ses fall 2014: all things considered serving students with hearing impairments
TRANSCRIPT
2
What We’ll Cover . . . Legal Standards for Eligibility FAPE Requirements as Applied to Students with
Hearing Impairments Rowley and Additional Statutory Protections Consideration of Student’s and Parent’s Preferred
Communication Mode Provision of Assistive Technology Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment
“Effective Communication” Obligations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)
3
Some Background . . . “Low incidence” disability One child out of every 100 who receives special
education is classified as DHH Hearing loss can range in severity from mild to
moderate to severe to profound Does not affect student’s mental capacity
or ability to learn But may affect means by which student learns
5
Eligibility Definitions 13 IDEA eligibility categories include:
“Hearing impairment (including deafness)” “Hearing impairment”
Impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a child's educational performance but that is not included under the definition of deafness
“Deafness” Hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in
processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, that adversely affects a child's educational performance
(34 C.F.R. §300.8; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3030(b))
6
Need for Special Education
Meeting definition of “hearing impairment” does not, standing alone, serve to qualify a student as a “student with a disability” To be eligible, the results of the diagnosis or assessment
must show that the degree of the impairment is such that the student requires special education and related services as a result
(34 C.F.R. §300.8; Ed. Code, § 56026)
8
IDEA’s FAPE Standard Established by U.S. Supreme Court in Rowley
decision First-grader with “minimal residual hearing” Excellent lip reader Placed in general education classroom Provided with FM system, instruction from a “tutor for the
deaf” one hour per day, three hours per week of language services
Parents desired a sign language interpreter to support her in academic classes
District disagreed
9
IDEA’s FAPE Standard (cont’d) Supreme Court found in favor of the District Student was well-adjusted, advancing easily from
grade to grade, performing well academically and socially
In this factual context, the Supreme Court established what “FAPE” means
(Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson School Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 553 IDELR 656)
10
IDEA’s FAPE Standard (cont’d) Rowley’s test of substantive FAPE
complianceDesigned to meet unique needsReasonably calculated to provide educational
benefitServices comport with IEPLeast restrictive environment
(Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson School Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 553 IDELR 656)
11
IDEA’s FAPE Standard But in Rowley, Court recognized that
the IDEA is a “floor of educational opportunity, not a ceiling”; states mayadopt a more demanding standard of appropriateness than the IDEA
Does California have a higher standard of FAPE for students with hearing impairments? Consider . . .
12
California Education Code 1994 Education Code amendments created
numerous “It is essential . . .” provisions applicable to children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing
Examples: “It is essential that hard-of-hearing and deaf children, like all
children, have an education in which their unique communication mode is respected, utilized, and developed to an appropriate level of proficiency”
“It is essential that hard-of-hearing and deaf children have an education in which [school personnel] understand the unique nature of deafness and are specifically trained to work with hard-of-hearing and deaf pupils”
(Ed. Code, §56000.5)
13
But Rowley Remains the Standard Ed Code also says:
“It is also the intent of the Legislature that [state law] does not set a higher standard of educating individuals with exceptional needs than that established by [federal law].”
Courts and OAH agree: Inclusion of phrase “hard of hearing children, like all
children” reflect that California’s special statutes do not require districts to provide higher standard of education to this group of students
(Ed. Code,§56000; Poway Unified School Dist. v. Cheng (S.D. Cal. 2011) 57 IDELR 189)
14
Specific DHH FAPE Issues
Let’s examine law and cases on threespecific issues that are subject of frequent litigation concerning provisionof FAPE to students who are DHH1. Consideration of Student’s and
Parent’s Preferred Communication Mode2. Provision of Assistive Technology3. Placement in the Least Restrictive
Environment
15
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – Background and Law
IDEA: In developing IEPs, districts must consider “the student’s and the family’s preferred mode of communication”
Ed. Code: Districts must ensure student’s unique communication mode is “respected, utilized and developed”
OAH: Districts must accommodate the preferred mode of communication of student and parents with respect to deaf and hard of hearing children
(34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(2)(iv); Ed. Code, §56341.1; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) No. 2011100795, 59 IDELR 55)
16
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – Background and Law
However, accommodating preferred mode of communication of student and parents does not equate to requirement that district use parents’ preferred methodology
Choice regarding methodology to be used to implement the IEP is left up to district’s discretion
District is simply required to provide appropriate methodology; it is not required to provide “best” methodology
(M.M. v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade County (11th Cir. 2006) 45 IDELR 1; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) No. 2011100795, 59 IDELR 55)
17
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – The CasesStudent v. Glendora USD Facts:
16-year-old girl with profound hearing loss; highly intelligent; one cochlear implant, one hearing aid
Still had significant difficulty following voices, class discussions
Program included full-time sign language interpreter, audiological services (60 minutes/year), FM system, ESY support, accommodations
Student and Parent preferred oral learning Parent asked for CART
18
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – The CasesStudent v. Glendora USD Decision:
ALJ: IEP team “should have and did not consider Student’s and her family’s preferred mode of communication as an oral learner”
Sign language was inappropriate for an oral learner and not designed to meet Student’s unique needs
CART necessary for academic courses to address deficits in communication; also would help Student’s lip-reading skills
(Student v. Glendora Unified School Dist. (OAH 2007) No. 2006110090, 107 LRP 30256)
19
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – The CasesStudent v. Baldwin Park USD and Covina Valley USD Facts:
10-year-old girl with profound hearing loss in both ears; hearing aids at age 4; cochlear implant at age 8
IEP modified after cochlear implant to provide more aural rehabilitation therapy (“ART”)
Student placed in DHH auditory/oral program Following incident in which Student was inappropriately
touched, Parents moved her to private placement where Student received auditory verbal therapy (“AVT”)
Claimed District denied FAPE by not offering AVT
20
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – The CasesStudent v. Baldwin Park USD and Covina-Valley USD Decision:
District offered appropriate program that provided FAPE Program respected preferred communication mode
(recent cochlear implant recipient transitioning from sign language to auditory/oral expression)
Program was not deficient merely because it did not meet AVT standards of Alexander Graham Bell Academy
ART methodology “nearly identical” to AVT; District had discretion to select appropriate methodology
(Student v. Baldwin Park Unified School Dist. and Covina-Valley Unified School Dist. (OAH 2008) No. 2008040542, 109 LRP 30979)
21
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – The CasesStudent v. Covina-Valley USD Facts and Decision:
Similar to previous case: ART vs. AVT dispute involving first-grader with a cochlear implant
Different ALJ reached same result ART is “substantially the same” as AVT, except AVT
proponents point to use of certified therapists But certification is not mandated by either federal or
state law
(Student v. Covina-Valley Unified School Dist. (OAH 2008) No. 2008060957, 51 IDELR 115)
22
1. Consideration of Preferred Mode of Communication – Practical Pointers
Tips to minimize potential disputes: Ensure everyone on IEP team is aware
of student’s and parent’s preferred communication mode Ensure parents understand assessment results and their
implications for learning in the school environment Familiarize parents with proposed methodology and
ensure student’s potential instructors attend IEP meeting to better explain their methods
23
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – Background and Law IEP team must consider whether student requires assistive
technology devices and services in order to receive FAPE “Assistive technology device”
Item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability
“Assistive technology service” Any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the
selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device
(34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(v); 34 C.F.R. §300.5; 34 C.F.R. §300.6)
24
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – Background and Law
Hearing aids Covered under definition of “assistive technology device” District must provide if determined to be necessary for
FAPE and specified in IEP If not necessary for FAPE, no obligation to pay for
hearing aid But districts have obligation to ensure hearing aids are
functioning properly
(34 C.F.R. §300.113(a); Letter to Seiler (OSEP 1993) 20 IDELR 1216)
25
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – Background and Law
Cochlear implants Excluded from definition of “assistive technology device” Districts have no obligation to provide Districts also not responsible for maintenance,
replacement or programming (i.e., “mapping”) But must ensure that external components of cochlear
implant are functioning properly
(34 C.F.R. §300.113(b)(2); Ed. Code, §56345, subd. (d)(7))
26
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – Background and Law Common forms of DHH assistive technology
“Augmenting” devices/systems Personal FM systems Soundfield systems Infrared systems
“Transforming” devices/systems Translation services (CART, C-Print, TypeWell) Captioning services Face-to-face communication systems
27
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – The CasesPoway Unified School Dist. v. K.C. Facts:
15-year-old girl with profound hearing loss Heard approximately 52 percent of what was said in
“real-life” situations Difficulty hearing classmates and often misunderstood
instructions Parents requested CART when Student transitioned
from middle school to high school District provided numerous services and
accommodations, but offered TypeWell instead of CART
28
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – The CasesPoway Unified School Dist. v. K.C. Decision:
District provided FAPE when it offered TypeWell District researched and investigated CART, considered
Parent’s preference Expert who had observed Student testified that TypeWell
would address her needs IEP also provided comprehensive plan to address
Student’s needs CART vs. TypeWell was methodology dispute
(Poway Unified School Dist. v. K.C. (S.D. Cal. 2013) 60 IDELR 249)
29
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – The CasesStudent v. Glendora USD Facts:
15-year-old boy (brother of Student in previous Glendora case); received cochlear implant at age 3; unable to use hearing aids
Primary mode of communication: Oral-deaf District offered FM transmitter and note-taker Parent asked for AT assessment for CART Special ed director (not IEP team) denied assessment,
stating Student was succeeding academically and did not need CART
30
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – The CasesStudent v. Glendora USD Decision:
District denied FAPE With FM transmitter, Student only able to hear portion of
class as presented by his teachers IEP lacked goals to facilitate class participation and
socialization Gen ed class was not LRE because Student was
isolated from peers due to limits of FM transmitter District ordered to fund 15 months of CART
(Student v. Glendora Unified School Dist. (OAH 2007) No. 2007080893, 49 IDELR 172)
31
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – Practical Pointers Consider the following issues when
choosing an appropriate form of AT: How the device will address the student’s unique
needs and help the student achieve his or her communication and/or participation goals
Whether the student will need the device at home Whether the purpose of the proposed device is clearly
defined in the IEP Determine what type of training is necessary and who
(student, staff and/or parents) needs to be trained
32
2. Provision of Assistive Technology – Practical Pointers
Don’t forget to address AT needs in designing transition goals and services
IEP team should consider: How will student communicate in postsecondary setting? What training might be needed for safe travel? Does student have self-advocacy skills to request AT? Can student maintain device or know what to do if it
stops working?
33
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – Background and Law IDEA and California law require districts to provide students
with a program in the LRE, with removal from the regular education environment occurring only when the nature or severity of the student's disabilities is such that education in regular classes with use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily
No exception to LRE requirements for students who are deaf or hard of hearing
(34 C.F.R. §300.114(a)(2)(ii); Ed. Code, §56040.1)
34
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – Background and Law LRE factors
While gen ed placement may offer most opportunities for interaction, it can also be most isolating placement for students who are DHH
IEP team must consider Primary language mode Availability of peers of similar abilities Access to personnel proficient in total communication Services necessary for accessible instruction and
extracurriculars(Notice of Policy Guidance (ED 1992); 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(2)(iv); Ed. Code, §56345)
35
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesJ.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. Facts:
Student with severe to profound bilateral hearing loss At age 2, parents chose oral method of
communication/instruction At age 4, cochlear implant in left ear Student attended aural/oral program, from pre-K through
third grade Parents requested move to full inclusion placement at a
school for the arts
36
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesJ.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. Facts (cont’d):
District (reluctantly) agreed Provided RSP support, DHH services (480
minutes/month), speech therapy, cued-speech transliterator, and AT (including FM system)
Services intensified in fifth grade, but Student was behind in academics and language, and resisted school
In sixth grade, Parent placed Student at private school; argued that inclusion had been inappropriate
District then recommended DHH SDC
37
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesJ.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. Decision:
District’s inclusion program was appropriate Student received some academic benefit (although likely
he would have received greater educational benefits from SDC placement all along)
Student had opportunity to develop language through communication with hearing peers
Socially, he adjusted well, made friends, had a positive impact on his classroom
(J.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (E.D. Cal. 2009) 611 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 52 IDELR 194, aff’d, (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 55 IDELR 153)
38
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesLos Angeles USD v. Student Facts:
7-year-old boy with bilateral severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss
With cochlear implants, he could access speech and environmental sounds within a normal range of hearing
Student attended Oralingua (NPS), focusing on auditory/oral/aural instruction
District offered DHH program in auditory/oral SDC classroom with 20 percent mainstreaming (recess, lunch, science, computers, social studies)
39
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesLos Angeles USD v. Student Decision:
Proposed program was appropriate SDC at elementary school campus offered opportunities
to interact with peers at recess, lunch, etc. Oralingua’s recommendation that Student be
mainstreamed in core classes was not based on Student’s unique needs
SDC classroom included students of approximately same abilities as Student
(Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH 2012) No. 2011100795, 59 IDELR 55)
40
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesStudent v. Redlands USD Facts:
Preschool girl, hard-of-hearing Following cochlear implants, only minor hearing and
speech delays Student solely used oral instruction Attended District’s “RSEED” classroom in 2011-2012
Program served 14 students with a range of disabilities Student progressed exceptionally well; at or above age
level in all academic areas at end of year
41
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesStudent v. Redlands USD Facts:
Parents requested Montessori School placement at IEP team meeting
District offered RSEED with DHH itinerant consultation (30 minutes/month) and speech services (30 minutes/week)
Parents asserted that District failed to consider communication mode, LRE
,
42
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – The CasesStudent v. Redlands USD Decision:
No evidence that District failed to instruct in Student’s primary mode of communication
Teacher used ASL hand signs on a “nominal” basis However, all witnesses testified that Student could
benefit from being fully mainstreamed ALJ rejected argument that RSEED was a general
education program (because 7 students were speech impaired only); ordered reimbursement for Montessori
(Student v. Redlands Unified School Dist. (OAH 2012) No. 2012060370, 113 LRP 882)
43
3. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment – Practical Pointers
Don’t allow preference for mainstreamingto blur overriding duty to provide FAPE
Any setting that prevents student who is DHH from receiving appropriate education that meets his or her needs – including communication needs – is not the LRE for the student
)
44
I I I . “Effective Communication” Obligations Under the Americans with
Disabil i t ies Act (“ADA”)
45
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation ADA (Title II) directive
No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in – or be denied the benefits of – the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity
(42 U.S.C. §12132)
46
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation (cont’d) Title II’s “effective communication” regulation
Public entities must “take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others”
Public entities must “furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity”
(28 C.F.R. §35.160)
47
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation (cont’d) “Auxiliary aids and services” defined to include:
Real-time computer-aided transcription services Videotext displays
“In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities.”
(28 C.F.R. §35.104; 28 C.F.R. §35.160(b)(2))
48
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation (cont’d)
However: A public entity need not “take any action that it can
demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens”
The public entity has the burden to prove that a proposed action would result in undue burden or fundamental alteration
(28 C.F.R. §35.164)
49
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation vs. the IDEA’s FAPE Standard Districts must comply with both the IDEA and the ADA, but
the two laws differ in both ends and means IDEA sets only floor of access, but requires districts to
provide individualized services necessary to get student to that floor, regardless of costs, administrative burdens, or program alterations required
Title II requires districts to make services not just accessible, but equally accessible – but only insofar as doing so does not pose undue burden or require fundamental alteration of their programs
50
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation – K.M. v. Tustin USD (9th Cir.) Facts:
16-year-old girl, deaf with cochlear implants; proficient at lip reading
Fully included throughout elementary school; good grades
Parent requested CART; District offered trials of CART, and TypeWell
Concluded that Student did not require transcription Student testified she could hear teachers, but not always
her classmates; teachers testified that she could hear and follow classroom discussions well
51
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation – K.M. v. Tustin USD (9th Cir.) Decision:
OAH, District Court and 9th Circuit agreed Student received a FAPE under IDEA
But: 9th Circuit concluded that whether Student was provided appropriate access under the ADA is a different question
Given differences between the two laws, success or failure of an IDEA claim does not impact ADA Title II action
Returned case to District Court for factual findings(K.M. v. Tustin Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2013) 725 F.3d 1088, 61 IDELR 182)
52
The ADA’s “Effective Communication” Obligation – K.M. v. Tustin USD (9th Cir.)
Impact: The K.M. decision does not mean that districts will have
to provide CART services to all students with hearing impairments
However, it does require courts evaluating claims under the IDEA and Title II of the ADA to analyze each claim separately under the relevant statutory and regulatory framework of both laws
53
Take Aways . . . Recognize that needs of students with
hearing impairments can vary widely Consider unique needs carefully when
making services and placement decisions Technical compliance with law is
essential, but so is acquiring knowledgeabout nature of hearing impairments and developing skills in designing appropriate IEPs
54
Information in this presentat ion, including but not l imited to PowerPoint handouts and the presenters ' comments, is summary only and not legal advice. We advise you to consult with legal counsel to determine how this information may apply to your spec if ic fac ts and circumstances .