SES Spring 2015: All Things Considered - Related Services

1
All Things Considered
A Legal Overview
of Related Services

2
What We’ll Consider . . .
 Legal Definitions and Standards
 IDEA and California Law
 IEP Requirements
 Related Services Providers
 Specific Related Services
 Transportation
 PT, OT and APE
 Assistive Technology
 School Health and Nursing Services
 Hearing and Vision Services
 Speech and Language Services
 Mental Health Services
 Recreation Services
 Related Services for Parents

3
I. Legal Definitions
and Standards

4
What Are Related Services?
 IDEA
 Related services means transportation and such
developmental, corrective and other supportive services
as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit
from special education
 California Ed Code and Title 5 Regulations
 Ed Code restates IDEA definition
 Amended Title 5 regulations contain separate definitions
for each enumerated related service
 Regs also substitute “related services” for “designated
instruction and services” (“DIS”)
(34 C.F.R. §300.34; Ed. Code §56363; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, §§ 3051.1-3051.24)

5
Related Services
Include . . . Transportation
 Speech/language
 Audiological services
 Interpreting services
 Psychological services
 Physical and occupational
therapy
 Orientation and mobility
 Health care services
 Vision/vision therapy (CA)
 Recreation, including
therapeutic recreation
 Counseling services
 Rehabilitation counseling
 Parent counseling and
training
 Medical services (for
diagnostic and evaluation
purposes only)
(34 C.F.R. §300.34; Ed. Code §56363; Cal.
Code. Regs., tit. 5, §§ 3051.1-3051.24)

6
. . . And More
 U.S. Department of Education:
 Related services include other supportive services that are
required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from
special education
 The list of services in [34 C.F.R. § 300.34] is “not
exhaustive”
 “It would be impractical to list every service that could be a
related service. . . .”
(71 Fed. Reg. 46569 (Aug. 14, 2006))

7
What Is Not a Related
Service? Medical services
 Except to determine medical disability that results in need
for special education and related services
 Otherwise apply U.S. Supreme Court’s “bright-line rule”
 Districts must provide health care services, if
necessary, unless the service can only be provided by
a licensed physician (Tatro and Cedar Rapids
decisions)
 Surgically implanted devices
 Optimization (mapping) of that device’s functioning,
maintenance of the device or its replacement

8
IEP Requirements
 Need for related services determined on
individualized basis
 At no cost to parents
 Based on valid assessment data
 Must be reflected in IEP
 Anticipated frequency, location and duration
 “Clearly stated . . . in a manner that can be understood by
all involved in the development and implementation of the
IEP”
(71 Fed. Reg. 46667 (Aug. 14, 2006))

9
Related Services Providers
 Qualifications consistent with state-approved or
state-recognized certification, licensing and/or
registration requirements
 Providers must be either:
 Employees of district/COE
 Employed under contract
 Employees/vendors/contractors of State Dep’t of Health
Care Services or State Hospitals or designated local
public health/mental health agency
 Title 5 regulations list specific provider qualification
requirements for each related service
(34 C.F.R. §300.156; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3051)

10
II. Specific Related Services

11
Transportation
 If district provides to general education
population…it MUST provide to
students with disabilities
 If district does NOT provide to general education
population…it must DECIDE whether transportation is
needed as related service
 Definition of “transportation” includes:
 To and from school and between schools
 In and around school buildings
 Specialized equipment if required to provide
transportation (i.e., adapted buses, lifts, ramps)
(34 C.F.R. §300.34(c)(16))

12
Transportation
 Also can include:
 Safety devices, curb cuts, specialized seats, harnesses,
handrails, two-way radios, emergency medical
equipment, and more . . .
 Determined based on student’s unique needs
 Medical health needs
 Accessibility of curbs, sidewalks, etc.
 Age of student
 Cognitive ability, adaptive behavior, and/or communication skills
 Behavior plans during transport
 Distance/duration of ride
 Nature of areas traveling through
 Other public assistance in route

13
Transportation Options
 None
 Regular school bus
 Regular school bus with supports
 Public transportation
 Special education designated bus
 Taxi or specialized shuttle
 Parent transport with reimbursement

14
Transportation
Case Example: Hemet USD (OAH 2014)
Facts:
 3-year-old with Down syndrome
 District offered bus transportation to SDC preschool
located 39 miles from Student’s home (1 hour 10 minutes)
 Parents expressed concern about travel time (it upset
Student’s stomach) and safety issues due to Student’s
inability to remain seated
 District proposed either harnessing Student or providing
aide or reimbursing Parents if they would transport
Student themselves

15
Transportation
Case Example: Hemet USD (OAH 2014)
Decision:
 ALJ: Lengthy bus trip did not deny Student FAPE
 IDEA does not address appropriate length of bus rides
 Although later disclosed that Student’s extreme acid
reflux caused great discomfort when traveling, District
did not have this information when it developed IEP
 District’s proposed transportation alternatives were
appropriate given what it knew at time of IEP meeting
(Student v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) Case Nos. 2013090788 and 2014010760,
114 LRP 17829)

16
Transportation
Case Example: Los Angeles USD (OAH 2008)
Facts:
 10-year-old with SLD and no physical limitations
 Student transferred to non-home school under NCLB
 District provided school-to-school transportation
 Parents asked for home-to-school
 Parents claimed that Student was vulnerable on walk
and that bus waiting area was unsafe

17
Transportation
Decision:
 District’s school-to-school transportation provided FAPE
 Parents’ home-to-school request was based on their
concerns about transporting Student’s siblings and not
on Student’s unique needs
 Student’s only needs were related to academics
 Evidence showed home school bus zone was safe
(Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH 2008) Case No. 2008090736, 51 IDELR
292)

18
IEP Team Practice Pointers
 Determining need for transportation:
 Do students’ disabilities make it problematic to get to
school in same manner as nondisabled peers?
 If yes, IEP team should determine specific
transportation arrangements necessary for student to
benefit from educational program
 If no, district may offer the same transportation that it
offers to general student population

19
PT, OT and APE
 OT includes:
 Improving, developing, or restoring
functions impaired or lost through
illness, injury or deprivation
 Improving ability to perform tasks for independent
functioning if functions are impaired or lost
 Preventing, through early intervention, initial or further
impairment or loss of function
 PT defined simply as “services provided by
qualified physical therapist”
 Concerns addressed by PT include balance,
coordination, posture, endurance, etc. (34 C.F.R. §300.34(c)(6),
(9))

20
PT, OT and APE
 Districts are not responsible for providing OT
and/or PT unless IEP team determines that student
has educationally related need that only OT or PT
(or both) can address
 OT and PT issues are frequently litigated in OAH
due process hearings
 Whether student requires services
 Manner/location in which services are provided
 Frequency and duration of services

21
PT, OT and APE
 “Adapted physical education”
 For students who are precluded from participation in general
physical education program, modified general physical
education program or in a specially designed physical
education program in a special class
 Need for APE may be based on:
 Movement delays or difficulties
 Physical or neurological difficulties
 Health and physical factors
 Emotional disorders, behavior difficulties or cognitive delays
(Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.5)

22
PT, OT and APE
Facts:
 4-year-old with significant medical needs
 District offered 30 minutes/week of PT, 50 minutes/week
of OT and 50 minutes/week at OT clinic
 Parents claimed services insufficient to “close the gap”
between Student and peers
 Asked District to double the amount of all services
 District believed current services met Student’s needs

23
PT, OT and APE
Decision:
 ALJ found for District, stating that Parents “merged or
confused Student’s medical needs with his educational
needs”
 Medical and educational models for OT and PT are not
the same
 Districts are not responsible for providing OT/PT as
medical treatment – just owe duty to provide sufficient
services to allow Student to benefit from education
(Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH 2011) Case Nos. 2011010530 and
2011030805, 57 IDELR 149)

24
PT, OT and APE
Case Example: L.R. v. Bellflower USD (C.D. Cal.
2012)
Facts:
 APE specialist assessed 3-year-old Student in 2009 and
concluded Student did not require APE services
 Student would not perform several tasks, so specialist did
not have total picture of all gross motor skills
 APE specialist reassessed Student in 2010 and
recommended APE based on Student’s difficulties with
kicking, throwing and catching a ball
 District amended IEP to include APE
 Parents claimed Student should have been provided APE
services in 2009

25
PT, OT and APE
Case Example: L.R. v. Bellflower USD (C.D. Cal.
2012)
Decision:
 Court disagreed with Parents, noting that at the time of the
initial assessment, Student would not perform a number of
tasks
 Based on the information the APE specialist was able to
obtain at the time, which placed Student’s gross motor
skills in the low-average to average range, it was
reasonable for her to wait to observe Student later and
reasonable for District not to include APE in initial IEP
(L.R. v. Bellflower Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 59 IDELR 105)

26
Assistive Technology
 IEP team must consider whether student requires
AT devices and services in order to receive FAPE
 AT “device”:
 Item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether
acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or
customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or
improve student’s functional capabilities
 AT “services”:
 Any service that directly assists a child with a disability in
the selection, acquisition or use of AT device
(34 C.F.R. §§300.5, 300.6)

27
Facts:
 Parents requested iPad for 7-year-old Student with
orthopedic impairments
 After 60-day touchscreen trial period, District found
Student understood and grasped concepts easier when
he could manipulate objects, in a way more beneficial to
him than using the touchscreen
 Parent argued that Student could use iPad
independently and appropriately, and used his home
iPad on a daily basis

28
Decision:
 ALJ denied iPad request: No duty to maximize Student’s
potential
 District’s decision to forego touchscreen technology after
60-day trial, and focus instead on using other methods to
address Student’s needs – particularly in the area of
writing – was reasonable, given success Student had
demonstrated using those methods, and given the lack
of success on touchscreen
(Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH 2012) Case Nos. 2012061201, 113 LRP
2044)

29
Health and Nursing Services
 May include:
 Providing services by qualified
personnel
 Managing the student’s health
problems on the school site
 Consulting with students, parents, teachers, and other
personnel
 Group and individual counseling with parents and
students regarding health problems
 Maintaining communication with health agencies that
provide care to student
(Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.12)

30
 May also include “specialized physical health care
services” if necessary to meet student’s needs
 Services as prescribed by student’s physician/surgeon
 Require medically related training for the individual who
performs the service
 Necessary during the school day to enable the student
to attend school
 Must be included in IEP
(Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.12)

31
Case Example: San Diego USD (OAH 2007)
Facts:
 13-year-old Student with autism and genetic metabolic
disorder that required daily G-Tube feedings
 District did not identify person responsible for feedings at
time of IEP meeting, stating it would detail procedures
later in health care management plan
 Resulted in confusion between school nurse and
behavioral aides as to who would provide G-Tube
services

32
Case Example: San Diego USD (OAH 2007)
Decision:
 G-Tube feeding was specialized physical health care
service that must be performed by individual with
medical training (as detailed in Title 5 regulations)
 Behavioral aides did not qualify
 IEP’s failure to specify qualified individual who would
assist Student with G-Tube feeding resulted in denial of
FAPE
 ALJ ordered modifications to IEP
(Student v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (OAH 2007) Case Nos. 2007010848 and
2006120002, 107 LRP 64067)

33
 Tips to help ensure compliant IEPs when
student requires health services:
 Make sure IEP team members understand qualification
requirements for particular services student may need
 Partner with medical professionals to ensure staff
responsible for implementing health care provisions
receive appropriate training
 Collaborate with parents and physicians throughout
school year to keep abreast of changing needs and
convene IEP meeting ASAP if those needs change

34
Hearing and Vision Services
 Includes
 Audiology
 Identification of hearing loss,
determining range of loss, provision
of habilitative activities, counseling
 Interpreting services
 Vision services and vision therapy
 Adaptations in curriculum and environment; consultative
services; remedial and/or developmental services
 Orientation and mobility services
 Provided to visually impaired students to help them attain
systematic orientation to – and safe movement within – their
environments at school, home and in community
(34 C.F.R. §300.34(c)(1), (4), (7); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § § 3051.7, 3051.75)

35
Case Example: Yucaipa-Calimesa JUSD (OAH 2014)
Facts:
 16-year-old with autism and visual impairment
 Received 30 minutes per week of orientation and
mobility services designed to teach him to navigate
campus and other environments
 Services provided by certified orientation and mobility
teacher and noncertified aides working under teacher’s
supervision
 During two-month period at beginning of 2012-2013
school year, teacher was unavailable and Student
worked with untrained aides

36
Case Example: Yucaipa-Calimesa JUSD (OAH 2014)
Decision:
 Student was denied FAPE during two months when he
received services from untrained aides who confused
him by placing him in unfamiliar environments
 Resulted in regression in orientation and mobility skills
 Orientation and mobility goals over two years were
improper because they were not measurable (but did not
result in denial of FAPE)
 ALJ awarded 32 hours of orientation and mobility
services as compensatory education
(Student v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) Case No. 2013100045)

37
Speech and Language
Services Includes
 Identification/diagnosis of children with
speech or language impairments
 Referral for medical or other professional
attention necessary for the habilitation of
speech or language impairments
 Provision of speech and language services for the
habilitation or prevention of communicative impairments
 Counseling and guidance
 Like OT/PT, extent and nature of speech/language
services are frequently litigated at due process
(34 C.F.R. § 300.34(c)(15))

38
Speech and Language
ServicesCase Example: Los Angeles USD (OAH 2013)
Facts:
 3-year-old Student with intellectual disability
 Previously received weekly one-hour one-on-one
language and speech therapy at Regional Center “early-
start” program
 District offered 30 minutes per week with
speech/language therapist in small group (4 students)
and 30 minutes per week in more individualized setting
(one other student)
 Parents believed Student needed one-on-one therapy

39
Speech and Language
ServicesCase Example: Los Angeles USD (OAH 2013)
Decision:
 ALJ found for District
 Assessment showed Student participated in structured
activities and showed interest in similar-aged children
 Student had potential to produce sounds based on peer
imitation/modeling
 Expressive language goal could be achieved through
two 30-minute sessions per week
(Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH 2013) Case Nos. 2013071175 and
2013100045, 113 LRP 46331)

40
Mental Health Services
 AB 114 (2011) shifted
responsibility back to districts
for educationally
related mental health
services that are necessary to
provide FAPE
 School-based mental health services now
governed by the IDEA
 Rowley standard
 Mental health is a related service

41
 Can include (in addition to school health/nursing
services):
 Psychological services
 Counseling and guidance services
 Social worker services
 Family counseling
 School psychologist can provide most forms of
counseling, but not social work
 Beginning to see increase in OAH decisions
involving mental health therapy issues

42
Case Example: Sacramento City USD (OAH 2014)
Facts:
 15-year-old with ED who had history of suicidal and
dangerous behaviors
 September 2013: Student ingested cocaine before
school; Parent brought her to emergency room
 Student placed on “section 5150” involuntary
psychiatric hold
 Upon Student’s release from hospital, Parents
unilaterally placed her in out-of-state RTC and sought
reimbursement

43
Case Example: Sacramento City USD (OAH 2014)
Decision:
 ALJ found mental health services were adequate – until
September 2013 when circumstances changed
 District should have known Student required increased
level of mental health therapy services
 ALJ ordered reimbursement, rejecting District’s
argument that it provided all necessary educationally
related mental health services
 Cited absences from school due to hospitalization
(Student v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (OAH 2014) Case No. 2013100405, 114
LRP 29157)

44
 Tips for addressing student’s changing
mental health needs:
 Involve all needed individuals – psychologist and/or
mental health professionals – in IEP review to
understand whether current services are inadequate
 If team does not believe it has clear picture of how/why
needs have changed, consider reassessment
 Remember that appropriateness of IEP is determined at
time it is developed; revising to add additional services
does not infer that prior IEP denied FAPE

45
Recreation Services
 Includes
 Therapeutic recreation services
(to help students become
independent in leisure activities)
 Recreation programs in schools and the community
 Provision of nonacademic and extracurricular
leisure activities
 Leisure education programs (including teaching of social
skills necessary to engage in leisure activities)
 Very few OAH decisions involving recreation
services, although one is worthy of note . . .
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.15)

46
Recreation Services
Case Example: Monrovia USD (OAH 2008)
Facts:
 16-year-old Student with neurological condition
 Parent requested that competitive wrestling be added to
Student’s IEP
 Did not ask for supplementary aids, supports or
accommodations to allow him to participate
 Claimed wrestling would address Student’s social,
psychological and behavioral needs

47
Recreation Services
Case Example: Monrovia USD (OAH 2008)
Decision:
 ALJ: If Student’s participation in wrestling
was required to meet his needs, it could qualify
as “recreation services”
 But, although Student would benefit from being on
wrestling team, no evidence that he had unique needs
that could only be met such participation
 Participation in wrestling was not necessary for Student
to receive FAPE
(Student v. Monrovia Unified School Dist. (OAH 2008) Case No. N2007120717, 108 LRP
40496)

48
Related Services for
Parents Several related services provisions
in IDEA and California regulations also
allow for the services to be provided
to the student’s parents and other family
members when they are required
for the student to benefit from his or her education
 For example, social work service can include individual and
group counseling with the student and his or her immediate
family; psychological services can consist of consultative
services to students and parents; and transportation can
include reimbursements for visits to residential placement

49
Parents “Parent counseling and training” includes:
 Assisting parents in understanding special needs
of their child
 Providing parents with information about
child development
 Helping parents to acquire necessary skills that will allow
them to support implementation of their child's IEP
or IFSP
(34 C.F.R. § 300.34(c)(8).)

50
ParentsCase Example: Capistrano USD (OAH 2009)
Facts:
 Parent of 18-year-old with SLD claimed District had
general obligation to offer parental counseling and
training
 Believed such services should have offered in every IEP
 Filed for due process claiming denial of FAPE back to
beginning of statute of limitation period
 Requested reimbursement for costs of hiring her
advocate

51
ParentsCase Example: Capistrano USD (OAH 2009)
Decision:
 ALJ: No evidence Parent needed counseling and
training in order for Student to benefit from his education
 Never previously made request
 Was involved in every IEP meeting and was represented
by attorneys and advocates
 Remedy requested by Parent was “not supported by
either the evidence, the circumstance or by case law”
(Student v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (OAH 2009) Case No. 2008031002 114 LRP
29157)

52
ParentsCase Example: Los Angeles USD (OAH 2009)
Facts:
 15-year-old Student attended RTC in Colorado
 IEP provided for reimbursements for parental visits
under District travel reimbursement guidelines
 Guidelines allowed reimbursement if purpose of visit was
family therapy
 Parents took 5-day trip to Colorado to visit Student
(and to ski)
 Father attended family therapy session; Mother did not

53
ParentsCase Example: Los Angeles USD (OAH 2009)
Decision:
 ALJ noted that related service of transportation allowed
for reimbursement for Parents if Student required the
visits to receive FAPE
 No indication that Student’s IEP reflected such need
 Therefore, reimbursement was allowed only per District
travel guidelines
 Mother denied reimbursement, but District ordered to
reimburse Father since he attended therapy session
(Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH 2009) Case No. 2008090252, 52 IDELR
144)

54
 Tips on determining when to include parent
counseling and training in IEP
 If parents are in need of assistance and information to
understand nature of student’s disability
 If parents need to learn skills to assist student with
services (e.g., how to operate assistive technology
device)
 If parents directly involved in supporting implementation
of IEP (e.g., at-home behavior management strategies)

55
Finally . . . A Few Words About
504
 “Related service” means service to student with disability
that he or she needs to benefit from and/or access school’s
education program
 Unlike IDEA, Section 504 has no educational need
component as prerequisite in order to be eligible
 So the only “service” a 504-eligible student may need
is a related service
 Also unlike IDEA, there is no list of examples of related
services under 504
 But OCR has said repeatedly that related services
available under 504 are substantially same as IDEA

56
Information in this presentation, including but not limited to PowerPoint handouts and the presenters' comments, is summary only and not legal advice.
We advise you to consult with legal counsel to determine how this information may apply to your specific facts and circumstances .

57
Information in this presentation, including but not limited to PowerPoint handouts and the presenters' comments, is summary only and not legal advice.
We advise you to consult with legal counsel to determine how this information may apply to your specific facts and circumstances .

SES Spring 2015: All Things Considered - Related Services

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie SES Spring 2015: All Things Considered - Related Services

Ähnlich wie SES Spring 2015: All Things Considered - Related Services (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

SES Spring 2015: All Things Considered - Related Services