Frequently Asked Questions

In order for a child to be eligible for special education and related services, the child must first be determined to have a disability. Parents, teachers, or other school officials who suspect that the child may have a disability would request that the child be evaluated by a multi-disciplinary team to determine if the child has a disability and needs special education or related services as a result of the disability. Generally speaking, IDEA requires that a child be evaluated within 35 school days once the parent has given written consent for the evaluation. States may establish shorter or longer timeframes in their own state legislation or regulation, and those state-developed timelines would be binding.

Exceptions to the timelines exist if the child moves from one district or state to another district or state after the evaluation was requested or if the parent refuses to make the child available for the evaluation. Under those circumstances, districts are required to make sufficient progress to ensure that a timely evaluation is conducted.

The new school district is required to continue to provide a free appropriate public education to the child with a disability including providing services that are comparable to those services outlined in the child’s original IEP. The new school district is not required to implement the pre-existing IEP, but may choose to do so at its own discretion. If the new school district does not implement that IEP, the new school district must work with the parent through the IEP Team process to develop an IEP that is consistent with federal and state law.

The new local school district in the new state is required to provide a free appropriate public education to the child with a disability including providing services that are comparable to those services outlined in the child’s original IEP. The new school district in the new state is not required to implement the pre-existing IEP, but may choose to do so at its own discretion. If the new school district does not implement that IEP, the new school district in the new state must work with the parent through the IEP Team process to develop an IEP that is consistent with federal and state law.

Additionally, because definitions of disability and eligibility vary from state to state, the new school district in the new state may require the child to be evaluated to determine whether the child is eligible to be identified as a child with a disability under state law. If the child is eligible for services under IDEA in the new state, an IEP must be developed and implemented for the child.

If a parent does not provide their consent for an evaluation, the local school district does have the authority to use the due process procedures to seek an order from a hearing officer requiring an evaluation. School districts should use this authority sparingly.

If a parent does not provide their consent for the provision of services, no special education or related services may be provided. The right of a parent to decide what educational services their child receives cannot be overturned using IDEA’s due process procedures. If a parent indicates that they will refuse both consent for evaluations and consent for services, nothing in IDEA requires that a school district use the due process procedures to proceed through the evaluation phase.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), for the first time ever states and local schools are held accountable for ensuring all children – including children with disabilities – are learning. Children with disabilities must be included in the assessment system required under the No Child Left Behind Act and schools must report their results through NCLB’s adequate yearly progress structure. IDEA requires that the IEP Team determine how the child with a disability is assessed, not whether the child is assessed. IDEA recognizes that children lean in different ways, with different methods of instruction and assessment. The IEP Team is required to determine which accommodations are necessary, how to instruct the child, and how to assess the child. The IEP Team can have a child with a disability take the regular state assessment; the regular state assessment with appropriate accommodations such as Braille, additional time, or have the instructions read to the child multiple times; an alternate assessment aligned to grade level standards; or an alternate assessment aligned to alternate achievement standards. This array of assessment opportunities ensure that all students with disabilities can be assessed appropriately for individual and systemic accountability efforts.

The IEP Team is responsible for developing the IEP and ensuring its effective implementation so that the child can receive special education and related services. The IEP Team must include the parents/guardian of the child with a disability, a regular education teacher (if the child is participating in the regular education environment), a special education teacher, and a representative of the school district. At the discretion of the parent or the school district, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the student, including related services personnel as appropriate, can be invited to the meeting.

The procedural safeguards notice is a copy of the procedural safeguards available to parents and children with disabilities. IDEA requires state and local educational agencies to provide parents with this notice. Generally, the agency is only required to provide the notice once a year. However, the notice must also be provided when parents request an initial evaluation or when a child is initially referred to the agency, the first time parents file any complaint, and whenever parents request the notice.

Parents, including surrogate parents, are important participants in all aspects of their children’s special education program. This involvement begins at the initial referral of a student for special education. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), Special Education Section, always encourages parents and school districts to work together to try to resolve disagreements that affect a student’s special education program at the lowest possible level. There will be occasions when a parent or an adult student disagrees with the district’s program and does not think that the issues can be resolved through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team or through communication with school district administrators. There will also be times when a district believes that it is unable to resolve disputes with a parent that involve the district’s ability to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student. When parents and districts are not able to resolve differences through direct communication, there are more formal dispute resolution options available.

The following special education mediation information is an overview of the three dispute resolution processes available for students age 3 through 21 under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA).

In reauthorizing IDEA, the bipartisan conference committee sought to ensure that schools would be safe for students and teachers, and that discipline problems would be addressed with common sense. The new IDEA helps school personnel ensure school safety and hold students responsible for their actions, while protecting the rights of children with disabilities. The discipline procedures only apply where the discipline infraction results in a change in placement for longer than 10 school days, and was a direct result of the child’s disability. Unless a disciplinary infraction is the direct result of a child’s disability, the child will be disciplined in the same manner and for the same duration as a non-disabled student.

Yes. If the disciplinary infraction involves the serious safety issues of drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injury, the child will automatically be removed from the classroom for up to 45 school days. The child will be placed in an interim alternative educational setting, but will continue to receive educational services to make progress on his or her IEP. Also during this time, a determination will be made as to whether the disciplinary infraction was the direct result of a child’s disability.

In order to determine whether the disciplinary infraction was the direct result of a child’s disability, the school district, the parent and the relevant members of the IEP Team must determine whether the conduct in question was a “manifestation of the child’s disability.” This process is called a manifestation determination. The manifestation determination will analyze the child’s behavior as demonstrated across settings and across time when determining whether the discipline infraction is a direct result of the child’s disability. Previously, the school district had to prove that the child’s action resulting in the discipline infraction was not caused by the child’s disability. The new IDEA places the obligation on the parent to show that the child’s action resulting in the discipline infraction was the direct result of the child’s disability.

This term has been significantly changed in this reauthorization. Previously any tangential or attenuated relationship between the discipline infraction and the child’s disability was sufficient to determine that the infraction was a “manifestation” of the child’s disability. In the new IDEA, the bipartisan consensus acknowledged that “[i]t is the intention of the Conferees that the conduct in question was caused by, or has a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability, and is not an attenuated association, such as low self-esteem, to the child’s disability.” Accordingly, it is now clear in the new IDEA that the disciplinary infraction must be caused by or be the direct result of a child’s disability, and not a mere correlation or attenuation.

Depending on the type of discipline infraction, when the infraction occurred and who was present, some members of the IEP Team may not be relevant to the discussion of the discipline event. For example, although transportation is an important issue, if the discipline infraction occurred during the school day, the transportation member would not be relevant to the discussion of the discipline event. Conversely, if the discipline infraction occurred on the school bus, the transportation member may be the relevant member of the IEP Team. Nonetheless, in each instance the relevant members should be determined in collaboration by the parents and LEA.

In situations where the local educational agency, the parent and the relevant members of the IEP Team determine that the discipline infraction was the direct result of the child’s disability, a child with a disability would not be subject to discipline in the same manner as a non-disabled child. However, such determination is not to say that the child should not be subject to any discipline.

In these situations, the IEP Team shall determine whether a functional behavioral assessment has been conducted and a behavioral intervention plan has been implemented for such child. If the IEP Team finds either that such assessment has not been conducted or a behavioral intervention plan has not been implemented for such child, then both should be completed. Where a behavioral intervention plan has been developed, the IEP Team must review the behavioral intervention plan and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior. Additionally, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement, the child must be returned to the placement from which the child was removed.

Unless a disciplinary infraction is the direct result of a child’s disability the child will be disciplined in the same manner and for the same duration as a non-disabled student. The child may be placed in an interim alternative educational setting. However, if the suspension is for longer than 10 school days, the child will continue to receive educational services to make progress on his or her IEP.