Seclusion, Restraints & Students with Disabilities

A new report (see figure below) from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights has made public that 70% of the public school students subjected to physical restraint and seclusion are students with disabilities.

Iowa's Senator Tom Harkin is sponsoring a bill called the Keeping All Students Safe Act.  It would ban seclusion and confinement of children in locked rooms or spaces from which they cannot exit, and restrict physical restraint to emergencies posing a threat of serious bodily injury to self or other. Schools will no longer be able seclusion and restraint as ways punish children, coerce compliance, for behavioral infractions, or as a substitute for positive behavioral support or proper educational programming. These means would not be options when less restrictive measures would be effective. They would not be permitted to be used for hours. The bill would ban restraints that are life threatening (including those that interfere with breathing), mechanical and chemical restraints, and aversives that threaten health or safety, and restraints that interfere with the ability to communicate or which would harm a child.  The full text of the Keeping All Students Safe Act is available http://www.copaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/RSLegLang12-16-111.pdf

Iowa is among the states that has laws that generally limit public and private school employees in regard to applying physical contact or force to enrolled students, and require that any such force or contact is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. These rules also provide requirements for administrators and staff of public schools, accredited nonpublic schools, and area education agencies regarding the use of physical restraints and physical confinement and detention.

These laws bar the use of mechanical restraints, and include misusing physical devices that are meant for safety, therapy, or another purpose for disciplinary purposes. Material restraints cannot be used to confine a student. While "necessary and reasonable" force may be used, these terms are defined by the context of the event, and the Iowa Department of Education notes that, for example, restraining a student for tearing up a paper is unreasonable and unnecessary force.

If school personnel decide to seclude or physically confine a student, the room must be of adequate size, sufficient light, adequate ventilation, and temperature similar to the rest of the building. The door to the room must be nonlocking and allow for easy exit; it may not be disabled by duct tape or chairs.

The period of time for confinement is to be "reasonable" and "allow for bodily needs."  Adequate and continuous adult supervision is necessary, and if the confinement is longer than one class period or 60 minutes, an administrator must authorize the continued confinement.

If school personnel use restraint or seclusion with a student, the parents must be notified that same day and in writing within 3 days.  They must be shown the documentation of the incident, provided with the name of all school employees involved, and the administrator authorizing further confinement.

To view the full text of the Office of Civil Rights report, visit http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-data-summary.pdf

Special Education & Disciplinary Procedures

A day in which I receive four phone calls in regard to questions about school discipline procedures under the IDEA seems like a good day to post the federal regulations for Part B of IDEA, §§300.530 through 300.536.

§ 300.530 Authority of school personnel.
(a) Case-by-case determination. School personnel may consider any unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining whether a change in placement, consistent with the other requirements of this section, is appropriate for a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct.
(b) General.
(1) School personnel under this section may remove a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct from his or her current placement to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 consecutive school days (to the extent those alternatives are applied to children without disabilities), and for additional removals of not more than 10 consecutive school days in that same school year for separate incidents of misconduct (as long as those removals do not constitute a change of placement under § 300.536).
(2) After a child with a disability has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 school days in the same school year, during any subsequent days of removal the public agency must provide services to the extent required under paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Additional authority. For disciplinary changes in placement that would exceed 10 consecutive school days, if the behavior that gave rise to the violation of the school code is determined not to be a manifestation of the child’s disability pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, school personnel may apply the relevant disciplinary procedures to children with disabilities in the same manner and for the same duration as the procedures would be applied to children without disabilities, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Services.
(1) A child with a disability who is removed from the child’s current placement pursuant to paragraphs (c), or (g) of this section must—
(i) Continue to receive educational services, as provided in § 300.101(a), so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s IEP; and
(ii) Receive, as appropriate, a functional behavioral assessment, and behavioral intervention services and modifications, that are designed to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur.
(2) The services required by paragraph (d)(1), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) of this section may be provided in an interim alternative educational setting.
(3) A public agency is only required to provide services during periods of removal to a child with a disability who has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 school days or less in that school year, if it provides services to a child without disabilities who is similarly removed.
(4) After a child with a disability has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 school days in the same school year, if the current removal is for not more than 10 consecutive school days and is not a change of placement under § 300.536, school personnel, in consultation with at least one of the child’s teachers, determine the extent to which services are needed, as provided in § 300.101(a), so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s IEP.
(5) If the removal is a change of placement under § 300.536, the child’s IEP Team determines appropriate services under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(e) Manifestation determination.
(1) Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the child’s IEP Team (as determined by the parent and the LEA) must review all relevant information in the student’s file, including the child’s IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine—
(i) If the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability; or
(ii) If the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP.
(2) The conduct must be determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability if the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the child’s IEP Team determine that a condition in either paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (1)(ii) of this section was met.
(3) If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the child’s IEP Team determine the condition described in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section was met, the LEA must take immediate steps to remedy those deficiencies.
(f) Determination that behavior was a manifestation. If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP Team make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP Team must—
(1) Either—
(i) Conduct a functional behavioral assessment, unless the LEA had conducted a functional behavioral assessment before the behavior that resulted in the change of placement occurred, and implement a behavioral intervention plan for the child; or
(ii) If a behavioral intervention plan already has been developed, review the behavioral intervention plan, and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior; and
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, return the child to the placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavioral intervention plan.
(g) Special circumstances. School personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days without regard to whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability, if the child—
(1) Carries a weapon to or possesses a weapon at school, on school premises, or to or at a school function under the jurisdiction of an SEA or an LEA;
(2) Knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs, or sells or solicits the sale of a controlled substance, while at school, on school premises, or at a school function under the jurisdiction of an SEA or an LEA; or
(3) Has inflicted serious bodily injury upon another person while at school, on school premises, or at a school function under the jurisdiction of an SEA or an LEA.
(h) Notification. On the date on which the decision is made to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA must notify the parents of that decision, and provide the parents the procedural safeguards notice described in § 300.504.
(i) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Controlled substance means a drug or other substance identified under schedules I, II, III, IV, or V in section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)).
(2) Illegal drug means a controlled substance; but does not include a controlled substance that is legally possessed or used under the supervision of a licensed health-care professional or that is legally possessed or used under any other authority under that Act or under any other provision of Federal law.
(3) Serious bodily injury has the meaning given the term ‘‘serious bodily injury’’ under paragraph (3) of subsection (h) of section 1365 of title 18, United States Code.
[Note: The US Department of Education uses the following from 18 U.S.C. 1365(h)(3): The term serious bodily injury means bodily injury that involves—
1. A substantial risk of death;
2. Extreme physical pain;
3. Protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
4. Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (71 Fed. Reg. 46723)]
(4) Weapon has the meaning given the term ‘‘dangerous weapon’’ under paragraph (2) of the first subsection (g) of section 930 of title 18, United States Code.
[Note: The US Department of Education uses the following excerpt from the definition of “dangerous weapon” in 18 U.S.C.04-Z(g)(2): The term dangerous weapon means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 ½ inches in length. (71 Fed. Reg. 46723)]
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1) and (7))

§ 300.531 Determination of setting.
The child’s IEP Team determines the interim alternative educational setting for services under § 300.530(c), (d)(5), and (g).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(2))

§ 300.532 Appeal.
(a) General. The parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision regarding placement under §§ 300.530 and 300.531, or the manifestation determination under § 300.530(e), or an LEA that believes that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others, may appeal the decision by requesting a hearing. The hearing is requested by filing a complaint pursuant to §§ 300.507 and 300.508(a) and (b).
(b) Authority of hearing officer.
(1) A hearing officer under § 300.511 hears, and makes a determination regarding an appeal under paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) In making the determination under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the hearing officer may—
(i) Return the child with a disability to the placement from which the child was removed if the hearing officer determines that the removal was a violation of § 300.530 or that the child’s behavior was a manifestation of the child’s disability; or
(ii) Order a change of placement of the child with a disability to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days if the hearing officer determines that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others.
(3) The procedures under paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) and (2) of this section may be repeated, if the LEA believes that returning the child to the original placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others.
(c) Expedited due process hearing.
(1) Whenever a hearing is requested under paragraph (a) of this section, the parents or the LEA involved in the dispute must have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing consistent with the requirements of §§ 300.507 and 300.508(a) through (c) and §§ 300.510 through 300.514, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) through (4) of this section.
(2) The SEA or LEA is responsible for arranging the expedited due process hearing, which must occur within 20 school days of the date the complaint requesting the hearing is filed. The hearing officer must make a determination within 10 school days after the hearing.
(3) Unless the parents and LEA agree in writing to waive the resolution meeting described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, or agree to use the mediation process described in § 300.506—
(i) A resolution meeting must occur within seven days of receiving notice of the due process complaint; and
(ii) The due process hearing may proceed unless the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties within 15 days of the receipt of the due process complaint.
(4) A State may establish different State-imposed procedural rules for expedited due process hearings conducted under this section than it has established for other due process hearings, but, except for the timelines as modified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the State must ensure that the requirements in §§ 300.510 through 300.514 are met.
(5) The decisions on expedited due process hearings are appealable consistent with § 300.514.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(3) and (4)(B), 1415(f)(1)(A))

§ 300.533 Placement during appeals.
When an appeal under § 300.532 has been made by either the parent or the LEA, the child must remain in the interim alternative educational setting pending the decision of the hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period specified in §A300.530(c) or (g), whichever occurs first, unless the parent and the SEA or LEA agree otherwise.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(4)(A))

§ 300.534 Protections for children not determined eligible for special education and related services.
(a) General. A child who has not been determined to be eligible for special education and related services under this part and who has engaged in behavior that violated a code of student conduct, may assert any of the protections provided for in this part if the public agency had knowledge (as determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section) that the child was a child with a disability before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action occurred.
(b) Basis of knowledge. A public agency must be deemed to have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability if before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action occurred—
(1) The parent of the child expressed concern in writing to supervisory or administrative personnel of the appropriate educational agency, or a teacher of the child, that the child is in need of special education and related services;
(2) The parent of the child requested an evaluation of the child pursuant to §§ 300.300 through 300.311; or
(3) The teacher of the child, or other personnel of the LEA, expressed specific concerns about a pattern of behavior demonstrated by the child directly to the director of special education of the agency or to other supervisory personnel of the agency.
(c) Exception. A public agency would not be deemed to have knowledge under paragraph (b) of this section if—
(1) The parent of the child—
(i) Has not allowed an evaluation of the child pursuant to §§ 300.300 through 300.311; or
(ii) Has refused services under this part; or
(2) The child has been evaluated in accordance with §§ 300.300 through 300.311 and determined to not be a child with a disability under this part.
(d) Conditions that apply if no basis of knowledge.
(1) If a public agency does not have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability (in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section) prior to taking disciplinary measures against the child, the child may be subjected to the disciplinary measures applied to children without disabilities who engage in comparable behaviors consistent with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(2)
(i) If a request is made for an evaluation of a child during the time period in which the child is subjected to disciplinary measures under § 300.530, the evaluation must be conducted in an expedited manner.
(ii) Until the evaluation is completed, the child remains in the educational placement determined by school authorities, which can include suspension or expulsion without educational services.
(iii) If the child is determined to be a child with a disability, taking into consideration information from the evaluation conducted by the agency and information provided by the parents, the agency must provide special education and related services in accordance with this part, including the requirements of §§ 300.530 through 300.536 and section 612(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(5))

§ 300.535 Referral to and action by law enforcement and judicial authorities.
(a) Rule of construction. Nothing in this part prohibits an agency from reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability to appropriate authorities or prevents State law enforcement and judicial authorities from exercising their responsibilities with regard to the application of Federal and State law to crimes committed by a child with a disability.
(b) Transmittal of records.
(1) An agency reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability must ensure that copies of the special education and disciplinary records of the child are transmitted for consideration by the appropriate authorities to whom the agency reports the crime.
(2) An agency reporting a crime under this section may transmit copies of the child’s special education and disciplinary records only to the extent that the transmission is permitted by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(6)

§ 300.536 Change of placement because of disciplinary removals.
(a) For purposes of removals of a child with a disability from the child’s current educational placement under §§ 300.530 through 300.535, a change of placement occurs if—
(1) The removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days; or
(2) The child has been subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern—
(i) Because the series of removals total more than 10 school days in a school year;
(ii) Because the child’s behavior is substantially similar to the child’s behavior in previous incidents that resulted in the series of removals; and
(iii) Because of such additional factors as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another.
(b) (1) The public agency determines on a case-by-case basis whether a pattern of removals constitutes a change of placement.
(2) This determination is subject to review through due process and judicial proceedings. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(k))

Recommendations and Suggestions for Improving Special Education Meetings and Mediations

Attorneys who represent parents in special education matters have been reporting some disturbing trends. On the basis of these reports and personal experiences, this week I recommended that the Iowa Department of Education (IDOE) consider the adoption of certain rules and procedures to protect parents’ rights.

Until these recommendations are adopted, which may not occur, I recommend that parents take it upon themselves to require the following of their school districts.

Documents protected by HIPPA.
My first recommendation is that the IDOE adopt a rule be applied when a parent provides copy of a document protected by HIPPA, to a school district or area education agency (AEA). On those occasions, the school district or AEA representative receiving the document should be required to give the parent a signed and dated receipt that briefly describes the document received, the number of its pages, the date on the document (if any), and states that it was received by the undersigned person who will ensure that the child’s IEP team members will be made aware of the document, and that it will be filed in the child’s school record. In the absence of such a receipt, parents have no way of “proving” that they have provided the school district with such a document, and are vulnerable to claims by a school district or AEA to the effect that, "Because the parent can't prove that he or she provided a copy of the agreement to the school district, we (the school district/AEA can’t be held responsible for knowing what was in it."

Verification of the Persons in Attendance at IEP Meetings
Similarly, I recommended that the IDOE adopt a rule requiring that at the end of each IEP meeting, the meeting facilitator draw up a list of all the people who attended the meeting, and provide a signed and dated copy of that list to the parents. In the absence of procedures that provide the parent with documentation of the names of the individuals who actually attended the meeting, parents are vulnerable when school district attorneys point out: “You can’t prove that [so-and-so] was not in attendance, so we can assume it was a valid IEP meeting.”

When Mediation is in Session, Attorneys Shall Not Use Their Cell Phones
In regard to improving the process of mediation, I have recommended that the IDOE direct its mediators to issue an instruction at the beginning of each mediation session, stating that “if either of the attorneys in attendance needs to check his/her cell phone, please advise me and we will take a short break." This courteous request should be sufficient to discourage the unprofessional tendency of some attorneys to demonstrate their disrespect by playing with their cell phones for extended periods during mediation.

School Districts and AEAs are to Give Advance Notice if One or Both Will Not Honor a Parent's Request for Legal Fee Reimbursement As Part of a Settlement
Finally, I recommended to the IDOE that it give an instruction to school districts and AEAs in regard to mediation requests from parents which state that the parents request that their reasonable attorney fees be reimbursed if a settlement is reached at the mediation. The specific instruction that I have requested is that if the school district and/or AEA are unwilling to address this request in the terms of a settlement agreement, then the attorney for the school district and/or AEA should notify the parents’ attorney of this before the mediation date is scheduled. In my experience, the refusal of a school district and/or AEA to address the parents' attorney fees as a term of the settlement is the surest sign that the school and/or AEA is unwilling to mediate in good faith, and that it may be using mediation as a means to run up the parents’ legal fees in order to reduce the parent’s resources that but for the mediation would have been available to finance a due process hearing.

Kudos for Bookshare® Downloadable Audio and Braille Books for Students with Visual Impairments and Dyslexia

Through an award from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Bookshare offers free memberships to U.S. schools and qualifying U.S. students.

Bookshare® is an online library of digital books for people with print disabilities. It operates under an exception to U.S. copyright law which allows copyrighted digital books to be made available to people with qualifying disabilities. In addition, many publishers and authors have volunteered to provide Bookshare with access to their works. By requiring individuals to register as Members and provide a Proof of Disability, Bookshare ensures that only qualified individuals use the service.

Bookshare serves:
1. People with Visual Impairments: Members with visual impairments can listen to books with using a text-to-speech synthesized voice, read books in Braille, or access the material in large print. Members with low vision can read books in an enlarged font using either a screen magnifier or by opening the book in a software program that supports increased font size, color, contrast, etc.

2. People with Physical Disabilities: Members can read books on a computer or a variety of portable devices, either visually and with text-to-speech as desired. Bookshare books are as easy or easier to access than books on tape, and the Bookshare program is switch accessible.

3. People with Learning Disabilities: Members with severe dyslexia typically benefit from access to the full text of books in digital format, for multi-modal reading with both visual and audio (through synthetic text to speech). Many great software programs exist that provide a range of reading support specifically designed for individuals with learning disabilities, including highlighting of text as it is read aloud, changing margin, word, paragraph and line spacing, and setting custom background and print colors.

Bookshare books are available in the following accessible digital formats from the Bookshare website:

DAISY (Digital Accessible Information System)-a talking-book file format

DAISY books from Bookshare are DAISY 3 text files that work with screen readers, self-voicing synthetic-voice DAISY players, portable self-voicing DAISY players, and scan-and-read software such as Kurzweil K1000 and K3000, WYNN, and OpenBook.

BRF (Braille Refreshable Format)-digital Braille for use with Braille embossers and refreshable Braille devices.

Bookshare Members download books, textbooks and newspapers in a compressed, encrypted file. They then read the material using assistive technology, typically software that reads the book aloud (text-to-speech), Daisy audio file readers and or devices that display the text of the book on a computer screen, or Braille access devices, such as refreshable Braille displays.

Special Education, Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)(1) are broad civil rights statutes designed to promote equal access to and participation in programs and services. A school district that fails to provide comparable benefits and services in regard to its classes, services and other school programs violates Section 504 and ADA regulations.(2) These regulations require that students with disabilities receive benefits and services comparable to those given their nondisabled peers, and make it illegal for schools to discriminate on the basis of disability by:

∙ denying a student the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a benefit or service,
∙ providing an opportunity to participate or benefit that is unequal to that provided others,
∙ providing a benefit or service that is not as effective as that provided to others, or
∙ providing lower quality benefits, services or programs than those provided others.(3)

For benefits or services provided to be “equally effective,” they must afford students with disabilities an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, gain the same benefit, and reach the same level of achievement as other students.(4)

Section 504 regulations require public schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities in accordance with its requirements. A FAPE under Section 504 means that the education and services provided to students with disabilities must meet those students’ needs as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students are met.(5) It is illegal under the Section 504 and ADA regulations for school districts to use policies, practices and procedures that, intentionally or not, result in discrimination. This ban includes those policies, practices, and procedures that have the effect of discriminating against students with disabilities, or have the effect of defeating or impairing the student's accomplishment of the objectives of the education program.(6)

In meeting their responsibilities to students with disabilities under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, school districts must make all modifications and accommodations, and provide supplementary aids and services needed to ensure that students with disabilities can participate to the maximum extent possible in the school’s courses and programs.(7) If access is not provided, the student is deemed to be denied comparable benefits and services, in violation of Section 504 and the ADA.

(1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. 794 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II of the ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131, protect persons with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability. The U.S Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, Under Section 504 and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 104, children with disabilities in public elementary and secondary education programs operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance are entitled to a FAPE in accordance with the Section 504 regulations at 34 CFR 104.33-104.36. With respect to elementary and secondary education programs, OCR generally interprets Title II of the ADA and its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of disability in a manner consistent with Section 504 and its regulations.

(2) In addition, the IDEA requires states to develop “performance goals and indicators” for children with disabilities that are consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with the standards set by the state for all students. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(16).

(3) 34 C.F.R. §104.4(b)(1) (§ 504 regulation); 28 U.S.C. §35.130(b)(1) (ADA regulation).

(4) 34 C.F.R. §104.4(b)(2); 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(iii).

(5) 34 C.F.R. §104.33.

(6) 34 C.F.R. §104.4(b)(4); 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(3).

(7) See 42 U.S.C. 12131(2); 34 C.F.R. 104.4(b); 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300-01 (1985); Thomas v. Davidson Academy, 846 F. Supp. 611 (M.D. Tenn. 1994).

Special Education Rules of Engagement

Yesterday, on the excellent Wrightslaw website (http://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/) Pat Howey, a paralegal advocate with Wrightslaw wrote that she had recently seen a t-shirt with the following rules of engagement. I agree with her that if you are the parent of a child with a disability, these rules will be helpful in your journey:

1. If the enemy is within range, so are you.
Everything you do has a lasting effect. Do not allow your actions to backfire on your child.

2. The cavalry doesn’t always come to the rescue.
In a pinch you may not be able to find or afford a good parent attorney. Use persuasion instead of threats of a due process hearing.

3. Bring the biggest gun you can handle, lots of ammo, and plenty of reinforcements.
Be prepared for IEP meetings. Give the school members of your child’s team all relevant information before IEP meetings. Bring extra copies of evaluations. Do your homework. Learn all you can about research-based instruction. Take a friend to the meeting. Bring refreshments.

4. Incoming fire always has the right of way.
The school is responsible for scheduling and holding IEP meetings. Thus, school staff has the right of way. Your greatest weapon is paper and a pen. Document everything, even if it seems unimportant at the time. Who fires the first shot is less important than who has the most strategic position after all the shots are fired.

5. Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
Be careful about using the law as a weapon. The IDEA is an important tool but your information about the law may be outdated. Quoting the law causes positions to become polarized. When positions are polarized, a peaceful solution is less likely.

6. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you.
It’s difficult to fire at a person who is kind and considerate. Focus on influencing people so they understand your position. Be polite. Treat others with respect — as you would like to be treated. When others are rude, take the high road. When you walk a straighter path, you’ll earn the respect of others.

7. If at first you don’t succeed, bomb disposal is not for you.
Know your strengths and your weaknesses. Not everyone can defuse difficult situations. If you have not learned this skill, you need to work with an experienced parent advocate who specializes in dispute resolution.

8. Any ship can be a minesweeper . . . once.
It’s easy to burn bridges. A good parent advocate also protects the child’s relationships with school personnel. Your child is likely to be in school for a long time.

9. If you see a bomb technician running, make sure to keep up with him.
Will the head special education bomb technician — the special education director or school attorney –be at your child’s IEP meeting? Pay attention. Either you should be worried or you have other members of the IEP team worried. Either way, you need to be prepared.

10. If at first you don’t succeed, call in an airstrike.
When your efforts to negotiate fail, don’t threaten to request a due process hearing. Contact a good parent attorney for advice.

Autism Spectrum Disorder, Inclusion, and Special Education Issues

On the basis of the relatively high proportion of mediations and due process hearings brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) filed by parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), it's reasonable to conclude that school districts are having only a limited amount of success in addressing the needs of students with this complex disability.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that ASD is the second most common serious developmental disability after mental retardation. ASD is currently described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-4 TR) as a group of developmental disabilities that cause significant social, communication and behavioral challenges, and encompass five subtypes: including autism, Asperger syndrome, Rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder. According to the CDC approximately 1 in 110 children in the United States have ASD. Data compiled by the U.S. Department of Education indicate that in 2007 around 250,000 children with ASD, ages 6 through 21, were served under the IDEA.

Under the IDEA students with disabilities should have the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers, to the greatest extent appropriate ("least restrictive environment"). They should have access to the general education curriculum, or any other program that non-disabled peers would be able to access. The student should be provided with supplementary aids and services necessary to achieve educational goals if placed in a setting with non-disabled peers. Among reasons for educating students with ASD in inclusive educational settings is to provide them with opportunities to interact with nondisabled peers so they may learn and practice social and communication skills. However, many of these children manifest disability-related behaviors that cause them to be rejected by the same nondisabled peers with whom they need to interact.

Inclusion is unlikely to be successful for many children with ASD unless their school districts provide them with a sufficient amount of appropriate and individualized specially designed instruction so they can learn and practice appropriate behavioral responses to the situations that challenge them. Even when this is provided, inclusion still may not be successful unless and their school districts also provide education for their nondisabled peers that encourages them to interact with their classmates who have ASD and discourages them from engaging in behavior that constitutes bullying and harassment. When schools fail to adequately meet the needs of students with ASD, and fail to engage nondisabled peers in supporting them, research demonstrates that they can expect the aberrant and undesirable behaviors on the part of both groups to increase.

Before nondisabled peers can be trained to understand and interact with their classmates who have ASD, the school personnel working with both groups must have the knowledge and skills needed to understand and appropriately explain the altered manner in which students with ASD experience school environments and interactions, the ASD-related differences in communication and social skills, and the kinds of matters that contribute to discrepant behaviors. Unfortunately for all students, a number of educators and school administrators don’t know enough about ASD and how to write IEPs setting out methods and techniques that are likely to assist individual students with ASD -- and/or they may not be very good at implementing them.

Parents filing actions under the IDEA appear to be telling school district administrators and teachers that rather than blaming their children for being "poorly behaved," educators need to do a much better job of providing effective evidence-based interventions and programs that meet individual needs. Given the apparent gap between educator preparation and the level of preparation needed to provide children with ASD with a free and appropriate education (FAPE), this further indicates that public education agencies need to step up the amount and quality of education programs for educators and school professionals in order to provide them with sufficient information and training in the use of the specific methodologies and techniques that are most effective in providing appropriate services and modifying curriculum based upon the unique needs of individual children with ASD.