New and Improved: IDEA 2004

1. New and Improved: IDEA 2004 Presenter: BEVERLY R. RICKHOFF Escamilla & Poneck, Inc. 100 Travis Park Plaza 711 Navarro Street San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-0001

2. Areas Addressed • Personnel • ARD/IEP and Eligibility • Discipline • Due Process/Litigation • Miscellaneous Provisions

3. ARD/IEP and Eligibility Issues LD Students Teachers at ARD Meetings 3-year IEPs Parental Consent for testing and services

4. LD Students and the Discrepancy Model School districts may not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning

5. LD eligibility: Scientific, Research-based Interventions In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a school district may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures

6. Discrepancy Model not Required School districts may still choose to use the discrepancy model (Method I or Method II), but may not be required to Potential for inconsistencies from district to district

7. Required ARD Committee Members At least one spec ed teacher/provider still required At least one general ed teacher still required if student receives instruction in general ed

8. If Parents and School Agree… An ARDC member’s attendance may be waived if parent and school agree that ARDC member is not needed because the member’s area of curriculum or service is not being modified or discussed at the ARD meeting

9. Written Input • If the member’s area of instruction/service is going to be discussed at the ARD, the member may still be excused if – • Member provides written input in advance of ARD meeting, AND • Parent and school district consent to the excusal

10. What about 3-year IEPs? • Pilot program • Only 15 states • Keep your IEPs current!

11. Parental Consent for Testing Initial evaluation must still be made within 60 days from time school gets parental consent for evaluation Exceptions: -student transfers from one district to another during the 60 days -parent repeatedly fails to produce the child for the evaluation

12. Parental Consent for Services • Schools can still request a hearing when a parent refuses to give consent for an evaluation, but may not go to hearing when a parent refuses to consent to services

13. Due Process/Litigation • Preliminary meeting • No lawyers, unless parents and school waive this requirement! • Must have within 15 days from date district receives notice that a DP hearing has been requested • People with decision-making authority must be present • Hearing may proceed if matter not resolved to parent’s satisfaction within 30 days from filing of complaint

14. Attorneys’ Fees • Parents still entitled to reimbursement if they prevail at hearing • No recovery for time spent at preliminary meeting • No recovery for ARD meetings unless convened as a result of hearing

15. More Good News on Fees School districts can recovery attorneys’ fees from parent’s attorney if school prevails and -- case was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation, or -- parent’s attorney continued to litigate after the case clearly became frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation

16. Miscellaneous Provisions • Pre-referral activities • Private school students • Assistive technology device • Definition of “parent” • Related services

17. Pre-referral Activities • Up to 15% of Part B funds may be used for regular ed students • Funds are for students who need “additional academic and behavioral support” to be successful in reg ed

18. Pre-referral Activities (Cont’d) • Allows professional development to enable delivery of • Scientifically-based academic instruction and behavioral interventions • Scientifically-based literacy instruction • Instruction on use of adaptive and instructional software

19. Pre-referral Activities (Cont’d) • Such activities do not create a right to all of IDEA protections for regular ed students • Funds are to carry out coordinated, early intervening services (are to supplement, not supplant, Title I funds)

20. Private School Students • Child find requirements extended to students who attend private schools in your district, not just those who reside in your district

21. Assistive Technology • Definition was changed to state that AT “does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device” • In other words, schools not responsible for servicing cochlear implants

22. Definition of “Parent” • Now includes foster parents • Children of foster parents are not considered wards of the state, so they do not require a surrogate parent • Texas law may need to be modified to reflect the new IDEA definition

23. Related Services • Interpreting services and school nursing services identified in student’s IEP are added to list of related services • Remember that this list is not exhaustive, so other appropriate related services may still apply