Attendance: Margaret Lubke, Ann Miller, Ken Reavis, Holly Dixon, Deb Cheney, Nan Gray, Mae Taylor-Sweeten, Steve Kukic, Diane Dykman, Dan Morgan, Rob O'Neill, Cal Evans, Kathryn McCarrie, Marilyn Likins.

Copy paragraph (2) of the first subsection (g) of section 930 of title 18, United States Code for those Task Force members who do not have them.

Next Scheduled Meeting:

Future Scheduled Meetings

P.L. 105-17 Draft regulations, hot off the press

1. What source of information will be used to indicate that a school district "should have had "knowledge that a child is a child with a disability"?

Chuck and Sheila indicated that they felt that one teacher talking to another teacher wouldn't be sufficient evidence. Examples of evidence that would probably be considered substantial would include a referral to a school study team or poor performance scores on testing results.

Sheila said that this is a situation that may end up being determined by litigation.

 

2. Chuck and Sheila encouraged Task Force members to respond to the draft regulations and to include examples.
3. In regard to Section 300.523 (Manifestation determination review), the Task Force discussed how a "review" needs to be documented.
4. In regard to Section 300.520(a)(2)(i), the term "weapon" is used.

In Section 300.520(d)(3) the term is defined as "meaning given the term 'dangerous weapon' under paragraph (2) of the first subsection (g) of section 930 of title 18, United States Code. (This information was disseminated at the initial Planning Committee meeting in Park City.)

The Task Force suggested that the final regulations read "dangerous weapon" rather than just "weapon".

 

5. In regard to Note #1 following Section 300.520 which reads:

Note 1: Removing a child with disabilities from the child's current educational placement for not more than 10 school days does not constitute a change of placement under the Part B regulation. A series of removals from a child's current educational placement in a school year each of which is less than 10 school days but cumulate to more than 10 school days in a school year may constitute a change in placement, if, in any given case, factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time that the child is removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another, lead to the conclusion that the child has been excluded from the current placement to such an extent that there has been a change of placement.

 

Some members of the Task Force felt that the note should be removed from or at least clarified in the final regulations.

 

6. The Task Force also briefly discussed the Note #2 following Section 300.520 which reads:

Note 2: Although paragraph (c) of this section provides that public agencies need not conduct the review described in paragraph (b) if a child is removed from the regular placement for 10 school days or fewer and no further removal or disciplinary action is contemplated, public agencies are strongly encouraged to review as soon as possible the circumstances surrounding the behavior that led to the child's removal and consider whether the child was being provided services in accordance with the IEP, and whether the behavior could be addressed through minor classroom or program adjustments or whether the child's IEP team should be reconvened to address possible changes in that document.

 

7. The Task Force considered recommending that if the information included in Notes is important enough to be included, it should be built into the body of the regulations otherwise it should be omitted from the final regulations.

 

8. The Task Force discussed the timelines indicated in Section 300.523(a)(1) (Manifestation determination review.) which reads:

Immediately, if possible, but in no case later than 10 school days after the date on which the decision to take that action is made, a review must be conducted of the relationship between the child's disability and the behavior subject to the disciplinary action.

 

8. In regard to the selection of a Hearing Officer, for an expedited due process hearing as described in Section 300.528. It appears that the SEA will make the final decision on the selection.

Sheila said that the SEA could set up different procedures for due process hearings vs. expedited due process hearings.

9. Section 300.521 focuses on dangerous students. The Task Force pointed out that if a parent agrees to an interim alternative educational setting (IAES), the change can be made through the IEP process and not through the expedited due process hearing process.
10. A brief discussion was held in regard to how Congress settled on 45 days as being the number of days of an IAES placement.

Steve indicated that he thought it was a political decision. He also indicated that the intent behind the discipline legislation was to decrease the number of kids being served at home for discipline reasons.

Chuck reiterated Steve's comment in saying that an IAES is not to be a time-out room.

 

11. In addressing our question regarding how the term "general curriculum" is defined, the Task Force was directed to Section 300.12. The note reads:

Note: The term "general curriculum", as defined in this section, relates to the content of the curriculum and not to the setting in which it is used. Thus, to the extent applicable to an individual child with a disability, and consistent with the LRE provisions under Secs. 3--.500--300.553, the general curriculum could be used in any educational environment along a continuum of alternative placements described under Sec. 300.551.

12. Steve and Mae suggested that we develop a list of terms that cross Task Forces that need to be defined in our state rules and to submit the terms to the Planning Committee. "General curriculum" is one such term.

 

13. The Task Force decided to adopt the purpose statement from the OSEP Guidance Letter of September 19, 1997 as the purpose statement for the Discipline Task Force.

1. All children, including children with disabilities, deserve safe, well-disciplined schools and orderly learning environments;
2. Teachers and school administrators should have the tools they need to assist them in preventing misconduct and discipline problems and to address these problems, if they arise;
3. There must be a balanced approach to the issue of discipline of children with disabilities that reflects the need for orderly and safe schools and the need to protect the right of children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE); and
4. Appropriately developed IEPs with well developed behavior intervention strategies decrease school discipline problems.