UPDATE BY KIM FOSTER, FFREC COORDINATOR, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY   

U.S. Department of Education Goes Public with California’s Compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004).

 

IDEA Part B

With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in December 2004, each state and U.S. territories became required to submit an annual performance plan to the United States Department of Education.  The State Performance Plans (SPP), as they are referred to, are intended to show the States’ efforts in implementing Part B of the federal statute as well as “describe how the State will improve such implementation.”  20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1)(A)

 

In November 2006, representatives from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Programs and the Office of Special Education Programs informed a group of parents, students with disabilities, advocates, attorneys, school district and SELPA personnel, and State Department of Education officials that the monitoring process would begin on February 1, 2007 with the submission of California’s Annual Performance Plan.  “The primary focus of the Federal and State monitoring activities” are to ensure “that States meet the program requirements…with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.”  20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(2)(A)

 

California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell and Mary Hudler, California’s Director of Special Education, received the first Annual Performance letter from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

 

OSEP determined that California, based on its report for the 2005 federal fiscal year, “needs assistance in meeting the requirements of Part B of the IDEA”.  To read a copy of the letter:  click here

 

To review a table of the Monitoring Priorities and Indicators reviewed by OSEP, including their findings: click here

 

IDEA Part C

Although California has not yet submitted any recent data on its compliance with the requirements of Part C, the California State Department of Developmental Services (or “the Lead Agency”) is also required to have in place a performance plan evaluating the State's implementation of Part C and describing how it will improve such implementation.

 

OSEP determined that California, based on its 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 reports, has continued to be out-of-compliance in its implementation of various requirements of Part C of the IDEA. 

 

To read a copy of these letters, select the links below.

 

For Grant Period 2003-2004

click here

 

For Grant Period 2002-2003

click here

 

To learn more about the consequences and Federal and State compliance labels, go to http://idea.ed.gov.  Click on “Monitoring and Enforcement,” located in the left margin.  Then, select the Topic Brief titled “Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement." 

 

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Transformation of the Definition of FAPE in the 9^th Circuit

On December 8, 2006, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle decided the standard of what constitutes a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities that has been utilized since the early-1980s by school districts, state educational agencies, administrative, state and federal courts is no longer suitable.  This standard, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1982 decision Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central SD v. Rowley, merely required “that a State provide specialized educational services to handicapped children.”  Further, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that states were under no statutory obligation to “maximize each [disabled] child’s potential ‘commensurate with the opportunity provided other children.’  The U.S. District Court, in J.L. and M.L. and their minor daughter, K.L. v. Mercer Island School District (2006), found that the Rowley standard had “set the bar too low” for children with disabilities.

 

In the case of Mercer, the Court, relying heavily on the purpose, intent, and findings of Congress delineated in the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 and 2004 (IDEA), determined that a FAPE is no longer about gaining access to education or the receipt of “some” specialized instruction and educational benefit.  Instead, the Court found that educational benefit under the IDEA must be “meaningful.” To this end, it declared that a school district’s educational “programs and results” must “reflect the [IDEA’s] emphasis on preparation for self-sufficiency.”  A FAPE, under the Mercer standard, is special education and related services “designed to… prepare [all children with disabilities] for further education, employment, and independent living.” (20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A))    

 

To read the Rowley and Mercer Island decisions:

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley, et. al. 458 U.S. 176 (1982)

www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley

 

J.L. and M.L. and their minor daughter, K.L. v. Mercer Island School District (WD WA 2006)

www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/07/WA.jl.misd

 

What States are in the Ninth Circuit of the United District Court system?

Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands,

Oregon,  & Washington.

 

To learn more about the United States District Court System:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court

 

  Research Study Opportunities