlin v. Independent School District No 40 of Nowata County Oklahoma 113 LRP 20535 (N.D. Okla. 05/13/13), the U. S. District Court of Northern Oklahoma ruled that the parents of a 13-year-old boy with Asperger’s disorder and a learning disability could sue the school district under Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the boy was subjected to disability based bullying and harassment. The parents claimed that between 2010 and 2012, they reported 32 incidents to the school district of other students physically assaulting their son and mocking him about his difficulties with socialization. The parents also reported that other students called the boy names including the R word, crazy, creepy, and freak. The parents alleged that the school district failed to investigate these incidents or take further action to prevent future bullying.
In court the school district argued that the parents had not shown that the harassment by other students was disability based or that the school district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment. The court, drawing from other cases, set out a five point test for establishing a claim under 504 and the ADA for disability-based student- on- student harassment.
The student is an individual with a disability;
He or she was harassed based on the disability;
The harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it altered the condition of his or her education and created an abusive educational environment;
The school district knew about the harassment, and
The school district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.
Here, the school district agreed with the five point test, but disagreed that the parents had shown that the harassment was disability based or that the district was deliberately indifferent to it. The court, however, determined that the name-calling and mocking, if true, was sufficient to show disability based harassment. Moreover, the parents had alleged several instances in which the school district did not take action to cease or prevent the bullying behavior. The court stated, if the allegations were true, they showed deliberate indifference by the school district. Thus, the court denied the school district’s motion to dismiss the parents’ 504 and ADA claims and the disability based harassment case will move on.
Last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a letter to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) affirming that Wisconsin must ensure that students with disabilities who seek to enroll or are enrolled in private schools through Wisconsin’s taxpayer funded voucher program are not discriminated against on the basis of their disability. Wisconsin enacted laws creating the tax payer funded private school voucher program over 20 years ago and it was implemented in the city of Milwaukee by DPI. In June 2011 a collation of advocacy groups (the ACLU Foundation for Racial Justice, ACLU of Wisconsin, and Disability Rights Wisconsin) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice alleging that students in the Milwaukee Public Schools are (1) deterred by DPI and the private voucher schools from participating in the voucher program, (2) denied admission to voucher schools when they do apply, and (3) expelled or constructively forced to leave voucher schools as a result of policies and practices that fail to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities. These advocacy groups claimed the actions by DPI and the private voucher schools violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Department of Justice investigated the allegations of the complaint and interviewed parents and public school district officials. Based on the investigation, DOJ determined that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) must do more to enforce the ADA requirements that govern the treatment of students with disabilities who participate in the private school voucher program. Because the voucher program is publicly funded and administered by the state, it must comply with Title II of the ADA. Title II is the section of the ADA that applies to state and local governmental entities. Thus, DPI must ensure students with disabilities are not discriminated against based on their disability. According to the letter:
“DPI’s obligation to eliminate discrimination against students with disabilities in its administration of the school choice program is not obviated by the fact that the schools participating in the program are private secular and religious schools. Indeed, courts recognize that the agency administering a public program has the authority and obligation under Title II to take appropriate steps in its enforcement of program requirements to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities; regardless of whether services are delivered directly by a public entity or provided through a third-party.”
Specifically, DOJ required the Wisconsin DOI to comply with:
- ADA Title II Obligations. DPI must eliminate discrimination against students with disabilities or students whose parents or guardians have disabilities. The private or religious status of the individual voucher schools does not absolve DPI of that responsibility.
- Complaints. DPI must establish and publicize a complaint procedure for individuals to file disability-based complaints and provide DOJ with copies of those complaints.
- Data and Reporting. DPI must provide detailed data regarding how students with disabilities are being served by voucher schools.
- Public Outreach. DPI must conduct outreach to educate families of students with disabilities about school choice programs, and provide specific and accurate information about the rights of students with disabilities and the services available at voucher schools.
- Monitoring and Oversight. DPI must ensure that voucher schools do not discourage students with disabilities from applying for admission, or improperly reject a student with a disability who does apply to a voucher school. Voucher schools cannot exit/expel a student with a disability unless the school has first determined, on a case-by-case basis, that there are no reasonable modifications to school policies, practices or procedures that would enhance the school’s ability to serve the student.
- ADA Training for Voucher Schools. DPI must provide mandatory ADA training to voucher schools on a periodic basis and submit a copy of the training materials and attendance sheets to DOJ.
- Guidance. By the end of 2013, DPI must develop program guidance to assist and educate voucher schools about ADA compliance. That guidance must be developed in consultation with DOJ.