Reply to:
Center for Law and Education
|
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 510 |
515 Washington Street, 3rd
Floor |
Contact us Via Email and the Web:
Technical questions about the Web site: webmaster@cleweb.org
Other inquiries/comments: Customer
Service
Check Status of an order: Sales
Department
To report technical problems with the Web site, use our Problem
Report Form
To help us improve the site, fill out our Customer
Survey
Please visit us at: www.cleweb.org
ISSUE BRIEF FOR LEGAL ADVOCATES
Reevaluations Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Prepared by Eileen Ordover
Center for Law and Education
September 1999
Educational evaluations are the cornerstone of quality education for students with disabilities. Beyond determining whether a child is eligible for services, proper evaluations assess the consequences of a child’s disability, identify all of a child’s areas of educational need, and provide the information necessary to develop services and strategies for meeting those needs. Sound, current evaluation data are key to success in the general curriculum, to success in the least restrictive environment, and to success in addressing all other educational needs arising from a student’s disability. IDEA recognizes the importance of current evaluation data, requiring that a child be reevaluated whenever conditions so warrant, or if the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation; at a minimum, a reevaluation must be conducted at least once every three years.(1) In addition, a school system must conduct a reevaluation before determining that a student is no longer a child with a disability under IDEA, meaning that she no longer needs special education and related services as a result of having one of the disabilities listed in the Act.(2)
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 added new procedures to the law for conducting reevaluations. The IDEA regulations issued March 12, 1999 address these procedures as well. The following discussion considers some of the key provisions included in, and issues raised by, the new statutory and regulatory treatment of reevaluations.
At the start of an initial evaluation if appropriate, and of any reevaluation, a group of “qualified professionals,” the child’s parent, and the rest of the child’s IEP team must review existing information about the child, including evaluations and information provided by the parent, current classroom-based assessments and observations, and the observations of teachers and related services providers.(3) On the basis of this group review, including input from the child’s parents, the group then decides what additional information, “if any,” is needed to determine:
The school system then must arrange for the assessments (or other procedures or tests) needed to obtain this additional information.(5) As part of a re-evaluation (but not as part of an initial evaluation) the group may on rare occasions conclude that no new data is needed (6) – and, so, that no new assessments will be done.(7) When this occurs, the school system must notify the parents of this decision, and the reasons for it. Parents nonetheless have the right to request a new assessment to determine whether the student continues to be a “child with a disability” as defined by IDEA.(8) The definition under IDEA of a “child with a disability” has two parts, so that a “child with a disability” is a child who: (1) has one of the disabilities listed in IDEA and (2) needs specialized instruction and related services as a result.(9) The assessment must address both of these aspects of the definition of “child with a disability.” However, the school system need not conduct an assessment unless the parents so request.(10)
Two points are particularly important to remember. First, when parents do make such a request, it is binding; the school system must conduct, or arrange for, the assessment. Second, the assessment must be designed to determine not simply whether the child continues to have a disability listed in IDEA, but also whether he or she needs special education and related services as a result of that disability. This is an individualized determination. In order to make it, the assessment(s) at a minimum will need to look at (1) the actual, current impact of the disability on the child’s learning, academic, communicative, behavioral, social and emotional status; (2) the child’s current levels of educational performance, including how that performance compares to what is expected of all children in the general curriculum; (3) any non-academic educational needs related to the disability; and (4) what specialized instruction and related services the child needs in light of what is learned in (1) - (3).
It is also important to keep in mind that the group reviewing existing evaluation data to decide what additional information is necessary – and, so, what, if any, tests or other assessments will be done as part of the evaluation – must include “qualified professionals” in addition to the members of the child’s IEP team. While neither IDEA itself nor the regulations specify who these qualified professionals must be, the fact that this provision was included in the law shows that Congress recognized that IEP teams alone do not have the knowledge and skills needed to interpret existing evaluation data, identify gaps, and determine how to fill them. The “qualified professionals” who supplement the IEP team must bring this expertise to the group, of which they must be an integral part, and enable it to make the five determinations listed above in regard to this particular child. At a minimum, it would seem that in order to do so, these qualified professionals must include individuals with special expertise in the child’s disability or disabilities (or suspected disability); the potential developmental and educational consequences of the particular disability (including, for example, behavior manifestations or language development issues); the variety of assessment options for gathering information about needs in the general curriculum as well as other disability-related needs; in interpreting (and understanding the limits of) existing evaluation data and other information about the child; and, where the child has limited English proficiency, in the identification, assessment and education of limited English proficient students.
As noted above, IDEA requires that the review of existing evaluation data, including decisions about what additional information is necessary, be done by the group (comprised of the IEP team, which includes parents, and the other qualified professionals described above). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education has stated that “the review of existing data and the determination of any needed additional data must be made by a group...(11) The IDEA regulations, however, state that this group may conduct its review without actually having a meeting.(12) It is difficult to imagine how group members, including parents, can interact to review information, contribute to one another’s deliberations their own particular individual expertise (required, by law, to inform the review), and come to group decisions on the five required issues without meeting. While some schools may offer creative alternatives such as telephone conference calls or other interactive “high tech” methods for conducting these group activities, it is far more likely that meetings will be required in the vast majority of cases. If schools do not arrange for them, parents and their advocates should request them.
(1) 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. §300.536(b) (1999).
(2) 20 U.S.C. §1414(c)(5);(34 C.F.R. §300.534(c)(1) (1999).
(3) 20 U.S.C. §1414(c)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. §300.533 (1999).
(4) 20 U.S.C. §1414(c)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. §300.533(a)(2) (1999).
(5) 20 U.S.C. §1414(c)(2); 34 C.F.R. §300.533(c) (1999).
(6) See 20 U.S.C. §1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. §300.533(d) (1999).
(7) Given the breadth and depth of the determinations to be made as part of the review, the fact that reevaluations often are performed only once every three years, the developmental and other changes children undergo over time, and IDEA’s emphasis on achievement on the general curriculum, determinations that no additional information and no new assessments are needed should be extremely rare indeed. A parent who disagrees with a decision that no new information and assessments are needed has the right to file a complaint and have a due process hearing on the issue.
(8) 20 U.S.C. §1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. §300.533(d) (1999).
(9) See 20 U.S.C. §§1401(3) (“child with a disability” is one who has one of the listed disabilities and “who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services”); 1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. §300.533(d) (1999).
(10) 20 U.S.C. §1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. §300.533(d) (1999).
(11)” 64 Fed. Reg. 12405, 12635 (March 12, 1999).
(12) 34 C.F.R. §300.533(b) (1999).