Connecticut Education Law Blog : Connecticut Education Lawyer & Attorney : Berchem, Moses & Devlin Law Firm : CT Public Schools

The letter from OCR notes that local education agencies (LEA's) frequently make distinctions on report cards between general education classes, Advanced Placement, honors, and remedial levels, and special education classes may be similarly noted on report cards.  For example, OCR uses the case of a modified 10th grade literature curriculum noted by using an asterisk or other symbol meant to reference the modified curriculum "as long as the statements on the report card, including the asterisks, symbols or other coding, provide an explanation of the student's progress that is as informative and effective as the explanation provided for students without disabilities".

Special notations, such as asterisks or symbols, are also permissible on report cards for students with disabilities receiving accommodations under Section 504 not affecting course content or curriculum, such as sign language interpreters, alternative materials, or extra time on tests.  Further, in response to the question as to whether a report card for a student with a disability may simply refer to another document that more fully describes the student's progress, OCR responded "yes".

On the other hand, a transcript of student grades may not inform the reader that the student has a disability, has been enrolled in a special education program, or has received special education and related services.  Why? "A student's transcript generally is intended to inform postsecondary institutions or prospective employers of a student's academic credentials and achievements.  Information that a student has a disability, or has received special education or related services due to having a disability, does not constitute information about the student's academic credentials and achievements."

However, it is still permissible, according to OCR, for the transcript of a student with a disability to indicate, through notations or asterisks or other symbols, that the student took classes with a modified curriculum or alternate education curriculum.  This is consistent with the ability of the transcript to reflect other levels of classes, such as Advanced Placement, honors, basic, and remedial instruction. 

The transcript may not contain notations that a general education student received accommodations in general education under Section 504 such as use of Braille materials, because such a notation is irrelevant to the question of whether the student mastered the curriculum of the class and would only be for the purpose of identifying the student as a student with a visual impairment.

The transcript may indicate that the student received a certificate of attendance or other similar document, if such a notation does not disclose whether the student has a disability.

Yes, those of us who represent school districts had hoped that the Supreme Court might rule in favor of the district, recognizing the public policy concerns that we have about parents who fail to notify the district or request evaluations prior to making a private placement, but those facts were just not presented in this case.  The parents in the Forest Grove case did request evaluations, the school district evaluated the student and found him not eligible and did not provide an IEP.  The arguments from the school district that the public policies of IDEA require a collaborative relationship between school and parents, and development of an appropriate IEP requires constant adjustment to changing circumstances are real, but they are undercut when the district is determined to have erred in failing to find the student eligible for services in the first place.

So how does life change after Forest Grove? In Connecticut, I would argue, not at all.  I am not aware of a single Connecticut hearing officer who has ever denied reimbursement for a unilateral private placement by a parent in a case where the district either failed to evaluate when it should have, or evaluated and erroneously found the child not eligible.  The Supreme Court decision seems consistent with that line of decisions.  The bigger question, it seems to me, is whether the courts and hearing officers will treat differently (as I believe they should) the case where the parents do not refer the child for special education evaluation until AFTER the child is placed and, according to IDEA, the "child find" responsibilities belong to the district where the school is located, rather than the district of residence.

SB 6665: An Act Concerning the Inclusion of Students on Local and Regional Boards of Education.  Oddly enough, the heading on this bill on the CGA website says that it has something to do with giving students the opportunity to comment and give feedback on bullying occurring in schools.  The language of the bill itself, however, states that at least 2 students from public high schools located in the district shall serve on the board of education as nonvoting members, with the number of students from each high school to be determined by the board and selected through election or some other method prescribed by the board.  Although many school boards do have student advisory members sitting with them in some capacity, it appears that this bill would expand that function and require it for all school boards in the state.

SB 940: An Act Concerning the Reporting of Truancy Data.  This bill would add once again to the reporting requirements of Connecticut General Statutes section 10-220, and require all school districts in the state to report on data related to truancy as a component of "school performance".  Measures of truancy would include data collected by the Department of Education regarding attendance and unexcused absences in compliance with federal reporting requirements.  The bill also states that such data would be considered a public record for purposes of chapter 14, which indicates a clear intention to make this data available to the public for purposes of gauging local school performance and demanding accountability.  School systems should be reminded of the need for clear definitions of "excused absence" and "unexcused absence" which are generally established locally, so that data reported in compliance with this requirement will be clear, in the event that the bill passes.

SB 947: An Act Concerning High School Credit for Approved Online Coursework.  This bill would amend Connecticut General Statutes section 10-221a and allow local and regional boards of education to adopt policies awarding high school credit for online coursework completed in accordance with the policy.  The policy would need to ensure, minimally, that the workload for the course is equivalent to that of a conventional classroom course, that the content is rigorous and aligned with curriculum guidelines approved by the State Board of Education, that the course engages students and has interactive components, and that the class is taught either by certified teachers (in Connecticut or another state) who have received training in teaching in an online environment, or that the course is offered by an institution of higher education accredited by the Department of Higher Education "or regionally accredited".  Assuming that school boards start to look at establishing policies permitting the granting of credit for coursework completed online as a result of this legislation, we suggest consideration of how many credits the board believes may be completed in this manner, versus the number required to be completed on campus at the student's assigned high school, and under what circumstances the school system will consider awarding credit for classes completed in this manner.  For example, may any student apply for credit for work completed online or will in be limited in some way, such as to students required to be homebound for some period of time as a result of injury, illness, or expulsion?  Will there be an application and approval process to be completed in advance, and who will bear the cost associated with taking the class (including the cost of books or other materials)?

RB 1011: An Act Concerning Recycling Programs in Schools.  Would require each school district to develop a recycling plan at each school under the board's jurisdiction, including recycling receptacles, signage, requirements for appropriate disposal of materials by students and staff, training of custodial staff, and removal by a licensed hauler.  If the district can sell its recyclables on the open market, it can use the funds generated for student activities.

SB 6497: An Act Concerning Educational Stability for Children in Foster Care.  This bill probably deserves its own entry, but for now, I will just say that it would permit children in the care and custody of DCF to remain in attendance at the school the child attended prior to the change in placement (elsewhere known as the "school of origin") in the event that DCF places the child in a new foster home, and the child will be considered a "resident" of the school district where the school is located during that time.  However, in the event that this provision is used to maintain the child in the school of origin, DCF must pay for transportation from the new foster home back to the school of origin.  There is a statutory presumption that it is in the best interests of the child to remain in the school of origin unless a "party" objects, in which case the court makes the decision and the child remains in the school of origin during the pendency of the dispute.  If the child requires special education, the school of origin must continue to provide and fund those services, subject to the state agency placement reimbursement grant beyond the per pupil expenditure for the prior fiscal year.