Copyright 2010 Drummond Woodsum. All rights expressly reserved. Preparing Students for Postsecondary Life

 To ensure that schools provide children with disabilities a free appropriate public education designed to “prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.”  20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) Drummond Woodsum2

3

 Focus: to improve “academic and functional achievement to facilitate” movement to post- school activities  20 U.S.C. § 1401(34) ◦ The federal law does not define “functional achievement”  Nor does New Hampshire law Drummond Woodsum4

 Does the IEP include services/accommodations to address functional skills? Drummond Woodsum5

 Goals  Transition service needs and transition services ◦ To assist student in reaching postsecondary goals  20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(VIII);34 C.F.R. § (b); Ed (a)(10) ◦ In New Hampshire, an IEP must include a vocational education component if vocational education is provided  Ed (a)(10) Drummond Woodsum6

 Transition service needs are courses of study  Ed (a)(10)  Transition services are the non-course requirements  34 C.F.R. § (b); Ed (a)(10) Drummond Woodsum7

 Transition service needs: ◦ Under New Hampshire law, must be addressed in the IEP which is in effect when the student turns 14 years of age, and updated annually  Or earlier if the IEP team determines appropriate  20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(VIII); 34 C.F.R. § (b); Ed (a)(10)  Transition services: ◦ This requirement must be in a student’s IEP which is in effect when the student turns 16 years of age (and annually thereafter)  Or earlier if the IEP team determines appropriate  34 C.F.R. § (b); Ed (a)(10) Drummond Woodsum8

 I think we are talking about ages 13 and 15, generally, for onset of transition obligations Drummond Woodsum9

 Goals must be based on age appropriate transition assessments related to:  Training  Education  Employment, and  If appropriate, independent living skills and provision of functional vocational evaluation where appropriate  20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa); 34 C.F.R. § (b) ◦ The federal law does not define “assessment”  New Hampshire law does not either Drummond Woodsum10

 The goals, assessments and transition services requirements apply even when the student’s skill levels related to training, education and employment are age appropriate  Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Program (IEPs), Evaluations and Reevaluations (OSEP 2007) ◦ Again, addressing independent skills is only necessary when deemed appropriate Drummond Woodsum11

 Query whether most evaluations that schools conduct address transition service needs at some level?  Tip ◦ If true, identify as such Drummond Woodsum12

 Must be appropriate and measurable  Unlike any other IEP goal, these are not expected to be achieved within the year ◦ They are not annual goals Drummond Woodsum13

 Measurable “postsecondary” goals Drummond Woodsum14

 A student’s interests and preferences do not necessarily dictate the “appropriate” goal Drummond Woodsum15

 Transition services must be monitored by local school district personnel on at least a weekly basis ◦ Ed (j) Drummond Woodsum16

Drummond Woodsum17

(a) a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that— (1) Is designed to be within a results- oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities Drummond Woodsum18

 Post-secondary education  Vocational education  Integrated employment ◦ Supported employment  Continuing and adult education  Adult services  Independent living or community participation  20 U.S.C. § 1401(34); 34 C.F.R. § (a)(1); Ed (m) Drummond Woodsum19

(2) Is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences and interests; and includes Drummond Woodsum20

(i) Instruction; (ii) Related services; (iii)Community experiences; (iv) The development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives; and (v) If appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and provision of a functional vocational evaluation. Drummond Woodsum21

(b) Transition services for students with disabilities may be special education, if provided as specially designed instruction, or a related service, if required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. 34 C.F.R. § (b) Drummond Woodsum22

 There is no “transition plan” requirement  Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist. (1 st Cir. 2008) ◦ But New Hampshire Department of Education forms contain such a plan Drummond Woodsum23

 At least one year before turning the age of majority (generally age 18 or if emancipated minor), school district must advise student of what rights will transfer and include statement in IEP  34 C.F.R. § (c); Ed (f), Drummond Woodsum24

 Parent of minor  Adult student  Court appointed guardian, if student is deemed incompetent  Parent/adult student may authorize power of attorney  34 C.F.R. § (b); Ed © Drummond Woodsum25

 The public agency must invite the student – if the meeting is intended to address the student’s postsecondary goals and transition services ◦ If the student does not attend, then the public agency must take other measures to solicit student’s interests and preferences ◦ In N.H., that would appear to include younger students when addressing transition service needs (i.e., coursework)  Other participating agency representatives  34 C.F.R. § (b) Drummond Woodsum26

 Consent from the parent or adult student must be received prior to releasing personally identifiable information to participating agencies providing or paying for transition services  34 C.F.R. § (b)(2) ◦ According to U.S. Department of Education, before each IEP team meeting  Letter to Gray (OSEP 2008) Drummond Woodsum27

 If another agency fails to provide transition services as specified in the IEP, school district must convene IEP team meeting to develop alternative strategies to meet transition objectives  20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(6); 34 C.F.R. § (c) Drummond Woodsum28

 Is often an important skill for a variety of disorders to aid in one’s transition to postsecondary life  34 C.F.R. § (b)(4) Drummond Woodsum29

 Graduation with regular high school diploma  Exceeding age eligibility under State law  20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5)(B)(i) ◦ School district is not responsible to evaluate students for postsecondary needs  Analysis of 34 C.F.R. § (e)(2) Drummond Woodsum30

 It is not a GED  34 C.F.R. § (a)(3)(iv) Drummond Woodsum31

 When eligibility ceases due to graduation or aging out – school district shall provide to the student a summary of the student’s “academic achievement and functional performance” including recommendations to assist student in meeting postsecondary goals  20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5)(B)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § (e)(3) Drummond Woodsum32

 Student no longer requires special education based on an evaluation  Student ages out (in N.H., age 21)  Student graduates with a regular education diploma ◦ The IDEA does not per se tie eligibility to the student’s failure to achieve his/her IEP goals  20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1); 34 C.F.R. § Drummond Woodsum33

 N.H. Department of Education rules require the issuance of a regular education diploma once the student has met all requirements  Ed (h), (j) Drummond Woodsum34

 “The local school board of each high school shall award a regular high school diploma to all students, with and without disabilities, who have earned at least their local high school’s required units of credit for graduation, selected from the school’s program of studies or comparable classes and courses approved for regular credit by the applicable academic department or school program.”  Ed (j) Drummond Woodsum35

Drummond Woodsum36

 Only U.S. Supreme Court and First Circuit decisions are binding in N.H.  The other decisions may be cited for persuasive authority Drummond Woodsum37

 Courses of study: ◦ Court upholds hearing officer decision allowing school district to change focus of middle school’s academic instruction with heightened attention to independent living skills given student’s serious limitations and IDEA’s transition requirements  J.D.G. v. Colonial Sch. Dist. (D.Del. 2010) Drummond Woodsum38

 Even though the IEP of a 12 th grade student diagnosed with a learning disability included provisions to address student’s desire to attend college, the fact that she was reading at a sixth grade level did not necessarily mean that the IEP was inappropriate ◦ The IDEA does not impose on a school district an obligation that the student meets here postsecondary goals – here to succeed in college  High v. Exeter Twnshp. Sch. Dist. (E.D.Penn. 2010) Drummond Woodsum39

 Transition services must be addressed in an IEP ◦ But there is no “transition plan” requirement  Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist. (1 st Cir. 2008) Drummond Woodsum40

 Congress did not alter the Rowley standard requiring that the IEP be designed to enable the student to obtain some educational benefit and that standard applies to transition services  J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist. (9 th Cir. 2010)  Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist. (1 st Cir. 2008)  K.C. v. Mansfield Indep. Sch. Dist. (N.D. Texas 2009) Drummond Woodsum41

 The fact that a student does not meet his/her transition goals does not necessarily mean that s/he has been denied a free appropriate public education  J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist. (9 th Cir. 2010)  Doe v. Marlborough Public Schs. (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum42

 When measuring the overall appropriateness of an IEP, it would be error to focus on one component, such as transition services  Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist. (1 st Cir. 2008) Drummond Woodsum43

 Generic transition plan which was not individualized, did not take into account student's strengths, preferences and interests, was deficient ◦ But did not deny student FAPE ◦ Plan included services to address generic goals of graduation, college attendance and employment  Virginia S. v. Department of Ed., State of Hawaii (D. Hawaii 2007)  See also Marple Newtown Sch. Dist. v. Rafael N. (E.D.Penn. 2007) ; Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem (S.D. Texas 2010) Drummond Woodsum44

 Are key if the goals are to be appropriate ◦ The assessments need not be conducted every year but must be age appropriate  IEP was seriously flawed because the postsecondary goals were not based on age appropriate assessments  Dracut Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum45

 Must be measurable and the IEP must include goals in each area: ◦ Education ◦ Training ◦ Employment, and ◦ Independent living, if appropriate  Dracut Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum46

 Although court criticized IEP’s failure to adequately address student’s transition needs, the parents failed to demonstrate substantive harm to the student  Board of Ed. of Township High Sch. Dist. No. 211 v. Ross (7 th Cir. 2007) Drummond Woodsum47

 School district cannot be faulted for failing to address vocational and independent living when parents insisted that the student would be attending college  Marple Newtown Sch. Dist. v. Rafael N. (E.D.Pa. 2007) Drummond Woodsum48

 Doomed IEP  Dracut v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum49

 Court upholds IEP transition plan that included interagency participation and addressed wide variety of needs for an adult student with developmental delays and mobility impairments  Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd. (5 th Cir. 2003) Drummond Woodsum50

 Since the IDEA is limited to preschool, elementary and secondary schools, a school district may not use Part B IDEA funds for postsecondary education ◦ But if a State considers enrollment in postsecondary education a secondary education, Part B funds may be used but then only for special education  Letter to Frank (OSEP 2008) Drummond Woodsum51

 Once a student graduates with a regular education diploma, his/her IDEA eligibility, and right to transition services, ends, even if she is not 21  Yankton v. Schramm (8 th Cir. 1996)  Doe v. Marlborough Public Schs. (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum52

 Even though graduation with a regular education diploma terminates IDEA eligibility, failure to provide transition services called for in the IEP may lead to award of compensatory education  Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem (S.D. Texas 2010)  Dracut Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (D.Mass. 2010)  Susquehanna Township Sch. Dist. v. Frances J. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) Drummond Woodsum53

 Court rules that although student met graduation requirements, he has the right to seek continuing IDEA eligibility if he can demonstrate that school district denied him a free appropriate public education ◦ Here, student with learning disability failed to demonstrate that IEP was not reasonably designed, even if he did not achieve all his IEP goals and objectives and he met state graduation requirements  Doe v. Marlborough Public Schs. (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum54

 Court overturns aspect of hearing officer decision extending student’s IDEA eligibility after ordering issuance of a regular education diploma ◦ However, compensatory education services following his graduation were proper  Dracut Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum55

 Since graduation is a “change of placement”, if a parent/adult student challenges the student’s graduation, stay put would apply while parent/adult student appeals decision  Doe v. Marlborough Public Schs. (D.Mass. 2010)  See also Dracut Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (D.Mass. 2010) Drummond Woodsum56

 J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch. Dist., 592 F.3d 938, 53 IDELR 280 (9 th Cir. 2010)  Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F.3d 18 (1 st Cir. 2008)  Board of Ed. of Township High Sch. Dist. No. 211 v. Ross, 486 F.3d 267 (7 th Cir. 2007)  Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272 (5 th Cir. 2003)  Yankton Sch. Dist. v. Schramm, 93 F.3d 1369 (8 th Cir. 1996)  J.D.G. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 110 LRP (D.Del. 2010)  Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem, 55 IDELR 92 (S.D. Texas 2010)  Dracut Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals, 55 IDELR 66 (D.Mass. 2010)  Doe v. Marlborough Public Schs., 54 IDELR 283 (D.Mass. 2010)  High v. Exeter Twshp. Sch. Dist., 54 IDELR 17 (E.D.Penn. 2010)  K.C. v. Mansfield Indep. Sch. Dist., 618 F. Supp.2d 568 (N.D. Texas 2009)  Virginia S. v. Department of Ed., State of Hawaii, 47 IDELR 42 (D. Hawaii 2007)  Sinan v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 48 IDELR 97 (E.D.Pa. 2007)  Marple Newtown Sch. Dist. v. Rafael N., 2007 WL (E.D.Pa. 2007)  Susquehanna Township Sch. Dist. v. Frances J., 39 IDELR 5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003)  Bell v. Education in Unorganized Territories, 33 IDELR 184 (D.Maine 2000)  Questions and Answers on Secondary Transition, 52 IDELR 230 (OSERS 2009)  Letter to Gray, 50 IDELR 198 (OSEP 2008)  Letter to Frank, 52 IDELR 16 (OSEP 2008)  Questions and Answers on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Evaluations, and Reevaluations, 47 IDELR 166 (OSERS 2007) Drummond Woodsum57

Drummond Woodsum58