LeasorCrass, Author at Education Lawyers

July 1, 2019 By LeasorCrass

In a World Where High School and College Degrees are Everything and Hard Work is Often Overlooked

By Victoria Elliott, Associate

In a world where high school and college degrees are everything and hard work is often overlooked, students in special education or those students who struggle to pass end-of-year assessments are already at a disadvantage. In the past, these students could not graduate high school with an endorsement if they were on modified curriculum or could not graduate at all if they failed the end-of-year assessments. However, this legislative session changed everything.

The Texas Legislature passed, and the Governor recently signed, House Bill 165 to allow special education students, including those on a modified curriculum, to be able to graduate with an endorsement on their transcript. This is incredibly significant, as most Texas universities require students to receive an endorsement before they will be considered for admission. As part of the requirement, the ARD committee for a special education student on modified curriculum will have to determine if the curriculum they are receiving is sufficiently rigorous. Further, the bill allows for special education students, with or without modified curriculum, to be able to graduate with an endorsement on their transcript without having achieved satisfactory performance on end-of-course assessments, if the ARD committee determines that it is not necessary to pass.

But wait, don’t stop there! The Texas Legislature also passed, and the governor recently signed, Senate Bill 213 to continue to allow general education students who fail, no more than two, end-of-course exams to be able to graduate. The previous law allowing students to be able to graduate regardless of failing, no more than two, end-of-course exams was set to expire on September 1, 2019. Now, the law has been amended to expire on September 1, 2023. The requirements for allowing these students to graduate has stayed the same. First, an individual graduation committee must be established. Next, the student must have completed all other requirements for graduation. Lastly, the committee will need to determine what other requirements need to be met in place of passing the end-of-course exams that were not satisfactory. For the student to graduate, the plan decided by the committee will have to be followed through.

These laws have truly helped students who are special needs or may be struggling to, at the very least, receive their diploma, and for special needs students to receive it with an endorsement. Hopefully, the law for general education students will continue to be amended after it expires. We will see what the future has to hold.

If you should have additional question regarding these two bills or the law concerning graduation requirements, please do not hesitate to contact any of the attorneys at Leasor Crass for assistance.

May 30, 2019 By LeasorCrass

These Quorums Weren’t Made for Walking

On May 24, 2019, Attorney General Ken Paxton handed down an opinion, at the request of Commissioner of Education Mike Morath, providing some much needed clarity regarding “walking quorums” and the Texas Open Meetings Act (“the Act”). The Request for Opinion came after the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in State v. Doyal that Section 551.143 of the Open Meetings Act was unconstitutionally vague on its face. Section 551.143(a) provides:

“A member or group of members of a governmental body commits an offense if the member or group of members knowingly conspires to circumvent [the Act] by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations in violation of this chapter.”

The questions asked by the Commissioner were likely similar to the questions most, if not all, school trustees, officials, and representatives had been asking since the Court of Criminal Appeals handed down their ruling in February. First, does the Open Meetings Act continue to prohibit a quorum of a governmental body from deliberating an item of public business outside of an authorized meeting through multiple communications, each making up less than a quorum (i.e. a walking quorum)? Second, if criminal sanctions no longer apply, what sanctions exist for those who violate the Act? Answering these questions requires a review of other sections of the Act, untouched by the Court of Criminal Appeals’ ruling.

In reference to the first question regarding whether “walking quorums” are still prohibited, the answer is yes. The Legislature’s overall purpose in adopting the Open Meetings Act is clearly to safeguard the public’s interest and encourage good government by ending closed-door dealings without public scrutiny. This intent is evidenced in Section 551.002 of the Act which requires “every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body” to be open to the public, with limited exceptions set forth in the Act.

The Act furthers this purpose in Sections 551.001(4)(A) and 551.001(2) which define “meeting” and “deliberation” respectively. A “meeting” includes “a deliberation between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, during which public business or public policy over which the body has supervision or control is discussed or considered.” Deliberation is “a verbal exchange during a meeting between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, concerning an issue within the jurisdiction of the governmental body or any public business.” A plain reading of these two definitions provides that a meeting occurs when a quorum of a governmental body has a verbal exchange about public business or policy within that governmental body’s jurisdiction.

There is no requirement deliberation occur simultaneously or in the same location to constitute a meeting, nor is there any support that a quorum must be physically present at the same time and same location for a violation of the Act to occur. For example, prior Attorney General Opinions state a series of email communications may constitute a deliberation and meeting depending on the specific facts of the case. In other words, simply because deliberation may occur through multiple communications (i.e. text messages, emails, phone calls, etc.), as opposed to a single place at a single time, does not mean deliberation among a quorum did not occur. The Texas Supreme Court held, “When a majority of a public decision-making body is considering a pending issue, there can be no ‘informal’ discussion. There is either formal consideration of a matter in compliance with the Open Meetings Act or an illegal meeting.” Acker v. Tex. Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex. 1990). Therefore, if a governmental body, such as a school district’s board of trustees, deliberates about public business within their jurisdiction outside of an authorized meeting, that body has violated the Open Meetings Act.

In reference to the second question regarding whether sanctions exist for violating the Act, the answer is, once again, yes. While the Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the criminal sanctions for violating Section 551.143, civil remedies remain in place. For example, under Section 551.141, any action taken by a governmental body in violation of the Act is voidable. Additionally, Section 551.142 allows any interested person, such as community members, to file an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation (or threatened violation) by the governmental body.

Lastly, regulatory sanctions may be imposed on certain governmental bodies who violate the Open Meetings Act. For example, Section 39.057 of the Texas Education Code gives authority to the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”) to conduct investigations of school districts that allegedly violate certain state or federal laws and take action, if warranted, based on the results of the investigations. At the same time, Section 11.051 of the Education Code requires a school board to only act by majority vote of present members at a lawfully called meeting. As a result, if the TEA conducts an investigation and finds a school board violated the Open Meetings Act, it could take any action authorized under Section 39.057(d) of the Education Code. These actions could potentially lower a school district’s accreditation status or accountability rating and the Commissioner could sanction the school district by taking any action authorized by Chapter 39A of the Education Code, including but not limited to issuing a public notice of deficiency, ordering a hearing before the commissioner, or appointing a conservator to oversee district operations.

While the Court of Criminal Appeals may have done away with the criminal sanctions for violating Section 551.143 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, governmental bodies, like school districts’ boards of trustees, must still comply with the Act. This Opinion makes clear “walking quorums” remain prohibited and civil remedies exist for violations.

If you would like to read the full opinion, click here.

If you have any additional questions about this ruling or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Leasor Crass.

April 26, 2019 By LeasorCrass

Who Doesn’t Get an MDR? OSEP Clarifies Obligations for Children Not Yet Eligible for Special Education

In addition to being ineffective, disciplining a student for conduct that is caused by, or has a direct and substantial relation to a student’s disability, constitutes disability-based discrimination. Further, subjecting a student to a disciplinary removal that is based on the student’s disability can deprive a student of a free, appropriate public education when it constitutes a change in placement based on something other than the student’s educational needs. A manifestation determination review (MDR) is a procedural safeguard that is hard wired into IDEA to prevent this from occurring by requiring districts to review the behavior of students who have been identified as disabled before imposing a potentially discriminatory discipline consequence.

But what about students who might be disabled, but have not yet been evaluated and determined eligible for services under IDEA? As explained in the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) recently issued Letter to Nathan, the obligation to conduct an MDR isn’t dependent on eligibility, but arises as soon as a district is “deemed to have knowledge that a student has a disability.”

Given the emphasis that has recently been placed on referring and evaluating students with suspected disabilities here in the Lone Star State, administrators may be understandably concerned about the number of children who might be entitled to an MDR. Thankfully, “deemed to have knowledge” is statutorily defined and does not necessarily apply to every student who has exhibited a child find trigger. Pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.534(b), a school is deemed to have a basis of knowledge that a student has a disability so as to require an MDR, if before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action occurred:

the parent of the child has expressed concern in writing to supervisory or administrative personnel of the district, or a teacher of the child, that the child is in need of special education and related services;
the parent of the child actually requested an evaluation of the child for purposes of determining eligibility; or
the teacher of the child, or other district personnel, has expressed specific concerns about a pattern of behavior demonstrated by the child directly to the district’s director of special education or to other supervisory personnel.

Additionally, 34 CFR § 300.534(c) specifies three instances in which a district is considered to not have knowledge that a student has a disability:

the parent has been offered, but not allowed an evaluation under IDEA;
the parent has refused services under IDEA; or
the child has been evaluated under IDEA and determined to not qualify.

In addition to clarifying when an MDR must be conducted, Letter to Nathan also addresses the more confusing question of how a district should go about determining whether behavior is a manifestation of a suspected disability. Noting that IDEA does not allow a district to postpone an MDR pending completion of an initial evaluation and/or development of an IEP, OSEP explains that an MDR is not contingent on reviewing an IEP, but rather requires a district to “review all relevant information in the child’s file, including any teacher observations and any relevant information provided by the parents, to determine if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability.”

In the case of a child who has not yet been evaluated, this relevant information would include “the information that served as the [district’s] basis of knowledge that the child may be a child with a disability under IDEA, such as concerns expressed by a parent, a teacher or other [district] personnel about a pattern of behavior demonstrated by the child.” Based on this information, the district would be charged with determining whether the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s suspected disability.

The manifestation determination review is a vital procedural safeguard that protects students from disability-based discrimination that could deprive them of a free, appropriate public education. That said, we certainly recognize that MDRs are (understandably) frustrating to administrators who already feel spread too thin and difficult to explain to members of the school community concerned with a perceived undermining of accountability. If you have questions or concerns about OSEP’s latest guidance or complying with the MDR mandate in general, the attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C. are ready, willing, and able to help.

January 14, 2019 By LeasorCrass

Report Raises Triple Threat: Safety, Discipline, & Special Education

The Federal Commission on School Safety recently issued its Final Report. A copy of the full report can be accessed via the Commission’s website here.

The Report has made early headlines primarily due to its criticism of the Obama Administration’s “Rethink School Discipline” guidance, which included rules targeting exclusionary discipline and requiring the application of disparate impact analysis when reviewing potentially discriminatory discipline practices.

However, the Report also implicates several issues related to student confidentiality under FERPA and special education. Most notably, the Commission’s findings that “[a]pproximately one in 10 children…experience a serious emotional disturbance (SED)” and that “up to 79 percent of school-age youth have unmet mental health needs” could have massive child-find and funding implications under both Section 504 and IDEA for school districts.

It should be noted that the Report and the Commission’s recommendations are just that…they do not constitute official regulations and place no additional legal obligations on districts. That said, they should not be ignored, as they can certainly be expected to drive further action by state and federal lawmakers.

October 26, 2018 By LeasorCrass

The Parent’s Always Right…Not

Did you know parents do not have a right to compel a school district to provide specific programming or employ specific methodology when teaching students with disabilities? According to a Special Education Hearing Officer’s interpretation of the IDEA, parents may provide meaningful input into the development of their child’s IEP, but are not entitled to dictate the outcome. When it comes down to a choice in methodology, deference is given to professional educators.

A due process hearing in June 2018 ruled on a dispute between a well-intentioned parent and a Texas school district. The central issue turned on whether the District’s proposal to implement a more holistic reading program and placement in a special education classroom for reading and math instruction was reasonably calculated to provide FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment, or LRE. The “methodological dispute” arose following a February 2018 ARD meeting that ended in non-consensus on the District’s proposals.

The parent stated the student was making progress in the student’s private reading program, funded by the parent, and argued the District should incorporate lessons from the private reading program into the student’s school day. In contrast, the District wanted to increase the student’s instructional time in a special education classroom for Reading and Math and provide the student with a more holistic approach to reading. The District argued the special education classroom provided the student with more one-on-one assistance due to the lower student/teacher ratio and the proposed reading program catered to the student’s visual learning skills, a strength discovered in prior evaluations.

The Hearing Officer noted a parent is entitled to provide their child with whatever assistance they deem appropriate, but the law does not compel a district to employ the same assistance merely because it is the parent’s preference. While a parent may be committed to their child’s best interest, the best interest of the student is not the applicable legal standard under the IDEA. Rather, the IDEA requires the District to provide a program “reasonably calculated to provide [the] student with a meaningful educational benefit given [the] student’s unique circumstances.”

The District’s proposed program, in this case, utilized the student’s individual strengths as a visual learner and would instruct at an appropriate pace while taking into account the student’s processing deficits. The program was based on 1) research, 2) the student’s educational history, and 3) the student’s assessed strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, this program satisfied the requisite IDEA standard and was reasonably calculated to provide the student with a meaningful educational benefit in light of the student’s individual circumstances.

On a related note, the Hearing Officer also conducted an analysis of the least restrictive environment and named several factors to be considered in making an LRE determination. The noted factors include the nature and severity of the student’s disabilities, academic achievement, non-academic benefits of placement in a regular classroom, overall experience in the mainstreamed environment, and the effect of the student’s presence in the regular classroom. With respect to the last factor, the Hearing Officer explained that two questions should be asked when evaluating the effect of the student’s presence in the regular classroom. The first is whether the student’s behavior is so disruptive the education of the other students is significantly impaired. The second question is whether the student requires so much of the teacher’s attention the rest of the class suffers. If the answer to these questions is yes, the balance leans in favor of placement in a special education classroom.

In this case, the evidence showed the student became consistently frustrated attempting to keep up with the student’s non-disabled peers and that frustration disrupted the student’s own learning and the learning of other students. The student needed a high-level of teacher assistance and became disruptive when they did not receive it. Additionally, the student became increasingly frustrated and disruptive when the teacher was helping other students. These factors along with others led to the conclusion that the student’s LRE was placement in a mix of general and special education classrooms as proposed by the District.

This decision is a good illustration of the law surrounding parental rights to provide meaningful input, but not to compel or dictate the actions districts take. Districts should listen to and understand what the parent desires, but ultimately the District has both the right and obligation to make an individual determination based on the student’s unique circumstances. Additionally, when making a determination as to a student’s LRE the Fifth Circuit’s two part test, as set forth in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Educ., should be followed. First, the analysis must be individualized and fact-specific. Second, careful consideration should be given to the nature and severity of the student’s abilities, disabilities, needs, and the district’s response to the student’s needs.

If you would like to read the full decision, click here and scroll down to Docket No. 146-SE-0218.