ADVOCATE TESTIFIES ON FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

March 20, 2006  Suzanne Boudrot Shea testified before the Commission on the Future of Higher Education regarding services for students with Down syndrome in a public hearing today in Boston. Mrs. Shea’s remarks were delivered on behalf of the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress (MDSC), as well as the National Down Syndrome Congress (NDSC) and the National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS). A final report from the Commission is expected on or before August 1.

View Mrs. Shea’s full testimony.

Learn more about The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education.

Suzanne Boudrot Shea is President of the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress, and is mother to 10 year old Caroline, who has Down syndrome. Her husband, Chris, serves on the NDSC Foundation’s Board of Trustees.


TESTIMONY OF DAVID TOLLESON

Submitted on behalf of National Down Syndrome Congress

U.S. Department of Education Public Hearing
Atlanta • February 15, 2005

My name is David Tolleson. I'm Executive Director of National Down Syndrome Congress, the country's oldest national organization of people with Down syndrome, their families, friends and the professionals who work with them. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and to share our concerns about the new law and its potential impact on students with disabilities, as well as the advances that have been made during the past thirty years.

Since the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now known as I.D.E.A., many of the 350,000 Americans with Down syndrome have become fully integrated members of their communities, thanks to access to general curriculum classrooms and other advances made in educating students with disabilities.

Because of that, the NDSC did not support many of the changes reflected in the law passed in the 108th Congress. We felt that the theme underlying many of the changes reflected a weakening of the law, a deterioration of children's rights to participate in their regular school environment and a weakening of opportunities to be fully included in school, in particular and in society overall.

However, the law has passed and we want to work with the Department to make this law a "results-oriented" law. We will submit comments for your consideration when developing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking so that the law will improve opportunities for children as Congress stated as its intention -- to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living. . .

The most important recommendation we can make is for the Department to monitor implementation of the law. Section 616 gives the Department the authority to provide technical assistance, support and impose sanctions if the system is not in compliance. The federal government is a significant source of funding states to implement IDEA. States have an obligation to ensure that the law is implemented and children with disabilities are given the opportunities to which they are entitled.

School districts should be accountable and produce results! The regulations should clarify reinforce that children with disabilities should participate in the regular curriculum. They should have meaningful goals with a plan for implementation of these goals. Parents should be apprised of their child's progress with written, comprehensive reports at least as often as non-disabled children receive report cards.

Paperwork Reduction Pilot and Multi-Year IEP Demonstration projects, for which the states have the option of applying, hold the danger of significantly altering requirements that protect students from discrimination and unnecessary segregation. Since we all share the goals of "results-oriented" education, substantial efforts should be made to ensure that instructional objectives and due process protections are not compromised. Before a state applies to become one of these projects, parents should be given the opportunity to provide input on the design of the projects.

Schools and educators should be strongly discouraged against removing a student from his or her regular educational setting for school code violations. Removal from educational setting should only happen in the most extreme circumstances. This should be the interpretation given 615 (k) (1) (A). Strong emphasis must be placed on developing positive behavior supports when developing a student's IEP. The law specifically recognizes the importance of these supports and interventions in Section 614 CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL FACTORS which states The IEP Team shall--(i) in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share our concerns.

January 10, 2005

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Bush,

Medicaid cuts or funding caps would be disastrous for the estimated 350,000 persons with Down syndrome in this country, both as Medicaid relates to long term care and supports and to health care.

Medicaid is critical in covering long term care and supports for adults with Down syndrome. For many of these individuals, their ability to live in the community, to have access to transportation, to have support in a job where they make a real contribution, are all funded through Medicaid. Block-granting or capping funding will likely lead to a reduction in essential services for those currently receiving Medicaid and denial to individuals who might be applying for services in the future. Cuts or caps to Medicaid will have a devastating effect on our most vulnerable citizens.

When persons with Down syndrome leave school, many are no longer covered by their parents' health insurance policies. For those who are, coverage only lasts as long as the parents are able to afford private health insurance for themselves and their child. In some cases, even if parents wanted to buy health insurance for their adult children, they cannot because many insurance companies have deemed persons with Down syndrome uninsurable.

Of course, the needs of these individuals will go on beyond their parents' lifetime. Since nearly all adults with Down syndrome live at or below poverty level, Medicaid is their only health care alternative. While it's important to address our country's rising health care costs, it's noteworthy that Medicaid's overall growth rate is lower than that of private insurance premiums.

As you develop your FY2006 budget proposal, please remember our children and families and support their needs in your proposals. The current Medicaid program is vitally important to the well being of persons with Down syndrome and their families.

Sincerely,

David C. Tolleson
Executive Director

IDEA ACTION PLAN

National Committee of Parents and Advocates Organized to Protect IDEA

IDEA04: Focus Shifts to States

The recently enacted Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 makes a number of changes affecting the education of students with disabilities. Most provisions were effective July 1, 2005.

The amendments modify the process for developing IEPs, their content and implementation, expand the authority of school personnel to unilaterally remove students from school, modify procedural protections and eliminate safeguards for students and their parents. In certain limited areas the new amendments will override State laws that conflict with or undermine the purpose of the federal legislation. However, there is still much room for States to exercise leadership and autonomy, and, in particular, to hold schools and school districts to higher State requirements that were designed to enable all students with disabilities to meet challenging State standards.

Currently nearly all States have laws and regulations that provide students with disabilities and their parents rights and protections that exceed minimal Federal requirements. We believe that State and local policymakers need to work with local school district administrators, teachers and parents to preserve and protect these State laws that encourage best practices and implementation of effective, research based interventions that are helping ALL students learn.

Why Are We Concerned? We are concerned first, because some of the 2004 amendments to IDEA erode longstanding rights and protections that currently exist under State laws and regulations. Second, the 2004 amendments contain explicit language that may discourage States from preserving their existing laws, regulations and policies that exceed the minimal Federal requirements. Subsections (a)(2) and (3) of section 608 require States to: "identify in writing to local educational agencies… and the Secretary any such rule, regulation or policy as a State-imposed requirement that is not required by this title and Federal regulations; and…minimize the number of rules, regulations, and policies to which the local educational agencies and schools located in the State are subject under this title."

State legislators, administrators, policymakers, parents, other members of the school community, and citizens need not be intimidated by this language. Education is traditionally a matter of State and local concern, and a field in which States have significant autonomy and discretion. Furthermore, Section 608(b) of the new amendments provides that: "State rules, regulations, and policies in this title shall support and facilitate local educational agency and school-level system improvement designed to enable children with disabilities to meet the challenging State student academic achievement standards."(emphasis added)

How This Works? Some Tips - Possible Areas Where Federal Law Controls and Where It Does Not. As noted above, the new amendments are likely to override a stronger or more protective State law only when it is not possible to comply with the requirements of both Federal and State law, or when the State law is an obstacle to accomplishing the purpose of the Federal legislation. The new amendments, for example, require a resolution session to be convened between parents and school authorities prior to a due process hearing unless both parties agree to waive the meeting; authorize school personnel to remove unilaterally a student who inflicts "serious bodily injury"; expand the definition of "prevailing party" for purposes of awarding attorney's fees to include State education agency and school districts in very limited instances; establish a 2 year statute of limitations. In these limited instances, where it is not possible to meet what is required by both State and Federal law (e.g., a State statute of limitations period gives parents 3 years to bring a due process complaint; a State law requires a Hearing Officer to remove a student alleged to have "inflicted serious bodily injury"; State law authorizes school personnel to refuse to meet with parents who complain), or where the State law impedes Congress' accomplishing its purpose, Federal law will, as a rule, control.

This does not mean that ALL or even most of the State law provisions giving students and their parents' greater protections will be "preempted" or overridden by Federal law. To the contrary, except as described above, a State law that is more protective of the student will override a less protective Federal law. This means that a State law will be upheld that includes all the components of a Manifestation Review, including two critical components eliminated by the 2004 amendments to IDEA. It is certainly possible to meet these two criteria now found only in State law, (1) whether the child's IEP is appropriate, and (2) if the child's disability impaired his/her ability to control or understand the consequences of the behavior, and to comply with the more truncated Federal law to determine if a child's behavior is a manifestation of his disability. Furthermore, these two additional State requirements do NOT undermine the purpose and intent of the Federal legislation. Similarly, if a State chooses, consistent with best practice, to maintain its current law that requires transition planning to begin by age 14, State law will be upheld even though that particular Federal law requirement was eliminated by the 2004 amendments to IDEA. Once again, it is possible to comply with the additional State law provision as well as the Federal requirement to provide transition services at 16 years. And, the additional requirement is NOT an obstacle to the Congressional purpose of the Federal legislation.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO ROLL OVER - NO TIME TO LOSE

Work to protect and preserve your stronger State laws. Collaborate with your State parent and disability organizations, advocacy groups. Reach out to your State legislators, State and school district policymakers, teachers and other members of the school community who are committed to improving education for students with disabilities. States and local school districts, with the input of parents, advocates and other committed members of the school community, are in a better position to determine how to implement the new 2004 amendments to IDEA through their own State laws, regulations and rules to support improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities.

The 2004 changes to IDEA do not become effective until July 2005. Until repealed, your State is likely to have statutory provisions, regulations or rules, based on the IDEA passed in 1997, that are stronger than the new Federal law. Review your State law provisions, use the attached tool if it is helpful to organize and develop a strategy for approaching your State legislators and policymakers to get them on board. We believe there are many State and local school district personnel who want students with disabilities to succeed, and who will recognize the importance of preserving more protective State laws and regulations.

Unless a State proactively takes steps to modify/repeal its stronger State law and/or regulations to mirror the amended IDEA, the new and weaker federal amendments will not apply in those States that retain stronger state law protecting students with disabilities, except in those very limited instances where it is impossible to comply with both the Federal requirement and the State law, or the stronger State law is an obstacle to accomplishing the purpose of the Federal law.

Without the voices of parents and constituents being raised, State Education Agencies are likely to move to begin the process for changing current State laws and regulations to conform to the WEAKER Federal law. If this is your State's intent, it is likely that the State will seek to do so by July 1, 2005, when most of the 2004 changes to IDEA become effective.

You may only have a few months to prevent your State special education laws and rules from being watered down. We have prepared a template with ideas about steps you can take to preserve key aspects of your State statutes and rules. This is not meant to be an exclusive list-you can add, delete or modify any or all of it to fit your State. It is designed to help you and other like-minded people to begin the process of developing strategies.

Download the Template for State IDEA04 Implementation Policy Discussions
4 pages - Requires Acrobat Reader

NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF PARENTS AND ADVOCATES ORGANIZED TO PROTECT IDEA

December 14, 2004

Dear Parents and Advocates,

On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Throughout the past two years, the National Committee of Parents and Advocates Organized to Protect IDEA worked diligently in an effort to ensure that the best interests of children were preserved in this reauthorization process. We appreciate your efforts and thank you for your assistance.

Provisions that were very important to parents and advocates were lost or significantly changed from the current law. This new law has many changes that are likely to affect how education services are delivered to students with disabilities.

It is extremely important for family members and other advocates to understand the changes in the law and how these changes will make a difference to students. To help, the National Committee of Parents and Advocates Organized to Protect IDEA has developed the attached analysis of the new law for your information.

It is important to understand that the next step in the process involves rule making at the Federal level. We anticipate being involved in that process and will keep you apprised, since your input will also be critical. While that is happening, however, State Education Agencies and others will likely be reviewing this new law to determine what impact it may have on state laws and rules.

Soon you will receive information suggesting ideas for working at the state level to preserve and protect the educational rights of children with disabilities. Key discussions on implementation will soon shift to states, where we hope you will continue to be involved.

Sincerely,

Center for Law and Education
National Coalition of Parent Centers
National Council on Independent Living
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
TASH
National Association for Parents of Children with Visual Impairments
Our Children Left Behind
Prepared Using Private Funds

IDEA 2004 SUMMARY

This is a summary of some of the most critical changes affecting children with disabilities and their families in IDEA 2004, concentrating on the IEP process, due process and the discipline provisions. How these changes affect our children will depend, at least in part, on how the U.S. Department of Education interprets them through policies and regulations and how they are implemented at the state, district and school level. Most of these changes will be effective as of July 1, 2005.

A new provision in the Act authorizes the Secretary to issue only regulations necessary to secure compliance with the statute. This provision may limit the Secretary's authority to issue regulations that could be useful in clarifying ambiguities. A new section of the Act also suggests that states minimize the number of rules, regulations and policies to which the school districts are subject.

This law, as amended by the 2004 changes, will not provide mandatory full funding. Although the annual amounts now authorized (permitted) to be spent on IDEA would achieve full funding in six years, that assumes these amounts will actually be appropriated (spent), and explains why mandatory funding of IDEA is so important. In fact, two days after Congress passed the IDEA Conference Report with its "glide path to full funding" it appropriated significantly less funding for special education than it had just promised.

IEP PROCESS

Short-term objectives. The long established obligation for IEP teams to spell out short-term objectives for meeting each child's measurable annual IEP goals no longer exists for most children. Such short-term objectives are only required for the very small percentage of children (generally less than 1% of students with disabilities) who are taking alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) limits participation on these assessments to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. NCLB also provides that both should be aligned with state content standards. Short-term objectives are essential stepping stones toward these goals for all students with disabilities, not just a very small percentage.

In states that offer alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards, it is the IEP team that determines whether a child fits the criteria for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Parents, as members of the IEP team, may feel pressure to agree that their child fits these criteria in order to retain short-term objectives. Such pressure directly undermines the accountability provisions of NCLB.

Even if these short-term objectives are not mandated by law, all parents can still request their child's IEP team to identify them. Without short term objectives parents will have virtually no way of measuring whether their children are making progress in achieving their annual goals and will not be informed participants in their child's education. In addition, teachers will not have a guide as to the intervening steps that should be taken towards achieving these goals and when they should be taken.

IEP progress reports. The progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals must be reported, but there is no longer a reference to "the extent to which the progress is sufficient to attain the goal by the end of the year." This information seems especially important to parents and teachers if there is a shared commitment to help all children learn to high standards set for all. Parents may see progress all year only to realize in June that the progress was not sufficient to meet the goal.

Transition information in IEP. The amendments clarify that the transition process for a student with a disability now begins at age 16 and is not merely a plan for transition. Parents should request that the student's IEP, when appropriate, include a statement of inter-agency responsibilities and any needed linkages since this language is no longer in the statute.

IEP attendance and participation. A new section allows IEP team members to be excused from attendance if their area is not being discussed. When this section is read with new provisions allowing alternate means of meeting participation (e.g. conference calls), consolidation of reevaluation meetings and other IEP meetings, and a pilot program authorizing up to 15 states to use multi-year IEPs, the combined effect is a revolution in the traditional IEP meeting. Some say these are positive changes. Others are concerned that these provisions will limit cross fertilization of ideas and undermine the interdisciplinary nature of IEP meetings (team members each bring areas or "disciplines" of expertise to the table).

While written parental consent is required before these actions can occur, parents may find that they are under considerable pressure to provide their consent. At least once a year the parents should be able to get all the members of their child's team in one room, all sharing ideas for the benefit of the child. The potential richness of these conversations can not be anticipated in written reports submitted by excused members and conference calls do not allow for the same flow of ideas. You never know which IEP team member will turn the tide of a meeting.

Pilot program for multi-year IEPs. The Secretary of Education is authorized to approve proposals from up to 15 states to allow local school districts to offer, with parental consent, a multi-year IEP, not to exceed 3 years. This option will limit parent participation in their child's education by not having a comprehensive annual IEP review, except in certain situations. Also, 3-year IEPs will contain multi-year goals which can be expected to be less specific and harder to measure than annual goals -especially when benchmarks and short-term objectives are no longer required for all but those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Another serious problem is that the required elements under IDEA for these multi-IEPs are not as inclusive as for annual IEPs. This is true with respect to statements on progress reports, accommodations, supplementary aids and services and more. While, the states may include these as required elements in the multi-year IEPs, IDEA does not mandate that they do so. Parents in these states will have to consent to the 3-year IEPs that must be reviewed at natural transition points by the IEP team. Therefore, it will be critical that parents are informed, knowledgeable and well prepared to deal with any pressure that may be put on them.

Pilot program for paperwork reduction. The Secretary of Education is authorized to grant waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements, for a period not to exceed 4 years, to 15 states proposing to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving requirements related to civil rights or the right of a child to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). How this process is implemented is a matter of special concern to parents, who worry that many requirements in the IEP process which parents consider to be related to civil rights and FAPE, may be seen as contributors to the paperwork burden. Another significant concern is that "pilot" implies that this is the first step toward expanding these programs beyond the 15 states.

IEP team transition. Parents of a child transitioning from Part C services (early childhood) to part B services (school-age) can request an invitation to the initial IEP meeting be sent to representatives of the Part C system to assist with a smooth transition of services. This provision doesn't require a Part C representative to attend but it does encourage collaboration.

Transfers between school districts. Services comparable to those described in the IEP in effect before a child's transfer must be provided by the new school district. These services must continue until the previous IEP is adopted, or a new IEP is developed, adopted and implemented, in the case of a transfer in the same state or until a new IEP is developed, in the case of a transfer outside the state. This new provision will help parents of transferring students know what they can expect from their new schools.

DUE PROCESS

Procedural safeguards notice. The procedural safeguards notice will be distributed only once a year except that a copy will be distributed upon initial referral, when a parent makes a request for an evaluation, when a due process complaint has been filed or if a parent requests a copy. The notice will no longer be automatically distributed with the IEP team notice or upon reevaluation. This is only a problem if parents are unaware of their rights, including the right to request this notice if they need one.

Statute of limitations. Parents now have two years in which to exercise their due process rights after they knew or should have known that an IDEA violation has occurred. The interpretation of the language "should have known" will be critical.

Due process complaint notice. Parents who feel their child's educational rights are being compromised must file a complaint with the school district (with a copy to the state) identifying the name and contact information of the child, describing the nature of the problem with supporting facts and a proposed resolution. A new provision provides that the school district shall file a response within 10 days unless the district within 15 days notifies the state hearing officer that it is challenging the sufficiency of the parent's due process complaint notice. The State hearing officer has 5 more days to make a finding. In addition to the obvious delay, of particular concern is that the complexity of filing for due process may have a chilling effect on parents.

Resolution session. Parents must go through a mandatory "resolution session" before due process. The school district will convene a meeting with the parents and relevant members of the IEP team within 15 days of when the school district receives the parent's due process complaint. The school district has 30 days from the time the complaint is filed to resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the parents, after which a due process hearing can occur. This provision may encourage school systems to wait until a due process complaint is filed before trying to resolve issues. Attorney's fees are not reimbursed for work related to the resolution session.

Attorney's fees. Parent's attorneys may be responsible for paying the school system attorney's fees if a cause of action in a due process hearing or court action is determined to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Parents may be responsible for the school system's attorney fees if a cause of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. Obviously, parents should not file frivolous or improper causes of action, but it is important that school districts not use these changes in the law to intimidate parents. This could have a chilling effect on parents obtaining legal representation and filing valid complaints to improve their children's education.

Qualifications for hearing officers. A positive change is that there are now explicit qualification requirements for Hearing Officers.

DISCIPLINE

Stay put. The right of a student with a disability to "stay put" in his/her current educational placement pending an appeal is eliminated for alleged violations of the school code that may result in a removal from the student's current educational placement for more than 10 days. Previously the law only denied "stay-put" rights to students with disabilities involved in drugs, weapons or other dangerous behavior or activity. The right to "stay put" while a parent challenges the manifestation determination or proposed placement is a critical element to ensuring a student's continued free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

Moving back and forth between the current placement and an interim alternative educational setting during an appeal can have a significant negative impact on achievement for children who already have difficulty adjusting to transitions. Parents must remain vigilant and ensure that their children continue to be provided the educational programming and services they need to make progress toward meeting their IEP goals. If this progress is negatively affected, the school may recommend a change to a more restrictive setting for the future. In addition, for purposes of reporting Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act, individual schools do not have to count children who are transferred to alternative settings and are, therefore, not in the same school for the full academic year. This could create an incentive for disciplinary actions against students with disabilities.

Services to be received in interim alternative educational setting. A child is entitled to receive programming and services necessary to enable him or her to receive a free appropriate public education consistent with section 612(a)(1) during the period in which he/she is in an interim alternative education setting. Under IDEA 2004, the student must be provided services to enable him or her to continue to participate in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals in the IEP. The new provision replaced language requiring that a child in an interim alternative educational setting receive services and modifications, including those described in the student's current IEP which will enable the child to meet the goals in the IEP. The change in language cannot be interpreted as diluting any of these services that are consistent with the definition of FAPE because a student with a disability must continue to receive FAPE during the period of removal from his/her current educational placement.

Manifestation determination review. Before IDEA 2004, the burden was on the school district to show that the behavior resulting in a disciplinary action was not a manifestation of the child's disability before being allowed to apply the same disciplinary procedures as they use for non-disabled children. The burden of proof for the manifestation determination review has now been shifted to the parents who have to prove that the behavior was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the disability. The language requiring the IEP team to consider whether the disability impaired the child's ability to control or to understand the impact and consequences of the behavior has been deleted. The language that gave the school an incentive to address behavior appropriately by requiring the IEP team to consider whether the IEP was appropriate has also been deleted.

Because the amendments to IDEA make it easier for schools to remove children for non-dangerous, non-weapon, non-drug related behaviors, and place the burden on parents to prove the connection between behavior and disability, parents will need to pay careful attention to the behavioral needs of their child in developing the IEP. Even if the child has not previously been subjected to disciplinary exclusion, parents may need to anticipate, to consider and spell out any concerns they may have about their child's possible emotional and behavioral responses particularly when they are not provided the supports and services they may need.

Special circumstances. Since 1997, IDEA had expressly authorized schools to unilaterally remove children to an interim alternative educational setting for as long as 45 days for offenses involving drugs and weapons -even if the behavior was a manifestation of the student's disability. In addition, a hearing officer could make the same decision if it was determined based on a preponderance of the evidence that keeping the child in his/her current placement was substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. Although school authorities have always had the authority to respond to an emergency and to unilaterally remove any student with or without a disability who is causing serious bodily injury to another, now schools can also unilaterally remove children for 45 days for "inflicting serious bodily injury." This term is defined as involving a substantial risk of death; extreme physical pain; protracted and obvious disfigurement; or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

The hearing officer in determining whether to remove a child because maintaining his/her current placement is substantially likely to result in injury to self or others is no longer required to consider whether the school district's proposed change in placement is based on a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the amended statute no longer requires the hearing officer to consider whether the school has made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm, including the use of supplementary aids and services. These changes, to the degree they have the effect of punishing the child even if proper supports could have prevented the problem, arguably violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

45 day limit. The 45 calendar day limit on the removal for these offenses has been changed to 45 school days, which is significantly longer [now 9 instead of 6 weeks of school at a critical time when students with disabilities are being held accountable for meeting high state standards.]

Functional Behavioral Assessments. The requirement for Functional Behavioral Assessments and Behavioral Intervention Plans are maintained in the discipline provisions.

Case-by-case determination. A paragraph has been added to the discipline provisions, which states that school personnel can consider any unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining whether to change the placement of a child with a disability who violates a school code of conduct. This is a good provision for parents to quote when they are having trouble proving that their child's behavior is a manifestation of the disability. It serves to remind the school personnel that common sense should prevail and all circumstances should be considered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep up-to-date with the latest news from Washington, D.C. Read the latest issue of the Governmental Affairs Newsline.