U.S. Dept of Ed Policy Statements

[d]

Hot off the presses and an Xmas gift:

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20071226.html

Dear Colleague Letter: Access by Students with Disabilities to Accelerated Programs

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

DEC 26, 2007

Dear Colleague:

I am writing to advise you of an issue involving students with disabilities seeking enrollment in challenging academic programs, such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes or programs (accelerated programs). Specifically, it has been reported that some schools and school districts have refused to allow qualified students with disabilities to participate in such programs. Similarly, we are informed of schools and school districts that, as a condition of participation in such programs, have required qualified students with disabilities to give up the services that have been designed to meet their individual needs. These practices are inconsistent with Federal law, and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education will continue to act promptly to remedy such violations where they occur.

As you know, OCR is responsible for enforcing two Federal laws that protect qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination. OCR enforces Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 104, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. OCR is also responsible, in the education context, for enforcing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II) and its implementing regulations at 28 CFR Part 35, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by entities of State and local government. Although this letter discusses aspects of the Section 504 regulation, Title II provides no lesser protections than does Section 504. Also relevant are the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is administered by the Department’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The IDEA provides funds to States and school districts in order to assist them in providing special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities. The IDEA’s implementing regulations are located at 34 CFR Part 300. OCR consulted with OSEP in drafting this letter.1

As an initial matter, I want to commend the efforts so many of you have made to ensure that placement decisions for all students are based on each student’s individual academic abilities regardless of the presence, nature, or severity of a disability. I want to ensure that all of you are aware of the Federal civil rights requirements discussed below.
Prohibition Against Disability-Based Discrimination in Accelerated Programs

The practice of denying, on the basis of disability, a qualified student with a disability the opportunity to participate in an accelerated program violates both Section 504 and Title II. Discrimination prohibited by these laws includes, on the basis of disability, denying a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s aids, benefits, or services, and affording a qualified individual with a disability with an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service in a manner that is not equal to that offered to individuals without disabilities. 34 CFR 104.4(a), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii); 28 CFR 35.130(a), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii).

Under Section 504 and Title II, a recipient may not utilize criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability. 34 CFR 104.4(b)(4) and 28 CFR 35.130(b)(3). A public entity also may not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered. 28 CFR 35.130(b)(8). Public school students with disabilities who require special education and/or related services receive them either through implementation of an individualized education program (IEP) developed in accordance with Part B of the IDEA or a plan developed under Section 504. 34 CFR 104.33. It is unlawful to deny a student with a disability admission to an accelerated class or program solely because of that student’s need for special education or related aids and services2, or because that student has an IEP or a plan under Section 504. The practice of conditioning participation in an accelerated class or program by a qualified student with a disability on the forfeiture of special education or of related aids and services to which the student is legally entitled also violates the Section 504 and Title II requirements stated above.

Please note that nothing in Section 504 or Title II requires schools to admit into accelerated classes or programs students with disabilities who would not otherwise be qualified for these classes or programs. Generally, under Section 504, an elementary or secondary school student with a disability is a qualified individual with a disability if the student is of compulsory school age. However, schools may employ appropriate eligibility requirements or criteria in determining whether to admit students, including students with disabilities, into accelerated programs or classes. Section 504 and Title II require that qualified students with disabilities be given the same opportunities to compete for and benefit from accelerated programs and classes as are given to students without disabilities. 34 CFR 104.4(b)(1)(ii) and 28 CFR 35.130(b)(1)(ii).

Furthermore, a recipient’s provision of necessary special education and related aids and services to qualified students with disabilities in accelerated classes or programs must be consistent with the Section 504 and Title II requirements regarding free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Free Appropriate Public Education

In general, conditioning participation in accelerated classes or programs by qualified students with disabilities on the forfeiture of necessary special education or related aids and services amounts to a denial of FAPE under both Part B of the IDEA and Section 504.

Section 504 requires a recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity to provide FAPE to each qualified person with a disability who is in the recipient’s jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person’s disability. 34 CFR 104.33(a). Under Section 504, the provision of an appropriate education is the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that satisfy certain procedural requirements and that are designed to meet the individual education needs of persons with disabilities as adequately as the needs of persons without disabilities are met. 34 CFR 104.33(b)(1)(i). School districts may create a plan or other document to provide students with disabilities with FAPE pursuant to Section 504. The Section 504 FAPE requirement may also be met through the implementation of an IEP developed in accordance with Part B of the IDEA. 34 CFR 104.33(b)(2).
Part B of the IDEA requires that FAPE be made available to eligible students with disabilities in certain age ranges. The IDEA defines FAPE as special education and related services that: are provided free of charge; meet State standards; include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education; and are provided in conformity with a properly developed IEP. 20 USC § 1401(a)(9); 34 CFR 300.17.3

Participation by a student with a disability in an accelerated class or program generally would be considered part of the regular education or the regular classes referenced in the Section 504 and the IDEA regulations. Thus, if a qualified student with a disability requires related aids and services to participate in a regular education class or program, then a school cannot deny that student the needed related aids and services in an accelerated class or program. For example, if a student’s IEP or plan under Section 504 provides for Braille materials in order to participate in the regular education program and she enrolls in an accelerated or advanced history class, then she also must receive Braille materials for that class. The same would be true for other needed related aids and services such as extended time on tests or the use of a computer to take notes.

Conditioning enrollment in an advanced class or program on the forfeiture of needed special education or related aids and services is also inconsistent with the principle of individualized determinations, which is a key procedural aspect of the IDEA, Section 504 and Title II. As noted above, under Section 504, the provision of FAPE is based on the student’s individual education needs as determined through specific procedures--generally, an evaluation in accordance with Section 504 requirements. 34 CFR 104.35. An individualized determination may result in a decision that a qualified student with a disability requires related aids and services for some or all of his regular education classes or his program. Likewise, the IDEA contains specific procedures for evaluations and for the development of IEPs that require individualized determinations. See 34 CFR 300.301 through 300.328. The requirement for individualized determinations is violated when schools ignore the student’s individual needs and automatically deny a qualified student with a disability needed related aids and services in an accelerated class or program.

I urge you to use the information provided in this letter to continue to evaluate whether your school district is in compliance with these anti-discrimination requirements. OCR remains willing to continue supporting you in these efforts. We provide technical assistance to entities that request assistance in voluntarily complying with the civil rights laws that OCR enforces. If you need additional information or assistance on these or other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the OCR enforcement office that serves your state or territory. The contact information for each office is available online at: wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm. I thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance in this important matter.
Sincerely yours,

Stephanie Monroe
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1 You may contact OSEP to address any issues that relate specifically to the requirements of IDEA. Contact information for OSEP is available online at: www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/
monitor/state-contact-list.html.

2 The term "related aids and services" as used here is intended to include both the Section 504 requirements at 34 CFR 104.33(c) and the equivalent requirements under the IDEA, i.e. related services, supplementary aids and services, program modifications and supports for school personnel. See 34 CFR 300.34, 300.42, and 300.320(a)(4).

3 Among other things, an IEP must contain a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and those without disabilities. An IEP also must contain an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with children without disabilities in the regular class and in these activities. 34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)-(5).

[d]

An oldie but goodie, the Lillie Felton letter:

www.wrightslaw.com/info/elig.sld.osep.felton.htm

Full Text of Response from Office of Special Education Programs

This letter is in further response to your request for clarification of the requirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B) that govern procedures for determining whether children suspected of having specific learning disabilities are eligible for services under the Part B program. Based on your inquiry and a subsequent telephone conversation between Ms. Lillie and a member of my staff, the specific issues which you wanted clarified in writing were identified. The relevant issues and our responses appear below. Please excuse the delay in responding to your request.

Eligibility of Children with High IQs

In items (1) and (2) of your letter, you raised questions about a letter to Mr. Brian J. Hartman dated August 28, 1989, concerning situations in which some students with exceptionally high I.Q.s may be eligible for special education services, under the specific learning disability category, while others may not. A more recent clarification from this Office relevant to the issues that your inquiry raises is set forth in a letter to Stephen Mark Ulissi, Ph.D, dated January 14, 1992. The more recent clarification to Mr. Ulissi represents the Department's current position on the relevant issues and supersedes the clarifications set forth in the August 28, 1989 letter to Mr. Hartman.

Multi-Disciplinary Evaluations

The letter to Mr. Ulissi clarifies that "each child who is evaluated for a suspected learning disability must be measured against his or her own expected performance, and not against some arbitrary general standard." The Part B regulations include requirements, at 34 CFR §§ 300.540-300.543, which must be used for evaluating children suspected of having specific learning disabilities, in addition to the evaluation requirements at 34 CFR §§ 300.530-300.534. The multidisciplinary evaluation team, whose responsibilities for evaluating a child with a specific learning disability are specified at 34 CFR §§ 300.541-300.543, is responsible for making a determination as to whether there is a severe discrepancy between an individual child's ability and his or her performance level.

The interpretation in the letter to Dr. Ulissi is that underachievement is measured against the student's own ability, and not against a normative performance standard. Thus, each child's educational needs are determined on a case-by-case basis, using the evaluation procedures at 34 CFR §§ 300.530-300.534, and the additional criteria at 34 CFR §§ 300.540-300.543 when evaluating children with learning disabilities.

You are also concerned that, because of a statement in the August 28, 1989 letter to Mr. Hartman, "teachers [are] saying that some Multidisciplinary Teams are being told that they now must consider as a part of eligibility criteria, whether the student's disability adversely impacts their ability to benefit from regular education." Part B contains no such requirement. In order to be eligible for services under Part B, a child must be evaluated as having one or more of thirteen specified physical, mental, emotional, or sensory impairments, which cause the child to need special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1). The common denominator in this definition is that the child's impairment "adversely affects educational performance." 34 CFR § 300.7(b)(1)-(b)(13). Part B does not otherwise define this concept. The term "adversely affects" is used in the Part B regulations at 34 CFR § 300.7 in the phrase "adversely affects a child's educational performance." An operational definition of "educational performance" is included in a letter to William M. Lybarger, Ed.D. dated September 14, 1990 (copy enclosed). That letter states that a child's educational performance must be determined on an individual basis, and should include non-academic and academic skills. Since the measurement of "educational performance" is different for each child, the Department has not developed a single definition for this term. Similarly, the term "adversely affects" must be determined on an individual basis.

The January 14, 1992 letter to Dr. Ulissi also states:

. . .Neither Part B nor the Part B regulations provide for any exclusions based on intelligence level in determining eligibility for Part B services. The regulations, at 34 CFR § 300.541(b), do provide that:

[t]he team may not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of---
(1) A visual, hearing, or motor [disability]; (2) Mental retardation; (3) Emotional disturbance; or (4) Environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

No mention is made in the regulations of any exclusions solely on the basis of intelligence. All children, except those specifically excluded in the regulations, regardless of I.Q., are eligible to be considered as having a specific learning disability, if they meet the eligibility requirements contained in the Part B regulations.

In your letter, you stated that you are concerned that some students are being disqualified for services under Part B because they are passing from grade to grade, without taking into consideration any severe discrepancy between the child's ability and the child's performance. Ms. Lillie indicated in her conversation with a member of my staff that, in some instances, a child's final grade in mathematics or reading, or a score on an achievement test, alone, is used to determine whether a child is eligible for services under Part B.

In order for a child to be eligible for services under Part B under the specific learning disability category, there must be a severe discrepancy between the child's achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, or mathematics reasoning. 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii). None of the areas listed at § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) can be categorically excluded from the areas that the multidisciplinary team examines to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability.

A child may be considered to have a specific learning disability if the multidisciplinary evaluation team finds that the child "does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels" in one or more of the areas, and the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in these areas that is not the result of other known handicapping conditions or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. See 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(1)-(2) and (b). Of course, as is the case for all other children who are identified as having a disability, a child is not eligible for services under Part B unless, because of their disability, they need special education and related services. See 34 CFR § 300.7(a).

Tutoring

You also asked if the evaluation team should consider any tutoring that the child receives outside of the school day, or any modifications or compensatory strategies that are used with the child, and that the child needs in order to succeed academically, when determining whether the child is eligible for services under Part B.

Although this specific issue is not addressed in the Part B regulations, a team may find that a child has a specific learning disability if the team determines that "[t]he child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability levels. . .." 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(1).

Generally, it would be appropriate for the evaluation team to consider information about outside or extra learning support provided to the child in developing the written report required at 34 CFR § 300.543, as such information may indicate that the child's current educational achievement reflects the service augmentation, not what the child's achievement would be without such help. Such information may also have bearing on the evaluation team's conclusion, required by 34 CFR § 300.543(b)(6), on whether the child has "a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services."

Eligibility & Placement Decisions

In item (3) of your letter, you asked about which groups appropriately make eligibility and placement decisions. Before a child can receive services under Part B, the responsible public agency must evaluate the child in accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 300.531-300.532, and in the case of children suspected of having a learning disability, the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 300.540-300.543. Under Section 300.532, the evaluation must be made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons, including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability. See 34 CFR § 300.532(e). For children suspected of having learning disabilities the additional team member specified at § 300.540 must also be included in the multidisciplinary team. The evaluation must assess the child "in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities." See 34 CFR 300.532(f)). After the evaluation is completed, the determination is made about whether or not the child is eligible for services under Part B.

Under Part B, placement decisions must be made "by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options." See 34 CFR § 300.533(a)(3). The term "placement" as used in this provision encompasses eligibility (e.g., placement into special education), placement in a continuum option, and location in which services will be delivered. While the regulation requires that each of these decisions be made in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.533, it does not require that all of those decisions be made at the same time, or even by the same group of persons.

If the child is eligible for services under Part B, the school district must conduct a meeting to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for the child, within thirty days of the date of the eligibility determination. See 34 CFR § 300.343(c). Although the Part B regulations clearly contemplate that IEP meetings are held after eligibility decisions are made, they do not necessarily preclude the development of IEPs in anticipation of eligibility determinations.

One of the determinations made by the participants at the IEP meeting is the specially-designed instruction or special education services, as well as any necessary related services, to be included in the IEP. Since the IEP forms the basis for decisions about where the child will receive services (34 CFR 300.552(a)(2)), the decision about where the IEP will be implemented generally would be made after the IEP meeting has taken place.

As indicated below, we are referring your inquiry about how eligibility determinations are being made in North Carolina to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI).

In item (4) of your letter, you alleged that North Carolina is not complying with the requirements at 34 CFR § 300.541 because its policies do not require separate testing of basic reading and reading comprehension, and mathematics calculating and mathematics comprehension. You stated that in North Carolina, "students are only evaluated in broad reading and broad mathematics" and that North Carolina's guidelines "only require students with suspected disabilities to be evaluated in five areas, instead of the seven designated at [34 CFR § 300.541]." As stated earlier in this letter, none of the areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) can be categorically excluded from the areas that a multidisciplinary team examines to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. A child may be considered to have a learning disability if the multidisciplinary team finds that the child "does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels" in one or more of the areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.542(a)(2)(i)-(vii), and each of the seven areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) must be taken into consideration when evaluating a child with, or a child suspected of having, a specific learning disability.

In item (4), you also asked about tests that can be used to evaluate the areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(i)-(vii). The Part B regulations set out requirements for evaluating children with disabilities at 34 CFR §§ 300.530-300.534, with additional criteria for evaluating children with specific learning disabilities at 34 CFR §§ 300.540-300.543. Neither the Act nor the Part B regulations prescribe specific tests which must be used to meet the Federal requirements. The regulation at 34 CFR § 300.532 requires State and local educational agencies to ensure that tests and other evaluation materials:

"(1) Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, unless clearly not feasible to do so;
(2) Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used; and
(3) Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer."
No single test or procedure may be used as the sole criterion for determining the appropriate educational program for a child.

As discussed earlier with Ms. Lillie, North Carolina's implementation of issues raised in items (3) and (4) in your letter will be handled as a complaint involving Part B. You will note from the enclosed letter that we have forwarded your complaint to NCDPI, and have requested that agency to take action to resolve the complaint, in accordance with the "State Complaint Procedures" in Part B at 34 CFR §§ 300.660-300.662 of the Part B regulations.

These regulations require that, within 60 calendar days of receiving the complaint, NCDPI must provide you with a written decision that addresses each allegation in the complaint, and contains (1) findings of fact and conclusions, and (2) the reasons for the final decision. We have asked NCDPI to provide us with a copy of its written decision.

To Top

[d]

Two more on ADHD from U.S. Dept of Ed:

www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/adhd/adhd-teaching-2006.pdf

IMO, the best quote in the above is on page 4 or page 10 of the pdf. It says:

"Because no two children with ADHD are alike, it is important to keep in mind that no single educational program, practice or setting will be best for all children."

www.ed.gov/teachers/needs/speced/adhd/adhd-resource-pt1.pdf

[Mayleng]

Thanks for posting these, for some reason I always forget to post them here. You would think I would remember to post them on my own site.

[d]

LOL - I think the two ADHD ones have been posted here a few times, but I can never find them. I was going to ask you if it was me forgetting/not remembering and was I duplicating efforts. Ha ha ha.

Now if I could just figure out how to bold the key points in the first two posts. They are long to get through but a bunch of gems in them.

[jw]

Hi! It just occurred to me that we may be able to use this new policy statement to argue that students with disabilities who are performing well in school (i.e. good grades and good test scores) are still eligible under 504, and possibly still eligible for IEPs. Many districts argue that if a student is getting good grades, they aren't disabled, and take them off 504 plans, etc. This letter talks about students with disabilities being eligible for accelerated classes or AP classes if they meet the eligibility requirements, which usually include good grades and high test cores. Does this make any sense?

jw

[d]

Yup, perfect sense to me jw.

My dd is in two honors classes and has RR with accoms.

It bothers the heck out of me that she is the only student in her honors classes that is sp ed or has testing accoms.

[dihicks6]

Oh, won't some of the teachers of the accelerated classes be thrilled:

'Thus, if a qualified student with a disability requires related aids and services to participate in a regular education class or program, then a school cannot deny that student the needed related aids and services in an accelerated class or program. '

Chuckle, chuckle -- finally in print somewhere that we as sped parents can use it! Not that we haven't interpreted it correctly for years, but now it's official. Thanks for the info!

[ccgirl]

We cannot even get teachers to STOP taking off points for spelling errors.

[ccgirl]

With two outside evaluations and an IEE showing Dyslexia and Dysgraphia the school denies a LD. States in this case no serious impact on performance which is report card grades for them.
She is still getting A's and B's on report cards but reads inaccurately and not fluent--low average for accuracy and reading words per minute is like 120 MAYBE on a good day but that is after taking away errors. That is like 4th grade level I believe and she is in 10th. THey will not acknowledge this is not state standards though they were shown by me and will not listen. She was below average in PSAT standardized tests; I was in tears. They will not acknowledge any impact really so no 504 either. Advocates have not mattered either. Cannot go thru DP turmoil. Paying reading and writing remediation though not sure how much it is helping and yes the correct programs and we are getting wiped out financially. Teachers will not accommodate due to several honors classes she passes. Lowest SUBJECTIVE grade is an 88. Kid studies non stop; flunks most tests though. Makes it up with homework and classwork and CHARM. Would OCR make them admit she has LD with three evals stating this? They had eligibility meeting and lied and fought and said NO IMPACT. YEs, smart kid. Would not implement any recomendations either from any eval.

[d]

ccgirl, I hear ya'. My "conversation" with my bonehead district has been an on-going struggle.

Can't you take this letter to the district? And, "new" evidence e.g., patterns of failed tests, a record of how long hw takes her?

[my889800]

Hi everyone!

I don't know if anyone has encountered this but just in case, I wanted to share the response I received from US DOE. I hope this helps someone else, too!!!

Back on Schwab, I had posted a few times about the validity of a school using Title Reading to fulfil the "intense reading instruction time" included on IEP for SLD in Reading.

Others (Schwabbies) felt it was unacceptable as did I. BUT I could find absolutely nothing to validate this in black and white!! I searched and searched - honestly, endless hours but everything was vague.

I've waited months for the response and I'm glad I did! At least I know we were on target


Here was my question AND following that, the USDOE response....

Hello~ I have a question that, in my research, I have been unable to find a satisfactory answer. I am hoping you can shed some light on this. If an early elementary child is serviced under an IEP for a reading disability and the IEP mandates one to one, intense reading remediation, is it permissible for school districts to utilize the "Title I" reading program to provide this intense reading remediation/intervention to a child with a reading disability. Or, are these programs (the Title programs) something a non-disabled child (non-disabled per IDEA standards) would be considered able to have access to thus making this Title Program essentially not Specially Designed Instruction and therefore, not providing for Individualized Education as IDEA intended the IEP to do?

US DOE Response . . .

Dear XX XXXX:

This is in response to your question regarding the use of Title I funds to provide services to an elementary school child with an individualized education program (IEP) that addresses a reading disability.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, children with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and the services to which the child is entitled in order to receive FAPE are set out in the student' s IEPs. To avoid supplanting, a school district may not use Title I funds to provide the level of services set forth in a student with a disability's IEP necessary to provide FAPE.

A child with an IEP for a reading disability may be eligible to receive Title I services. However, the Title I services must be in addition to the services required by the IEP to provide FAPE. Title I funds may not be used to provide FAPE for a child with a disability and may not be used to implement the IEP.
I hope that you find this information helpful.

XXXX XXXX
Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education

[d]

Thanks for posting this my8898. I remember reading somewhere in my state regs I think that our AIS (Academic Intervention Services) which is supportive reading and math are not supposed to supplant sp ed services, which is of course what my district does all the time.

And lately, they are using RTI as a reason to delay classification when they have not done anything to establish RTI tiers. Heck, they are still rationalizing whole language/balanced literacy for AIS and sp ed reading programs.

All of these mandates are a wonderful opp'y to establish and do the right thing by the kids and actually dovetail a bit, but my SD seems to be using them to the opposite effect. You can lead a horse to water...

[my889800]

<I>All of these mandates are a wonderful opp'y to establish and do the right thing by the kids and actually dovetail a bit, but my SD seems to be using them to the opposite effect. You can lead a horse to water... </i>


My thoughts exactly!!! We deal with this first hand too!! (insert head banging smiley here that I don't know how to post:)!!

<i>And lately, they are using RTI as a reason to delay classification when they have not done anything to establish RTI tiers.</i>

We went through this too!! They didn't want to evaluate our son at all!! I about fell off the chair when they actually did eval and qualified him, too!!

[Mayleng]

Thanks for posting this my889800. By the way if you want to use the smileys, you can't do a post under "Quick Reply", use the regular "reply" at the bottom of the right hand corner of the thread. Just click the "reply" and it will bring you to the page where all the smileys are.

[sleepy]

ccgirl, "She is still getting A's and B's on report cards but reads inaccurately and not fluent--low average for accuracy and reading words per minute is like 120 MAYBE on a good day but that is after taking away errors. That is like 4th grade level I believe and she is in 10th. "

My DS has similiar difficulties. What program are you using?

[healthy11]

You know, when I brought up problems with RTI and my fears about schools using it to delay evaluations, classification, and services, Gina made it sound like I was misinterpreting the way things would work. I really haven't seen anyone talk about "success stories" with RTI...what am I missing?

[d]

Another gem from dihicks posted in another thread that I want to keep together with this thread:

www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/revpolicy/index.html

[d]

IDEA and medication 10/07 OSERS letter:

www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2007-4/inhofe102207medication4q2007.pdf

[sharie001]

Veazey Letter regarding district unilateral placement/decisions:

www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2001-4/veazey112601place.pdf

[cnoe]

In regards to RtI, you need to remember that OSEP was a primary advocate of RtI & pushed Congress to include this in the law. Then the regulations allow states to decide how to implement RtI & what it will look like in their state.

[zippity]

NECTAC: OSEP Policy Letters of Clarification Related to Part C and Section 619
nice links to many OSEP letters www.nectac.org/idea/clarfctnltrs.asp

and here is one in particular called the GOODMAN LETTER which discusses Assistive Technology - hang on to this one.
www.resnaprojects.org/nattap/goals/other/funding/goodmanletter.html

A great guide on Assistive technology. Page 56 of the document is the Goodman or Schrag letter on AT
www.pluk.org/Pubs/PLUK_ATguide_269K.pdf

[dhfl143]

Important OSEP FAQ regarding accessibility of emerging ebook technologies to be used by schools, specifically see question #2 on page 2:

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.html

[mamak]

It's great to have this in writing!

[healthy11]

Info from Marcie Booth re: NPS (Non-public school) private placements: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-FAPE504.html

NPS means "non-public school" which is a special education
placement in a "special day" program, usually therapeutic, which the
school district agrees to pay the tuition for, as part of the IEP
process, as opposed to a public school placement which is in a
mainstream environment with special education services and/or supports.
FAPE or "*Free and Appropriate Public Education*" is a federal law under
Section 504 and "requires a school district to provide a "free
appropriate public education" (FAPE) to each qualified person with a
disability who is in the school district's jurisdiction, regardless of
the nature or severity of the person's disability.

The term FAPE is used in the special education community to indicate
that the school district is required to pay for the child's
"appropriate" special education services, including placement.
NPS schools are required to have a state certification/ license for
special education, and can also have a private placement program which
may or may not be through special education.

For example, The Help Group in California
has both NPS placement through special education with many of the
surrounding school districts, one of them being LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School Dist.), and
also has private placement, in which the family pays for the child's
tuition and therapeutic services. The language can be confusing because
our kids can receive a FAPE (Free and Public) at a "non- public" school. :-)
The key word is "appropriate" . If you want to request an NPS
placement, you need to show that the public school placement is not
"appropriate" , usually by showing documentation that your child is not
being successful or not making progress in their current placement.