This week the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Obama administration for its views on whether a parent may bring a negligence claim against a school district that allegedly failed to identify a high school student's disabilities.
The justices asked the U.S. solicitor general's office to give its view on the issue raised under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The case involves an appeal filed by a California school district of two lower court rulings that the mother had a valid legal claim under the IDEA that the district had failed to identify her daughter's disabilities.
The facts in court papers show that when the student was in 10th grade, her teachers became concerned that her work was "gibberish and incomprehensible" and that she had failed every class. The school district referred the girl to a mental health counselor, who recommended that the student be evaluated for learning disabilities. The district did not follow the recommendation, and it promoted the girl to the 11th grade.
The mother later made a request for an individualized education program (IEP)for her daughter, and the district determined that the girl was eligible for special education services for a learning disability.
The mother brought an administrative claim under the IDEA, arguing that the school district failed under the law's "child find" requirement to identify the girl's disabilities sooner. That requirement obliges states to ensure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special education services are identified, located, and evaluated.
An administrative law judge largely sided with the family, ordering as much as 150 hours of compensatory tutoring for the girl's lost educational opportunities.
The school district appealed that ruling in federal district court, arguing among other things that if the family prevailed, students with disabilities would be able to bring "educational malpractice" claims against districts.
The district court rejected the school district's arguments, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, also sided with the family.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit panel rejected the school district's arguments. The majority held that there was a broad jurisdictional mandate under the federal special education law, and that in this case there was "willful inaction" on the district's part in the face of numerous "red flags" about the student's disabilities.
The appeal is Compton Unified School District v. Addison (Case No. 10-886). The solicitor general's office usually takes several months to respond to the high court's request for its views in a case.
A
Friday, April 22, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
U.S. Proposes New Education Privacy Rules
The U.S. Department of Education proposed new regulations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
The department proposes the following changes to FERPA:
1. Tighter enforcement:
In the past, department officials said there has been confusion about whether agencies permitted to work with student data—but not collect it or work with the children directly—could be held to the same standards for protecting students' privacy. The new rules would require that everyone who has access to student data, even through an "exception" in FERPA, would still be held to the law. Those who fail to meet the requirements could see their grants withheld or be barred from student data-sharing for five years.
2. Directory information protection:
The department proposed that schools be allowed to have directories for limited uses, to limit the ability of marketers or identity thieves from accessing the data. For example, a school may collect data for a yearbook, like a student's name, grade, photo, and activities, but restrict that use to the yearbook itself.
3.State representation:
FERPA allows districts to enter into written agreements with researchers to use data to evaluate programs, but the department also would allow states to create such agreements on behalf of multiple districts. This would permit state officials to research the effectiveness of a statewide kindergarten-reading program, for example, or to compare the implementation of math coaches among districts.
4. P-20 tracking:
In keeping with the department's effort for better college and career readiness information, it would allow high school administrators to share student achievement data to track graduates' academic success in college.
The department launched a new division devoted to "responsible stewardship, collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of information at the national level within the Education Department."
Under the proposed rules, the department would define "education program" for the first time as any program principally engaged in the provision of education. The proposed rules point out that some early childhood, special education, and adult education programs are run not by state or local educational authorities, but by other agencies, such as state human resources departments, which often oversee Head Start programs.
Another provision involves student identification badges. The proposed rules say parents could not use their right to opt out of making public their child's directory information to excuse the child from having to wear a school ID badge.
Comments on the proposed regulations are due by May 23.
The department hopes to release final rules by the end of the year.
The department proposes the following changes to FERPA:
1. Tighter enforcement:
In the past, department officials said there has been confusion about whether agencies permitted to work with student data—but not collect it or work with the children directly—could be held to the same standards for protecting students' privacy. The new rules would require that everyone who has access to student data, even through an "exception" in FERPA, would still be held to the law. Those who fail to meet the requirements could see their grants withheld or be barred from student data-sharing for five years.
2. Directory information protection:
The department proposed that schools be allowed to have directories for limited uses, to limit the ability of marketers or identity thieves from accessing the data. For example, a school may collect data for a yearbook, like a student's name, grade, photo, and activities, but restrict that use to the yearbook itself.
3.State representation:
FERPA allows districts to enter into written agreements with researchers to use data to evaluate programs, but the department also would allow states to create such agreements on behalf of multiple districts. This would permit state officials to research the effectiveness of a statewide kindergarten-reading program, for example, or to compare the implementation of math coaches among districts.
4. P-20 tracking:
In keeping with the department's effort for better college and career readiness information, it would allow high school administrators to share student achievement data to track graduates' academic success in college.
The department launched a new division devoted to "responsible stewardship, collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of information at the national level within the Education Department."
Under the proposed rules, the department would define "education program" for the first time as any program principally engaged in the provision of education. The proposed rules point out that some early childhood, special education, and adult education programs are run not by state or local educational authorities, but by other agencies, such as state human resources departments, which often oversee Head Start programs.
Another provision involves student identification badges. The proposed rules say parents could not use their right to opt out of making public their child's directory information to excuse the child from having to wear a school ID badge.
Comments on the proposed regulations are due by May 23.
The department hopes to release final rules by the end of the year.
Monday, April 4, 2011
New EEOC Guidelines Revising The Definition Of A Disability Under The ADA
New EEOC guidelines revise the definition of what constitutes a disability under the ADA.
The guidelines, ordered by the ADA Amendments Act, significantly expand what constitutes a disability for discrimination purposes.
Prior to these changes, a disabled employee was required to show that a medical condition significantly limited a major life activity. Under the new rules, a disability can be shown by demonstrating that an ailment impacts a major bodily function.
What does this mean?
Now, a disabled employee can function on a daily basis and still receive ADA protection if the employee suffers from an endocrine disorder (diabetes), neurological condition (bipolar disorder), or an immune deficiency disorder (HIV).
Furthermore, if the employee suffers from a periodic condition, the employee is a legally disabled employee. Examples of a periodic condition are epilepsy or a condition currently in remission.
The EEOC ADA regulations apply to all claims beginning on January 1, 2009 according to Disability Scoop.
If you think you are a disabled employee under the new rules, and were denied a requested reasonable accommodation or subject to disability discrimination, you may now be entitled to compensation.
The guidelines, ordered by the ADA Amendments Act, significantly expand what constitutes a disability for discrimination purposes.
Prior to these changes, a disabled employee was required to show that a medical condition significantly limited a major life activity. Under the new rules, a disability can be shown by demonstrating that an ailment impacts a major bodily function.
What does this mean?
Now, a disabled employee can function on a daily basis and still receive ADA protection if the employee suffers from an endocrine disorder (diabetes), neurological condition (bipolar disorder), or an immune deficiency disorder (HIV).
Furthermore, if the employee suffers from a periodic condition, the employee is a legally disabled employee. Examples of a periodic condition are epilepsy or a condition currently in remission.
The EEOC ADA regulations apply to all claims beginning on January 1, 2009 according to Disability Scoop.
If you think you are a disabled employee under the new rules, and were denied a requested reasonable accommodation or subject to disability discrimination, you may now be entitled to compensation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)