NCECBVI parents

NCECBVI Family Weekend Karen Haase Steve Williams Harding & Shultz (402) 434-3000 khaase@hslegalfirm.com swilliams@hslegalfirm.com H & S School Law @KarenHaase @SteveisEsteban

A Parents’ Guide to Teens and Technology

Knowledge is Power

What’s the deal?  Cyberbullying  Sexting  Ignoring Internet Safety

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying?

Cyberbullying, v: the use of technology such as computers and cell phones to engage in repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others.

The term "cyberbullying" is used when the victim or bully is a child or teen. The term cyber harassment is used when the victim is an adult.

Cyberbullying Example of cyberbullying on iChat (Apple’s instant messaging)

Divagirl: Hey, loser, watch your back. tmt323: What r u talking about?

Divagirl: Why don't you kill yourself while u r ahead? tmt323: Why can't you just leave me alone?

Divagirl: Ugly girls like u need to be put in their place.

How Common is Cyberbullying?  one in four students between the ages of 11 and 19 have been the victim of cyberbullying.  Approximately 65 percent of kids know of someone who has been cyberbullied.

Not my kids!

43% of teens are exposed to cyberbullying in one form or another yet only 1 in 10 kids told their parents, according to a 2008 report from the U.S. National Crime Prevention Council

Is This Really a Problem?  1 in 4 kids admit to being cyberbullied  65% of kids know someone being cyberbullied  22% of teens have been cyber pranked  29% of teens admit that they have posted mean info about someone else  24% of teens have had private or embarrassing information revealed against their will

Is This Really a Problem?  86% of teenagers have been stalked by a stranger on their Facebook account.  55% of teens admit they’ve given personal information to someone they do not know  30% of teens have arranged to meet in person someone they met on social media

So what’s the big deal?

School-Related Consequences  Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-2,137  Definition: “ongoing pattern of physical, verbal or electronic abuse”  Consequences: • Loss of extracurricular privileges • Detentions • Short and Long Term Suspension • Expulsion • Alternative School Assignment

Examples  Seattle, WA.: Students who “liked” Facebook page bullying a classmate all suspended  Memphis TN: Honors student suspended for 180 days for commenting on a friend’s status

Civil Consequences  Student and parents can be sued • Homeowners insurance often pays  Suit can be for: • Intentional infliction of emotional distress • Tortuous interference • Slander

Fulmer v. Swidler (Pa. 2003)  Middle school student created “Teacher Sux” website • • •

Compared math teacher to Hitler Had picture of her decapitated Asked for contributions toward hit man  Teacher sued  Jury awarded $500,000  Similar suit by principal settled

Facebook  Facebook dominates social media • 1 billion active users as of 12/31/12 • (500 million users as of July, 2010) • 50% of active users log on daily • More daily active users on mobile devices than desktops • Average user has 130 friends • Largest group of users aged 35-54

Finkel v. Facebook (N.Y.)  High school students created private Facebook page about classmate • Called her a “slut” • Said she had AIDs • Said she used drugs  She sued Facebook and kids who created page  Facebook dismissed from lawsuit; students initially left in the case

Privacy Settings     

Set your profile as “private” Only let “friends” see pics Require notification before tagging Turn off geo-tags Friend Facebook on Facebook

New Privacy Shortcuts

Twitter

Cooks v. Tulsa Sch. Dist., et al  Student changing after volleyball  Teammates held down, took picture of her and posted to Twitter; others retweeted  Family suing • • • •

Twitter School district Student who took pic Students who first tweeted the pic

Managing Twitter

Managing Twitter

My Suggestions     

Don’t forget your audience Review your followers Think before following kids Consider a locked feed Ask: will this affect my classroom?

Tumblr

Pinterest

Perfect 10 v. Tumblr  Publisher suing Tumblr claiming that it: • failed to adequately deal with its takedown notices • Tumblr employees posted Perfect 10 content themselves "to help start the business.“ • Tumblr not entitled to DMCA protection

Managing Tumblr/Pinterest

Skype

Hope Witsell

Managing Skype

Snapchat

Snapchat  Photo messaging application.  Users can take photos, record videos, add text and drawings, and send them to a controlled list of recipients.  Users set a time limit for how long recipients can view their photos, up to 10 seconds, after which it will be deleted from the recipients device and the company's servers.

Managing Snapchat    

Very few tools Close supervision Not as private as users think Think hard before Snapchatting students

Kik Messenger

Kik Messenger  Automatically ingests your contacts from your phone, then cross-references that against the Kik user database.  Kik users are then pinged by the service with messages saying “You may know…,” with the user name of someone who matches a name in their contact list.  Also cross matches against service like iFunny, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Managing Kik Messenger  A privacy “bad guy”  One of the few apps I have forbidden my kids to use

5 Things Parents Can Do

1. Talk to your kids  Make sure they understand that nothing in cyberspace is private  Talk through possible consequences – both short and long term  Check up on them • Some cell carriers allow web retrieval of all texts • My Mobile Watchdog/Mobile Spy

2. Know who your kids text with  Via text messaging  Via social networking  In real life

2. Know who your kids text with  If necessary, block problem callers/texters  Options • AT&T Parental Controls

• • • •

Handset-specific Options YouMail Forward your child’s phone Change your child’s number

3. Limit electronics  Don’t let them charge the phone in their bedrooms  Place computers in public parts of the house  Limit texting during meals, homework time, etc.

4. Monitor your child’s postings  Require them to “friend” you on Facebook  Monitor their Twitter, Tumblr, etc.  Google your kids’ names

Nothing is truly anonymous

5. Set & Reiterate expectations 

Discuss limits and reasons for them



You should live by them as well (at least in front of your kids)



Remind kids frequently of the limits

Sexting?

Sexting, v: (a combination of sex and texting) is the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photos electronically, primarily between cell phones.

How Common is Sexting?  Sexually suggestive photos sent: – 20% overall –22% girls –11% young teen girls (ages 13-16) –18 % boys

How Common is Sexting?  Sexually suggestive messages sent: • 39% of all teens • 37% girls • 40% boys  48% of teens say they have received sexting photos or messages.

Interpreting sexting  22% of teens say technology makes them more forward and aggressive  38% say exchanging sexy content makes hooking up with others likely  29% believe those exchanging sexy content are “expected” to hook up

Serious Consequences: Jessica Logan

Criminal Implications of Sexting  Law enforcement reports that Adults prosecuted for possession of child pornography, solicitation and child abuse  Students Prosecuted as well

A.H. v. Florida  Boy and girl in romantic relationship  Took pics of themselves engaged in sexual acts  Boy e-mailed to girl  Both charged with producing and distributing child pornography

Iowa v. Canal  Boy and girl friends; not romantic • She asked him to send pic of penis • He complied • Both agreed not erotic  Parents called the cops; boy charged  Jury trial; boy convicted  Appeal rejected by Iowa Supreme Court

Florida v. Alpert  Girlfriend sent pics  He forwarded pic to all contacts  Convicted of distribution of child pornography  On sex offender registry until he’s 43

Nebraska Law  Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-813 et. seq.  Makes sexting (images) a class IV felony for offenders under 19  Class IIIA felony for 19 and up  Both punishable by: • Up to 5 years in prison and/or • $10,000 fine • Require sex offender registration

Criminal Implications  Affirmative Defense: •

the picture is only of the defendant;

• or • • • • • • •

defendant was younger than 19 picture is of someone at least 15 picture was taken voluntarily picture was given voluntarily picture contains only one child defendant hasn’t shared the picture; AND defendant didn’t coerce taking or sending

In re Katrina R.  15 year old texted nude pics to her BF  Was adjudicated “a child who deports herself so as to injure or endanger seriously the morals or health of herself or others” • Placed in legal custody of HHS • 6 months’ probation • Required counseling and community service.

A Parents’ Guide to Teens and Technology Karen Haase Steve Williams Harding & Shultz (402) 434-3000 khaase@hslegalfirm.com swilliams@hslegalfirm.com H & S School Law @KarenHaase @SteveisEsteban

Straight Talk about Special Education

"I normally admire your straight talk, Phil, but there's no need to keep pointing out that I have a homely baby."

But first, some history‌..

History of SpEd Laws  1965 – federal Office for Special Education Programs (OSEP) created  1973 - Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act enacted  1975 – Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) enacted  1990 – Americans with Disabilities Act enacted  1990 – EAHCA amended, now called Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act  1997 – IDEA reauthorized  2001 – No Child Left Behind enacted  2004 – IDEA reauthorized

Interesting SpEd Trends  Starting in 1973, students identified as disabled steadily increased every year  Population of students with disabilities peaked in 2004-05 at 6.72 million, comprising 13.8 percent of the nation’s student population • In 2005-06 special-education participation numbers began to decline • Currently 13.1 percent of all students nationwide are identified as disabled

Interesting SpEd Trends  Categories of disabled students also shifting: • SLD declined from 6.1 to 4.9 percent of all students nationwide • Mental retardation dropped from 1.3 to 0.9 percent of students • Autism quadrupled from 93,000 to 378,000 • OHI more than doubled from 303,000 to 689,000

FAPE  IDEA requires school to make “free appropriate public education” available to 3-21  Education-related costs at public expense  Determined through IEP process that provides individualized SPED and related services.  Least restrictive environment (LRE)  Includes preschool, elementary, secondary, and vocational education and transitional services

 NOT defined in IDEA – What is it?

FAPE - Rowley  Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)  Issue: Whether school must provide SL interpreter in all academic classes to deaf student with minimal residual hearing and excellent lip-reading ability.

 IDEA provides a “basic floor of opportunity” and does not guarantee any educational results

FAPE - Rowley  “Congress ‘expressly recognize[d] that in may instances the process of providing special education and related services to handicapped children is not guaranteed to produce any particular outcome,’ . . . Thus, the intent of [IDEA] was more to open the doors of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside.”

FAPE - Rowley  Two-prong test  Has the school complied with all procedural requirements? If not, did the violations lead to an inappropriate placement?  Is the IEP reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit?

FAPE: Post - Rowley  Parents do not have the right to determine methodology used in providing FAPE as long as it is an appropriate one.  Court will uphold school’s IEP if it is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits even if parents propose a “better” plan.  IDEA requires an appropriate education, not an optimal one.

FAPE: Post - Rowley  Services do not have to maximize a student’s achievement or potential; only needs to provide a reasonable chance for student to progress toward IEP’s goals and objectives.  Not entitled to the “best education that money can buy”  Must be more than de minimus

Parental Rights Parents have the right to:  Grant or deny permission to evaluate and place child in a particular setting  Refuse to consent or to revoke consent to the provision of SPED and related services  Be notified of an be present at IEP meetings;  Examine all records relating to student  Participate in decision making, including specific program and/or placement decisions  Bring an advocate to any meeting

Parental Rights     

Independent educational evaluations Mediation and due process Right to appeal, recover attorney’s fees, and stay-put Specific discipline procedures Be notified of parental rights and procedural safeguards under IDEA

Parents DO NOT have the right to:  Veto a school district’s decisions  Mediation, due process hearing, resolution session, judicial review.

IEP Team Members • Parents – Bio/adoptive parents’ rights – Who is a Parent?

• Fosters • Guardian • Surrogate Parent • In loco parentis • NOT HHS caseworker

IEP Team Members • Parents • Regular Ed. Teacher • SpEd Teacher • District Rep. • Eval. Interpreter

• The student • Private Sch. rep.

• Service Agency rep.

• Others who have knowledge or expertise

IEP Team Meetings • How Often – Upon verification – Before change in placement and – Annual Review

• Scheduling – Parents must be notified and schedule reasonably accommodated – May be held without parents

IEP Team Meetings (con’t) • Developing Plan – School can’t “predetermine” – Can have draft plan – Parent input must be considered – Parents don’t have veto power

• Limits Permitted – To length – To discussion of items already covered

IEP Team Meetings (con’t) • Not every discussion of a student is a “meeting.”

• Meetings do not include “informal or unscheduled conversations involving public agency personnel and conversations on issues such as teaching methodology, lesson plans, or coordination of service provision.”

IEP Team Meetings (con’t) • Meeting also does not include “preparatory activities that public agency personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting.”

IEP Contents • • • • • • • •

PLEP Measurable Annual Goals BIP Statement of SpEd & related services Extent of inclusion Postsecondary goals (16 and older) Transportation ESY

FAPE • Free Appropriate Public Education • IEP must be reasonably calculated provide “some education benefit.”

– does not require school to "maximize the potential” – not entitled to the “best education that money can buy” – Must be more than de minimus

LRE • • • • •

Least Restrictive Environment Determined by IEP team Preference is for inclusion Continuum analysis Restrictions permitted to meet – Disabled child’s needs – Needs of child’s peers

Parental Rights • To be consent to or refuse evaluation and/or verification • To be notified of and be present at IEP meetings • To Participate in Making Decisions • To bring an advocate to any meeting • To challenge proposed decisions through a due process hearing

Discipline Flow Chart Student’s misbehavior

Does student No have an IEP?

Does incident trigger need for a referral?

No

Yes Yes

Use reg. discipline procedures

No

Make referral and ask

Behavior No >10 days >10 days No Intervention cumulatively? consecutively?

Plan?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Plan functional Yes behavior assessment and ask

Pattern of exclusion?

No No and Yes

Yes

Is behavior a manifestation?

Yes

Use IEP procedures

Was FAPE provided?

No

Special Education and Extracurriculars

Laws in Effect • • • •

IDEA Section 504 ADA Regulations

IDEA • IEP must include ‾ Statement of services and aids ‾ Program modifications ‾ With specific reference to participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities ‾ NOT required to be tied to FAPE

IDEA • IEP team must ‾ Consider supplementary aids, support, modifications ‾ Afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate

IDEA • IEP team must ‾ “[Ensure] that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children . . . to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the child.”

Section 504 • Students with disabilities shall receive “equal opportunity” to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities • May include: counseling, athletics, transportation, health services, clubs, and employment services

ADA • May not discriminate on the basis of disability • Must provide reasonable accommodations • Do not need to alter qualification requirements or essential functions of the activities

Providing Notice • OCR has found that districts cannot place burden on student to inquire about activities • District must consider the range of impairments when providing notice . . .

Caselaw

Polk County Schools (FL) • 9th grade students with Fragile X syndrome, autism and fetal alcohol syndrome • Parents complained that the district discriminated under special ed. laws for failure to notice of extracurricular activities

Polk County Schools (FL) • District provided notice by: ‾ Marquee outside building ‾ Website ‾ Scroller system on classroom TV ‾ Automated phone system ‾ Notices sent home by teachers

Polk County Schools (FL) • OCR: ‾ Students had access but could not understand information on their own ‾ Parents must be notified on a “consistent basis”

Athletics

Maryville City (TN) • Baseball tryouts ‾ Student has Tourette's ‾ Coach evaluated on speed, balance, coordination, catching, hitting, etc. ‾ Two openings on team, student finished 8/14

Maryville City (TN) • Parents argued that coach knew of behavioral issues and discriminated against student • OCR ‾ Coach used clear metrics ‾ Student had “equal opportunity” ‾ No evidence of discrimination other than allegations

McDowell Schools (WV) • Cheerleading tryouts ‾ Student had growth hormone deficiency ‾ 24 tried out for 12 spots ‾ 5 impartial judges and an extensive rubric ‾ Student scored lowest of 24

McDowell Schools (WV) • OCR found no discrimination ‾ Students must be given reasonable accommodations, but must meet performance standards ‾ Grading was tied to performance standards (i.e. essential functions)

Northshore (WA) • • • •

Cheerleader fell below 2.8 GPA School policy deemed her ineligible Parents claimed discrimination OCR focused on 2 issues ‾ Was GPA policy a necessary function for cheerleading? ‾ Would modifying the policy “fundamentally alter” program?

Northshore (WA) OCR: • Not necessity: 2.8 Minimum was arbitrary, higher than athletic requirement • Fund. Alter: 2 other district H.S.’s considered exceptions, and student was in regular ed. classroom; disab. affected grades

Mt. Diablo (CA) OCR: “Applying an academic standard to all students without providing for appropriate consideration of whether the standard may discriminate against students with disabilities could constitute discrimination on the basis of disability.�

Lambert v. WV Bd. of Ed. • Deaf student requested an interpreter for basketball ‾ Parent asked Principal and Coach for interpreter ‾ School argued that student needed to ask SPED director ‾ OCR: parent can ask “anyone familiar with” student’s needs

Field Trips

St. John’s County (FL) • Student with learning disability excluded from field trip ‾ Student had been behaving badly and disobeying ‾ Parents argued discrimination ‾ OCR: school kept other, nonSPED kids out on behavior grounds; no discrimination

Oxford Hills (ME) Supervision of diabetic student on field trips  Four field trips  School and parent put 504 plan in place re supervision on trips  Parent alleged school required her to attend in order for daughter to participate

Oxford Hills (ME) OCR: • Trip 1: Parent offered; School could not find replacement in time when she backed out • Trips 2-4: Parent chose to attend; school did not condition student’s participation on parent attending • School did not discriminate

Nebraska Case Student on IEP for autism and behavioral issues • Field trip scheduled for May • Parent offered to attend with student and would bring sister • Within days of trip, student threatened to assault and even kill other students

Nebraska Case • Student asked if a “knife or a gun” would be better • Student had behavior problems when overstimulated by surroundings • Shortly before the trip, parent told district she could not attend

Nebraska Case • District noted behavior problems and decided not to allow student to attend • Parent became upset with school and made a complaint to OCR • OCR investigated and interviewed student, parent, and school officials

Nebraska Case OCR: • Asked school to make field trip determinations in IEP • Asked school to have separate policy re non-educational trips • School was worried about requirement of involving IEP team, in case behavior changed

School Clubs and Org.’s

Humble (TX) • National Honor Society required: ‾ 4.0 GPA ‾ Level or above-level classes ‾ Service, leadership, etc.

• Student had 5 modified curriculum classes, not selected • OCR: school provided notice to all students and parents, no discrim.

Perry (OH) • National Honor Society required: ‾ 95% attendance ‾ At least 2 extracurriculars • Student missed more than 5% but absences were excused • Student listed Spanish club as one of her activities, but the club leader did not know student

Perry (OH) OCR: • Absence policy was waived if doctors’ notes were provided for all absences over 5% • Participation in extracurriculars was fair qualification and evenly enforced • No discrimination

HI Dept. of Ed. Selection for Honor Band: • Student required an aide to participate in band • Student tried out and was not selected for honor band • Director used skill, instrument needs, etc. to select students • OCR: no discrimination

Winooski (VT)  Student’s IEP required 1:1 aide for art and assistance during lunch  Student desired to participate in student council and skiing club  IEP did not require 1:1 for those  OCR: no violation b/c not in IEP, but district must consider that type of aide in IEP meeting

Recent Nebraska Cases

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Facts      

Student aggressive autistic third-graders Parents had elected private placement for substantial portions of education Use of baskethold an issue Sent to Kennedy Krieger Institute for 5 months When returned, could not agree to plan Parents privately placed and sued

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Legal Issues 

Disciplinary Removal • Not punishing bad behavior

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

“Clearly behavioral problems at school were caused by and had a direct and substantial relationship to autism. …

However it is equally clear that [the student] was not disciplined for those behaviors, and that there was not a change of placement as described by [section 16 of Rule 51].”

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Legal Issues 

Disciplinary Removal • Not punishing bad behavior • No removal

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

“ [The student] was not suspended from school, nor was expelled. Neither was there an in school suspension. While the amount of time spent in the general education classroom varied, and as the semester went on decreased, [the student] remained in the placement provided for by the IEP.�

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Legal Issues 

Disciplinary Removal • Not punishing bad behavior • No removal • Since not discipline, no requirement for manifestation

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Legal Issues  

Disciplinary Removal FAPE under Rowley • Hearing officer: Best and Better aren’t relevant • Not a comparative standard

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

“ In support of a placement at Prairie Hill, the Petitioners argued that Prairie Hill was a better place for [the student] behaviorally, that [the student] made better progress educationally and that [the student] was better integrated with non-handicapped students.�

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

“These arguments, however, overlook the very basic premise that the provision of a free appropriate education is not a comparative test and not based upon a standard of where a student can receive the best education.�

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Legal Issues   

Disciplinary Removal FAPE under Rowley LRE • Parents argued private actually more mainstreamed with peers • H.O.: first preference is for home district, even if more mainstreamed at distant placement

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Legal Issues    

Disciplinary Removal FAPE under Rowley LRE Predetermination • School refused to implement experts’ recommendations re baskethold, etc.

• H.O.: good faith in accepting some, reasonably rejecting others

Lancaster Co. Sch. Dist. 001, 110 LRP 51715 (Sept. 10, 2010)

Legal Issues     

Disciplinary Removal FAPE under Rowley LRE Predetermination Damages • Parents asked for $430,184 plus tuition • H.O.: treated like IEE

Sidney Public Schools 110 LRP 19430 (Jan. 23, 2010)

Facts    

Student came to district verified as SLD, testing confirmed Behavior increasingly disruptive, noncompliant and bizarre Family reluctant to share medical and other information Student ultimately placed in a homebound placement pending additional medical information from family.

Sidney Public Schools 110 LRP 19430 (Jan. 23, 2010)

Legal Issues 

Classification • District verified SLD • Mom: should have been OHI: ADD • H.O.: verification doesn’t matter so long as FAPE provided • Richardson v. D.C. Sch. Dist., 541 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D.D.C. 2008)

Sidney Public Schools 110 LRP 19430 (Jan. 23, 2010)

Legal Issues  

Classification Failure to Accommodate Mom’s Handicap • Provide SpEd documents in accessible format • Provide homework in accessible format • H.O.: district accommodated with SpEd documents, not necessary for homework

Sidney Public Schools 110 LRP 19430 (Jan. 23, 2010)

Legal Issues   

Classification Failure to Accommodate Mom’s Handicap LRE • School provided clear continuum • Lack of student success • Disruption of peers • H.O.: district complied with regs

Sidney Public Schools 110 LRP 19430 (Jan. 23, 2010)

Legal Issues    

Classification Failure to Accommodate Mom’s Handicap LRE Unilateral change to BIP • Mom: followed doc’s advice without consulting mom • H.O.: team agreed to follow doc • H.O.: any violation de minimus

Lexington Public Schools Case No. 08-04 SE (Nov. 16, 2009)

Facts    

Student verified as OHI due to Tourette’s Syndrome, left district and later returned Poor behavior, non-compliant, contentious relationship with family For 2008-09 school year, team drafted BIP, mom objected refused to participate Student discovered skipping class, sent to ISS, mom removed from district and sued

Lexington Public Schools Case No. 08-04 SE (Nov. 16, 2009)

Legal Issues 

Predetermination • Mom: BIP and plan drafted before meeting therefore predetermination • H.O.: nothing wrong with having documents drafted • H.O.: “good idea to provide parent a copy” but not legally required • H.O.: Opportunity for input is key

Lexington Public Schools Case No. 08-04 SE (Nov. 16, 2009)

Legal Issues   

Predetermination FAPE ISS for skipping class • Disciplinary limitations not implicated because less than 11 days • Doctor’s note

Ogallala Public School 106 LRP 913 (Dec. 15, 2005)

Facts 

   

Student with Down Syndrome transitioning from elementary to middle school Parents disagree with program and methods Some sexualized misbehavior Limits placed on volume of communication Refuse to sign IEP, ultimately file suit

Ogallala Public School 106 LRP 913 (Dec. 15, 2005)

Legal Issues 

Discipline • Team determined misbehavior WAS a manifestation, then placed student in intensive social skills program • Parents: served as a removal from his educational program, punitive • H.O.: team determined it was an educational need

Ogallala Public School 106 LRP 913 (Dec. 15, 2005)

Legal Issues  

Discipline Predetermination • Parents: they never did what we told them to.

• H.O.: “While the IDEA emphasized the importance of parental involvement in a child’s educational process, the wishes of the parents are not controlling.”

Ogallala Public School 106 LRP 913 (Dec. 15, 2005)

Legal Issues   

Discipline Predetermination Communication Ban • Parents: prevented meaningful input • H.O.: school entitled to maintain control over time, manner and method of communication to employees

Ogallala Public School 106 LRP 913 (Dec. 15, 2005)

Legal Issues    

Discipline Predetermination Communication Ban Methodology • H.O.: school gets to decide

Ogallala Public School 106 LRP 913 (Dec. 15, 2005)

Legal Issues     

Discipline Predetermination Communication Ban Methodology IEE • H.O.: district’s requirement that evaluators be approved by NDE acceptable

NCECBVI Family Weekend Karen Haase Steve Williams Harding & Shultz (402) 434-3000 khaase@hslegalfirm.com swilliams@hslegalfirm.com H & S School Law @KarenHaase @SteveisEsteban