Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 , Start with these folks: Children's Education Law Clinic Duke University School of Law P.O. Box 90360 Durham, NC 27708-0360 (919) 613-7169; (919) 613-7262 (fax) Email: pettiford@... Web: http://www.childedlaw.org A legal advocacy project of Duke Law School focused on protecting the rights of low-income children in public school. Service area includes Durham and 10 surrounding counties. And here are other resources: The Children's Law Center Education Law Project 601 E. 5th Street, Suite 480 Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 331-9474 ext. 1090 Family Support Network of North Carolina Central Directory of Resources CB #7340 University of NC at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7340 (919) 966-2841; (800) 852-0042 Email: cdr@... Web: fsnnc.med.unc.edu F.I.R.S.T. Inc Janet Price-Ferrell PO Box 802 Asheville, NC 28802 (828) 277-1315; (828) 216-7745; (828) 277-1321 (fax) Email: janet@... Web: http://www.FIRSTwnc.org F.I.R.S.T., parent-driven resource center for families of children with disabilities, providing parent training, effective IEP writing and advocacy to help families become the best advocate. North Carolina Congress of Parents and Teachers 3501 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27612-4934 (919) 787-0534; (800) 255-0417 Email: office@... Web: http://www.ncpta.org/ The Youth's Lighthouse Curtis 1826 Birmingham Avenue Durham, NC 27704 (919) 479-9338 Email: mdenisec32@... Our services are available for persons seeking help/resolutions with situations that involve children/adolescents with or without disabilities. Certified Mediation services available. > > Hey guys, I need help already. We are having problems with our school, > again, not wanting to give Zachary, 10 SMA II in 5th grade,his own one > on one, or more time or supply him with a computer(lap top or table > top)or making the school handicap accesible. He isnt able to open any > of the doors in the school, going in or getting out. We have asked > since the middle of last year and they still havent attempted a thing. > So for safety reasons Im starting to push!!!And he is having to wait > for the assistant when he needs something or needs to go out of the > room. Because the assistant is out of the room with another > handicapped child. Who can I call for major, immediate results?? We > are in NC, McDowell Co! Anything will be helpful. Thanks a bunch > Gardner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Why can't Zachary simply ask a school mate to please open the door? Why can't they do the " Buddy " system for the easy stuff like opening doors, getting books, help with desk or anything not related to personal care or feeding? Why have adult assistance push Zachary beyond his peers and isolate him making him feel " different? " Mind you, if it is because he is physically unable to write or manipulate his own hands then its understandable. I would think kids hate having " adults " flutter around them when they are among school mates who may want to become friends but are intimidated by the assistants presence. Mainstream as much as possible and try to encourage more student involvement at some level. What does Zachary want or say? How does he feel about what you would want him to have? I know its tough being a parent, be protective but try not too smother him or control every aspect of his public life. Hopefully Zachary is letting you know his concerns and that they get addressed. The least your school could do is put automatic door openers/closers on the main entrances and get a bathroom aid on staff then encourage a " Buddy " system. Good luck. It's been 18 years since I left college, so my ideas are dated. I would imagine they'd have better ones by now. Angie On Wednesday 06 September 2006 12:10, agardner0477 wrote: > Hey guys, I need help already. We are having problems with our school, > again, not wanting to give Zachary, 10 SMA II in 5th grade,his own one > on one, or more time or supply him with a computer(lap top or table > top)or making the school handicap accesible. He isnt able to open any > of the doors in the school, going in or getting out. We have asked > since the middle of last year and they still havent attempted a thing. > So for safety reasons Im starting to push!!!And he is having to wait > for the assistant when he needs something or needs to go out of the > room. Because the assistant is out of the room with another > handicapped child. Who can I call for major, immediate results?? We > are in NC, McDowell Co! Anything will be helpful. Thanks a bunch > Gardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 The NC State Dept of Education has an " Exceptional Children Division " that includes disabled as well as gifted children. At the bottom, there is a link entitled " Handbook on Parents Rights " and one called " Special Education Reference for Regulations, Policies and Procedures. " Seems like that would be the first place to start. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ec/ > > Hey guys, I need help already. We are having problems with our school, > again, not wanting to give Zachary, 10 SMA II in 5th grade,his own one > on one, or more time or supply him with a computer(lap top or table > top)or making the school handicap accesible. He isnt able to open any > of the doors in the school, going in or getting out. We have asked > since the middle of last year and they still havent attempted a thing. > So for safety reasons Im starting to push!!!And he is having to wait > for the assistant when he needs something or needs to go out of the > room. Because the assistant is out of the room with another > handicapped child. Who can I call for major, immediate results?? We > are in NC, McDowell Co! Anything will be helpful. Thanks a bunch > Gardner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 I would say the buddy system would be nice but it doesn't always work well. They had that with me a lot in grade school and what always ended up happening was the " buddy " that was helping me would always end up getting annoyed and hostile. Which ended up with me not wanting to ask them for help because of it. I do think it is great to have him working with peers, but I don't think it always works well. Just giving info from personal experience. Angie <angie@...> wrote: Why can't Zachary simply ask a school mate to please open the door? Why can't they do the " Buddy " system for the easy stuff like opening doors, getting books, help with desk or anything not related to personal care or feeding? Why have adult assistance push Zachary beyond his peers and isolate him making him feel " different? " Mind you, if it is because he is physically unable to write or manipulate his own hands then its understandable. I would think kids hate having " adults " flutter around them when they are among school mates who may want to become friends but are intimidated by the assistants presence. Mainstream as much as possible and try to encourage more student involvement at some level. What does Zachary want or say? How does he feel about what you would want him to have? I know its tough being a parent, be protective but try not too smother him or control every aspect of his public life. Hopefully Zachary is letting you know his concerns and that they get addressed. The least your school could do is put automatic door openers/closers on the main entrances and get a bathroom aid on staff then encourage a " Buddy " system. Good luck. It's been 18 years since I left college, so my ideas are dated. I would imagine they'd have better ones by now. Angie On Wednesday 06 September 2006 12:10, agardner0477 wrote: > Hey guys, I need help already. We are having problems with our school, > again, not wanting to give Zachary, 10 SMA II in 5th grade,his own one > on one, or more time or supply him with a computer(lap top or table > top)or making the school handicap accesible. He isnt able to open any > of the doors in the school, going in or getting out. We have asked > since the middle of last year and they still havent attempted a thing. > So for safety reasons Im starting to push!!!And he is having to wait > for the assistant when he needs something or needs to go out of the > room. Because the assistant is out of the room with another > handicapped child. Who can I call for major, immediate results?? We > are in NC, McDowell Co! Anything will be helpful. Thanks a bunch > Gardner --------------------------------- All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Gosh, I had the totally opposite experience in school. Classmates practically fell all over themselves to get a turn to help me out. Jenn > > I would say the buddy system would be nice but it doesn't always work well. They had that with me a lot in grade school and what always ended up happening was the " buddy " that was helping me would always end up getting annoyed and hostile. Which ended up with me not wanting to ask them for help because of it. I do think it is great to have him working with peers, but I don't think it always works well. Just giving info from personal experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 When I was in the younger grades (< 3rd grade) I had this experience. Classmates would argue who got to help me - which included help with lifting things, playing games, walking to/from classrooms when I was ambulatory, getting things in/out of my locker, etc. It got to the point that my teachers would make an assignment chart of about 5 classmates per day who would be " assigned " to help me that day. It helped to teach kids how to share, get along, and communicate. My teachers loved it. I also thought it was kind of neat that I got to talk to and interact with every kid in my class one-on-one at some point during the month. It helped me be more social in settings I couldn't participate (such as gym or recess). I could sit on the side lines or only partake in one stationary game but I was able to learn how to interact with others verbally, and it was encouraged. As I got older and my disability progressed, I was assigned a one-on-one attendant who would remain in the classroom to help me with anything, but was not always there for me. She was a teacher's assistant in whichever class I had so it allowed me to have some freedom. When I was in middle school and the only mainstreamed student with a disability, this was fine. However, in high school, more and more students with disabilities (mostly learning disabilities) were mainstreamed and my attendant was then spread out among us. I often experienced long waits between classes until she could come, causing me to be late for classes or miss some all together. Once I found ways of managing h.s. on my own (asking friends to help, only needing one notebook for many periods in a row) I would go to my next class on my own. I was often reprimanded for this because the aide thought she " lost " me. I immediately spoke up and explained that when I don't need help, I don't need her and that if I would miss out on classes because she was needed elsewhere, then we needed to make a schedule together reagrding when she could be on time and when she couldnt. From there, we met up only a certain times of the day rather than after every class. <3 Kendra > > > > I would say the buddy system would be nice but it doesn't always work well. They had > that with me a lot in grade school and what always ended up happening was the " buddy " > that was helping me would always end up getting annoyed and hostile. Which ended up > with me not wanting to ask them for help because of it. I do think it is great to have him > working with peers, but I don't think it always works well. Just giving info from personal > experience. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 My son is 24 year old, and he had the same type of experience you had, e. He never had an aide at all. He, like you, had kids fussing about who'd get to help him while in elementary school. By middle school, he had a large group of friends and made new friends that were always glad to help. Danny used a power chair all through school, so was independently mobile, but couldn't open doors, get books or lunch out, etc. Later, his friends even helped him with eating/drinks as he got too weak to lift stuff up. He did get a laptop from school from 5th grade on and a custom desk in each class, and those are things that every school should supply if needed. For the restroom, he went to the nurse after lunch (and more if needed) and she'd help him in the clinic's large restroom up until high school. He mostly went shortened days in high school, so he'd wait til he got home, or call me to meet him in the clinic. I'd guess that most nurses might not do this anymore, but I assume some type of similar arrangement could be made nowadays. I remember asking Danny at some point in elementary if he needed an aide, and he said " No way! " He didn't want some adult doing things for him that other kids could do, and he didn't want someone hovering around the classroom at his beck and call. I'm actually glad we did it this way. Now, at 24, when he's at home or out with friends, it's just Danny and them...and he's comfortable with asking friends or other people for help when he needs it. As a side note...my 14 year old who has severe adhd has always hated getting any extra or special treatment (such as less work or extra time). She says she doesn't want to be considered different or special by the other kids. I'd guess that Danny felt the same way in school about an aide. > > Wow, I'm really shocked by how many SMA kids have one-on-one assistance at school. This is actually common practice now? I'm only 22, it hasn't been long at ALL since I graduated, and I definitely never had nor wanted that kind of help as a kid. I had an aid to help me in the bathroom at a scheduled time, but that was all. The other kids would help me open doors and get books out of my backpack. I don't think I needed much help beyond that. And I never had an assigned buddy system, it was always just whoever was around at the time. My friends, the people I sat by, whatever. The kids never minded helping, usually they thought it was fun. And I learned how to ask for things politely and show appropriate appreciation. I wouldn't have had it any other way. I was such a painfully shy child; asking peers for help and explaining my needs helped me to develop some badly needed assertiveness. Besides, I eventually was able to leave home and go to college, where there definitely isn't anybody following me around all day at my beck and call. I'm glad I learned early on to rely on myself and the kindness of whoever happens to be around. > > If this is the trend for SMA kids now, I have to wonder where the funding and staffing are coming from. I've just started my student teaching in the special ed department of a local high school, and all I ever hear about is all the cuts they've made to save money. The resource rooms don't have any para eds, the self contained unit is full so kids get placed inappropriately, the secretaries who used to handle paperwork are gone, the classes don't have textbooks, the teachers have way more students in their classes than state law allows... I just hear nonstop stories about kids and teachers that aren't having their needs met because of fundingcuts, it surprises me that there are so many stories of SMA kids with the opposite experience. > > Just interesting is all. > > e > > Re: (unknown) > > I just wanted to add that my son does have a one on one aide and he is in 1st grade- I wouldn't have it any other way. He gets his space but he also has the help right there when he needs it. I personally would rather her assist than another child who may or may not have a cold. I think with some of the kids, limiting the exposure to more germs is important- at least with my son I feel that it is. It has also helped him transition into school- he is used to having me near and he didn't want to go to school until I told him there would be someone helping him when he needed it. He was homebound for Kindergarten. Hopefully, the need of her being so close can dissipate and Brett can rely more on friends. His school has been phenomenal with all of our requests and gone the extra mile in every way possible- I feel very lucky! > > Kristal > Mom to Brett- SMA II- 6-1/2 years old > Visit Brett's website at: http://www.our-sma-angels.com/brett/index.htm > Learn more about SMA: > www.fsma.org > www.smasupport.com > (unknown) > > Thanks to all who gave info on my earlier post. I will get busy with > calling and letters. This isnt a problem that has just started. I > have fought with this school since PreK. I do know that If we were in > a different county we wouldnt be having these problems. But we arent > looking to move, and its the county and the schools responsiblility to > accomodate to Zack and the other children. The buddy system gets old. > He has tons of friends, but most ten year old children dont get the > responsibility thing like they should. So even with them helping, the > class is still waiting on him. Zack does speak his mind to us and > tells us what he thinks and wants. He is so very much main streamed in > every way possible. And there have been times where the friend was > with him opening doors for him, but take off and decide they are done > so thats leaves him where? I have looked at this from all different > ways. Im not asking for someone to sit on top of him, just be there > when he needs them. Its just our school system here. Didnt have this > problem with the school when we moved away for a short time. Once > again thanks a bunch and anything helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hi , We are new to this (my DS just Dx'd two weeks ago) and we are awaiting the formal written report from Children's. It is my understanding, though, that the report from Children's is supposed to include all kinds of recommended supports in the school system (15 minute time limit on home work, aide in classroom, preferred seating, small lunch group). Just thinking that maybe you can go back to Children's & let them know about the problems you are having. Maybe they can identify some things your DD should be receiving. It is always a stronger arguement if you can say experts in the field recommend x,y, & z, than trying to argue it on your own. Just a thought. Good luck & best wishes. > > Hi, my 10 year old dd was recently diagnosed with AS...finally. We > received this diagnose at our local Children's Hospital. We have > requested that her school perform an evaluation on her to assess if she > needs any services. She does suffer from anxiety, but controls it at > school. Her grades are excellent. The school is refusing to initiate > an evaluation b/c they say that academically, she is fine. I am ready > to rip my hair out. We just want the evaluation and they won't do it. > At this point, we are paying an advocate and we are handing in the NOREP > stating we want mediation. Any advice at all about this. I really am > so frustrated! > Thanks, from PA > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 You are doing a great job so far in getting a diagnosis and in getting an advocate to help you at the IEP meetings. My son fell through the cracks at first - It was obvious to me that he was struggling in school, but the school district gave me the line that everything was fine since he was getting passing grades - never mind that the grades were steadily going down and that he spent some classes with his head on his desk...SO ask if a behavior psychologist from the school district could quietly observe her in the classroom, at recess, and over the lunch hour. The report I got was an eye opener for me as it made me realize that things were much worse than I thought. The report also helped establish that my son was having problems in the classroom because of his disability. You mentioned that your child suffers from anxiety, but controls it at school. Let the school know about her meltdowns at home and her attitude about going to school in the morning. Are you helping her with homework? Is it taking her a long, long time to complete some assignments? Any problems following instructions or planning projects? Does she try to do a complex project the night before it is due? My advice to you is to step back and truly let her do the homework on her own and remember to turn in the homework on her own. Let her work on her own for about an hour and then stop since that is about how long it should take the other kids in her class. It may be painful to see what happens to her grades, but at this point, the grades don't count for much. In the long run, it will certainly get the teacher's attention and so the teacher may step up to help you get an IEP, plus an assessment from the district. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 My son will turn 3 at the end of May and as such, his Early Intervention services will end. Had my informational meeting with the school district yesterday. During the meeting, I advised that my major concern was therapies/services would be available for my son during the summer months before school started. They advised there was no summer program available and that we could use our insurance to do provide services. Of course, we will still be using our private insurance to get him therapy, but isn't the school district legally responsible to provide him services once he turns 3? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Our school district only provides summer school or services if a child is shown to regress over summer or on winter break, etc. On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM, kiddietalk <kiddietalk@...> wrote: > > > Not sure if you read my book The Late Talker but if you didn't I highly > recommend you at least take a look at the aeakdvocacy chapter as my co > author is a neurodevelopmental pediatrician who advocates for her patients > in the schools, and we had the advise as well from special education > attorneys and an award winning teacher advocate (our VP of Cherab Cheryl > Bennet SLP included) > > Whenever a school professional says something that sounds wrong just say > nicely " That's interesting, would you mind putting in writing for me why > there are no summer programs available at all for my son even if extended > school year is found appropriate for him? " > > Trust me -nothing will be put in writing that is against your child's > rights. And if they don't put it in writing- you should. Keep a paper trail > -use tape recorders at the IEP meetings. Not that you have to be aggressive > and nasty -you can do all in a very nice way and explain that you would like > to share the information with your child's private doctor (or therapist) as > this is all new to you etc. You can come up with a zillion reasons why you > bring a tape recorder- but just do. > > Here are some archives > > Re: denied speech for summer... advice? > > There's much in the archives about this -here's just a bit: > > Actually this is from The Late Talker book but rest from the archives > > " Many children with severe speech impairments regress without continued > therapy, > so make sure your child gets enrolled in the Extended School Year (ESY) > program, > especially for the long summer break. ESY services must be considered at > the > annual IEP meeting and documented in the IEP. The ESY also has to be the > same as > what your child receives during the regular school year. For example, if he > normally has a ten hour a week schedule, his ESY should also be for ten > hours a > week. " > > The Late Talker book 2003 Agin, Geng, Nicholl > > Re: [ ] ESY Services > As with any special education school service, please remember one thing. > Special education is funded by the state. The school district may want to > provide many things. But if state funding is not provided, it is probably > not going to happen. > > > FYI - It's getting time to schedule those meetings with your schools to > discuss > ESY. Do not let the schools jump past the ESY portion in your IEP meeting > and > merely tell you your child doesn't qualify (no regression), so no need for > ESY. > Regression is NOT the only requirement for ESY, I've bolded important > information below. > > Also, don't let the school tell you ESY is traditional summer school, it is > not, > although it can be if it is appropriate to meet the child's IEP goals. > > I often use ESY services to negotiate additional services for children > where the > school has " Failed to Identify " , appropriately remediate a child's learning > problem, and/or failed to provide identified spec. ed. support or related > services. I've used it to give the school one more chance to teach a child > to > read or to teach a child appropriate social skills, before pulling out and > privately placing the child at public expense. The school system can pay > for > traditional summer school classes as ESY services for instance, if a school > failed to identify a child with a disability, and the child failed the > first > semester of High School, and now needs to make up courses during Summer > School. > > Extended School Year can look at many things. Don't let the schools tell > you no > automatically, and don't let them tell you it is only for the severely > disabled. > NOT TRUE! Talk with an advocate, attorney, or disability organization to > find > out more information. > > Carol Sadler > Special Education Consultant/Advocate > GA Advocacy Office PLSP I Graduate > 770-442-8357 > 1105 Rock Pointe Look > Woodstock, GA 30188 > CarolSadler@... > www.IEPadvocate4You.com <http://www.iepadvocate4you.com/> > http://iepadvocate4you.blogspot.com/ > > CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED > Information contained in this communication is confidential and privileged. > It > is not meant to represent legal or medical advice, but rather advice given > based > on my knowledge as a trained Parent Advocate by the GA Advocacy Office, > Council > of Parent Advocates & Attorneys, CHADD, LDA, and the GA DOE Parent Mentor > program as an invited guest. Please do not forward without my permission. > > Extended School Year (ESY) > > The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations > requirethat > ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability.An > ESY > Program of services in the summer or weekends, must be provided if needed > to > make a student's education program appropriate. " Under the law, aschool > district > may not limit ESY services for children with particular categories of > disabilities, and may not limit the type, amount or duration of ESY. " (Ed > Law > Center - PA) > > A school system cannot use a " lack ofavailable funds " argument to deny ESY > services to a child with a disability.School districts must look at issues > beyond regression or recoupment whendetermining ESY eligibility. > > ESY is NOT traditional summer school, but rather an extension of an > individual > child's education plan! > > The following is taken > from:http://www.ppmd.org/publications/extended_school_year.html It is a > summary > of judicial decisions regarding ESY. > > Extended School Year > by Rose Kraft > > Since the precedent for extended school year programming was set in the > Armstrong v. Kline case in Philadelphia, in a large number of instances the > courts have been asked to determine the eligibility of individual children > for > extended school year services. This summary looks at the judicial decisions > that > have been rendered regarding this issue. > > Judges and lawmakers have made significant decisions during the last 20 > years, > which define extended school year (ESY) services for childen with > disabilities. > Several district court cases, beginning with Armstrong v. Kline (1979) and > culminating with Reusch v. Fountain (1994), shaped thecurrent federal > regulations. For the first time in the history of the Individuals with > Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), these regulations require that ESY > services > be considered annually for every child with a disability. Each team that > develops an individual education plan (IEP) for achild must decide if ESY > services are necessary so that the child can avoid regression, a lengthy > recoupment of lost skills, or other difficulties that could interfere with > the > education plan. > > The first significant case in this arena was the Armstrong case, in which > the > judge ruled that a mandated 180-day school year violated a child's right to > a > free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically in reference to > children > with severe and profound impairments or severe emotional disturbances. The > court > stated that, " By its terms, the Act (meaning the Education for All > Handicapped > Children Act) appears to demand that the state supply instruction designed > to > meet all of the handicapped child's " unique needs " without limitation. " The > court also required state and local school districts " to provide an > education to > handicapped children in excess of 180 days, " as determined by each child's > needs. > > This case defined that a school system's goal for these severely affected > children should be self-sufficiency, which could require providing more > thanthe > same 180 days to disabled children that is provided to non disabled > children. > This case was upheld on appeal by the circuit court, which agreed that, > " For > some, but not all, SPI and SED children, standing in the way of the > attainment > of some of these objectives (for self-sufficiency) is the effect of breaks > in > the educational program which are created, at least inpart, by the 180 day > rule. " The court also noted that recoupment time for lost skills is > " usually > much greater " for children with disabilities. > > Once the courts ordered state and local school systems to provide more than > 180 > days of school per year to some children with disabilities, families across > the > nation began taking their school systems to court. In Stacey G.v. Pasadena > Independent School District (1982), a 12-month program without major breaks > was > ruled necessary for a child with autism and severe mental retardation. In > Georgia Association for Retarded Citizens v. Mc (1983), the court > ruled > that a school system cannot use a " lack of available funds " argument to > deny ESY > services to a child with a disability. A school system must look at the > child's > needs, rather than at its budget, when determining summer services for a > child. > The judge in Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of > Education (1986) noted that transportation services must be part of the ESY > package for a child, even if the bus must get that child from a > babysitter's > out-of-district home. > > The case of Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania > (1987) > showed that academic regression isn't the only qualification for ESY > eligibility. The judge in the Bucks County case stated that regression in > emotional development for severely emotionally disturbed children is often > " caused by interruptions in the educational programming, " and ordered that > prediction of regression in emotional development qualifies as a need for > ESY. > Holmes v. Sobol (1988) was a significant case because it found that > physical > therapy was a related service that could be provided for ESY, and further > ruled > that a related service can be a sole special education program. This case > stated > that without the maintenance of physical strength through therapy, the > child > would not be able to benefit from his general education. In v. > Gering > Public Schools (1990), the parents of a child with multiple disabilities > believed that a 12-month program could only be provided for their child in > a > residential placement. This court agreed that the child needed a 12-month > school > program in order to receive a free appropriate public education, but did > not > require that it be provided in a residential facility. The court ordered > the > school district to provide the12-month program at a local facility for > multi > handicapped children, specifying that an interruption from one school to > another > just for a summer program would provide an unacceptable level of regression > for > the child. > > Reusch v. Fountain (1994) blasted a land school district for deceptive > and > purposeful policies which sought to deprive children of ESY services.The > school > district had (a) refused to notify parents of a child's eligibility for ESY > services, ( written misleading letters recommending asummer program that > required tuition from the parents, © told schooladministrators to refer > parents to central administration when they asked for ESY services, (d) > purposely didn't mention ESY services until it was too late to deliver > them, and > (e) never told parents they had a right to request ESY services. The judge > used > strong language as he set the parameters for ESY policies for children with > disabilities. " The MCPS practice of inadequate and untimely ESY notice must > cease. Notice of ESY designed to fully explain such services must be > provided to > parents of disabled childrenin a timely fashion before annual review > meetings. > The notice must not disguise or downplay the true nature of ESY or attempt > to > confuse parents between free extended year services and tuition-charging > summer > enrichmentprograms. " The court went further and required that additional > criteria be considered in addition to regression and recoupment time when > considering achild for ESY services. The court decided that " emerging > skills " > and " breakthrough opportunities " (as when a child is on the brink of > learning to > read) -- can and should be incorporated into the eligibility analysis. " A > fixed-length program was also ruled illegal by this court, which ordered > the > school district to " make individualized determinations of the number of > weeks, > days per week, and hours per day that each student receiving ESYshould be > provided. > > " While litigation continued in courtrooms across the country, the Office of > Special Education Programs and the Office of Special Education and > Rehabilitative Services wrote policy letters, which provided interpretation > of > the federal regulations for school districts. The Office of Civil Rights > wrote > letters of finding which defined when the denial of ESY services violated a > person's civil rights. Together these letters provided parallel support for > the > court decisions by (a) defining ESY criteria and related services in an ESY > program, ( requiring school districts to look at issues beyond regression > or > recoupment when determining ESY eligibility, ©emphasizing the need to set > higher ESY standards than simply working toward self-sufficiency, (d) > refusing > to allow school districts to offer ESYprograms that were available only to > the > most severely disabled children,and (e) requiring that integration with > nondisabled peers be provided in ESYprograms if required by the IEP. > > The result of the court cases and substantive letters has led to the > written > federal regulations, which describe how ESY services are to be implemented > according to IDEA. The regulations define ESY as " special education and > related > services " which (a) go beyond the normal school year, ( are addressed and > mandated by the IEP, and © are free to the parents. The regulations also > require that ESY services are available to each child with a disability > and, > " The determination of whether a child with a disability needs extended > school > year services must be made on an individual basis by the child's IEP team. " > 34 > CFR ? 300.309 (1997). > > The regulations also add two notes clarifying these definitions. The first > note > states that school districts cannot limit ESY services to " particular > categories > of disability or unilaterally limit the duration of services. " The second > note > gives states the authority to set standards for use in determining ESY > eligibility " on an individual basis, " suggesting the consideration of > factors > such as the " likelihood of regression, slow recoupment, and predictive data > based on the opinion of professionals. > > " References: > Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education, > Education for the Handicapped Law Report 554:315 (5th Cir. 1986). > Armstrong v. Kline, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:195 ( > E.D.Pa <http://e.d.pa/>. > 1979). Baltimore (MD) City Public Schools (1986). > Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding, Education for the Handicapped Law > Review 352:185.Battle v. Commonwealth, > Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:647(3rd Cir. 1980). > Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Education > forthe > Handicapped Law Report 559:153 (Commonwealth Ct. of Pa. 1987). > Davila, R. R. (1990, Nov.). > Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices Policy Letter, 17 > Education for the Handicapped Law Review 419. > Georgia Association for Retarted Citizens v. Mc, Education for > theHandicapped Law Report 555:251 (11th Cir. 1983). > Holmes v. Sobol, Education of the Handicapped Law Report 559:463 (W.D. > Ny.1988). > Mesa (AZ) Public Schools (1989). > Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding,16 Education for the Handicapped > Law > Review 316. > Reusch v. Fountain, 21 Individuals with Disabilities Education Law > Report1107 > (D. Md. 1994). > Schrag, J. A. (1989, Aug.). Office of Special Education Programs > PolicyLetter, > Education for the Handicapped Law Review 213:255. > Stacey G. v. Pasadena Indep endent School District, Education for > theHandicapped > Law Report 554:206 (S.D. Tx. 1982). > Turnbull, H.R. III, & Turnbull, A.P. (1998). > Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities > (5th > ed.). > Denver, CO:Love Publishing Company.Will, M. (1987, Aug.). > Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Policy Letter, > Education > for the Handicapped Law Review 211:481. > v. Gering Public Schools, 17 Education ofthe Handicapped Law > Report427 > (Ne. S. Ct. 1990). > > Extended School Year Services (ESY) - Info from www.slaw.com<http://www.wrightslaw.com/> > http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/esy.index.htm > > Many parents have questions about extended school year services. If you > have > questions about a legal issue, you should do your own legal research. Do > not > accept legal advice from school personnel. While they may tell you what > they > believe is true, in many cases, they have not read the law and regulations > for > themselves. You need to know what the law and regulations say! > > Read what the IDEA statute says about your issue. Next read the federal > regulations and your state special ed regulations about your issue. (the > IDEA > statute and regulations are in slaw: Special Education Law and in the > Statute and Regs section of the slaw site) > > Next read a case or two about your issue (check the Caselaw Library). If > you > take these steps, you will have a clear understanding of the issues and > variables. > > You will find that extended school year (ESY) is not mentioned in the IDEA > statute, but is in the IDEA regulations. Read the IDEA regulation about > ESYat 34 > CFR Section 300.309 (page 165, slaw: Special Education Law). > > We selected two cases about ESY to help you understand these issues: > Lawyer v. Chesterfield and Reusch v. Fountain. For more information, check > the > Topics Pages - especially the FAPE and IEP pages. > > " Windows of Opportunity " : Lawyer v. Chesterfield School Board (1993)Danny > Lawyer > is a young child with autism. At age six, he had expressive language and > phonological processing problems. The experts who evaluated and treated > Danny > advised his parents that his ability to beself-sufficient and independent > later > in life would depend on his ability tocommunicate. During the summer, Danny > regressed in his ability to communicate. His behavior deteriorated. His > school > district refused to provide any speech language therapy during the summer > months > - and refused to reimburse his parents for the services they purchased for > their > son. The parents requested a special education due process hearing and > prevailed. The school district appealed. The Review Officer overturned the > Hearing Officer's decision. The case was appealed to Federal Court. > > After reviewing the record and hearing new testimony, Judge Spencer > concluded, > " Regression is not the only factor " in deciding if a child needs ESY > services. > The judge listed several additional factors that IEP teams should consider > in > making ESY decisions: > Recoupment in the Fall; > Child's rate of progress; > Child's behavioral or physical problems; > Availability of alternative resources; > Areas of the child's curriculum that need continuous attention; > Child's vocational needs. > > In " Lawyer, " Judge Spencer discussed regression and recoupment. He also > discussed the need to take advantage of " windows of opportunity " in > educating > children with disabilities: " Danny's regression in the summer, coupled with > nominal recoupment, severely limits the educational benefits he receives > from > instruction during the school year. His rate of progress isminimized by the > interplay of continuous regression and recoupment. " " Moreover, Danny's > behavioral > problems are compounded by his severe language deficit. His inability to > effectively communicate triggers unacceptable behavior. Therefore, it is > critical that Danny be provided with continuous speech and communication > services. " " Finally, the evidence provided by expert witnesses indicates > that > for children who suffer from moderate to severe childhood autism, there is > a > small, but vital, window of opportunityin which they can effectively learn. > Such > period is generally between theages of five and eight years old....The > Court > concludes that it is extremely important that at this critical stage of > development, Danny receive uninterrupted speech language therapy. > > " Read the decision in Lawyer v. Chesterfield. > > Hostility to Providing ESY: Reusch v. Fountain (1994) In Reusch v. > Fountain, 872 > F.Supp. 1421 (D. MD 1994), a federal court addressed the school districts > " hostility to providing ESY. " In this case,the court found that parents > were > prevented from advocating for their children by the districts refusal to > provide > parents with notice about their right to request these services. The > district > also engaged in delaying tactics by requiring parents to attend futile > meetings. > The court found that, in this district, administrative convenience took > precedence over providing FAPE to children with disabilities. Educational > decisions were not individualized according to the needs of the child. > > Six Factors for IEP Teams to Consider > > In Reusch v. Fountain, the court listed six factors that the IEP team > shouldconsider in deciding if the child is eligible for ESY as a related > service: > > 1. Regression and recoupment - is the child likely to lose critical skills > or > fail to recover these skills within in a reasonable time; > 2. Degree of progress toward IEP goals and objectives; > 3. Emerging skills/breakthrough opportunities - Will a lengthy summer break > cause significant problems for a child who is learning a key skill, > likereading; > 4. Interfering Behavior - does the childs behavior interfere with his or > her > ability to benefit from special education; > 5. Nature and/or severity of disability; > 6. Special circumstances that interfere with childs ability to benefit from > special education. > > Citing Pete's case, Florence County School District Four v. , > the > District Court found that: " In any contest between systematic efficiency > and the > provision of FAPE to a disabled child, Congress and the Supreme Court have > made > it clear that the child must prevail. " > > Other findings: > > Notice and Timing - The importance of making a decision about ESY early > enough > in the school year to allow the parents adequate time to exercisetheir > rights > administrative review or appeal in a timely fashion. That the explanation > about > ESY contained in a brochure distributed to all studentswas not sufficient > and > ordered that the student's eligibility for ESY be considered at each annual > review meeting, and the parents sign a form acknowledging their receipt of > this > information. The district must documentthe discussion and the decision > reached > after consideration of ESYeligibilty at each annual review meeting. > > Content and Duration - The content of child's ESY program must be > determined on > an individual basis. The duration is also based on individualized > determinations > of the number of weeks, days per week,and hours per day that each student > receiving ESY should be provided. > > Copyright 1999-2002, W. D. and Pamela Darr . > All rightsreserved. www.wrightlaw.com > > -- > Posted by Carol Sadler to IEPadvocate4You at 3/14/2005 05:59:00 AM > > ===== > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hi Kim, You don't say what school distict you are in,but i know there are services out there that will help. Look into Provider 50. My daughter has been recieving services from them since she was three.(now 10)We recieve services from Behavioral Health Associates in Weissport,Pa. There is also Holcolm.There are more,but I can't remember off hand. You may also want to look into Pinebrook Services.They have offices in town and Easton. One other place to look is Good Shepherd Pediatrics in town. They provide OT,PT,speech and physical therapies. GOOD LUCK! Dawn > > My son will turn 3 at the end of May and as such, his Early Intervention services will end. Had my informational meeting with the school district yesterday. During the meeting, I advised that my major concern was therapies/services would be available for my son during the summer months before school started. They advised there was no summer program available and that we could use our insurance to do provide services. Of course, we will still be using our private insurance to get him therapy, but isn't the school district legally responsible to provide him services once he turns 3? Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Kim > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 So glad to read this post! I think my son's IEP update will be in May and this will be his 1st one since starting preschool services. Want to make sure he gets summer speech sessions too. Thanks- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry [ ] Re: Help with school Not sure if you read my book The Late Talker but if you didn't I highly recommend you at least take a look at the advocacy chapter as my co author is a neurodevelopmental pediatrician who advocates for her patients in the schools, and we had the advise as well from special education attorneys and an award winning teacher advocate (our VP of Cherab Cheryl Bennet SLP included) Whenever a school professional says something that sounds wrong just say nicely " That's interesting, would you mind putting in writing for me why there are no summer programs available at all for my son even if extended school year is found appropriate for him? " Trust me -nothing will be put in writing that is against your child's rights. And if they don't put it in writing- you should. Keep a paper trail -use tape recorders at the IEP meetings. Not that you have to be aggressive and nasty -you can do all in a very nice way and explain that you would like to share the information with your child's private doctor (or therapist) as this is all new to you etc. You can come up with a zillion reasons why you bring a tape recorder- but just do. Here are some archives Re: denied speech for summer... advice? There's much in the archives about this -here's just a bit: Actually this is from The Late Talker book but rest from the archives " Many children with severe speech impairments regress without continued therapy, so make sure your child gets enrolled in the Extended School Year (ESY) program, especially for the long summer break. ESY services must be considered at the annual IEP meeting and documented in the IEP. The ESY also has to be the same as what your child receives during the regular school year. For example, if he normally has a ten hour a week schedule, his ESY should also be for ten hours a week. " The Late Talker book 2003 Agin, Geng, Nicholl Re: [ ] ESY Services As with any special education school service, please remember one thing. Special education is funded by the state. The school district may want to provide many things. But if state funding is not provided, it is probably not going to happen. FYI - It's getting time to schedule those meetings with your schools to discuss ESY. Do not let the schools jump past the ESY portion in your IEP meeting and merely tell you your child doesn't qualify (no regression), so no need for ESY. Regression is NOT the only requirement for ESY, I've bolded important information below. Also, don't let the school tell you ESY is traditional summer school, it is not, although it can be if it is appropriate to meet the child's IEP goals. I often use ESY services to negotiate additional services for children where the school has " Failed to Identify " , appropriately remediate a child's learning problem, and/or failed to provide identified spec. ed. support or related services. I've used it to give the school one more chance to teach a child to read or to teach a child appropriate social skills, before pulling out and privately placing the child at public expense. The school system can pay for traditional summer school classes as ESY services for instance, if a school failed to identify a child with a disability, and the child failed the first semester of High School, and now needs to make up courses during Summer School. Extended School Year can look at many things. Don't let the schools tell you no automatically, and don't let them tell you it is only for the severely disabled. NOT TRUE! Talk with an advocate, attorney, or disability organization to find out more information. Carol Sadler Special Education Consultant/Advocate GA Advocacy Office PLSP I Graduate 770-442-8357 1105 Rock Pointe Look Woodstock, GA 30188 CarolSadler@... www.IEPadvocate4You.com http://iepadvocate4you.blogspot.com/ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED Information contained in this communication is confidential and privileged. It is not meant to represent legal or medical advice, but rather advice given based on my knowledge as a trained Parent Advocate by the GA Advocacy Office, Council of Parent Advocates & Attorneys, CHADD, LDA, and the GA DOE Parent Mentor program as an invited guest. Please do not forward without my permission. Extended School Year (ESY) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations requirethat ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability.An ESY Program of services in the summer or weekends, must be provided if needed to make a student's education program appropriate. " Under the law, aschool district may not limit ESY services for children with particular categories of disabilities, and may not limit the type, amount or duration of ESY. " (Ed Law Center - PA) A school system cannot use a " lack ofavailable funds " argument to deny ESY services to a child with a disability.School districts must look at issues beyond regression or recoupment whendetermining ESY eligibility. ESY is NOT traditional summer school, but rather an extension of an individual child's education plan! The following is taken from:http://www.ppmd.org/publications/extended_school_year.html It is a summary of judicial decisions regarding ESY. Extended School Year by Rose Kraft Since the precedent for extended school year programming was set in the Armstrong v. Kline case in Philadelphia, in a large number of instances the courts have been asked to determine the eligibility of individual children for extended school year services. This summary looks at the judicial decisions that have been rendered regarding this issue. Judges and lawmakers have made significant decisions during the last 20 years, which define extended school year (ESY) services for childen with disabilities. Several district court cases, beginning with Armstrong v. Kline (1979) and culminating with Reusch v. Fountain (1994), shaped thecurrent federal regulations. For the first time in the history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), these regulations require that ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability. Each team that develops an individual education plan (IEP) for achild must decide if ESY services are necessary so that the child can avoid regression, a lengthy recoupment of lost skills, or other difficulties that could interfere with the education plan. The first significant case in this arena was the Armstrong case, in which the judge ruled that a mandated 180-day school year violated a child's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically in reference to children with severe and profound impairments or severe emotional disturbances. The court stated that, " By its terms, the Act (meaning the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) appears to demand that the state supply instruction designed to meet all of the handicapped child's " unique needs " without limitation. " The court also required state and local school districts " to provide an education to handicapped children in excess of 180 days, " as determined by each child's needs. This case defined that a school system's goal for these severely affected children should be self-sufficiency, which could require providing more thanthe same 180 days to disabled children that is provided to non disabled children. This case was upheld on appeal by the circuit court, which agreed that, " For some, but not all, SPI and SED children, standing in the way of the attainment of some of these objectives (for self-sufficiency) is the effect of breaks in the educational program which are created, at least inpart, by the 180 day rule. " The court also noted that recoupment time for lost skills is " usually much greater " for children with disabilities. Once the courts ordered state and local school systems to provide more than 180 days of school per year to some children with disabilities, families across the nation began taking their school systems to court. In Stacey G.v. Pasadena Independent School District (1982), a 12-month program without major breaks was ruled necessary for a child with autism and severe mental retardation. In Georgia Association for Retarded Citizens v. Mc (1983), the court ruled that a school system cannot use a " lack of available funds " argument to deny ESY services to a child with a disability. A school system must look at the child's needs, rather than at its budget, when determining summer services for a child. The judge in Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education (1986) noted that transportation services must be part of the ESY package for a child, even if the bus must get that child from a babysitter's out-of-district home. The case of Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1987) showed that academic regression isn't the only qualification for ESY eligibility. The judge in the Bucks County case stated that regression in emotional development for severely emotionally disturbed children is often " caused by interruptions in the educational programming, " and ordered that prediction of regression in emotional development qualifies as a need for ESY. Holmes v. Sobol (1988) was a significant case because it found that physical therapy was a related service that could be provided for ESY, and further ruled that a related service can be a sole special education program. This case stated that without the maintenance of physical strength through therapy, the child would not be able to benefit from his general education. In v. Gering Public Schools (1990), the parents of a child with multiple disabilities believed that a 12-month program could only be provided for their child in a residential placement. This court agreed that the child needed a 12-month school program in order to receive a free appropriate public education, but did not require that it be provided in a residential facility. The court ordered the school district to provide the12-month program at a local facility for multi handicapped children, specifying that an interruption from one school to another just for a summer program would provide an unacceptable level of regression for the child. Reusch v. Fountain (1994) blasted a land school district for deceptive and purposeful policies which sought to deprive children of ESY services.The school district had (a) refused to notify parents of a child's eligibility for ESY services, ( written misleading letters recommending asummer program that required tuition from the parents, © told schooladministrators to refer parents to central administration when they asked for ESY services, (d) purposely didn't mention ESY services until it was too late to deliver them, and (e) never told parents they had a right to request ESY services. The judge used strong language as he set the parameters for ESY policies for children with disabilities. " The MCPS practice of inadequate and untimely ESY notice must cease. Notice of ESY designed to fully explain such services must be provided to parents of disabled childrenin a timely fashion before annual review meetings. The notice must not disguise or downplay the true nature of ESY or attempt to confuse parents between free extended year services and tuition-charging summer enrichmentprograms. " The court went further and required that additional criteria be considered in addition to regression and recoupment time when considering achild for ESY services. The court decided that " emerging skills " and " breakthrough opportunities " (as when a child is on the brink of learning to read) -- can and should be incorporated into the eligibility analysis. " A fixed-length program was also ruled illegal by this court, which ordered the school district to " make individualized determinations of the number of weeks, days per week, and hours per day that each student receiving ESYshould be provided. " While litigation continued in courtrooms across the country, the Office of Special Education Programs and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services wrote policy letters, which provided interpretation of the federal regulations for school districts. The Office of Civil Rights wrote letters of finding which defined when the denial of ESY services violated a person's civil rights. Together these letters provided parallel support for the court decisions by (a) defining ESY criteria and related services in an ESY program, ( requiring school districts to look at issues beyond regression or recoupment when determining ESY eligibility, ©emphasizing the need to set higher ESY standards than simply working toward self-sufficiency, (d) refusing to allow school districts to offer ESYprograms that were available only to the most severely disabled children,and (e) requiring that integration with nondisabled peers be provided in ESYprograms if required by the IEP. The result of the court cases and substantive letters has led to the written federal regulations, which describe how ESY services are to be implemented according to IDEA. The regulations define ESY as " special education and related services " which (a) go beyond the normal school year, ( are addressed and mandated by the IEP, and © are free to the parents. The regulations also require that ESY services are available to each child with a disability and, " The determination of whether a child with a disability needs extended school year services must be made on an individual basis by the child's IEP team. " 34 CFR ? 300.309 (1997). The regulations also add two notes clarifying these definitions. The first note states that school districts cannot limit ESY services to " particular categories of disability or unilaterally limit the duration of services. " The second note gives states the authority to set standards for use in determining ESY eligibility " on an individual basis, " suggesting the consideration of factors such as the " likelihood of regression, slow recoupment, and predictive data based on the opinion of professionals. " References: Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 554:315 (5th Cir. 1986). Armstrong v. Kline, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:195 (E.D.Pa. 1979). Baltimore (MD) City Public Schools (1986). Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding, Education for the Handicapped Law Review 352:185.Battle v. Commonwealth, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:647(3rd Cir. 1980). Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Education forthe Handicapped Law Report 559:153 (Commonwealth Ct. of Pa. 1987). Davila, R. R. (1990, Nov.). Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices Policy Letter, 17 Education for the Handicapped Law Review 419. Georgia Association for Retarted Citizens v. Mc, Education for theHandicapped Law Report 555:251 (11th Cir. 1983). Holmes v. Sobol, Education of the Handicapped Law Report 559:463 (W.D. Ny.1988). Mesa (AZ) Public Schools (1989). Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding,16 Education for the Handicapped Law Review 316. Reusch v. Fountain, 21 Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report1107 (D. Md. 1994). Schrag, J. A. (1989, Aug.). Office of Special Education Programs PolicyLetter, Education for the Handicapped Law Review 213:255. Stacey G. v. Pasadena Indep endent School District, Education for theHandicapped Law Report 554:206 (S.D. Tx. 1982). Turnbull, H.R. III, & Turnbull, A.P. (1998). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (5th ed.). Denver, CO:Love Publishing Company.Will, M. (1987, Aug.). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Policy Letter, Education for the Handicapped Law Review 211:481. v. Gering Public Schools, 17 Education ofthe Handicapped Law Report427 (Ne. S. Ct. 1990). Extended School Year Services (ESY) - Info from www.slaw.com http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/esy.index.htm Many parents have questions about extended school year services. If you have questions about a legal issue, you should do your own legal research. Do not accept legal advice from school personnel. While they may tell you what they believe is true, in many cases, they have not read the law and regulations for themselves. You need to know what the law and regulations say! Read what the IDEA statute says about your issue. Next read the federal regulations and your state special ed regulations about your issue. (the IDEA statute and regulations are in slaw: Special Education Law and in the Statute and Regs section of the slaw site) Next read a case or two about your issue (check the Caselaw Library). If you take these steps, you will have a clear understanding of the issues and variables. You will find that extended school year (ESY) is not mentioned in the IDEA statute, but is in the IDEA regulations. Read the IDEA regulation about ESYat 34 CFR Section 300.309 (page 165, slaw: Special Education Law). We selected two cases about ESY to help you understand these issues: Lawyer v. Chesterfield and Reusch v. Fountain. For more information, check the Topics Pages - especially the FAPE and IEP pages. " Windows of Opportunity " : Lawyer v. Chesterfield School Board (1993)Danny Lawyer is a young child with autism. At age six, he had expressive language and phonological processing problems. The experts who evaluated and treated Danny advised his parents that his ability to beself-sufficient and independent later in life would depend on his ability tocommunicate. During the summer, Danny regressed in his ability to communicate. His behavior deteriorated. His school district refused to provide any speech language therapy during the summer months - and refused to reimburse his parents for the services they purchased for their son. The parents requested a special education due process hearing and prevailed. The school district appealed. The Review Officer overturned the Hearing Officer's decision. The case was appealed to Federal Court. After reviewing the record and hearing new testimony, Judge Spencer concluded, " Regression is not the only factor " in deciding if a child needs ESY services. The judge listed several additional factors that IEP teams should consider in making ESY decisions: Recoupment in the Fall; Child's rate of progress; Child's behavioral or physical problems; Availability of alternative resources; Areas of the child's curriculum that need continuous attention; Child's vocational needs. In " Lawyer, " Judge Spencer discussed regression and recoupment. He also discussed the need to take advantage of " windows of opportunity " in educating children with disabilities: " Danny's regression in the summer, coupled with nominal recoupment, severely limits the educational benefits he receives from instruction during the school year. His rate of progress isminimized by the interplay of continuous regression and recoupment. " " Moreover, Danny's behavioral problems are compounded by his severe language deficit. His inability to effectively communicate triggers unacceptable behavior. Therefore, it is critical that Danny be provided with continuous speech and communication services. " " Finally, the evidence provided by expert witnesses indicates that for children who suffer from moderate to severe childhood autism, there is a small, but vital, window of opportunityin which they can effectively learn. Such period is generally between theages of five and eight years old....The Court concludes that it is extremely important that at this critical stage of development, Danny receive uninterrupted speech language therapy. " Read the decision in Lawyer v. Chesterfield. Hostility to Providing ESY: Reusch v. Fountain (1994) In Reusch v. Fountain, 872 F.Supp. 1421 (D. MD 1994), a federal court addressed the school districts " hostility to providing ESY. " In this case,the court found that parents were prevented from advocating for their children by the districts refusal to provide parents with notice about their right to request these services. The district also engaged in delaying tactics by requiring parents to attend futile meetings. The court found that, in this district, administrative convenience took precedence over providing FAPE to children with disabilities. Educational decisions were not individualized according to the needs of the child. Six Factors for IEP Teams to Consider In Reusch v. Fountain, the court listed six factors that the IEP team shouldconsider in deciding if the child is eligible for ESY as a related service: 1. Regression and recoupment - is the child likely to lose critical skills or fail to recover these skills within in a reasonable time; 2. Degree of progress toward IEP goals and objectives; 3. Emerging skills/breakthrough opportunities - Will a lengthy summer break cause significant problems for a child who is learning a key skill, likereading; 4. Interfering Behavior - does the childs behavior interfere with his or her ability to benefit from special education; 5. Nature and/or severity of disability; 6. Special circumstances that interfere with childs ability to benefit from special education. Citing Pete's case, Florence County School District Four v. , the District Court found that: " In any contest between systematic efficiency and the provision of FAPE to a disabled child, Congress and the Supreme Court have made it clear that the child must prevail. " Other findings: Notice and Timing - The importance of making a decision about ESY early enough in the school year to allow the parents adequate time to exercisetheir rights administrative review or appeal in a timely fashion. That the explanation about ESY contained in a brochure distributed to all studentswas not sufficient and ordered that the student's eligibility for ESY be considered at each annual review meeting, and the parents sign a form acknowledging their receipt of this information. The district must documentthe discussion and the decision reached after consideration of ESYeligibilty at each annual review meeting. Content and Duration - The content of child's ESY program must be determined on an individual basis. The duration is also based on individualized determinations of the number of weeks, days per week,and hours per day that each student receiving ESY should be provided. Copyright 1999-2002, W. D. and Pamela Darr . All rightsreserved. www.wrightlaw.com -- Posted by Carol Sadler to IEPadvocate4You at 3/14/2005 05:59:00 AM ===== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 This is one of those moments where I want to praise our school. We have our daughter at Logan-ville, in Missouri. We are a tiny community, and yet every year they amaze me with the level of commitment to her education. Occupational and speech therapy have both been provided year round since starting the program three years ago. She is currently testing for Kindergarten placement. When I read these posts I am reminded of how lucky I am to now have to fight for her rights. Meyer From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Stilwell Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Help with school Our school district only provides summer school or services if a child is shown to regress over summer or on winter break, etc. On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM, kiddietalk <kiddietalk@... <mailto:kiddietalk%40> > wrote: > > > Not sure if you read my book The Late Talker but if you didn't I highly > recommend you at least take a look at the aeakdvocacy chapter as my co > author is a neurodevelopmental pediatrician who advocates for her patients > in the schools, and we had the advise as well from special education > attorneys and an award winning teacher advocate (our VP of Cherab Cheryl > Bennet SLP included) > > Whenever a school professional says something that sounds wrong just say > nicely " That's interesting, would you mind putting in writing for me why > there are no summer programs available at all for my son even if extended > school year is found appropriate for him? " > > Trust me -nothing will be put in writing that is against your child's > rights. And if they don't put it in writing- you should. Keep a paper trail > -use tape recorders at the IEP meetings. Not that you have to be aggressive > and nasty -you can do all in a very nice way and explain that you would like > to share the information with your child's private doctor (or therapist) as > this is all new to you etc. You can come up with a zillion reasons why you > bring a tape recorder- but just do. > > Here are some archives > > Re: denied speech for summer... advice? > > There's much in the archives about this -here's just a bit: > > Actually this is from The Late Talker book but rest from the archives > > " Many children with severe speech impairments regress without continued > therapy, > so make sure your child gets enrolled in the Extended School Year (ESY) > program, > especially for the long summer break. ESY services must be considered at > the > annual IEP meeting and documented in the IEP. The ESY also has to be the > same as > what your child receives during the regular school year. For example, if he > normally has a ten hour a week schedule, his ESY should also be for ten > hours a > week. " > > The Late Talker book 2003 Agin, Geng, Nicholl > > Re: [ ] ESY Services > As with any special education school service, please remember one thing. > Special education is funded by the state. The school district may want to > provide many things. But if state funding is not provided, it is probably > not going to happen. > > > FYI - It's getting time to schedule those meetings with your schools to > discuss > ESY. Do not let the schools jump past the ESY portion in your IEP meeting > and > merely tell you your child doesn't qualify (no regression), so no need for > ESY. > Regression is NOT the only requirement for ESY, I've bolded important > information below. > > Also, don't let the school tell you ESY is traditional summer school, it is > not, > although it can be if it is appropriate to meet the child's IEP goals. > > I often use ESY services to negotiate additional services for children > where the > school has " Failed to Identify " , appropriately remediate a child's learning > problem, and/or failed to provide identified spec. ed. support or related > services. I've used it to give the school one more chance to teach a child > to > read or to teach a child appropriate social skills, before pulling out and > privately placing the child at public expense. The school system can pay > for > traditional summer school classes as ESY services for instance, if a school > failed to identify a child with a disability, and the child failed the > first > semester of High School, and now needs to make up courses during Summer > School. > > Extended School Year can look at many things. Don't let the schools tell > you no > automatically, and don't let them tell you it is only for the severely > disabled. > NOT TRUE! Talk with an advocate, attorney, or disability organization to > find > out more information. > > Carol Sadler > Special Education Consultant/Advocate > GA Advocacy Office PLSP I Graduate > 770-442-8357 > 1105 Rock Pointe Look > Woodstock, GA 30188 > CarolSadler@... <mailto:CarolSadler%40bellsouth.net> > www.IEPadvocate4You.com <http://www.iepadvocate4you.com/> > http://iepadvocate4you.blogspot.com/ > > CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED > Information contained in this communication is confidential and privileged. > It > is not meant to represent legal or medical advice, but rather advice given > based > on my knowledge as a trained Parent Advocate by the GA Advocacy Office, > Council > of Parent Advocates & Attorneys, CHADD, LDA, and the GA DOE Parent Mentor > program as an invited guest. Please do not forward without my permission. > > Extended School Year (ESY) > > The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations > requirethat > ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability.An > ESY > Program of services in the summer or weekends, must be provided if needed > to > make a student's education program appropriate. " Under the law, aschool > district > may not limit ESY services for children with particular categories of > disabilities, and may not limit the type, amount or duration of ESY. " (Ed > Law > Center - PA) > > A school system cannot use a " lack ofavailable funds " argument to deny ESY > services to a child with a disability.School districts must look at issues > beyond regression or recoupment whendetermining ESY eligibility. > > ESY is NOT traditional summer school, but rather an extension of an > individual > child's education plan! > > The following is taken > from:http://www.ppmd.org/publications/extended_school_year.html It is a > summary > of judicial decisions regarding ESY. > > Extended School Year > by Rose Kraft > > Since the precedent for extended school year programming was set in the > Armstrong v. Kline case in Philadelphia, in a large number of instances the > courts have been asked to determine the eligibility of individual children > for > extended school year services. This summary looks at the judicial decisions > that > have been rendered regarding this issue. > > Judges and lawmakers have made significant decisions during the last 20 > years, > which define extended school year (ESY) services for childen with > disabilities. > Several district court cases, beginning with Armstrong v. Kline (1979) and > culminating with Reusch v. Fountain (1994), shaped thecurrent federal > regulations. For the first time in the history of the Individuals with > Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), these regulations require that ESY > services > be considered annually for every child with a disability. Each team that > develops an individual education plan (IEP) for achild must decide if ESY > services are necessary so that the child can avoid regression, a lengthy > recoupment of lost skills, or other difficulties that could interfere with > the > education plan. > > The first significant case in this arena was the Armstrong case, in which > the > judge ruled that a mandated 180-day school year violated a child's right to > a > free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically in reference to > children > with severe and profound impairments or severe emotional disturbances. The > court > stated that, " By its terms, the Act (meaning the Education for All > Handicapped > Children Act) appears to demand that the state supply instruction designed > to > meet all of the handicapped child's " unique needs " without limitation. " The > court also required state and local school districts " to provide an > education to > handicapped children in excess of 180 days, " as determined by each child's > needs. > > This case defined that a school system's goal for these severely affected > children should be self-sufficiency, which could require providing more > thanthe > same 180 days to disabled children that is provided to non disabled > children. > This case was upheld on appeal by the circuit court, which agreed that, > " For > some, but not all, SPI and SED children, standing in the way of the > attainment > of some of these objectives (for self-sufficiency) is the effect of breaks > in > the educational program which are created, at least inpart, by the 180 day > rule. " The court also noted that recoupment time for lost skills is > " usually > much greater " for children with disabilities. > > Once the courts ordered state and local school systems to provide more than > 180 > days of school per year to some children with disabilities, families across > the > nation began taking their school systems to court. In Stacey G.v. Pasadena > Independent School District (1982), a 12-month program without major breaks > was > ruled necessary for a child with autism and severe mental retardation. In > Georgia Association for Retarded Citizens v. Mc (1983), the court > ruled > that a school system cannot use a " lack of available funds " argument to > deny ESY > services to a child with a disability. A school system must look at the > child's > needs, rather than at its budget, when determining summer services for a > child. > The judge in Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of > Education (1986) noted that transportation services must be part of the ESY > package for a child, even if the bus must get that child from a > babysitter's > out-of-district home. > > The case of Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania > (1987) > showed that academic regression isn't the only qualification for ESY > eligibility. The judge in the Bucks County case stated that regression in > emotional development for severely emotionally disturbed children is often > " caused by interruptions in the educational programming, " and ordered that > prediction of regression in emotional development qualifies as a need for > ESY. > Holmes v. Sobol (1988) was a significant case because it found that > physical > therapy was a related service that could be provided for ESY, and further > ruled > that a related service can be a sole special education program. This case > stated > that without the maintenance of physical strength through therapy, the > child > would not be able to benefit from his general education. In v. > Gering > Public Schools (1990), the parents of a child with multiple disabilities > believed that a 12-month program could only be provided for their child in > a > residential placement. This court agreed that the child needed a 12-month > school > program in order to receive a free appropriate public education, but did > not > require that it be provided in a residential facility. The court ordered > the > school district to provide the12-month program at a local facility for > multi > handicapped children, specifying that an interruption from one school to > another > just for a summer program would provide an unacceptable level of regression > for > the child. > > Reusch v. Fountain (1994) blasted a land school district for deceptive > and > purposeful policies which sought to deprive children of ESY services.The > school > district had (a) refused to notify parents of a child's eligibility for ESY > services, ( written misleading letters recommending asummer program that > required tuition from the parents, © told schooladministrators to refer > parents to central administration when they asked for ESY services, (d) > purposely didn't mention ESY services until it was too late to deliver > them, and > (e) never told parents they had a right to request ESY services. The judge > used > strong language as he set the parameters for ESY policies for children with > disabilities. " The MCPS practice of inadequate and untimely ESY notice must > cease. Notice of ESY designed to fully explain such services must be > provided to > parents of disabled childrenin a timely fashion before annual review > meetings. > The notice must not disguise or downplay the true nature of ESY or attempt > to > confuse parents between free extended year services and tuition-charging > summer > enrichmentprograms. " The court went further and required that additional > criteria be considered in addition to regression and recoupment time when > considering achild for ESY services. The court decided that " emerging > skills " > and " breakthrough opportunities " (as when a child is on the brink of > learning to > read) -- can and should be incorporated into the eligibility analysis. " A > fixed-length program was also ruled illegal by this court, which ordered > the > school district to " make individualized determinations of the number of > weeks, > days per week, and hours per day that each student receiving ESYshould be > provided. > > " While litigation continued in courtrooms across the country, the Office of > Special Education Programs and the Office of Special Education and > Rehabilitative Services wrote policy letters, which provided interpretation > of > the federal regulations for school districts. The Office of Civil Rights > wrote > letters of finding which defined when the denial of ESY services violated a > person's civil rights. Together these letters provided parallel support for > the > court decisions by (a) defining ESY criteria and related services in an ESY > program, ( requiring school districts to look at issues beyond regression > or > recoupment when determining ESY eligibility, ©emphasizing the need to set > higher ESY standards than simply working toward self-sufficiency, (d) > refusing > to allow school districts to offer ESYprograms that were available only to > the > most severely disabled children,and (e) requiring that integration with > nondisabled peers be provided in ESYprograms if required by the IEP. > > The result of the court cases and substantive letters has led to the > written > federal regulations, which describe how ESY services are to be implemented > according to IDEA. The regulations define ESY as " special education and > related > services " which (a) go beyond the normal school year, ( are addressed and > mandated by the IEP, and © are free to the parents. The regulations also > require that ESY services are available to each child with a disability > and, > " The determination of whether a child with a disability needs extended > school > year services must be made on an individual basis by the child's IEP team. " > 34 > CFR ? 300.309 (1997). > > The regulations also add two notes clarifying these definitions. The first > note > states that school districts cannot limit ESY services to " particular > categories > of disability or unilaterally limit the duration of services. " The second > note > gives states the authority to set standards for use in determining ESY > eligibility " on an individual basis, " suggesting the consideration of > factors > such as the " likelihood of regression, slow recoupment, and predictive data > based on the opinion of professionals. > > " References: > Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education, > Education for the Handicapped Law Report 554:315 (5th Cir. 1986). > Armstrong v. Kline, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:195 ( > E.D.Pa <http://e.d.pa/>. > 1979). Baltimore (MD) City Public Schools (1986). > Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding, Education for the Handicapped Law > Review 352:185.Battle v. Commonwealth, > Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:647(3rd Cir. 1980). > Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Education > forthe > Handicapped Law Report 559:153 (Commonwealth Ct. of Pa. 1987). > Davila, R. R. (1990, Nov.). > Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices Policy Letter, 17 > Education for the Handicapped Law Review 419. > Georgia Association for Retarted Citizens v. Mc, Education for > theHandicapped Law Report 555:251 (11th Cir. 1983). > Holmes v. Sobol, Education of the Handicapped Law Report 559:463 (W.D. > Ny.1988). > Mesa (AZ) Public Schools (1989). > Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding,16 Education for the Handicapped > Law > Review 316. > Reusch v. Fountain, 21 Individuals with Disabilities Education Law > Report1107 > (D. Md. 1994). > Schrag, J. A. (1989, Aug.). Office of Special Education Programs > PolicyLetter, > Education for the Handicapped Law Review 213:255. > Stacey G. v. Pasadena Indep endent School District, Education for > theHandicapped > Law Report 554:206 (S.D. Tx. 1982). > Turnbull, H.R. III, & Turnbull, A.P. (1998). > Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities > (5th > ed.). > Denver, CO:Love Publishing Company.Will, M. (1987, Aug.). > Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Policy Letter, > Education > for the Handicapped Law Review 211:481. > v. Gering Public Schools, 17 Education ofthe Handicapped Law > Report427 > (Ne. S. Ct. 1990). > > Extended School Year Services (ESY) - Info from www.slaw.com<http://www.wrightslaw.com/> > http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/esy.index.htm > > Many parents have questions about extended school year services. If you > have > questions about a legal issue, you should do your own legal research. Do > not > accept legal advice from school personnel. While they may tell you what > they > believe is true, in many cases, they have not read the law and regulations > for > themselves. You need to know what the law and regulations say! > > Read what the IDEA statute says about your issue. Next read the federal > regulations and your state special ed regulations about your issue. (the > IDEA > statute and regulations are in slaw: Special Education Law and in the > Statute and Regs section of the slaw site) > > Next read a case or two about your issue (check the Caselaw Library). If > you > take these steps, you will have a clear understanding of the issues and > variables. > > You will find that extended school year (ESY) is not mentioned in the IDEA > statute, but is in the IDEA regulations. Read the IDEA regulation about > ESYat 34 > CFR Section 300.309 (page 165, slaw: Special Education Law). > > We selected two cases about ESY to help you understand these issues: > Lawyer v. Chesterfield and Reusch v. Fountain. For more information, check > the > Topics Pages - especially the FAPE and IEP pages. > > " Windows of Opportunity " : Lawyer v. Chesterfield School Board (1993)Danny > Lawyer > is a young child with autism. At age six, he had expressive language and > phonological processing problems. The experts who evaluated and treated > Danny > advised his parents that his ability to beself-sufficient and independent > later > in life would depend on his ability tocommunicate. During the summer, Danny > regressed in his ability to communicate. His behavior deteriorated. His > school > district refused to provide any speech language therapy during the summer > months > - and refused to reimburse his parents for the services they purchased for > their > son. The parents requested a special education due process hearing and > prevailed. The school district appealed. The Review Officer overturned the > Hearing Officer's decision. The case was appealed to Federal Court. > > After reviewing the record and hearing new testimony, Judge Spencer > concluded, > " Regression is not the only factor " in deciding if a child needs ESY > services. > The judge listed several additional factors that IEP teams should consider > in > making ESY decisions: > Recoupment in the Fall; > Child's rate of progress; > Child's behavioral or physical problems; > Availability of alternative resources; > Areas of the child's curriculum that need continuous attention; > Child's vocational needs. > > In " Lawyer, " Judge Spencer discussed regression and recoupment. He also > discussed the need to take advantage of " windows of opportunity " in > educating > children with disabilities: " Danny's regression in the summer, coupled with > nominal recoupment, severely limits the educational benefits he receives > from > instruction during the school year. His rate of progress isminimized by the > interplay of continuous regression and recoupment. " " Moreover, Danny's > behavioral > problems are compounded by his severe language deficit. His inability to > effectively communicate triggers unacceptable behavior. Therefore, it is > critical that Danny be provided with continuous speech and communication > services. " " Finally, the evidence provided by expert witnesses indicates > that > for children who suffer from moderate to severe childhood autism, there is > a > small, but vital, window of opportunityin which they can effectively learn. > Such > period is generally between theages of five and eight years old....The > Court > concludes that it is extremely important that at this critical stage of > development, Danny receive uninterrupted speech language therapy. > > " Read the decision in Lawyer v. Chesterfield. > > Hostility to Providing ESY: Reusch v. Fountain (1994) In Reusch v. > Fountain, 872 > F.Supp. 1421 (D. MD 1994), a federal court addressed the school districts > " hostility to providing ESY. " In this case,the court found that parents > were > prevented from advocating for their children by the districts refusal to > provide > parents with notice about their right to request these services. The > district > also engaged in delaying tactics by requiring parents to attend futile > meetings. > The court found that, in this district, administrative convenience took > precedence over providing FAPE to children with disabilities. Educational > decisions were not individualized according to the needs of the child. > > Six Factors for IEP Teams to Consider > > In Reusch v. Fountain, the court listed six factors that the IEP team > shouldconsider in deciding if the child is eligible for ESY as a related > service: > > 1. Regression and recoupment - is the child likely to lose critical skills > or > fail to recover these skills within in a reasonable time; > 2. Degree of progress toward IEP goals and objectives; > 3. Emerging skills/breakthrough opportunities - Will a lengthy summer break > cause significant problems for a child who is learning a key skill, > likereading; > 4. Interfering Behavior - does the childs behavior interfere with his or > her > ability to benefit from special education; > 5. Nature and/or severity of disability; > 6. Special circumstances that interfere with childs ability to benefit from > special education. > > Citing Pete's case, Florence County School District Four v. , > the > District Court found that: " In any contest between systematic efficiency > and the > provision of FAPE to a disabled child, Congress and the Supreme Court have > made > it clear that the child must prevail. " > > Other findings: > > Notice and Timing - The importance of making a decision about ESY early > enough > in the school year to allow the parents adequate time to exercisetheir > rights > administrative review or appeal in a timely fashion. That the explanation > about > ESY contained in a brochure distributed to all studentswas not sufficient > and > ordered that the student's eligibility for ESY be considered at each annual > review meeting, and the parents sign a form acknowledging their receipt of > this > information. The district must documentthe discussion and the decision > reached > after consideration of ESYeligibilty at each annual review meeting. > > Content and Duration - The content of child's ESY program must be > determined on > an individual basis. The duration is also based on individualized > determinations > of the number of weeks, days per week,and hours per day that each student > receiving ESY should be provided. > > Copyright 1999-2002, W. D. and Pamela Darr . > All rightsreserved. www.wrightlaw.com > > -- > Posted by Carol Sadler to IEPadvocate4You at 3/14/2005 05:59:00 AM > > ===== > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Sent from my iPhone > > So glad to read this post! I think my son's IEP update will be in May and this will be his 1st one since starting preschool services. Want to make sure he gets summer speech sessions too. > > Thanks- > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > [ ] Re: Help with school > > Not sure if you read my book The Late Talker but if you didn't I highly recommend you at least take a look at the advocacy chapter as my co author is a neurodevelopmental pediatrician who advocates for her patients in the schools, and we had the advise as well from special education attorneys and an award winning teacher advocate (our VP of Cherab Cheryl Bennet SLP included) > > Whenever a school professional says something that sounds wrong just say nicely " That's interesting, would you mind putting in writing for me why there are no summer programs available at all for my son even if extended school year is found appropriate for him? " > > Trust me -nothing will be put in writing that is against your child's rights. And if they don't put it in writing- you should. Keep a paper trail -use tape recorders at the IEP meetings. Not that you have to be aggressive and nasty -you can do all in a very nice way and explain that you would like to share the information with your child's private doctor (or therapist) as this is all new to you etc. You can come up with a zillion reasons why you bring a tape recorder- but just do. > > Here are some archives > > Re: denied speech for summer... advice? > > There's much in the archives about this -here's just a bit: > > Actually this is from The Late Talker book but rest from the archives > > " Many children with severe speech impairments regress without continued therapy, > so make sure your child gets enrolled in the Extended School Year (ESY) program, > especially for the long summer break. ESY services must be considered at the > annual IEP meeting and documented in the IEP. The ESY also has to be the same as > what your child receives during the regular school year. For example, if he > normally has a ten hour a week schedule, his ESY should also be for ten hours a > week. " > > The Late Talker book 2003 Agin, Geng, Nicholl > > > > Re: [ ] ESY Services > As with any special education school service, please remember one thing. > Special education is funded by the state. The school district may want to > provide many things. But if state funding is not provided, it is probably > not going to happen. > > > FYI - It's getting time to schedule those meetings with your schools to discuss > ESY. Do not let the schools jump past the ESY portion in your IEP meeting and > merely tell you your child doesn't qualify (no regression), so no need for ESY. > Regression is NOT the only requirement for ESY, I've bolded important > information below. > > Also, don't let the school tell you ESY is traditional summer school, it is not, > although it can be if it is appropriate to meet the child's IEP goals. > > I often use ESY services to negotiate additional services for children where the > school has " Failed to Identify " , appropriately remediate a child's learning > problem, and/or failed to provide identified spec. ed. support or related > services. I've used it to give the school one more chance to teach a child to > read or to teach a child appropriate social skills, before pulling out and > privately placing the child at public expense. The school system can pay for > traditional summer school classes as ESY services for instance, if a school > failed to identify a child with a disability, and the child failed the first > semester of High School, and now needs to make up courses during Summer School. > > Extended School Year can look at many things. Don't let the schools tell you no > automatically, and don't let them tell you it is only for the severely disabled. > NOT TRUE! Talk with an advocate, attorney, or disability organization to find > out more information. > > > Carol Sadler > Special Education Consultant/Advocate > GA Advocacy Office PLSP I Graduate > 770-442-8357 > 1105 Rock Pointe Look > Woodstock, GA 30188 > CarolSadler@... > www.IEPadvocate4You.com > http://iepadvocate4you.blogspot.com/ > > > CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED > Information contained in this communication is confidential and privileged. It > is not meant to represent legal or medical advice, but rather advice given based > on my knowledge as a trained Parent Advocate by the GA Advocacy Office, Council > of Parent Advocates & Attorneys, CHADD, LDA, and the GA DOE Parent Mentor > program as an invited guest. Please do not forward without my permission. > > > Extended School Year (ESY) > > The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations requirethat > ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability.An ESY > Program of services in the summer or weekends, must be provided if needed to > make a student's education program appropriate. " Under the law, aschool district > may not limit ESY services for children with particular categories of > disabilities, and may not limit the type, amount or duration of ESY. " (Ed Law > Center - PA) > > A school system cannot use a " lack ofavailable funds " argument to deny ESY > services to a child with a disability.School districts must look at issues > beyond regression or recoupment whendetermining ESY eligibility. > > ESY is NOT traditional summer school, but rather an extension of an individual > child's education plan! > > The following is taken > from:http://www.ppmd.org/publications/extended_school_year.html It is a summary > of judicial decisions regarding ESY. > > Extended School Year > by Rose Kraft > > Since the precedent for extended school year programming was set in the > Armstrong v. Kline case in Philadelphia, in a large number of instances the > courts have been asked to determine the eligibility of individual children for > extended school year services. This summary looks at the judicial decisions that > have been rendered regarding this issue. > > Judges and lawmakers have made significant decisions during the last 20 years, > which define extended school year (ESY) services for childen with disabilities. > Several district court cases, beginning with Armstrong v. Kline (1979) and > culminating with Reusch v. Fountain (1994), shaped thecurrent federal > regulations. For the first time in the history of the Individuals with > Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), these regulations require that ESY services > be considered annually for every child with a disability. Each team that > develops an individual education plan (IEP) for achild must decide if ESY > services are necessary so that the child can avoid regression, a lengthy > recoupment of lost skills, or other difficulties that could interfere with the > education plan. > > The first significant case in this arena was the Armstrong case, in which the > judge ruled that a mandated 180-day school year violated a child's right to a > free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically in reference to children > with severe and profound impairments or severe emotional disturbances. The court > stated that, " By its terms, the Act (meaning the Education for All Handicapped > Children Act) appears to demand that the state supply instruction designed to > meet all of the handicapped child's " unique needs " without limitation. " The > court also required state and local school districts " to provide an education to > handicapped children in excess of 180 days, " as determined by each child's > needs. > > This case defined that a school system's goal for these severely affected > children should be self-sufficiency, which could require providing more thanthe > same 180 days to disabled children that is provided to non disabled children. > This case was upheld on appeal by the circuit court, which agreed that, " For > some, but not all, SPI and SED children, standing in the way of the attainment > of some of these objectives (for self-sufficiency) is the effect of breaks in > the educational program which are created, at least inpart, by the 180 day > rule. " The court also noted that recoupment time for lost skills is " usually > much greater " for children with disabilities. > > Once the courts ordered state and local school systems to provide more than 180 > days of school per year to some children with disabilities, families across the > nation began taking their school systems to court. In Stacey G.v. Pasadena > Independent School District (1982), a 12-month program without major breaks was > ruled necessary for a child with autism and severe mental retardation. In > Georgia Association for Retarded Citizens v. Mc (1983), the court ruled > that a school system cannot use a " lack of available funds " argument to deny ESY > services to a child with a disability. A school system must look at the child's > needs, rather than at its budget, when determining summer services for a child. > The judge in Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of > Education (1986) noted that transportation services must be part of the ESY > package for a child, even if the bus must get that child from a babysitter's > out-of-district home. > > The case of Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1987) > showed that academic regression isn't the only qualification for ESY > eligibility. The judge in the Bucks County case stated that regression in > emotional development for severely emotionally disturbed children is often > " caused by interruptions in the educational programming, " and ordered that > prediction of regression in emotional development qualifies as a need for ESY. > Holmes v. Sobol (1988) was a significant case because it found that physical > therapy was a related service that could be provided for ESY, and further ruled > that a related service can be a sole special education program. This case stated > that without the maintenance of physical strength through therapy, the child > would not be able to benefit from his general education. In v. Gering > Public Schools (1990), the parents of a child with multiple disabilities > believed that a 12-month program could only be provided for their child in a > residential placement. This court agreed that the child needed a 12-month school > program in order to receive a free appropriate public education, but did not > require that it be provided in a residential facility. The court ordered the > school district to provide the12-month program at a local facility for multi > handicapped children, specifying that an interruption from one school to another > just for a summer program would provide an unacceptable level of regression for > the child. > > Reusch v. Fountain (1994) blasted a land school district for deceptive and > purposeful policies which sought to deprive children of ESY services.The school > district had (a) refused to notify parents of a child's eligibility for ESY > services, ( written misleading letters recommending asummer program that > required tuition from the parents, © told schooladministrators to refer > parents to central administration when they asked for ESY services, (d) > purposely didn't mention ESY services until it was too late to deliver them, and > (e) never told parents they had a right to request ESY services. The judge used > strong language as he set the parameters for ESY policies for children with > disabilities. " The MCPS practice of inadequate and untimely ESY notice must > cease. Notice of ESY designed to fully explain such services must be provided to > parents of disabled childrenin a timely fashion before annual review meetings. > The notice must not disguise or downplay the true nature of ESY or attempt to > confuse parents between free extended year services and tuition-charging summer > enrichmentprograms. " The court went further and required that additional > criteria be considered in addition to regression and recoupment time when > considering achild for ESY services. The court decided that " emerging skills " > and " breakthrough opportunities " (as when a child is on the brink of learning to > read) -- can and should be incorporated into the eligibility analysis. " A > fixed-length program was also ruled illegal by this court, which ordered the > school district to " make individualized determinations of the number of weeks, > days per week, and hours per day that each student receiving ESYshould be > provided. > > " While litigation continued in courtrooms across the country, the Office of > Special Education Programs and the Office of Special Education and > Rehabilitative Services wrote policy letters, which provided interpretation of > the federal regulations for school districts. The Office of Civil Rights wrote > letters of finding which defined when the denial of ESY services violated a > person's civil rights. Together these letters provided parallel support for the > court decisions by (a) defining ESY criteria and related services in an ESY > program, ( requiring school districts to look at issues beyond regression or > recoupment when determining ESY eligibility, ©emphasizing the need to set > higher ESY standards than simply working toward self-sufficiency, (d) refusing > to allow school districts to offer ESYprograms that were available only to the > most severely disabled children,and (e) requiring that integration with > nondisabled peers be provided in ESYprograms if required by the IEP. > > The result of the court cases and substantive letters has led to the written > federal regulations, which describe how ESY services are to be implemented > according to IDEA. The regulations define ESY as " special education and related > services " which (a) go beyond the normal school year, ( are addressed and > mandated by the IEP, and © are free to the parents. The regulations also > require that ESY services are available to each child with a disability and, > " The determination of whether a child with a disability needs extended school > year services must be made on an individual basis by the child's IEP team. " 34 > CFR ? 300.309 (1997). > > The regulations also add two notes clarifying these definitions. The first note > states that school districts cannot limit ESY services to " particular categories > of disability or unilaterally limit the duration of services. " The second note > gives states the authority to set standards for use in determining ESY > eligibility " on an individual basis, " suggesting the consideration of factors > such as the " likelihood of regression, slow recoupment, and predictive data > based on the opinion of professionals. > > " References: > Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education, > Education for the Handicapped Law Report 554:315 (5th Cir. 1986). > Armstrong v. Kline, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:195 (E.D.Pa. > 1979). Baltimore (MD) City Public Schools (1986). > Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding, Education for the Handicapped Law > Review 352:185.Battle v. Commonwealth, > Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:647(3rd Cir. 1980). > Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Education forthe > Handicapped Law Report 559:153 (Commonwealth Ct. of Pa. 1987). > Davila, R. R. (1990, Nov.). > Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices Policy Letter, 17 > Education for the Handicapped Law Review 419. > Georgia Association for Retarted Citizens v. Mc, Education for > theHandicapped Law Report 555:251 (11th Cir. 1983). > Holmes v. Sobol, Education of the Handicapped Law Report 559:463 (W.D. Ny.1988). > Mesa (AZ) Public Schools (1989). > Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding,16 Education for the Handicapped Law > Review 316. > Reusch v. Fountain, 21 Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report1107 > (D. Md. 1994). > Schrag, J. A. (1989, Aug.). Office of Special Education Programs PolicyLetter, > Education for the Handicapped Law Review 213:255. > Stacey G. v. Pasadena Indep endent School District, Education for theHandicapped > Law Report 554:206 (S.D. Tx. 1982). > Turnbull, H.R. III, & Turnbull, A.P. (1998). > Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (5th > ed.). > Denver, CO:Love Publishing Company.Will, M. (1987, Aug.). > Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Policy Letter, Education > for the Handicapped Law Review 211:481. > v. Gering Public Schools, 17 Education ofthe Handicapped Law Report427 > (Ne. S. Ct. 1990). > > Extended School Year Services (ESY) - Info from www.slaw.com > http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/esy.index.htm > > Many parents have questions about extended school year services. If you have > questions about a legal issue, you should do your own legal research. Do not > accept legal advice from school personnel. While they may tell you what they > believe is true, in many cases, they have not read the law and regulations for > themselves. You need to know what the law and regulations say! > > Read what the IDEA statute says about your issue. Next read the federal > regulations and your state special ed regulations about your issue. (the IDEA > statute and regulations are in slaw: Special Education Law and in the > Statute and Regs section of the slaw site) > > Next read a case or two about your issue (check the Caselaw Library). If you > take these steps, you will have a clear understanding of the issues and > variables. > > You will find that extended school year (ESY) is not mentioned in the IDEA > statute, but is in the IDEA regulations. Read the IDEA regulation about ESYat 34 > CFR Section 300.309 (page 165, slaw: Special Education Law). > > We selected two cases about ESY to help you understand these issues: > Lawyer v. Chesterfield and Reusch v. Fountain. For more information, check the > Topics Pages - especially the FAPE and IEP pages. > > " Windows of Opportunity " : Lawyer v. Chesterfield School Board (1993)Danny Lawyer > is a young child with autism. At age six, he had expressive language and > phonological processing problems. The experts who evaluated and treated Danny > advised his parents that his ability to beself-sufficient and independent later > in life would depend on his ability tocommunicate. During the summer, Danny > regressed in his ability to communicate. His behavior deteriorated. His school > district refused to provide any speech language therapy during the summer months > - and refused to reimburse his parents for the services they purchased for their > son. The parents requested a special education due process hearing and > prevailed. The school district appealed. The Review Officer overturned the > Hearing Officer's decision. The case was appealed to Federal Court. > > After reviewing the record and hearing new testimony, Judge Spencer concluded, > " Regression is not the only factor " in deciding if a child needs ESY services. > The judge listed several additional factors that IEP teams should consider in > making ESY decisions: > Recoupment in the Fall; > Child's rate of progress; > Child's behavioral or physical problems; > Availability of alternative resources; > Areas of the child's curriculum that need continuous attention; > Child's vocational needs. > > In " Lawyer, " Judge Spencer discussed regression and recoupment. He also > discussed the need to take advantage of " windows of opportunity " in educating > children with disabilities: " Danny's regression in the summer, coupled with > nominal recoupment, severely limits the educational benefits he receives from > instruction during the school year. His rate of progress isminimized by the > interplay of continuous regression and recoupment. " " Moreover, Danny's behavioral > problems are compounded by his severe language deficit. His inability to > effectively communicate triggers unacceptable behavior. Therefore, it is > critical that Danny be provided with continuous speech and communication > services. " " Finally, the evidence provided by expert witnesses indicates that > for children who suffer from moderate to severe childhood autism, there is a > small, but vital, window of opportunityin which they can effectively learn. Such > period is generally between theages of five and eight years old....The Court > concludes that it is extremely important that at this critical stage of > development, Danny receive uninterrupted speech language therapy. > > " Read the decision in Lawyer v. Chesterfield. > > Hostility to Providing ESY: Reusch v. Fountain (1994) In Reusch v. Fountain, 872 > F.Supp. 1421 (D. MD 1994), a federal court addressed the school districts > " hostility to providing ESY. " In this case,the court found that parents were > prevented from advocating for their children by the districts refusal to provide > parents with notice about their right to request these services. The district > also engaged in delaying tactics by requiring parents to attend futile meetings. > The court found that, in this district, administrative convenience took > precedence over providing FAPE to children with disabilities. Educational > decisions were not individualized according to the needs of the child. > > Six Factors for IEP Teams to Consider > > In Reusch v. Fountain, the court listed six factors that the IEP team > shouldconsider in deciding if the child is eligible for ESY as a related > service: > > 1. Regression and recoupment - is the child likely to lose critical skills or > fail to recover these skills within in a reasonable time; > 2. Degree of progress toward IEP goals and objectives; > 3. Emerging skills/breakthrough opportunities - Will a lengthy summer break > cause significant problems for a child who is learning a key skill, likereading; > 4. Interfering Behavior - does the childs behavior interfere with his or her > ability to benefit from special education; > 5. Nature and/or severity of disability; > 6. Special circumstances that interfere with childs ability to benefit from > special education. > > Citing Pete's case, Florence County School District Four v. , the > District Court found that: " In any contest between systematic efficiency and the > provision of FAPE to a disabled child, Congress and the Supreme Court have made > it clear that the child must prevail. " > > Other findings: > > Notice and Timing - The importance of making a decision about ESY early enough > in the school year to allow the parents adequate time to exercisetheir rights > administrative review or appeal in a timely fashion. That the explanation about > ESY contained in a brochure distributed to all studentswas not sufficient and > ordered that the student's eligibility for ESY be considered at each annual > review meeting, and the parents sign a form acknowledging their receipt of this > information. The district must documentthe discussion and the decision reached > after consideration of ESYeligibilty at each annual review meeting. > > Content and Duration - The content of child's ESY program must be determined on > an individual basis. The duration is also based on individualized determinations > of the number of weeks, days per week,and hours per day that each student > receiving ESY should be provided. > > Copyright 1999-2002, W. D. and Pamela Darr . > All rightsreserved. www.wrightlaw.com > > -- > Posted by Carol Sadler to IEPadvocate4You at 3/14/2005 05:59:00 AM > > > ===== > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hi Kim, Did they give an option for summer school? My son just turned 3 in December & during his IEP we inquired about summer school to insure that he would still receive all his services. However, if he was not enrolled in summer school then the district WILL NOT provide therapy services. Our coordinator even told me my son wouldn't even have to show up to summer school on a regular basis, it is just important the he is enrolled & services will continue. I'm not sure what district you are in, but I believe summer school should be an option especially if your son will regress with out services. Hope that helps. Good Luck ________________________________ From: BRIAN <b.j.dewitt@...> Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 9:30:46 AM Subject: [ ] Help with school My son will turn 3 at the end of May and as such, his Early Intervention services will end. Had my informational meeting with the school district yesterday. During the meeting, I advised that my major concern was therapies/services would be available for my son during the summer months before school started. They advised there was no summer program available and that we could use our insurance to do provide services. Of course, we will still be using our private insurance to get him therapy, but isn't the school district legally responsible to provide him services once he turns 3? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 This is soooo helpful! Thank you and thank you Kim for asking it. My son is also turning 3 soon (2 weeks!) and we are moving prob by the beginning of April. We have his IEP next week and I want to make sure he gets ESY cause without it I know the progress he is making now will mostly likely slow down and I don't even know about the insurance situation yet! My EI folks said that the new school district will have to abide by the IEP rather than doing a new one since it will be so recent that it was done. Thanks for all the pointers. ________________________________ From: kiddietalk <kiddietalk@...> Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 11:46:34 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Help with school Not sure if you read my book The Late Talker but if you didn't I highly recommend you at least take a look at the advocacy chapter as my co author is a neurodevelopmental pediatrician who advocates for her patients in the schools, and we had the advise as well from special education attorneys and an award winning teacher advocate (our VP of Cherab Cheryl Bennet SLP included) Whenever a school professional says something that sounds wrong just say nicely " That's interesting, would you mind putting in writing for me why there are no summer programs available at all for my son even if extended school year is found appropriate for him? " Trust me -nothing will be put in writing that is against your child's rights. And if they don't put it in writing- you should. Keep a paper trail -use tape recorders at the IEP meetings. Not that you have to be aggressive and nasty -you can do all in a very nice way and explain that you would like to share the information with your child's private doctor (or therapist) as this is all new to you etc. You can come up with a zillion reasons why you bring a tape recorder- but just do. Here are some archives Re: denied speech for summer... advice? There's much in the archives about this -here's just a bit: Actually this is from The Late Talker book but rest from the archives " Many children with severe speech impairments regress without continued therapy, so make sure your child gets enrolled in the Extended School Year (ESY) program, especially for the long summer break. ESY services must be considered at the annual IEP meeting and documented in the IEP. The ESY also has to be the same as what your child receives during the regular school year. For example, if he normally has a ten hour a week schedule, his ESY should also be for ten hours a week. " The Late Talker book 2003 Agin, Geng, Nicholl Re: [ ] ESY Services As with any special education school service, please remember one thing. Special education is funded by the state. The school district may want to provide many things. But if state funding is not provided, it is probably not going to happen. FYI - It's getting time to schedule those meetings with your schools to discuss ESY. Do not let the schools jump past the ESY portion in your IEP meeting and merely tell you your child doesn't qualify (no regression), so no need for ESY. Regression is NOT the only requirement for ESY, I've bolded important information below. Also, don't let the school tell you ESY is traditional summer school, it is not, although it can be if it is appropriate to meet the child's IEP goals. I often use ESY services to negotiate additional services for children where the school has " Failed to Identify " , appropriately remediate a child's learning problem, and/or failed to provide identified spec. ed. support or related services. I've used it to give the school one more chance to teach a child to read or to teach a child appropriate social skills, before pulling out and privately placing the child at public expense. The school system can pay for traditional summer school classes as ESY services for instance, if a school failed to identify a child with a disability, and the child failed the first semester of High School, and now needs to make up courses during Summer School. Extended School Year can look at many things. Don't let the schools tell you no automatically, and don't let them tell you it is only for the severely disabled. NOT TRUE! Talk with an advocate, attorney, or disability organization to find out more information. Carol Sadler Special Education Consultant/Advocate GA Advocacy Office PLSP I Graduate 770-442-8357 1105 Rock Pointe Look Woodstock, GA 30188 CarolSadler@... www.IEPadvocate4You.com http://iepadvocate4you.blogspot.com/ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED Information contained in this communication is confidential and privileged. It is not meant to represent legal or medical advice, but rather advice given based on my knowledge as a trained Parent Advocate by the GA Advocacy Office, Council of Parent Advocates & Attorneys, CHADD, LDA, and the GA DOE Parent Mentor program as an invited guest. Please do not forward without my permission. Extended School Year (ESY) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations requirethat ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability.An ESY Program of services in the summer or weekends, must be provided if needed to make a student's education program appropriate. " Under the law, aschool district may not limit ESY services for children with particular categories of disabilities, and may not limit the type, amount or duration of ESY. " (Ed Law Center - PA) A school system cannot use a " lack ofavailable funds " argument to deny ESY services to a child with a disability.School districts must look at issues beyond regression or recoupment whendetermining ESY eligibility. ESY is NOT traditional summer school, but rather an extension of an individual child's education plan! The following is taken from:http://www.ppmd.org/publications/extended_school_year.html It is a summary of judicial decisions regarding ESY. Extended School Year by Rose Kraft Since the precedent for extended school year programming was set in the Armstrong v. Kline case in Philadelphia, in a large number of instances the courts have been asked to determine the eligibility of individual children for extended school year services. This summary looks at the judicial decisions that have been rendered regarding this issue. Judges and lawmakers have made significant decisions during the last 20 years, which define extended school year (ESY) services for childen with disabilities. Several district court cases, beginning with Armstrong v. Kline (1979) and culminating with Reusch v. Fountain (1994), shaped thecurrent federal regulations. For the first time in the history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), these regulations require that ESY services be considered annually for every child with a disability. Each team that develops an individual education plan (IEP) for achild must decide if ESY services are necessary so that the child can avoid regression, a lengthy recoupment of lost skills, or other difficulties that could interfere with the education plan. The first significant case in this arena was the Armstrong case, in which the judge ruled that a mandated 180-day school year violated a child's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically in reference to children with severe and profound impairments or severe emotional disturbances. The court stated that, " By its terms, the Act (meaning the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) appears to demand that the state supply instruction designed to meet all of the handicapped child's " unique needs " without limitation. " The court also required state and local school districts " to provide an education to handicapped children in excess of 180 days, " as determined by each child's needs. This case defined that a school system's goal for these severely affected children should be self-sufficiency, which could require providing more thanthe same 180 days to disabled children that is provided to non disabled children. This case was upheld on appeal by the circuit court, which agreed that, " For some, but not all, SPI and SED children, standing in the way of the attainment of some of these objectives (for self-sufficiency) is the effect of breaks in the educational program which are created, at least inpart, by the 180 day rule. " The court also noted that recoupment time for lost skills is " usually much greater " for children with disabilities. Once the courts ordered state and local school systems to provide more than 180 days of school per year to some children with disabilities, families across the nation began taking their school systems to court. In Stacey G.v. Pasadena Independent School District (1982), a 12-month program without major breaks was ruled necessary for a child with autism and severe mental retardation. In Georgia Association for Retarded Citizens v. Mc (1983), the court ruled that a school system cannot use a " lack of available funds " argument to deny ESY services to a child with a disability. A school system must look at the child's needs, rather than at its budget, when determining summer services for a child. The judge in Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education (1986) noted that transportation services must be part of the ESY package for a child, even if the bus must get that child from a babysitter's out-of-district home. The case of Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1987) showed that academic regression isn't the only qualification for ESY eligibility. The judge in the Bucks County case stated that regression in emotional development for severely emotionally disturbed children is often " caused by interruptions in the educational programming, " and ordered that prediction of regression in emotional development qualifies as a need for ESY. Holmes v. Sobol (1988) was a significant case because it found that physical therapy was a related service that could be provided for ESY, and further ruled that a related service can be a sole special education program. This case stated that without the maintenance of physical strength through therapy, the child would not be able to benefit from his general education. In v. Gering Public Schools (1990), the parents of a child with multiple disabilities believed that a 12-month program could only be provided for their child in a residential placement. This court agreed that the child needed a 12-month school program in order to receive a free appropriate public education, but did not require that it be provided in a residential facility. The court ordered the school district to provide the12-month program at a local facility for multi handicapped children, specifying that an interruption from one school to another just for a summer program would provide an unacceptable level of regression for the child. Reusch v. Fountain (1994) blasted a land school district for deceptive and purposeful policies which sought to deprive children of ESY services.The school district had (a) refused to notify parents of a child's eligibility for ESY services, ( written misleading letters recommending asummer program that required tuition from the parents, © told schooladministrators to refer parents to central administration when they asked for ESY services, (d) purposely didn't mention ESY services until it was too late to deliver them, and (e) never told parents they had a right to request ESY services. The judge used strong language as he set the parameters for ESY policies for children with disabilities. " The MCPS practice of inadequate and untimely ESY notice must cease. Notice of ESY designed to fully explain such services must be provided to parents of disabled childrenin a timely fashion before annual review meetings. The notice must not disguise or downplay the true nature of ESY or attempt to confuse parents between free extended year services and tuition-charging summer enrichmentprograms. " The court went further and required that additional criteria be considered in addition to regression and recoupment time when considering achild for ESY services. The court decided that " emerging skills " and " breakthrough opportunities " (as when a child is on the brink of learning to read) -- can and should be incorporated into the eligibility analysis. " A fixed-length program was also ruled illegal by this court, which ordered the school district to " make individualized determinations of the number of weeks, days per week, and hours per day that each student receiving ESYshould be provided. " While litigation continued in courtrooms across the country, the Office of Special Education Programs and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services wrote policy letters, which provided interpretation of the federal regulations for school districts. The Office of Civil Rights wrote letters of finding which defined when the denial of ESY services violated a person's civil rights. Together these letters provided parallel support for the court decisions by (a) defining ESY criteria and related services in an ESY program, ( requiring school districts to look at issues beyond regression or recoupment when determining ESY eligibility, ©emphasizing the need to set higher ESY standards than simply working toward self-sufficiency, (d) refusing to allow school districts to offer ESYprograms that were available only to the most severely disabled children,and (e) requiring that integration with nondisabled peers be provided in ESYprograms if required by the IEP. The result of the court cases and substantive letters has led to the written federal regulations, which describe how ESY services are to be implemented according to IDEA. The regulations define ESY as " special education and related services " which (a) go beyond the normal school year, ( are addressed and mandated by the IEP, and © are free to the parents. The regulations also require that ESY services are available to each child with a disability and, " The determination of whether a child with a disability needs extended school year services must be made on an individual basis by the child's IEP team. " 34 CFR ? 300.309 (1997). The regulations also add two notes clarifying these definitions. The first note states that school districts cannot limit ESY services to " particular categories of disability or unilaterally limit the duration of services. " The second note gives states the authority to set standards for use in determining ESY eligibility " on an individual basis, " suggesting the consideration of factors such as the " likelihood of regression, slow recoupment, and predictive data based on the opinion of professionals. " References: Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 554:315 (5th Cir. 1986). Armstrong v. Kline, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:195 (E.D.Pa. 1979). Baltimore (MD) City Public Schools (1986). Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding, Education for the Handicapped Law Review 352:185.Battle v. Commonwealth, Education for the Handicapped Law Report 551:647(3rd Cir. 1980). Bucks County Public Schools v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Education forthe Handicapped Law Report 559:153 (Commonwealth Ct. of Pa. 1987). Davila, R. R. (1990, Nov.). Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices Policy Letter, 17 Education for the Handicapped Law Review 419. Georgia Association for Retarted Citizens v. Mc, Education for theHandicapped Law Report 555:251 (11th Cir. 1983). Holmes v. Sobol, Education of the Handicapped Law Report 559:463 (W.D. Ny.1988). Mesa (AZ) Public Schools (1989). Office of Civil Rights Letter of Finding,16 Education for the Handicapped Law Review 316. Reusch v. Fountain, 21 Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report1107 (D. Md. 1994). Schrag, J. A. (1989, Aug.). Office of Special Education Programs PolicyLetter, Education for the Handicapped Law Review 213:255. Stacey G. v. Pasadena Indep endent School District, Education for theHandicapped Law Report 554:206 (S.D. Tx. 1982). Turnbull, H.R. III, & Turnbull, A.P. (1998). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (5th ed.). Denver, CO:Love Publishing Company.Will, M. (1987, Aug.). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Policy Letter, Education for the Handicapped Law Review 211:481. v. Gering Public Schools, 17 Education ofthe Handicapped Law Report427 (Ne. S. Ct. 1990). Extended School Year Services (ESY) - Info from www.slaw.com http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/esy.index.htm Many parents have questions about extended school year services. If you have questions about a legal issue, you should do your own legal research. Do not accept legal advice from school personnel. While they may tell you what they believe is true, in many cases, they have not read the law and regulations for themselves. You need to know what the law and regulations say! Read what the IDEA statute says about your issue. Next read the federal regulations and your state special ed regulations about your issue. (the IDEA statute and regulations are in slaw: Special Education Law and in the Statute and Regs section of the slaw site) Next read a case or two about your issue (check the Caselaw Library). If you take these steps, you will have a clear understanding of the issues and variables. You will find that extended school year (ESY) is not mentioned in the IDEA statute, but is in the IDEA regulations. Read the IDEA regulation about ESYat 34 CFR Section 300.309 (page 165, slaw: Special Education Law). We selected two cases about ESY to help you understand these issues: Lawyer v. Chesterfield and Reusch v. Fountain. For more information, check the Topics Pages - especially the FAPE and IEP pages. " Windows of Opportunity " : Lawyer v. Chesterfield School Board (1993)Danny Lawyer is a young child with autism. At age six, he had expressive language and phonological processing problems. The experts who evaluated and treated Danny advised his parents that his ability to beself-sufficient and independent later in life would depend on his ability tocommunicate. During the summer, Danny regressed in his ability to communicate. His behavior deteriorated. His school district refused to provide any speech language therapy during the summer months - and refused to reimburse his parents for the services they purchased for their son. The parents requested a special education due process hearing and prevailed. The school district appealed. The Review Officer overturned the Hearing Officer's decision. The case was appealed to Federal Court. After reviewing the record and hearing new testimony, Judge Spencer concluded, " Regression is not the only factor " in deciding if a child needs ESY services. The judge listed several additional factors that IEP teams should consider in making ESY decisions: Recoupment in the Fall; Child's rate of progress; Child's behavioral or physical problems; Availability of alternative resources; Areas of the child's curriculum that need continuous attention; Child's vocational needs. In " Lawyer, " Judge Spencer discussed regression and recoupment. He also discussed the need to take advantage of " windows of opportunity " in educating children with disabilities: " Danny's regression in the summer, coupled with nominal recoupment, severely limits the educational benefits he receives from instruction during the school year. His rate of progress isminimized by the interplay of continuous regression and recoupment. " " Moreover, Danny's behavioral problems are compounded by his severe language deficit. His inability to effectively communicate triggers unacceptable behavior. Therefore, it is critical that Danny be provided with continuous speech and communication services. " " Finally, the evidence provided by expert witnesses indicates that for children who suffer from moderate to severe childhood autism, there is a small, but vital, window of opportunityin which they can effectively learn. Such period is generally between theages of five and eight years old....The Court concludes that it is extremely important that at this critical stage of development, Danny receive uninterrupted speech language therapy. " Read the decision in Lawyer v. Chesterfield. Hostility to Providing ESY: Reusch v. Fountain (1994) In Reusch v. Fountain, 872 F.Supp. 1421 (D. MD 1994), a federal court addressed the school districts " hostility to providing ESY. " In this case,the court found that parents were prevented from advocating for their children by the districts refusal to provide parents with notice about their right to request these services. The district also engaged in delaying tactics by requiring parents to attend futile meetings. The court found that, in this district, administrative convenience took precedence over providing FAPE to children with disabilities. Educational decisions were not individualized according to the needs of the child. Six Factors for IEP Teams to Consider In Reusch v. Fountain, the court listed six factors that the IEP team shouldconsider in deciding if the child is eligible for ESY as a related service: 1. Regression and recoupment - is the child likely to lose critical skills or fail to recover these skills within in a reasonable time; 2. Degree of progress toward IEP goals and objectives; 3. Emerging skills/breakthrough opportunities - Will a lengthy summer break cause significant problems for a child who is learning a key skill, likereading; 4. Interfering Behavior - does the childs behavior interfere with his or her ability to benefit from special education; 5. Nature and/or severity of disability; 6. Special circumstances that interfere with childs ability to benefit from special education. Citing Pete's case, Florence County School District Four v. , the District Court found that: " In any contest between systematic efficiency and the provision of FAPE to a disabled child, Congress and the Supreme Court have made it clear that the child must prevail. " Other findings: Notice and Timing - The importance of making a decision about ESY early enough in the school year to allow the parents adequate time to exercisetheir rights administrative review or appeal in a timely fashion. That the explanation about ESY contained in a brochure distributed to all studentswas not sufficient and ordered that the student's eligibility for ESY be considered at each annual review meeting, and the parents sign a form acknowledging their receipt of this information. The district must documentthe discussion and the decision reached after consideration of ESYeligibilty at each annual review meeting. Content and Duration - The content of child's ESY program must be determined on an individual basis. The duration is also based on individualized determinations of the number of weeks, days per week,and hours per day that each student receiving ESY should be provided. Copyright 1999-2002, W. D. and Pamela Darr . All rightsreserved. www.wrightlaw.com -- Posted by Carol Sadler to IEPadvocate4You at 3/14/2005 05:59:00 AM ===== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 A question about this post. If a child moves to a new district with an IEP already established from previous home location ( parents spent money on advocate and therapists to sit in to get goals, services in) CAN the new district just go ahead and change it or disregard what was written in?? (iep would be about 6 months old only) Ivy > > The new district will have an IEP mtg to adopt the IEP, however, they (the IEP team which you are a part of) can agree to change items on the IEP. Just b/c an IEP is new does NOT guarantee that a new district will use it, they could decide to write a new IEP. I've had children come into my program with goals written that truly make no sense (the child has mastered them, there is no need for, etc).Good luck > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.