|
Welcome to the NNEDSC
|
Special Education Rights In Jeopardy Again!!! |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Tuesday, 24 November 2009 13:25 |
Special Education Rights In Jeopardy Again!!! Please Act Now – or – We Could Lose Many Critical Rights and Protections for Children with Disabilities Even though it has only been about 18 months since NH’s special education regulations, the NH Rules for the Education of Children with Disabilities were revised, some changes to Federal and State special education laws have made it necessary for the NH Rules to be revised again. While the changes to Federal and State special education law only affect a few sections of the NH Rules, the rulemaking process has opened up the entire NH Rules for reconsideration. Some of the critical issues that are at risk are listed at the end of this alert. During the 2008 revision of the NH Rules, hundreds of parents and others advocated vigorously to maintain critical rights and protections for children with disabilities – which is why those rights and protections are still in the NH Rules! It is essential that we show that same level of support for the rights of children with disabilities and their families this time – or we could lose everything!!! Please join me at the Public Comment Session being held by the State Board of Education on the proposed revisions to Ed 1100, the NH Rules for the Education of Children with DisabilitiesWednesday, December 9, 2009 at 12:30 pmat the NH Department of Education in Concord.If you are able to speak at the public comment session, it would make a huge impact. Even if you are only able to come to show your support, it will really help (even better – bring a friend or two)! If you are the parent of a child with disabilities, an individual with a disability or a family member, friend, neighbor, brother, sister, or advocate, we need you help! Important rights and protections may be lost forever if you remain silent. Visit http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/laws/documents/1100students-with-disabilities-proposal.pdf to find the proposal that was entered into rulemaking. Since the proposal is quite lengthy, I developed an unofficial summary document (attached) that highlights only those areas where changes are proposed. Key issues on which you may want to give input (I apologize in advance for the length of this list, but I wanted to be sure it was as complete as possible):The proposed NH Rules define:« “Child with Acquired Brain Injury” – (ABI) means brain damage that occurs after birth. It includes damage sustained by infection, disease, or lack of oxygen resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance and requiring special education and or related services.)« “Child with a developmental delay” – means a child with a developmental delay as defined in RSA-186-C:2 I-a who is experiencing developmental delays in one or more of the following areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or adaptive development; and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services, as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures consistent with Ed 1107 and identified in compliance with 34 CFR 300.111(b).)The proposed NH Rules would:« Allow related services, such as speech or occupational therapy, to serve as a child’s special education program. « Set requirements for preschool learning environments (Ed 1113.10 and Table 1100.2) and clarify that it is to be the least restrictive environment.« Require a reevaluation of a child identified under the category of developmental delay before the child turns age 10 and his/her eligibility for special education under developmental delay category ends.The proposed NH Rules do not:« Address the issue of reimbursement of expert witness fees. NH’s State special education law allows reimbursement of reasonable expert witness fees in certain specified situations when the parent prevails at a due process hearing. The following components are in the current (2008) NH Rules, but could be reconsidered (and possibly changed) during this revision – The NH Rules currently require: « Parental consent for each step in the special education process, but also provide procedures for when parents fail to respond to a request for consent, as well as the exceptions required by Federal law (IDEA). « 10-day written notice be provided to the parent before an IEP meeting (5 days for a manifestation meeting)« Evaluations to be completed within a 45-day timeline (with 1 mutually-agreed upon 15-day extension)« If a parent requests an IEP meeting, the school district must, within 21 days, either hold the IEP meeting or provide the parents with a written prior notice explaining why they are refusing to convene an IEP « If the parents make the request, the school district must provide access to test results and other relevant educational records 5 days prior to the IEP meeting« A 72-hour notice for excusal of an IEP Team member (or as soon as the absence is known, if that is sooner) – Note: The NH Rules are not clear whether or not these excusal requirements apply to all IEP Team members « Short-term objectives or benchmarks to be included in each child’s IEP, unless the parent agrees that they are not necessary for one or more of the child’s annual goals« The IEP to include the “sufficiency statement” (whether the child’s progress is sufficient to meet the annual goal) as part of the regular report to the parents of the child’s progress towards the annual goals in the child’s IEP« Transition planning, with a focus on the child’s courses of study to be part of the IEP beginning by age 14 (the Federal law requires this to begin by the first IEP to be in place when the child turns age 16)« Each teacher/service provider responsible for implementing the IEP & the parents, be given a complete copy of the IEP« When extended school year (ESY) services are provided in non-special education or district programs, they must be supervised, on site, by appropriately certified school district personnel no less than once per week.« Transition services must also be monitored by school district personnel at least weeklyThe NH Rules also:« Include the types of evaluations required for each disability category, as part of the table of qualified examiners Below are some additional issues on which you may want to give input. These have to do with protecting the rights of children with disabilities who experience behavioral challenges and/or who are suspended from school: « Currently a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) must only be conducted if the IEP Team determines that a child’s behavior which led to the suspension was a manifestation of the child’s disability. The Disabilities Rights Center is recommending that schools conduct a FBA and develop a behavioral intervention plan whenever: a child with a disability has been removed [suspended] for more than 10 days in a school year; a member of the child’s IEP Team requests one or raises concerns that the child’s behavior may be impeding his/her learning or the learning of others; the child exhibits assaultive or self-injurious behavior; and the child exhibits behavior that causes property damage. « Should the IEP Team be required to consider whether a FBA should be conducted after any suspension?« Currently, an IEP Team considering whether a child’s behavior was a “manifestation” of his/her disability must only determine if: the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability, or if it was the direct result of the school district’s failure to implement the IEP. Do you believe that the additional manifestation determination criteria that were removed in 2008 should be restored? Those criteria include: whether the IEP and placement were appropriate, whether the school district properly implemented the IEP, whether the child’s disability impaired his/her ability to understand the impact and consequences of the behavior, and whether the child’s disability impaired his/her ability to control the behavior at issue. « Previous NH Rules allowed that for very serious behavioral violations, a child could be removed to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 calendar days. In 2008, this was changed to 45 school days. Which do you support? « Previously, before a hearing officer could decide to remove a child to an interim alternative educational setting (based on a determination that if the child remained in his/her current placement, the child’s behavior would be likely to put the child or others at risk), the hearing officer had to first consider whether the school district made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the child’s current placement, including the use of supplemental aids and services. This was removed in 2008. Do you believe that this rule should be restored? « Should the rules regarding the use of restraints be more rigorous: prohibiting the use of restraint except when there is an imminent risk of serious physical harm the child or others that cannot be immediately controlled by less restrictive means; prohibiting the use of mechanical restraints or prone restraints; and requiring the incident to be documented and reported to the parents and State Department of Education whenever any restraint is used on a child with a disability? If you have questions, please contact Bonnie Dunham at home by replying to this email (
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
)~ PLEASE FORWARD THIS ALERT TO YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS~ | |
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 07 October 2009 13:48 |
A HUGE thank you to all of those that walked with us this year. Thank you to all of our sponsors and performers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Event Info Page
Who's Online
We have 7 guests online
|
