|
The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) requires that school districts provide special needs
students with ESY services. This includes any services provided
when school is not in session (e.g. summer school). Whether the
student is eligible to receive such services is decided by the school
district through the individualized education program (IEP) process.
Any decision on eligibility must be based on the individualized
needs of the child.
The State Department of Education released an
advisory that established specific guidelines for ESY eligibility
that comply with IDEA. Those criteria are:
- Nature of the student’s disability;
- Severity of the disabling conditions;
- Areas of learning crucial to attaining the
goal of self-sufficiency and independence from caretakers;
- Extent of regression caused by interruption
in educational programming;
- Rate of recoupment following interruption
in educational programming.
These are the guidelines being applied in Connecticut’s
school districts on a case-by-case basis.
The following three cases were cited by the
Department to interpret the standards set forth in IDEA regarding
eligibility for ESY services.
Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp 583
(E.D. PA. 1979)
This case recognized ESY services as a right
protected under IDEA. It also established the criteria used to determine
eligibility for such services, which were adopted by Connecticut
(see above).
Of the criteria established in Armstrong,
the regression/recoupment analysis is the one that causes the most
confusion. Subsequent cases have defined how the criteria should
be applied. First, the regression analysis should not be the sole
basis for determining the necessity of ESY services. Second, proof
of actual regression with significant recoupment time is not necessary
to establish a child's need for ESY services. The district can anticipate
a child's need for such services based on the other criteria.
Crawford v. Pittman, 708 F.2d 1028
(5th Cir. 1983).
The court prohibited the state from using categorical
limitations based on a single criterion, as a means to evaluate
a student’s eligibility for ESY services. It also developed a comprehensive
framework for analyzing the extent of a student’s regression and
recoupment. In addition to academic performance, the school must
evaluate the following:
- Ability of child’s parent to provide a educational
structure at home; · availability of alternative resources;
- areas of child's curriculum which need continuous
attention;
- child's vocational needs;
- ability of child to interact with non-disabled
children; and
- whether the services are excessive considering
the child's condition, as opposed to an integral part of the program.
Reusch v. Fountain, 872 F. Supp. 1421
(D. MD. 1994)
The Court held the student’s substantive rights
were violated when the school district based eligibility for ESY
services on a single criterion, the extent of regression. It concluded
that IDEA requires the state to use a multifaceted and individualized
approach to determine a student’s eligibility. The criterion established
in Armstrong was adopted in this case. The court, however,
concluded these factors are not exclusive of other factors, and
that any other factor relevant to the student's individual needs
should also be considered.
Conclusion
The Department of Education has adopted the
Armstrong criteria as a guideline for determining ESY eligibility.
It also concluded that no single criterion should dictate a student’s
eligibility. IDEA requires Connecticut's school districts to take
a holistic approach, and evaluate the individualized educational
needs of the child when determining whether a child should receive
ESY services.
|
