Showing posts with label compliance complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compliance complaint. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

ESY: A related service

Citing budget problems, many districts are cutting back on extended school year. Some districts have cancelled it altogether, others are reducing services. One district we heard of is simply not running ESY and offering compensatory services in the fall. This is not legal, as far as I can tell from reading the law. 

It is not legal for districts to make unilateral changes in related services listed on the child's IEP outside of the IEP process. Is your district reducing Extended School Year? If so, it is very important to understand your rights as you prepare to advocate for your child. Better yet, get a group of affected families together and make your case as a class. 

We presented information to the board and requested they use stimulus funds to restore ESY. We hope this will have an impact on the summer programs. 

Wright's law has important resources on advocating for ESY. 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

When districts break the law...

I got a message from a friend that when thier district received a request for an outside AAC assessment, they denied it. Seems they think their assessment was (in the words of my friend) good enough for the kid. How frustrating, sad and infuriating. 

WHAT  NOW?
Whether or not you have a good relationship with your district, the sad truth is that districts do not always comply with IDEA, do violate the rights of children with special needs, and will wiggle with in the confines of the law to try to legally (but unethically) deny services that are difficult and expensive to provide. When this happens, and the problem cannot be resolved with simple, courteous communication with the district, there are processes and procedures in place that you should follow to protect your child.

ALL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU AND THE DISTRICT IS POTENTIALLY LEGAL EVIDENCE for hearing.


The first thing to do is to make sure you understand your child's rights and the district's responsibilities. These can be found in the flyer your district gives you at every IEP and also online in the Parent's Rights documents (various translations are also online).

Quite likely you will read these and have more questions than you began with. That is good. Make a list. Then make a call: The Office of Procedural Safeguards (OPS) is there to help resolve problems in special education. Your tax dollars at work, and they work hard! OPS is a state agency that is little known but should get a customer service award. As a neutral party, they work with parents and districts; they really know their stuff and can often help resolve problems before they escalate. And when problems do escalate, they can help resolve them before parties go to due process. Which is good. When districts and parents go to court, everyone loses. Even if you win.

When you call OPS, explain that you are an unrepresented parent (that means you do not have an attorney for your child-- I'm assuming an attorney, if you have one, is answering your questions). Ask your questions, and they will help you to understand your child's rights and the district's responsibilities. If your district is violating the law (or in legal speak, "out of compliance") OPS will explain how to file a complaint, which will initiate technical assistance and monitoring of the district until the problem is resolved.

Here is what the law says about assessment rights under IDEA. (this is quoted from the Notice of Procedural Safeguards):

Nondiscriminatory Assessment How is my child assessed for special education services?
  • You have the right to have your child assessed in all areas of suspected disability. Materials and procedures used for assessment and placement must not be racially, culturally, or sexually discriminatory. 
  • Assessment materials must be provided and the test administered in your child’s native language or mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer. 
  • No single procedure can be the sole criterion for determining eligibility and developing FAPE for your child. (20 USC 1414[b][1]–[3], 1412[a][6][B]; 34 CFR 300.304; EC 56001[j] and 56320)

Independent Educational Assessments May my child be tested independently at the district’s expense?
  • If you disagree with the results of the assessment conducted by the school district, you have the right to ask for and obtain an independent educational assessment for your child from a person qualified to conduct the assessment at public expense. 
  • The parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees.
  • The school district must respond to your request for an independent educational assessment and provide you information about where to obtain an independent educational assessment. 
  • If the school district believes that the district’s assessment is appropriate and disagrees that an independent assessment is necessary, the school district must request a due process hearing to prove that its assessment was appropriate. If the district prevails, you still have the 
  • right to an independent assessment but not at public expense. The IEP team must consider independent assessments. 
  • District assessment procedures allow in-class observation of students. If the school district observes your child in his or her classroom during an assessment, or if the school district would have been allowed to observe your child, an individual conducting an independent educational assessment must also be allowed to observe your child in the classroom. 
  • If the school district proposes a new school setting for your child and an independent educational assessment is being conducted, the independent assessor must be allowed to first observe the proposed new setting. (20 USC 1415[b][1] and [d][2][A]; 34 CFR 300.502; EC 56329[b] and [c])
Now, about the problem of refused assessment. When a district refuses assessment request, they must give Prior Written Notice within fifteen days. This is from the Notice of Procedural Safeguards from OPS: 

Prior Written Notice When is a notice needed?

  • This notice must be given when the school district proposes or refuses to initiate a change in the identification, assessment, or educational placement of your child with special needs or the provision of a free appropriate public education. (20 USC 1415[b][3] and (4), 1415[c][1], 1414[b][1]; 34 CFR 300.503; EC 56329 and 56506[a])

  • The school district must inform you about proposed evaluations of your child in a written notice or an assessment plan within fifteen (15) days of your written request for evaluation. The notice must be understandable and in your native language or other mode of communication, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. (34 CFR 300.304; EC 56321)

What will the notice tell me?
The Prior Written Notice must include the following:

1. A description of the actions proposed or refused by the school district
2. An explanation of why the action was proposed or refused
3. A description of each assessment procedure, record, or report the agency used as a basis for the action proposed or refused
4. A statement that parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards
5. Sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this part
6. A description of other options that the IEP team considered and the reasons those options were rejected; and
7. A description of any other factors relevant to the action proposed or refused. (20 USC 1415[b][3] and [4], 1415[c][1], 1414[b][1]; 34 CFR 300.503)

Monday, March 2, 2009

Accessibility in Yosemite

Two weeks ago I went to Yosemite with my mother, who has Parkinson's. It was her Christmas wish to visit Yosemite in the winter-- a place she had spent many happy hours in her youth but never seen in snow.

Here is my rundown on accessibility in our flagship national park, revised based on experience. Ironically, when I asked about accessibility I was told by a staff member who had clearly been trained to respond to this, "As a national park, we are a federal government agency and comply with all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

With over 4 million visitors a year, many of these foreign nationals who come from countries with no legal status or protections for persons with disabilities, Yosemite is an opportunity to show the world a particular American strength: Universal Design.

For all the urbanization, YNP falls sadly short of the vision of ADA. Just like home, urban does not equal accessible.

F: YOSEMITE LODGE AT THE FALLS
F: PARKING/ENTRANCE WALKS: The handicapped parking is located across the bus loading drive-through from the entrance to the lobby, and the curb cuts take one across a wandering path with no cross walks. At one point we started through one curb cut to cross the street and had to look for the other, which was located diagonally across but not marked. The handicapped entrance is what my brother in law Jim used to resentfully call a "servants entrance" about a 50 yard detour away from the front steps up a ramp that is out of sight of the public. The Awahnee entrance is much better.

F: WALKWAYS: It had been snowing when we arrived, and while the stairs and walks for the general public were shoveled, the ramps and curb cuts were not. When checking in with my mother (in her chair) I explained that we needed a room we could access (I was thinking ahead of the snow). The nice young man at the counter assured me this was and sent us across the road, through a parking lot and down snow covered walks to a room several hundred yards and a few snow banks away. We came back and requested a different room. When I suggested we should preview the room to see if we could actually get there, he was less than helpful. The rooms are all located in separate outside buildings with few covered walks, so shoveling is essential. I crossed several areas by running my mom's chair at full speed through the snow and shoveled our own walks into our room.

D ROOMS: One can reserve an accessible room, which we did not because the only accessible rooms have only one queen bed and a roll away and like people with a disability, we were traveling with children. The regular rooms are completely inaccessible, the doors to the bathrooms are to narrow even for a walker. The showers are inside standard tubs and there are no grab bars anywhere.

C CAFETERIA: The chairs are too close in the dining room. No one offered assistance, in spite of the fact that we clearly needed help. Many things are too high to reach.

BIKE TRAILS AND ACCESSIBLE TRAILS:
B+: The new trail to the Yosemite falls bridge is very nice, as is the valley floor trail from the lodge into the meadow. The only issue we had is, once again, the curbcuts from our rooms were missing, so that we had to take a long detour to then roll through the parking lot before we could find an accessible entrance to the trail. Everyone else? Cross the street in a cross walk. BOOO.

AWANHEE:
B+: We went here for dinner one evening. Surprisingly, this historical landmark was the most accessible in the park. We did not see the rooms, however. In spite of the fact that the only accessible bathroom was up the elevator (unpleasant but not uncommon.) There was an accessibility map in the lobby, unlike in the lodge, showing where all the accessible trails and restrooms are. The staff were respectful and helpful, a difficult balance to strike, in my experience. Even in the national parks, It is good to be wealthy, especially if you have a disability.

BADGER PASS:
F: Now, if you have not a disability yourself, you might say a ski area does not need to be accessible (which this is absolutely not- stairs everywhere, no ADA bathroom, and of course, snow and no covered walks). We did not even find ADA parking. But if they offer adaptive ski lessons (call two weeks ahead)- don't you think they would make the lodge and ski school accessible? Good thing my mom opted not to come up and instead hung out at the lodge napping and drinking hot chocolate. Too bad she did not get to see her grandchildren ski. It would have been nice if she could have hung at the ski lodge and watched from the window.

CURRY VILLAGE:
F: We could not even get into Curry, due to the snow. Or the ice rink (again, she wanted to watch her grandkids skate for the first time). I'll have to go back in summer to evaluate this part without snow.

SHUTTLE BUSSES:
C: Thank goodness they have kneeling busses. And wheelchair spaces. The driver was very nice- always a plus. Unfortunately, she did not know how to use the wheelchair tie downs, and when I showed her how she explained that she had asked when they were trained on these new accessible models and the trainer told her she did not know how herself, and did not think it was important! How lame is that? The park service invests in new ADA compliant busses and then does not properly train the drivers in their use.

So, for all the urbanization of this natural wonder, there is little to recommend it in terms of accessibility. That is a shame. So much of the development in the park is to make it seem more familiar, less strange and wild-- really to make it seem more accessible to the masses of able bodied people. It is tragic, in my opinion, that this development has made it more like home and less of a natural wonder, a place to connect with the serene, the tranquil, with wild. I have always resented the intrusion of fast food, ATMs, markets full of fake indian goods made in other countries, many low quality restaurants that highlight the worst genres of American food. I would resent it less if the city were actually were accessible, because at least accessible development would be for the purpose of making Yosemite the experience that Muir and Roosevelt meant it to be, a "tonic for the soul", instead of simply familiar in all the worst ways.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Assistive Technology- fight for promise

I thought it might be useful for folks to post the story of our fight for our child's right to speak. A three year legal battle with our school district that almost cost us our home, but finally resolved with her having a device, a qualified support provider and an appropriate placement. 

First a little history and some definitions.

Assistive Technology is any tool or device that will help a person with a disability perform a task that is impacted by the disability. Assistive Technology (AT) can be very simple (braille, pencil grips, slant boards) to very complex (standers, motorized wheel chairs, voice activated computers or switches). A sub-specialty in AT is Augmentative and Assistive Communication (AAC). This branch of AT can include:
  •  "no tech" supports (like sign language, visual schedules and cards with Icons and words, some times called PECS- Picture Exchange Communication Systems) 
  •  "mid-tech" or "light tech" (single switch battery operated switches that can operate simple machines or communicate with pre-recorded messages) and
  •  "high tech" (dynamic speech generating devices that allow the user to select a wide range of vocabulary and create their own messages).
Since our daughter is aphasiac, we thought AAC was a natural option to explore. Would she be able to communicate with a device? She used everything else we gave her-- sign langauge, PECS, yes and no cards. It was clear she wanted to communicate. 

Unfortunately our school district fought us every step of the way. It is helpful to know what arguments do not work, legally. First they claimed she was too cognitively impaired to use AAC. 

AAC is appropriate for people with mental retardation (the legal term, not mine) including those with Down's Syndrome, Fragile X and other diagnoses. 

Then they claimed that she was not able to use a device because she was unable to access the switches with her hands. In trials, she was not able to demonstrate accuracy.

AAC devices now exist that allow users to use head pointers and eye gaze. Our daughter uses a My Tobii, which works solely on eye gaze. She also was able to use a Vantage by PRC which works by head pointing. (The Tobii is easier). 

Since having her device she has gone from answering simple yes and no questions as her main form of communication to writing poems, short journal entries, current events summaries and doing up to 20 math problems at a time. She is doing grade level work for the first time. She can use a screen with up to forty icons at a time and navigate between pages. 

To get this done, we had to file a compliance complaint with our state office of education. They found in our favor: our district refused to provide an assessment (the legal time limit under IDEA is 60 days, they waited 2.5 years by the time we filed) refused to hold an IEP about placement, refused to provide equipment listed in the IEP. These are all protected rights under IDEA. Finally they refused to comply with the corrective actions ordered by the state-- a staggering reaction-- and we got an attorney. 

It took a second mortgage on our house and a lot of beans and rice and oatmeal, but we prevailed. She has a device, a classroom, a qualified AAC specialist and so do five other students in our district. 

Our child was served, but I know of several families in our district who are fighting the same battle. 

Today I am posting new resources related to AAC and AT. These make the difference for many students between warehousing and education. It is worth the fight. It is their right.