On March 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important precedential opinion in Mr. P. & Mrs. P. v. West Hartford Board of Education, 885 F.3d 735, (2d Cir. 2018). In its decision, the Second Circuit held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017), did not heighten the standard to assess whether a school district offered a student an individualized education program (“IEP”) that provided a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in jurisdictions covered by the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York and Vermont). The Second Circuit also ruled in favor of the school district, West Hartford, on all other issues, including numerous procedural claims, and rejected the parents’ request for a private transition program similar to the one offered by the district.
Featured Post
SDE Issues New Guidelines for IEEs and In-School Observations
On March 27, 2018, the Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE) issued the long-awaited and much-anticipated Guidelines Regarding Independent Educational Evaluations at Public Expense and In-School Observations. These Guidelines are the result of months of study, review and participation by a Task Force and then an Advisory Work Group, including consultants within the SDE, parent advocates, school district personnel, educators, advisors and others. The Guidelines clarify the existing obligations of school districts with respect to independent educational evaluations (IEEs) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The Guidelines replace the SDE’s guidance memorandum titled Guidance Regarding Independent Educational Evaluations issued on June 9, 2015 and the memorandum titled Guidance Regarding Independent Educational Evaluations dated May 3, 2017. The Guidelines are the SDE’s interpretation of the applicable legal requirements for IEEs, including guidance letters from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Special Education Program (OSEP), and are not a replacement of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. Importantly, the new Guidelines seek to track the federal regulatory requirements and administrative guidance for IEEs.
2018 Special Education in Connecticut Summit: Promoting Equity for Marginalized Students With Disabilities
Co-sponsored by the Klebanoff Institute and the University of Connecticut Neag School of Education
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Time: 8:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Location: University of Connecticut School of Law, 45 Elizabeth Street, William F. Starr Hall, Hartford, CT
Shipman and Goodwin attorney Susan Freedman will join co-presenters for the panel discussion, Promoting Positive and Equitable School Environments for All Students With Disabilities from 10:45 AM — 11:45 AM at the April 24th Special Education in Connecticut Summit.
Panel Moderator: David Desroches, WNPR
Presenters:
Sarah Eagan — Connecticut Children’s Advocate, State of Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate
Kelly Enoch — Director of Special Services, Clinton (Conn.) Public Schools
Susan Freedman — Partner, Shipman & Goodwin Counselors at Law
Steven Hernandez — Executive Director, Connecticut Commission on Women, Children, and Seniors
Tamika La Salle — Assistant Professor, School Psychology, Neag School of Education
Marisa Mascolo Halm — Director, TeamChild Juvenile Justice Project, Center for Children’s Advocacy
For a complete program agenda and registration information, visit: https://education.uconn.edu/2018-special-education-in-connecticut-summit/.
CAS Legal Mailbag Question of the Week – 4/10/2018
Originally appeared in the CAS Weekly Newsletter.
Written by attorney Thomas B. Mooney.
Dear Legal Mailbag:
I have been fortunate to be the principal in a school district that provides building substitutes and I have often been able simply to assign one of my two building subs to cover for an absent teacher without having to resort to the sub list. For example, early this year, one of my veteran teachers took seriously ill and, last October, I assigned a building sub to that class to cover for the teacher. Happily, the teacher is regaining his health, and he will return to work next fall. Given these circumstances, the building sub will continue covering the class until the end of the year.
My question has to do with the building sub. Fortunately, he has his teaching certification, and he has done a great job covering the class this year. Unfortunately, the powers that be have told me that the district can’t afford building subs next year and so the sub is out of a job. We do have a vacancy for next year because another teacher has resigned for retirement purposes effective at the end of the year; and, the sub has asked me for a recommendation as part of his application for the position. I think he is great, but I don’t want to exercise favoritism in the hiring process. Rather, in this competitive environment, I want the district to find the best candidate for the vacancy.
Do you think that I can gracefully decline this request?
Thank you,
Principally Polite
What Independent Schools Need to Know About EUGDPR
The European Union passed a sweeping data privacy law that is affecting businesses, organizations and educational institutions worldwide. This law, known as the “General Data Protection Regulation” (or “GDPR” for short), will in many cases dramatically change the manner in which organizations collect, use and disclose the personal information of European Union residents. The GDPR comes into effect on May 25, 2018, and many in the independent school community are asking if, or how, the GDPR may impact the operations, policies and procedures of independent schools in Connecticut. Shipman & Goodwin attorneys Bill Roberts and Ben FrazziniKendrick will offer a brief overview of the GDPR, its potential application to your institution and, if applicable, advice on how to work towards compliance.
When: Wednesday, April 18, 2018, 1:00 pm EDT
Where: Aria Banquets, 45 Murphy Road, Prospect, CT 06712
SEE YOU IN COURT! – April 2018
After serving as Chairperson of the Nutmeg Board of Education for six long years, Mr. Chairman announced unexpectedly at the last meeting in February that his company had transferred him to Illinois. At what would be his last meeting, Mr. Chairperson told his colleagues that they were the best board members in Connecticut, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. For their part, the other Board members perfunctorily thanked Mr. Chairperson for his service, but then immediately started discussing who should take over as Chair. As it turned out, only Bob Bombast and his nemesis on the Board, Mal Content, were interested. With two vying candidates, however, the Board didn’t know what to do.
Mr. Superintendent tries to stay clear of intra-Board issues, but he couldn’t resist offering a suggestion that night. “The Board should convene into executive session and interview both Mal and Bob, and then you can vote to elect a new Chairperson.” The Board thanked Mr. Superintendent, and the Board did just that, after adding “Discussion of candidates for Board Chair” to the agenda by a two-thirds vote. Bob and Mal then made their pitches to their fellow Board members in the executive session, and the Board reconvened in open session to vote by secret ballot.
Before the voting began, Mr. Chairperson announced that he would not vote, and the remaining Board members split evenly between Bob and Mal. It was 4-4 on the first ballot, and it was 4-4 on the second ballot. Board members looked around curiously, trying to figure out who was voting for whom, but in voting two more times, the Board members deadlocked again 4-4 both times.
Mr. Chairperson was concerned that the Board should figure something out before he left for Illinois, so he proposed that Penny Pincher, currently the Board secretary, be named Chairperson Pro Tempore at the next meeting, to serve until the Board breaks the tie and elects a new Chair. After teasing Mr. Chairperson about his fancy words, the other Board members voted unanimously to elect Penny as Chairperson Pro Tempore, commencing with the next meeting.
Penny convened the next Board meeting, and she did a nice job. On the agenda that evening was the vote to fill the vacancy on the Board, and the Board promptly elected Nick Newbie, who was suggested by the Town Committee of Mr. Chairperson’s party. The Board also held another secret ballot election for a new Chair, but the Board deadlocked again, given that Nick chose to abstain. Bob Bombast even joked about how stubborn they all must be. The meeting ended with agreement that Penny would continue on as Chairperson Pro Tempore, i.e., on a temporary basis.
Two days before the April meeting, the Board members were shocked to read in the Nutmeg Bugle that Mayor Megillah, citing the need for fresh blood, had announced that he has appointed Nick Newbie to serve as Chair. You could cut the tension with a knife as the Board members gathered before the next meeting. Penny sat grimly at the head of the Board table, holding the gavel tightly in her hand. Nick approached her sheepishly, and he asked her to turn over the gavel to him.
Should she?
* * * Continue Reading
CAS Legal Mailbag Question of the Week – 3/27/2018
Originally appeared in the CAS Weekly Newsletter.
Written by attorney Thomas B. Mooney.
Dear Legal Mailbag:
Our school has a number of security cameras, which are a blessing and a curse. Sure, it is nice to be able to identify students who are up to no good. But the rules about whether and how we can use video footage are giving me a headache.
A case in point is the security camera video of a serious student altercation last week. The video is crystal clear in showing that one student started the fight and that the other student was just defending herself. Unfortunately, there are three other students in the frame who are watching the action. We sent out FERPA releases to the parents of all the students so that we could show the video at the expulsion hearing. But the mother of a student who was just a bystander called me to let me know that she would not be signing the release. I asked her why and she said that she didn’t want her daughter to get involved.
The hearing is next week and I need your help. Can I testify at the hearing as to what I saw on the video? Should I subpoena the video? Help!
Thank you,
Roll the Tape
Webinar: Opioids and Medical Marijuana in the Workplace: Are Employers Left High and Dry?
Join Shipman & Goodwin labor and employment attorneys for this complimentary CLE webinar providing a discussion of changing laws and legal concerns related to opioids and medical marijuana in the workplace. Presenters will review recent court decisions, the interaction between state law and accommodations under the ADA and potential conflicts with federal laws. They will also discuss workplace policies and the impact of mandated drug testing for applicants and current employees, employer obligations, avoiding disability discrimination claims and other legal challenges for employers.
When: April 19, 2018, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM EDT
Where: Webinar
This CLE program has been approved in accordance with the requirements of the New York CLE Board for a maximum of 1.0 credit hour, of which 1.0 can be applied toward the Professional Practice requirement. This program is appropriate for both transitional and nontransitional attorneys.
Neither the Connecticut Judicial Branch nor the Commission on Minimum Continuing Legal Education approves or accredits CLE providers or activities. It is the opinion of this provider that this activity qualifies for up to one hour toward your annual CLE requirement in Connecticut, including zero hour(s) of ethics/professionalism.
Connecticut Bankruptcy Court Rejects Claw Back of Parent Plus Loan Proceeds
Back in December 2017, we wrote about Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees’ attempts to claw back the distribution of Parent Plus loan proceeds to college and universities when the parent that obtained the loan for their child’s education later files for bankruptcy. We explained that such efforts had so far been rejected by bankruptcy courts in Pennsylvania and Michigan. In a pair of recent decisions, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut has joined the fray and similarly rejected these claims. If this trend holds, this will be good news for colleges and universities because trustees may no longer feel obligated, as a fiduciary for creditors, to bring such claims in Connecticut and potentially in jurisdictions across the country.
As discussed in our prior article, the Department of Education makes Parent Plus loans to parents to pay for tuition and related costs for their dependents’ attendance at a participating undergraduate institution. The Department of Education pays the loan proceeds directly to the school, and if the student withdraws from school, the unused loan proceeds are paid back to the Department of Education.[1]
Webinar: An Overview of the Significant Provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act PART 4: Update on Pension, Compensation and 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Organizations
Join Shipman & Goodwin tax attorneys for the fourth installment of this four-part CLE webinar reviewing some of the more significant provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This session will review changes in the pension, compensation, and fringe benefits areas as well as an overview of the provisions of the new Act affecting 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations.
When: March 27, 2018, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM EDT
Where: Webinar
This CLE program has been approved in accordance with the requirements of the New York CLE Board for a maximum of 1.0 credit hour, of which 1.0 can be applied toward the Professional Practice requirement. This program is appropriate for both transitional and nontransitional attorneys.
Neither the Connecticut Judicial Branch nor the Commission on Minimum Continuing Legal Education approves or accredits CLE providers or activities. It is the opinion of this provider that this activity qualifies for up to one hour toward your annual CLE requirement in Connecticut, including zero hour(s) of ethics/professionalism.
