Tweet
California Special Education Alert
January 1, 2007
Vol. 13 No. 6
Preschoolers' eligibility for services shows teacher's referrals were
proper
Case name: Santa Monica Blvd. (CA) Community Charter Sch., 46 IDELR
227 (OCRIX, San Francisco (CA) 2006).
Ruling: A teacher's aide at a California charter school was unable to
demonstrate an Armenian teacher inappropriately referred Hispanic
preschoolers for special education services in order to remove them
from her classroom.
Noting the LEA evaluated the students and found them eligible for
special education and related services, OCR concluded the school
didn't violate Section 504 or the ADA.
The school demonstrated that it terminated the aide's employment, not
because she advocated on the students' behalf, but because she
created a hostile work environment.
What it means: Districts may be able to minimize allegations of
discrimination by implementing distinct procedures for special
education referrals and evaluations.
If the referring teacher isn't part of the decision-making process
with regard to IDEA eligibility, it will be more difficult for
parents or other complainants to demonstrate the student was removed
from a particular class because of a teacher's bias.
While the teacher in this case recommended four Hispanic preschoolers
for special education evaluation, she had no say in whether the
students were eligible for such services or whether they would remain
in her class.
Summary: OCR determined that the teacher referred the preschoolers
for assessment not because of their race but because the teacher
suspected the students might qualify for special education services.
OCR acknowledged that the teacher made the initial referral but noted
the LEA couldn't assess students without their parents' consent.
The referring teacher wasn't involved in the evaluation process and
had no say in the students qualification for special education or
related services. OCR also pointed out that the LEA found all four
students eligible for special education.
"Three of the students were placed in programs within the district,
and one student continued to receive services in [the teacher's]
class," OCR wrote.
OCR concluded there was insufficient evidence of a Section 504 or ADA
violation. As for an aide's claim that she lost her job after she
reported the teacher's allegedly discriminatory referrals, OCR noted
the school offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
aide's termination: Her open hostility toward the teacher and
inability to work with other staff members.
January 1, 2007
Vol. 13 No. 6
Preschoolers' eligibility for services shows teacher's referrals were
proper
Case name: Santa Monica Blvd. (CA) Community Charter Sch., 46 IDELR
227 (OCRIX, San Francisco (CA) 2006).
Ruling: A teacher's aide at a California charter school was unable to
demonstrate an Armenian teacher inappropriately referred Hispanic
preschoolers for special education services in order to remove them
from her classroom.
Noting the LEA evaluated the students and found them eligible for
special education and related services, OCR concluded the school
didn't violate Section 504 or the ADA.
The school demonstrated that it terminated the aide's employment, not
because she advocated on the students' behalf, but because she
created a hostile work environment.
What it means: Districts may be able to minimize allegations of
discrimination by implementing distinct procedures for special
education referrals and evaluations.
If the referring teacher isn't part of the decision-making process
with regard to IDEA eligibility, it will be more difficult for
parents or other complainants to demonstrate the student was removed
from a particular class because of a teacher's bias.
While the teacher in this case recommended four Hispanic preschoolers
for special education evaluation, she had no say in whether the
students were eligible for such services or whether they would remain
in her class.
Summary: OCR determined that the teacher referred the preschoolers
for assessment not because of their race but because the teacher
suspected the students might qualify for special education services.
OCR acknowledged that the teacher made the initial referral but noted
the LEA couldn't assess students without their parents' consent.
The referring teacher wasn't involved in the evaluation process and
had no say in the students qualification for special education or
related services. OCR also pointed out that the LEA found all four
students eligible for special education.
"Three of the students were placed in programs within the district,
and one student continued to receive services in [the teacher's]
class," OCR wrote.
OCR concluded there was insufficient evidence of a Section 504 or ADA
violation. As for an aide's claim that she lost her job after she
reported the teacher's allegedly discriminatory referrals, OCR noted
the school offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
aide's termination: Her open hostility toward the teacher and
inability to work with other staff members.