School nurses serve a vital role in supporting the health and well-being of thousands of children each day in the
Over the summer, we posted about the importance of and tips for successful IEP implementation and progress monitoring. This school year, we will post a series of articles focusing on the components of a great IEP. Today, we want to discuss an often-misunderstood related service: transportation.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities through the provision of special education and related services designed to meet qualifying students’ unique needs. The IDEA defines related services as “transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services … as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.” In practical terms, this means that the ARD committee must determine if a student with a disability requires transportation in order to benefit from special education, and if so, the IEP must include transportation and the district must provide that transportation at no cost to the parent
The post IEP Spotlight: Transportation as a Related Service appeared first on Special Education Spotlight.
While we hope it never happens, sooner or later you may be faced with a situation in which a teacher, or other Chapter 21 contract employee, engages in behavior that warrants the employee being placed on administrative leave. Most school districts have adopted Board Policy DFBA (Local), which allows a term contract employee to be suspended with pay and placed on administrative leave by the Superintendent during an investigation of alleged misconduct by the employee or at any time the Superintendent determines that the district’s best interest will be served by the suspension. Often, however, it is hard for administrators, employees, or others to understand why the school must continue to pay a misbehaving employee. Under § 21.211 of the Texas Education Code, an employee who is under a Chapter 21 contract must be paid while on administrative leave unless the Board of Trustees has determined good cause exists to suspend the employee without pay pending discharge or in lieu of termination. This provision has been interpreted by the Commissioner to require districts to follow the termination procedures prior to suspending without pay. What this means in practical terms is that most school districts do not seek to suspend without pay due to this procedural burden and instead move forward with either the termination or nonrenewal process if it is determined that the employee has engaged in the misconduct. This often results in the district having to pay the employee for a lengthy amount of time while the legal processes are pursued. Recently, this process has been challenged and districts have attempted to place a Chapter 21 employee on leave without pay prior to the completion of a hearing. So far, districts have been unsuccessful in their attempts.
The post Misbehaving Teachers: Do We Really Have to Pay Them? appeared first on Educated Employer.
While teachers and administrators enjoyed a well-deserved summer break, Commissioner Morath and the Texas Education Agency’s Office of Hearings and Appeals were busy issuing several important Commissioner’s decisions in employment matters. For this first of our regular series on Commissioner’s decisions, here is a roundup of lessons school districts can learn from this summer’s rulings out of Austin.
The post EDUC 101: Summer TEA Commissioner Decision Update appeared first on Educated Employer.
On September 23, 2022, the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”) issued a notice regarding proposed amendments to the sections of the Texas Administrative Code related to special education complaints filed with the TEA. The proposed rules are currently open for public comment and are the subject of a public hearing on October 6, 2022. The only major change impacting special education due process hearings would clarify that summary proceedings in hearing may only be used when both parties in the hearing agree to use the summary process. This is significant because parties are currently able to file motions for summary judgment – which allows a hearing officer to rule on the legal viability of a claim without the need for a complete hearing. This approach can be productive and cost-effective for school districts, as it permits hearing officers to sift through meritless claims without the need for a full hearing. This is currently permitted in a due process hearing without the consent of the other party, and this change would require consent.
The post Proposed Amendments to the TEA Complaint Process Are a Mixed Bag for Districts appeared first on Special Education Spotlight.
Every year, schools across the country confront disputes or challenges regarding class rank and other class honors received upon graduation.
