Posts tagged with "IDEA"

The Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in Special Education Classes

This past July, a new law went into effect here in Connecticut that requires the State Department of Education to identify school districts that “disproportionately and inappropriately identif[y] minority students as requiring special education because such students have a reading deficiency.”[1] Under this statute, the term “minority student” takes on the public’s common understanding: any student that is non-white or of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.

In 1954, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that struck down de jure racial segregation, noting that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”[2] Since then, many great strides have been made to offer free, appropriate public education to all children, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, and disability. In the realm of special education, Congress has enacted various statutory schemes that provide comprehensive protections for children with mental or physical disabilities. This occurred most notably in the form of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and its predecessor, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), which “ushered in an era in which the federal government became active in financing and regulating special education services provided by local districts.”[3]

The goal was noble: ensuring that students with disabilities would receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) on par with students in regular classrooms. Unfortunately in practice, African American and Hispanic students are being disproportionately identified as having emotional behavioral disorders and intellectual disabilities, and are thus “more likely to be served in special education classes and residential placements more than their peers.”[4] One study in Massachusetts, for example, revealed that while African Americans represented approximately 12.4% of the total U.S. population, they were “approximately 1.3 times (approximately 30%) more likely than non-African American students to be found eligible for special education.”[5] Hispanic students received similar results.

What is the source of this improper labeling? As a New York Times columnist mused, “the students are being placed in special education because educators are misinterpreting behavior problems and misunderstanding cultural differences.”[6] Connecticut was not innocent in this respect, as one civil rights lawyer dubbed “Connecticut’s dirty little secrets in education.”[7] As further highlighted in the same Times article:

  • Hartford: Hispanic students were “more than four times as likely as whites to be identified as having a learning disability.”
  • Norwalk: African American students constituted 36% of the special education population, but was only 25% of the total student population.
  • West Hartford: African American students were “more than five times as likely as whites to be diagnosed as having an emotional disturbance.”
  • Windham: Hispanic students constituted 58% of the total student population, but represented 64% of the special education population and “nearly 70 percent of students classified as having a speech or language impairment.”

Other reasons cited include subjectivity in decision-making that allows for bias and misinterpretation of cultural cues – such as “bad” as a slang for “cool” being misread by an evaluator as exposure to “negative influences.”[8] In this example, the social worker involved stated, “It really started to speak loudly to the fact that people involved didn’t understand our community.”

Nonetheless, Connecticut’s Public Act 12-116 § 90 is certainly a step in the right direction to ensure that minority students are not inappropriately and disproportionately placed into special education programs when it is not warranted. Only time will tell whether meaningful progress will be made, or whether litigation will be necessary because such progress is “uneven” or “moving too slowly in the desired direction.”[9]

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

If you are a parent who believes that your child has been improperly placed as a special education student, it is imperative that you are aware of your rights and consult an experienced school law attorney. Should you have any questions about special education or other education law matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.


[1] Public Act 12-116 § 90(a).

[2] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S. Ct. 686, 692 (1954).

[3] “Special but Unequal: Race and Special Education,” by Matthew Ladner and Christopher Hammons. 2001: http://www.dlc.org/documents/SpecialEd_ch05.pdf

[4] “The overrepresentation of African American students in special education,” by Latanya Fanion. July 22, 2010: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-overrepresentation-of-african-american-students-special-education

[5] “Disproportionality: A Look at Special Education and Race in the Commonwealth,” by Matthew Deninger. Pp. 1, 4. September 2008: http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/Edbrief_final.pdf

[6] “Special Education and Minorities,” by Avi Salzman. November 20, 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/20ctspecial.html

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

THE IDEA’S “CHILD FIND” PROVISION: JUST HOW HARD DOES A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE TO LOOK?

            Parents, school administrators, and education attorneys are waiting to see if the United States Supreme Court will review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Compton Unified Sch. Dist. v. Addison, 598 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010).  That decision significantly increased a School District’s obligation to identify students eligible for special education, and greatly expanded parents’ rights to a due process hearing to determine if the District had failed to discharge its duty.  Although handicapping the Supreme Court is crystal ball gazing, at best, the Court may well not only hear the case, but also reverse the Court of Appeals.  Until the appellate dust settles, this article will give you the new legal landscape and inform students and parents of their expanded rights.

            The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) conditions federal funding to states on their adopting policies and procedures ensuring that “all children with disabilities . . . who are in need of special education services[] are identified, located, and evaluated.”  This provision is known as the “child find” requirement.  The IDEA further requires School Districts to provide written notice to a child’s parents whenever it “proposes to initiate or change” or ”refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child . . . .”

            The student involved in the case, Starvenia Addison, received horrific and indefensible treatment at the hands of the Compton, California School District.  Her school counselor did not consider it atypical for Addison, a ninth-grader, to perform at a fourth-grade level.  In the fall of her tenth-grade year, Addison failed every academic subject.  The counselor considered these grades to be a “major red flag.”  Teachers reported Addison’s work as “gibberish and incomprehensible.”  A third-party mental health counselor recommended that the District assess Addison for learning disabilities.  Despite the recommendation, the District did not refer Addison for an educational assessment and instead promoted her to eleventh grade.

            Addison brought an administrative claim under IDEA seeking compensatory educational services for the District’s failure to identify her needs and provide a free appropriate public education.  An administrative law judge found for Addison and the U.S. District Court subsequently agreed.  An appeal followed to the Court of Appeals.  The Ninth Circuit, obviously (and understandably) deeply offended by the District’s actions, phrased the District’s arguments in such pejorative terms that it was obvious that it, too, was going to find in Addison’s favor.  For example, the Court said: “the School District seeks to cast its deliberate indifference as something other than a ‘refusal.’”  Two Judges of the three-judge panel affirmed the District Court in perfunctory fashion with only casual references to broad legal generalizations.

            The remaining Appellate Judge, however, filed a dissenting opinion that dwarfs the majority opinion in terms of depth, breadth, and legal analysis.  He, too, was troubled by the distressing facts, but essentially found that under the IDEA and state law, a due process hearing may be held only where the District purposefully acts, or refuses to act, as opposed to where the complained-of conduct is best described as negligent.  Actually, the complained-of conduct could also be fairly described as gross negligence or reckless indifference but the dissenting Judge chose not to go there, perhaps fearing that it would lead him to a different result.  The otherwise thorough and well-reasoned dissent offers the Supreme Court a road map to overturning the decision of the Court of Appeals.

            For the time being, however, the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Addison is binding on the Federal Courts in the nine most western states of the United States, and may be considered persuasive, and therefore followed, by other Courts throughout the nation.  In petitioning the Supreme Court to take up the case, the District cites liberally to the dissenting opinion and laments the majority’s creation of a claim for educational malpractice where none has previously existed.  Finally, because there are 2200 school districts and over one million special education students served within the geographical boundaries of the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court may consider the Addison case sufficiently impactful to warrant review.

            Until  Addison is affirmed, reversed, or otherwise clarified, special needs students and their parents have additional ammunition with which to press their School District for an educational evaluation, an IEP, a due process hearing, and potentially the bringing of an action in U.S. District Court.

       

If you have any questions regarding your child’s education, or any education law matter, contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

Special Education and COVID-19: Impact on your Child’s Section 504 Plan or IEP

In March of 2020, many Governors across the country closed their schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  On March 21, 2020, the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”) published guidance for local school agencies on how to appropriately handle special education and services to children with disabilities during the ongoing public health crisis. The DOE has emphasized that school districts’ compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) school districts should not prevent distance instruction.  Accordingly, special education services should continue during the period of remote learning from home as much as feasible.

During school closures due to the virus, if local education agencies (“LEAs”) continue to provide educational opportunities to general student populations, children with disabilities are entitled to receive the same educational opportunities that are being afforded to general student populations.  Specifically, children with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education (“FAPE”), pursuant to Section 504 and the ADA.   LEAs must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, each student with a disability be provided the special education and related services set forth in the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan.  In the event of school closures, an IEP Team or PPT may, but is not required to, consider remote or distance learning plans in your child’s IEP, as long as the instruction is meaningful.

During the COVID-19 national emergency, schools may not be able to provide all services in the same manner that are typically provided to students.  While it may be unfeasible or unsafe for some school districts, during current emergency school closures, to provide hands-on physical therapy, occupational therapy, or sign language educational services, some disability-related modifications and services may be effectively provided online.  For example, extensions of time for assignments, videos with accurate captioning or embedded sign language interpreting, accessible reading materials, and speech or language services by way of video conferencing may all be successfully instituted remotely for students with disabilities.  Teachers providing special education plans may have to create more specific daily or weekly plans for a special needs child who is now at home for the rest of the school year.

Additionally, the DOE guidance includes IDEA timelines for state complaints, IEPs, reevaluations, and due process hearings and encourages school teams and parents to work collaboratively and creatively to meet IEP timeline requirements. If a child has been found eligible to receive special education and related services under the IDEA, the IEP Team must meet and develop an initial IEP within 30 days of that determination and IEPs must be reviewed on an annual basis.  However, due to COVID-19, parents and school districts may agree to conduct IEP meetings through alternate means, including video conferences or telephonic conference calls.  Of note, due to the pandemic, when making changes to a child’s IEP, the parent of a child with a disability and the school district may agree to not convene an IEP Team meeting for the purposes of making changes and can develop a written amendment or modification to the child’s IEP.

A reevaluation of a child with a disability must occur at least every three years, unless both the parents and school district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. However, a reevaluation may be conducted through a review of existing evaluation data when appropriate, without a meeting and without obtaining parental consent, unless it is determined that additional assessments are needed.

In regard to state special education complaints, absent agreement by the parties, a state may be able to extend the 60-day timeline for complaint resolution, if exceptional circumstances exist.  The DOE has now stated that exceptional circumstances include a large number of state workers unavailable or absent from work for an extended period of time due to the pandemic.  In regard to due process hearings, the parties can come to a mutual agreement to extend the 30-day resolution deadline due to COVID-19.  Additionally, a due process hearing officer may grant a specific extension of time at the request of either party to the hearing.

Moreover, when a child with a disability is classified as needing homebound instruction because of a medical problem, as ordered by a physician, and is home for an extended period of time, generally more than ten (10) consecutive school days, an individualized education program (IEP) meeting could be necessary to change the child’s placement and the contents of the child’s IEP.  If a child with a disability contracts COVID-19 and has to be absent from school for an extended period of time while school is open, parents or guardians may be able to make arrangements with the LEA to provide homebound instruction special education and related services.

If you have any questions about special education and related services during the COVID-19 pandemic, contact Attorney Joseph Maya at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@mayalaw.com for a complimentary consultation regarding your matter.

What is the Process for Expelling a Special Education Student?

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

In my previous post, I discussed the requirements of alternative educational programs, or AEPs, that must be followed in the wake of a student expulsion. However, if you are the parent of a child that qualifies for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), it is imperative that you understand that an entirely different set of rules applies.

“Connecticut school districts are obligated to provide special education and related services to children five years of age or older until the earlier of either high school graduation or the end of the school year in which your child turns twenty-one years of age.”[1] A special education child’s misconduct does not obviate the school district’s statutory duty. Therefore, before an expulsion hearing occurs, the child’s planning and placement team (PPT), which includes the parent(s), will schedule a meeting to determine whether or not the child’s misbehavior was caused by his or her disability. How the question is answered will impact the PPT’s course of action.

If the answer is “yes,” expulsion will not be pursued. Rather, the PPT will reevaulate the child and potentially modify his individualized education program (IEP) “to address the misconduct and to ensure the safety of other children and staff in the school.”[2] If, instead, the answer is “no,” the standard expulsion procedures[3] are followed. However, an AEP that is consistent with the child’s special educational needs must be provided by the school for the duration of the expulsion.[4]

Because of the potentially adverse and significant impact a suspension or expulsion can have on a student’s future, it is imperative to seek the advice of an experienced school law practitioner. The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, and Westport. Should you have any questions regarding school discipline or other education law matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

[1] “Advocating on Your Child’s Behalf: A Parent’s Guide to Connecticut School Law,” by Joseph C. Maya, Esq., and Robert L. Keepnews, Esq., at pp.8-9.

[2] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-233d(i).

[3] See Connecticut General Statutes § 10-233d(a).

[4] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-233d(i).

Continue Reading

Developing Your Special Education Child’s Individualized Education Program

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

A recent series of articles on this website provides an overview of the special education process so you, as a parent, know what to expect. You have the right to make sure your child receives a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and oftentimes that means a standard classroom environment does not meet your child’s special needs due to a disability. If your child is between 3 and 21 years of age, suffers from an enumerated disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the disability interferes with his or her classroom performance, you have the opportunity to seek special education and related services. More importantly, you can play a critical role on the planning and placement team (PPT) to evaluate your child’s special education referral to determine eligibility.

So, you’ve made it this far: your child is deemed eligible for special education and related services, but… what happens now? The PPT will hold meetings to establish an individualized education program (IEP), which is “a written plan detailing your child’s special education program,”[1] including the following key elements:

Present levels of educational and functional performance;
Measurable educational goals linked to present levels of academic and functional performance for the coming year and short-term instructional objectives derived from those goals;
Evaluation procedures and performance criteria;
An explanation of the extent, if any, to which your child will not participate in the regular education class, the general education curriculum or extracurricular activities;
Modifications and accommodations your child needs to participate in the general education curriculum including nonacademic and extracurricular activities;
Special education and related services required by your child including transportation and physical and vocational education programs;
Recommended instructional settings and a list of people who will work with your child to implement the IEP;
The date services will begin and end, and the frequency of the identified services;
The length of the school day and year;
Statement of accommodations and modifications needed to facilitate CMT/CAPT, or district-wide testing;
Recommendations for participation in alternate assessments (if needed); and
Transition service needs.[2]

Within five days after the PPT meets and develops your child’s IEP, you must receive a copy of the plan. The same goes for any future revisions.

Keep in mind that you have the right to participate in the PPT meetings, and your school district must work with you to select a time and place that works for both sides. You must receive five days written notice of any meeting to make sure you will be able to attend. This notice includes:

A list of who will be attending the meeting;
Affirmation of your right to bring with you other individuals who are able to provide support or who have knowledge and/or expertise with respect to your child’s needs.
An invitation to your child to attend if he or she is 16 years of age or older (or even if the child is younger, if participation is deemed appropriate), and “the purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the postsecondary goals and transition services for the child”[3]

If the school schedules the meeting at a time or location you cannot make, alternative methods of participation, such as a telephonic or video conference call, must be explored. However, if the school district repeatedly attempts to schedule a meeting and each time you are unable to attend, they may hold the PPT meeting without you; the school must maintain a results log documenting these attempts.

If you are the parent of a child that has a disability, it is imperative that you participate in this process so as to help maximize your child’s educational opportunities. Should you have any questions about special education or education law in general, it may prove beneficial to seek the counsel of an experienced school law practitioner. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

[1] “Advocating on Your Child’s Behalf: A Parent’s Guide to Connecticut School Law,” by Joseph C. Maya, Esq., and Robert L. Keepnews, Esq., pp.20.

[2] “A Parent’s Guide to Special Education in Connecticut,” by the Connecticut State Department of Education, pp.4. Accessed October 9, 2012: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/Parents_Guide_SE.pdf

[3] Id. at 5.

Continue Reading

Evaluating Your Child’s Special Education Needs and Services

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

The process by which a child is determined eligible for special education and relates services may seem intimidating or overwhelming, as there is a wealth of information that any parent of a child with disabilities needs to understand. In this latest series of school law articles, we are presenting an overview of just what happens once a child is identified as potentially eligible, and this post specifically focuses on the evaluation process.

An initial evaluation occurs right after a child’s referral for special education, which the planning and placement team (PPT) uses to determine “your child’s specific learning strengths and weaknesses and needs, and to determine whether or not your child is eligible for special education services.”[1] You have the right to participate in the PPT, and thus have the valuable opportunity to provide all relevant information related to your child’s abilities, needs, and skills. Other information that the PPT considers is that collected by the school district and its employees: “informal and formal observations, a review of homework, standardized tests and other school records and information.”[2] However, the process must be conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner (consider the disproportionate placement of minority students in special education, discussed here), and you have the right to refuse consent or revoke it at any point.

When the evaluation is complete, you will meet with the rest of the PPT to interpret the data collected ruing the study. The purpose of this meeting is to determine:

Whether your child has a disability (as enumerated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA)
Whether that disability has an adverse impact on your child’s education
Whether your child needs special education and related services to fulfill free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements.

However, what happens if you don’t agree with the results of this evaluation? You may consult with a qualified examiner now employed by the school district to conduct an independent educational evaluation (IEE). Determining who pays for this boils down to two situations:

The school district simply agrees to pay for the IEE. The evaluation criteria of the IEE must be the same as that used by the school in its own evaluation.
The school district asserts that its evaluation was proper or the IEE criterion is insufficient. It may elect to pay for the IEE or hold a due process hearing, at which the hearing officer determines the appropriateness of the school’s evaluation. If the officer finds in their favor, you may still obtain an IEE, but you are responsible for paying for it.

The results of an IEE must be considered by the school district. “However, the school district is not required to agree with or implement any or all of the results or recommendations of the independent educational evaluation.”[3]

Placement in special education and your child’s IEP are not concrete. Indeed, reevaluations are made to determine several things:

Whether or not your child still has a qualifying disability
Your child’s present level of academic achievement as well as related developmental needs
Whether or not your child still needs special education and related services
Whether or not your child’s IEP requires modification

In essence, the PPT looks at the information regarding your child, and you may ask the school district to conduct additional assessments if you believe more information is necessary for making these determinations. The reevaluation process must occur at least once every three years, though the PPT may perform it more frequently. However, your written consent is required, though special circumstances permit the reevaluation without it.

If you are the parent of a child that has a disability, it is imperative that you participate in this process so as to help maximize your child’s educational opportunities. Should you have any questions about special education or education law in general, it may prove beneficial to seek the counsel of an experienced school law practitioner. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

[1] “A Parent’s Guide to Special Education in Connecticut,” by the Connecticut State Department of Education, pp.6. Accessed October 9, 2012: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/Parents_Guide_SE.pdf

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 7.

Continue Reading

Special Education Referrals, and the Planning and Placement Team

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

In a previous article, I discussed Connecticut’s laws defining “special education” (hereinafter SPED) as well as explaining the process by which a child’s eligibility is determined. In this next segment, the focus will be on referrals to SPED, as well as the composition and role of the planning and placement team, or PPT.

If you’re a parent and determined that your child meets the requirements for SPED, what happens next? Rather than immediate referral and placement, your school district will first attempt to keep the child in a regular classroom and incorporate an alternative general education program. It is within your authority to approach the school district on implementing an alternative program for your child, but should he or she continues having problems in a non-SPED classroom, a referral is the next course of action.

A referral is “a written request for an evaluation of a child who is suspected of having a disability and who may be in need of special education and related services.”[1] Various parties may submit the referral:

The student, if 18 years of age or older.
The parent, guardian, or surrogate parent of the student.
A member of the school’s personnel.
Other qualified individuals, such as the student’s physician or social worker, provided parental permission to make the referral was previously granted.

The student need not actually be attending school yet to qualify for a referral: remember, one of the qualifications for SPED under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) covers an age range of 3 to 21 years. Your school district is obligated to “identify children in need of special education from birth on, [a duty called] ‘child find.’”[2]

If you are not the individual who made the referral, you will receive a written notification (or notice) of it. In addition, you will have the right to participate on your child’s PPT, which is tasked with “review[ing] existing evaluation information that the school district has about your child to determine whether there is a need for any additional data or information.”[3] In other words, this is the group of individuals that determines whether the information they have on hand supports SPED placement, and you have the ability to directly impact that decision through your own participation.

The following is a list of those who typically comprise the PPT:

The child’s parents
One or more of the child’s regular education teachers (if any)
One or more of the child’s special education teachers/providers
A school district representative “who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities and is knowledgeable about the general curriculum and about the availability of resources of the school district”
A member of student services, such as a guidance counselor or school psychologist
An individual “who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results” (possible dual-role with previously listed individuals, except for the parent)
The student him- or herself, when warranted
“[O]ther individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding children.”[4]

As a parent, you have the right to refuse consent of an evaluation. Informed consent means “you must be given full and complete disclosure of all relevant facts and information pertaining to your child regarding certain proposed activities by your local educational agency.”[5] It is required in the referral process when:

(a) [Y]our child undergoes an initial evaluation to determine his or her eligibility for special education and related services, (b) before your child is placed in special education services, (c) before your child is placed in private placement, and (d) before your child is reevaulated.

Consent to an initial evaluation does not automatically extend to the additional steps listed above: rather, new consent is required before the school district may take action. However, “a parent’s failure to give consent to a reevaulation may be overridden if the school district can show that a good-faith effort was made to obtain consent and the child’s parent failed to respond.”[6] Regardless, if you reject a proposed course of action, the school district must still provide your child with a free appropriate public education, or FAPE.

The upcoming articles will focus on the initial evaluation process, as well as the product of the PPT if the parent agrees to go forward with a SPED program and the child’s eligibility is upheld: the individualized education program, or IEP. If you are the parent of a child that has a disability, it is imperative that you participate in this process so as to help maximize your child’s educational opportunities. Should you have any questions about special education or education law in general, it may prove beneficial to seek the counsel of an experienced school law practitioner. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

[1] “A Parent’s Guide to Special Education in Connecticut,” by the Connecticut State Department of Education, pp.2. Accessed October 8, 2012: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/Parents_Guide_SE.pdf

[2] “Advocating on Your Child’s Behalf: A Parent’s Guide to Connecticut School Law,” by Joseph C. Maya, Esq., and Robert L. Keepnews, Esq., pp.10-11.

[3] See Footnote 1.

[4] See Footnote 1.

[5] See Footnote 2 at 11.

[6] Id at 11-12, citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.300.

Continue Reading

What is “Gifted and Talented,” and What If My Child Is Identified as Such?

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

While reading a parent’s education law guide written by attorneys here at Maya Murphy, I was initially surprised to read the following: “A child requiring special education in Connecticut includes not only children with disabilities but also those who are found to be especially gifted and talented.”[1] Indeed, “a child requiring special education” is not limited to those deemed eligible pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; see my previous post), but a child that:

[H]as extraordinary learning ability or outstanding talent in the creative arts, the development of which requires programs or services beyond the level of those ordinarily provided in regular school programs but which may be provided through special education as part of the public school program.[2]

The Regulations Concerning State Agencies go into greater depth as to what constitutes “gifted and talented,” “extraordinary learning ability,” and “outstanding talent in the creative arts.”[3]

You may be asking yourself, “But how do I know my child is gifted and talented?” The State Department of Education produced a very informative list of FAQs, one of which directly addresses this question:

Some children are able to concentrate for long periods of time at a very young age or demonstrate their gifts and talents by using a large vocabulary, constant questioning, demonstrating unusual creativity, performing advanced math calculations, and/or exhibiting exceptional ability in specific subject areas.

Not all children, however, demonstrate their potential abilities and talents in the traditional manners mentioned above. Thus, concerned parents should consult with child development specialists, such as their local school officials, pediatricians, or higher education personnel for more information.[4]

The rules governing gifted and talented (GaT) are somewhat similar to the mandates stemming from special education classifications under IDEA (and associated state law codifying its requirements). Schools districts must “provide identification, referral and evaluation for gifted and talented children.”[5] However, offering GaT programming is optional: “(c) Each local or regional board of education may provide special education for children requiring it who are described by subparagraph (B) of subdivision (5) of section 10-76a and for other exceptional children for whom special education is not required by law.”[6] Thus, if you are the parent of a child identified as GaT and your school elects not to offer special programs or services, they are not denying your child the free appropriate public education, or FAPE, as is required under federal law.

However, if your school district refuses to identify, refer, or evaluate your child for GaT status pursuant to Connecticut law, it is imperative that you seek the counsel of an experienced and knowledgeable school law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding gifted education, special education, or any other education law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

[1] “Advocating on Your Child’s Behalf: A Parent’s Guide to Connecticut School Law,” by Joseph C. Maya, Esq., and Robert L. Keepnews, Esq., at pp.10.

[2] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-76a(5)(B).

[3] Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 10-76a-2.

[4] “Gifted and Talented – QA,” by the State Department of Education. Accessed October 5, 2012: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q=320948

[5] Id. at § 10-76d-1.

[6] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-76d(c).

Continue Reading