|
PROTECTION & ADVOCACY |
|
|
Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Inc. |
March, 2002 |
v
v
NCD’s “Summary of Supreme Court Decisions”
v
Special Education: Complete Text of Rep. Lindley’s Bill (HB
2697)
v
Special Education: ODLC Requests Public Comment for PADD Program
(and also for PAIMI and PAIR programs)
v
Special Education: OSERS Invites Comment on Reauthorization of
IDEA
v
Upcoming Special Education Conference: Reed Martin to be in
v
Upcoming Special Education Conference: Pete Wright Comes to
v
v
Webcast:
Definition of Disability Under
US Supreme Court Updates
Toyota Motor Mfg.,
Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
Case No. 00-1089
Full text: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1089.html
The United States Supreme Court held
unanimously (opinion by 0'Conner) that determining whether a person is disabled
under the ADA because her impairments limit her ability to perform manual tasks
also requires the court to inquire as to whether the person's impairments prevented
or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most
people's daily lives. Williams suffered
from carpal tunnel syndrome and other physical ailments. She filed an action
under the
seeing, hearing and walking, to fit
into this category, the tasks in question must be central to daily life. By
only focusing on a limited class of manual tasks, such as gardening, housework
and working, the Sixth Circuit applied the wrong standard.
Owasso
Independent School Dist. No.
I-011 v. Falvo
Slip opinion
available online at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html
(scroll down to Case No. 00-1073 and click on slip opinion)
On
Full text:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/19feb20021100/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-1073.pdf
The United States Supreme Court held unanimously (opinion by Kennedy;
concurrence by Scalia) that peer-graded classroom assignments and papers are
not educational records under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g, and, for that reason, that peer grading does not
violate student privacy rights afforded by the FERPA. The teachers of Falvo's children use peer
grading, which requires students to exchange papers, grade them, and then
return the work to the student
who prepared it. Falvo contends that the assignments and papers of her children
constitute educational records and that the exchange of the papers is an
impermissible release under FERPA. FERPA withholds federal funds from
schools receiving federal aid if they have a policy allowing release of a
student's educational records without the parent's consent. In reversing
the D.C. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reasoned that classroom papers and
assignments in the hands of the students were not "maintained" within
the meaning of FERPA. Moreover, the
student graders were not "acting for" an educational institution
under FERPA since the phrase "acting for" means agents of the school,
such as teachers and administrators. On this reasoning, the Court
concluded that peer graded assignments and papers are not educational records
under the FERPA. The Supreme Court also recognized that grading the
assignment teaches the material in a new context and shows students how to
assist and respect one another. A holding that student homework and classroom
work constitute "educational records" would impose substantial
burdens on
teachers by requiring them to spend time grading which could be better spent
teaching
On
February 20, 2002, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of
Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Serv. v. Blumer, Case No. 00-952
Full text: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/20feb20021045/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-952.pdf
The United States Supreme Court held 6-3 (opinion by Ginsburg; dissent by Stevens)
that the income first method, which requires the agency to considered potential
income transfers from the institutionalized spouse in determining whether a
higher community spouse resource allowance (CSRA) is necessary, is consistent
with the meaning of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (MCCA). Irene Blumer, the institutionalized spouse,
applied for Medicaid
assistance through her husband, Burnett in 1996. The spousal impoverishment
provisions of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (MCCA) permit a spouse
living at home (the community spouse) to reserve certain assets and income to
meet necessary monthly expenses. Those assets are shielded from
diminution, allowing the institutionalized spouse to qualify for Medicaid
without extinguishing all the assets. After the Wisconsin Department of
Health and Family Services (agency) determined
that the Blumers must pay down approximately $14,000, the Blumers requested a
hearing to obtain a higher community spouse resource allowance (CSRA) since
Burnetts monthly income was less than the applicable minimum monthly
maintenance needs allowance (MMMNA) provided under the MCCA. In determining
whether to raise the CSRA,
hearing, although conducted prior to the applicants Medicaid eligibility, is to
determine and anticipate the couples post-eligibility
financial situation. Furthermore, the MCCA is designed to advance
cooperative federalism. Eliminating the states ability to choose the
income-first method would unnecessarily hinder state efforts to implement the Act.
On March
26, 2002, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Department of
Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, Case No. 00-1770, 00-1781
Full text: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1770.html
The United States Supreme Court held unanimously (opinion by Rehnquist) that
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (Act) of 1988 requires lease terms that allow a local
public housing authority to evict a tenant when a member of the tenant's
household or a guest engages in drug-related criminal activity, regardless of
whether the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of that activity.
"Summary of ADA Supreme Court Decisions"
The paper Bob Burgdorf Jr. prepared
for NCD summarizing the Supreme Court's decisions involving the ADA through its
2000 term is available on NCD's website at:
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/supremecourt_ada.html
A companion chart of ADA decisions is
also posted at:
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/supremecourt_adachart.html
Bob has also summarized the October
Term 2001 ADA cases decided to date, Williams & Waffle House, both of which
are included in Attachment A of the paper. Bob was not immediately available to
revise the implications section of the paper to include the Williams &
Waffle House decisions. NCD will update the paper to include information on
these and other pending
SPECIAL EDUCATION:
Complete Text of Rep. Lindley’s Enforcement Statute for IDEA (HB 2697)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 48th Legislature (2002)
HOUSE BILL HB2697 By: Lindley
AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to schools; specifying legislative
intent; requiring implementation of a comprehensive
monitoring system relating to special education;
specifying conditions and information required of
certain system; requiring a certain system for
investigation and resolution of complaints; providing
for development of annual report; requiring certain
content of annual report by certain entities;
providing certain criteria of annual report;
specifying rule promulgation by certain entity;
requiring certain implementation and certain
corrective action; specifying comparison of certain
items; requiring certain information by certain
entities; providing for certain annual hearing;
providing notice of annual hearing in certain
publications; providing for dissemination of report
after certain hearing; providing for promulgation of
certain rules by certain entity; specifying certain
rule promulgation; providing for certain annual
performance review by certain entities under certain
circumstances; providing certain notice for
noncompliance and unacceptable performance; specifying
submission of certain report to certain persons
listing certain information; providing for certain
requirements regarding certain hearings; requiring
certain credentials; providing for certain timelines;
providing for certain appointments; providing for
certain procedures in certain situations; providing
for certain performance evaluation guidelines and
certain penalties in certain instances; providing for
certain legal representation in certain cases;
providing for certain education training for certain
persons; specifying certain encouragements; specifying
certain sanctions under certain circumstances;
specifying timeline for issuance of certain
guidelines; amending 74 O.S. 2001, Sections 169.2,
169.2a and 169.2b, which relate to duties of the Task
Force to Review the Complaint System for Persons with
Disabilities; providing for duties of Task Force;
specifying cooperation of certain entities; specifying
membership and appointment of certain persons;
providing for meetings, certain reports, travel
reimbursement, Task Force responsibilities, staffing,
recommendations and findings; subjecting Task Force to
Oklahoma Open Meeting Act; providing for codification;
providing an effective date; and declaring an
emergency.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be
codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 13-101.1a
of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in
numbering, reads as follows:
A. It is the intent of the Legislature to:
1. Ensure compliance of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for local education
agencies which serve special populations as provided
in Section 13-101 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma
Statutes;
2. Develop an expedited system to investigate and
resolve complaints pursuant to IDEA; and
3. Assure that children with disabilities have a
right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
B. The State Department of Education shall
implement
a comprehensive system for monitoring school district
compliance with federal and state laws relating to
special education pursuant to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The monitoring
system must provide for:
1. Ongoing analysis of district special education
data and complaints filed with the State Department of
Education and school districts concerning special
education services; and
2. Inspections of the schools of each school
district.
The Department shall use the information obtained
through analysis of district data and from the
complaints to determine the appropriate schedule for
and extent of the inspection.
As used in this section, “Department” means the State
Department of Education.
C. To complete the inspection, the Department must
obtain information from parents and teachers of
students in special education programs in the school
districts.
D. The Department shall develop a system for
expedited investigation and resolution of complaints
concerning a school district's failure to provide
special education or related services to a student
eligible to participate in the district's special
education program pursuant to IDEA. Each school
district shall publish an annual report describing the
educational performance of each special education
program in a school district that includes uniform
student performance and descriptive information as
determined pursuant to rules promulgated by the State
Board of Education.
E. Regarding the annual report required in subsection
D of this section, the State Department of Education
and local school districts shall develop:
1. Program performance objectives and standards of
progress of each special education program toward
those objectives, which shall be available to the
public;
2. The performance ratings for the school district
and the performance ratings of each program in the
school district;
3. A compliance monitoring report of the district's
special education program, including the progress of
the school district in implementing any resulting
corrective action, which shall be available to the
public;
4. Student information, including total enrollment,
enrollment by ethnicity, economic status, grade
groupings and retention rates;
5. Financial information, including revenues and
expenditures;
6. Staff information, including number and type of
staff by gender, ethnicity, years of experience, and
highest degree held, teacher and administrator
salaries, and teacher turnover; and
7. The number of students placed in any alternative
education program.
F. In addition, the annual report must also include a
comparison provided by the Department of:
1. The performance of each program to its previous
performance and to Department-established standards;
2. The performance of each district to its previous
performance and to Department-established standards;
and
3. The performance of each special education program
or school district to comparable improvement.
G. The State Department of Education shall
annually
hold a state hearing for public discussion concerning
the report. The Department shall give notice of the
hearing to residents in the school districts and
parents, guardians, conservators, and other persons
having lawful control of a district student. The
notification must include notice to a newspaper of
general circulation in the school districts and notice
to electronic media serving the school districts.
After the hearing, the report shall be widely
disseminated within the school districts in a manner
to be determined under rules adopted by the State
Board of Education.
H. The State Board of Education shall promulgate
any
rules necessary to carry out the duties set forth in
this section. Rules promulgated by the State Board of
Education concerning the report must include:
1. A statement of the amount, if any, of the school
district's unencumbered surplus general fund balance
as of the last day of the preceding fiscal year and
the percentage of the preceding year's budget that the
surplus represents; and
2. The effectiveness of the school district's
programs for special populations.
I. The State Department of Education shall annually
review the performance of each school district and
program on the developed indicators adopted pursuant
to this section and the effectiveness of the
district's special education program based on the
Department's most recent compliance review of the
district and determine if the district is in
compliance with overall accreditation purposes. The
State Department of Education shall notify a school
district that is rated academically unacceptable that
the performance of the district or site in the
district is below each standard or that the
effectiveness of the district's special education
program is unacceptable and shall require the district
to notify residents and parents in the district of the
problem and its implication.
J. The State Department of Education shall prepare
and deliver to the Governor and the Legislature a
comprehensive report covering the preceding two (2)
school years that shall include, but not be limited
to, a list of each district that is not in compliance
with state special education requirements pursuant to
IDEA, including:
1. The period for which the school district has not
been in compliance;
2. The manner in which the Department considered the
district's failure to comply in determining the
district's accreditation status;
3. An explanation of the actions taken by the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction to ensure
compliance and an evaluation of the results of those
actions; and
4. Any additional information considered important by
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction or the
State Board of Education.
K. The State Department of Education shall in
accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) implement the following
requirements pursuant to the due process hearing
process. The requirements include, but are not
limited to:
1. Requiring hearing and appeal officers to be
recruited and selected by a committee that includes
representatives of parent and child advocacy groups;
2. Requiring hearing and appeal officers to hold law
degrees and/or be administrative law judges;
3. Ensuring that sufficient numbers of hearing and
appeal officers be maintained so that requests for due
process be adjudicated pursuant to IDEA timelines;
4. Maintaining a random/rotational system of
appointment for assigning of hearing/appeal officers;
5. Developing a procedure for replacing a
hearing/appeal officer at any stage of the proceeding;
6. Evaluating performance of the hearing/appeal
officers, performance guidelines, and penalties for
poor performance;
7. Providing a low cost/no cost legal representation
system for parents of a child with disabilities
involved in a due process proceeding;
8. Providing continuing educational seminars/training
to parents and attorneys representing a parent of a
child with disabilities in a due process hearing;
9. Requiring hearing/appeal officers to take
continuing educational seminars/training; and
10. Encouraging parents of a child with disabilities
to network with other parents whose children are
eligible for such educational services.
L. Pursuant to this section, if the State Department
of Education determines that local education agencies
have not complied with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the following
sanctions shall be imposed. They shall include, but
are not limited to:
1. Suspension of the district's special education
director's credentials;
2. Suspension of the district's superintendent's
credentials;
3. Suspension of athletic programs within the school
district; and
4. Loss of accreditation for the school district.
M. The State Department of Education, pursuant to a
Cooperative Action Plan, will issue guidelines to the
school district requiring compliance with this law by
SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 74 O.S. 2001,
Section
169.2, is amended to read as follows:
Section 169.2 A. There is hereby created re-created,
to continue until
to Review the Complaint System for Persons with
Disabilities. The Task Force shall conduct a thorough
review of the procedures for reporting and resolving
complaints regarding access to programs and services
by persons with disabilities within various
governmental entities in
any changes necessary to improve the system based on
its findings.
B. All departments, officers, agencies and employees
of this state shall cooperate with the Task Force in
fulfilling its duties and responsibilities including,
but not limited to, providing any information, records
or, reports, or recommendations requested by the Task
Force.
SECTION 3. AMENDATORY 74 O.S. 2001,
Section
169.2a, is amended to read as follows:
Section 169.2a A. The Task Force to Review the
Complaint System for Persons with Disabilities shall
be composed of twenty-two (22) members as follows
which shall include the following:
1. The Chair of the Human Services Committee of the
Oklahoma House of Representatives, or a designee;
2. The Chair of the Human Resources Committee of the
Oklahoma State Senate, or a designee;
3. The Director of the Department of Human Services,
or a designee;
4. The State Commissioner of Health, or a designee;
5. The Commissioner of Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Services, or a designee;
6. The Chief Executive Officer Administrator of the
Oklahoma Health Care Authority, or a designee;
7. The Director of the State Department of
Rehabilitation Services, or a designee;
8. The Director of the Office of Handicapped
Concerns, or a designee;
9. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, or
a designee;
10. The Chancellor of the Oklahoma State Regents for
Higher Education, or a designee;
11. The State Director of the Oklahoma Department of
Career and Technology Education, or a designee;
12. The Director of the Oklahoma Commission on
Children and Youth, or a designee;
13. The Director of the Oklahoma Client Assistance
Program, or a designee;
14. An individual, appointed by the Governor, with an
acquired severe disability;
15. Two individuals, appointed by the Director of the
State Department of Rehabilitation Services,
representing advocacy organizations for persons with
severe disabilities;
16. The Chair of the Oklahoma Traumatic Neurological
Injury Advisory Council, or a designee;
17. The Executive Director of the Oklahoma Housing
Finance Agency, or a designee;
18. The Director of
designee;
19. A representative from the Adult Protective
Services Program within the Department of Human
Services, appointed by the Director of Human Services;
20. The Chair of the Statewide Independent Living
Council of Oklahoma, or a designee; and
21. The Chair of the Cerebral Palsy Commission, or a
designee.
B. 1. The Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall each
appoint one member of the Task Force to serve as a
cochair until
office shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment. A majority of the members of
the Task Force shall constitute a quorum to transact
business, but no vacancy shall impair the right of the
remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the
Task Force. A vacancy on the Task Force shall be
filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as
the original appointment.
2. Appointments to the Task Force shall be made as
soon as reasonably possible after the effective date
of this act. The cochairs shall convene and preside
over the first meeting as soon as reasonably possible
after their appointment. Thereafter, the Task Force
may meet once each month and at such other times as
set by the cochairs.
3. The proceedings of all meetings of the Task Force
shall comply with the provisions of the
Meeting Act.
C. Members of the Task Force shall receive no
compensation for serving on the Task Force, but shall
receive travel reimbursement as follows in the
following manner:
1. Legislative members of the Task Force shall be
reimbursed for their necessary travel expenses
incurred in the performance of their duties in
accordance with the provisions of Section 456 of this
title;
2. Nonlegislative members of the Task Force shall be
reimbursed by their respective agencies for their
necessary travel expenses incurred in the performance
of their duties in accordance with the State Travel
Reimbursement Act; and
3. Members of the Task Force who are not otherwise
officers or employees of the state shall be reimbursed
by the Office of the Governor in accordance with the
State Travel Reimbursement Act.
D. The Task Force may divide into subcommittees in
furtherance of its purposes. The Department of Human
Services and the State Department of Rehabilitation
Services shall jointly provide such staff support as
is required by the Task Force or any of its
subcommittees.
E. The Task Force shall issue a report of its
findings and recommendations to the Legislature and
the Governor on or before
SECTION 4. AMENDATORY 74 O.S. 2001,
Section
169.2b, is amended to read as follows:
Section 169.2b The Task Force to Review the Complaint
System for Persons with Disabilities shall have the
power and authority to:
1. Examine and assess current grievance
complaint/grievance procedures and hearing processes
utilized by governmental entities with regard to
complaints complaints/grievances filed by or on behalf
of persons with disabilities;
2. Review the number, types and nature of such
complaints;
3. Evaluate the response time of governmental
entities to such complaints complaints/grievances, and
the time period for resolution of such complaints or
grievances;
4. Assess client/consumer satisfaction with regard to
current grievance complaint/grievance procedures and
hearing processes;
5. Identify and assess gaps and barriers to access to
services for persons with disabilities in this state;
6. Recommend improvements to complaint
complaint/grievance system procedures used by
governmental entities for persons with disabilities
including, but not limited to, modification of
existing policies, rules, guidelines and procedures
governing the complaint complaint/grievance system;
and
7. Perform all other tasks necessary to accomplish
the purposes of this act.
SECTION 5. Section 1 of this act shall
become
effective
SECTION 6. It being immediately necessary
for the
preservation of the public peace, health and safety,
an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason
whereof this act shall take effect and be in full
force from and after its passage and approval.
SPECIAL EDUCATION: ODLC BOARD SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT FOR
PRIORITIES ON PADD PROGRAM (AND ALSO PAIMI & PAIR PROGRAMS)
The
Board of Directors is in the process of updating the priorities and objectives
for the PADD program(protection and advocacy for
people with developmental disabilities). Below is a summary of one of the
priorities and objectives on which they are soliciting public comment.
Please review each of the following areas and let ODLC know which areas you
want diminished or increased:
INDIVIDUAL CASES: Currently
ODLC handles individual cases for people who allege that the school is not
providing what is required by either IDEA or § 504. ODLC assigns senior
attorneys (in addition to junior attorneys) to education cases. Services
will include either writing a fax or letter, preparing an SDE complaint or
litigating the issue from due process through the appellate level. ODLC recently
mediated a case at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to a successful
outcome. ODLC continues to receive requests for service in areas that are
serious violations -- for example, ODLC traveled to a rural community to talk
with parents whose children had never been evaluated by the school.
The school pressures them to bring in their SSI evaluations and places them in
the file, ODLC is told, despite the fact that they are not evaluations for the
purpose of providing an education. Also, ODLC has removed physical
barriers that keep children with serious mental illness from being integrated
at school. Several students are not receiving services -- they are never
being considered for ESY and they've never heard the words "assistive
technology" uttered at their IEP's. ODLC strongly urges families to
use the SDE's complaint system and ODLC files complaints for groups of
students. ODLC’s been told that 150 complaints have been filed at the SDE
in the past 3 years (many of them ours), out of about 80,000 students in
special education. Greater attention is now being focused on the state
complaint system and its use as a part of the SDE's monitoring of local
schools.
COLLABORATION:
(a) ODLC’s DD Network is collaborating on a parent training
project. ODLC is training parent advocates, selected by the DD Council,
to represent other parents all across the state. ODLC has 13 advocates in
the first class who will graduate this spring, and for whom ODLC will provide
support as they represent other parents. If the first class is
successful, ODLC will begin another one. ODLC appreciates the hard work
of parents who are giving back to other families in the community in this
manner.
(b) ODLC supports grassroots educational efforts of other
organizations, providing speakers, publications, etc. One example is ODEA
(Oklahoma Disability Education Association) and OPeN (Oklahoma Parent
eNetwork), whose buttons ODLC purchases and gives away along with their flyer
when ODLC displays for conferences.
(c) ODLC collaborates with the
(d) ODLC’s director and two board members serve on committees
of the national Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys (COPAA).
(e) ODLC is a member of our Region VI (
(f) ODLC established a lending library in both
SYSTEMIC ACTIVITIES:
(a) ODLC hired two attorneys from the Southern Disability Law
Center, Inc. to pursue specific issues along with our staff -- ESY, Assistive
Technology and Medicaid. ODLC is presently interviewing parents with ESY
violations in each of the following categories: (1) if their school has
not offered ESY at all; (2) if their school offers only a fixed length, not
individualized, ESY; and (3) if their school uses regression-recoupment as the
only criteria for ESY. This project involves an approach of pursuing
individual cases for a systemic impact.
(b) ODLC wrote all 544 superintendents in the State of
(c) ODLC conducted extensive training at the request of Judge
Glen Dale Carter for his juvenile system participants in Pottawatomie County
and later for Office of Juvenile Affairs employees in three counties, with a
plan to extend the training to the remaining 76 counties so that attorneys and
advocates in the juvenile system are able to request enforcement in the state
juvenile courts of federal rights for children in state custody, consistent
with the Tenth Circuit's opinion in J. B. v. Valdez.
Comments may be made for any of
the law center's programs: developmental disabilities (PADD),
serious mental illness (PAIMI) and other disability rights (PAIR). We
appreciate your comments on what can and should be accomplished in the area of
special education. You send your public comments to the following
addresses and they will be forwarded to the Board of Directors:
MAIL:
EMAIL: odlcokc@flash.net
FAX:
405-525-7759
SPECIAL EDUCATION: OSERS
INVITES COMMENTS ON REAUTHORIZATION OF IDEA
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS) of the Department of Education has invited comments on the
reauthorization of IDEA. Comments are
requested by February 25, 2002, and can be submitted via email to Comments@ed.gov (please use the term "IDEA
Reauthorization" in the subject line of your email), or you can submit
comments by mail to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Mary E.
Switzer Building, Room 3086, Washington DC 20202-2570.
Although only Part C (Section on
Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities), and Part D (Section on National Activities
to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities) are set to expire on
September 30, 2002, the notice in the Federal Register states that "although
Part B of IDEA is permanent
legislation with no requirement for
reauthorization, the reauthorization process for Parts C and D provides an
opportunity to carefully examine Part B as well."
Part B (Assistance for Education of
All Children with
Disabilities) is the section of the
law that authorizes funding for the state formula grant program for the purpose
of educating children with disabilities aged 3 through 21. This section of the law
also includes provision relating to the condition of ensuring a free
appropriate public education, and other important language relating to
evaluations, eligibility, IEPs (individualized education plans), due process
and discipline procedures.
For more information on how to submit
comments please
visit: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2002-1/011002c.html
All have the opportunity to participate in public
hearings
on the Reauthorization for IDEA.
In October 2001, President Bush
appointed a commission to study the federal, state and local special education
programs and recommend how to reform the special education system and related services
in order to improve the educational performance of children with disabilities.
The "President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education" will
deliver its recommendations to President Bush in a report due out mid-summer
(the report was originally to be submitted no later than April 30, 2002,
however, because of delays the commission expects the report to be released
late June). The commission, which held its first meeting on
January 15th, will hold meetings
around the country to
allow the public to comment on the
law and provide the commission with information and guidance.
Listed below is the meeting
schedule-Public comment periods will be held during these sessions, for more information
on location and agenda please visit the Commissions website at
http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/index.html
Date: Location:
Topic:
February 25-27 Houston, TX Full MTG
March 6 Denver, CO Professional
Development
March 13 Des Moines, IA
Accountability
March 20 San Diego, CA Systems
Administration
March 21 Los Angeles, CA Finance
April 9-10 Miami, FL Full MTG
April 16th New York City Assessment
April 18 Nashville, TN Research
agenda
May 30-31 Washington, DC Full MTG
|
IMPORTANT UPCOMING CONFERENCE: Reed Martin
in |
|
Attorney, author and legal consultant on issues involving
federal law and citizens with disabilities from 1970 to present. See for entire conference agenda: Conference registration cost: $50 for early-bird
registrations received at least four full business days prior to the seminar
date; $75 for registrations received within four full business days of the
seminar date. |
|
PETE WRIGHT COMES TO http://www.wrightslaw.com/schedule.htm
(scroll down to "Promoting Positive Parent Participation in
2002" Oklahoma parents of children with special needs, full
stipend (free), if you register before For more details, call 800-880-7755. Local call for Normal registration is $50.00 and includes a copy of Wrightslaw:
Special Education Law. ($30.00 value) |
ASSISTANCE
FOR ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS WHO ARE ADDRESSING TITLE III DISCRIMINATION,
PARTICULARLY FAILURE TO PROVIDE SIGN INTERPRETERS
(Please
contact ODLC directly if you need other assistance. In
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4616.html
US
Department of Justice
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information Line
1-800-514-0301 or 1-800-514-0383 (TDD)
SWDBTAC
for both people with disabilities and businesses)
Free technical assistance on
1-800-949-4232 v/tty
How to order free ADA Technical Assistance CD-ROM
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adatacd1.htm
Complaints about violations of
title III by public accommodations and commercial facilities (private
businesses and non-profit service providers) should be filed with the
Department of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/enforce.htm#anchor218282).
Send complaints to:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW
Civil Rights Division -
Disability Rights Section
New York Avenue
Building, Room 4023
Washington, DC 20530
Information
needed for Title III Complaint:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/t3compfm.htm
ADA Publications Available Online
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/publicat.htm
ADA Regulations for Title III
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html
ADA Title III Technical Assistance
Manual
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/taman3.html
ADA Title III Highlights
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/t3hilght.htm
ADA Guide for Small Businesses
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/smbustxt.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/business.htm
The Definition of Disability Under
Presented by Brian East,
Materials available online
at: http://www.ilru.org/online/archive/2002/be03-20-02.html
This page created by: 