Pages Navigation Menu

Our Kids Deserve Better

Feds Step up Efforts to Ensure School Districts Comply with New Rules

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was signed into law in September, 2008, and took effect January 1, 2009. The Amendments Act revises the definition of “disability” to more broadly encompass impairments that substantially limit a major life activity. A student whom a school district did not believe had a disability, and therefore did not receive, as described in the Section 504 regulation, special education or related services before passage of the Amendments Act, must now be considered under these new legal standards.

Among other things, the amended language states that mitigating measures, including assistive devices, auxiliary aids, accommodations, medical therapies and supplies have no bearing in determining whether a disability qualifies under the law. Further, grades alone (i.e., “succeeding” academically for the student’s grade-level norm) may not be the determinative factor in deciding whether a student with a disability needs special education or related aids or services because grades do not provide information on how much effort or how many outside resources are required for the student to achieve those grades.

Earlier this year, officials at the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to school districts and state education leaders clearly spelling out the obligations schools have under the Amendments Act. Along with the letter, they also attached “Questions and Answers on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 for Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.”

How This Impacts You

If you believe your child has a disability and has been denied special education services or Section 504 services, you need to familiarize yourself with the Amendments Act and the related FAQs. These new rules could affect whether your child is eligible for services. In fact, every parent with a special needs child should be aware of and familiar with these new rules. Below, are excerpts from the Amendments Act FAQs.

If it has been more than one year since your child was evaluated for and denied special education services, you can and should request another evaluation. It is your right. You don’t need to discuss anything with anyone at school before requesting an evaluation; in fact, doing so will slow the process down, further delaying getting your child potential help. Instead, simply write a brief letter to the district stating (1) your name, (2) your child’s name and grade, (3) that your are requesting a special education evaluation for your child, and (4) that you give your consent for your child to be evaluated. Sign the letter, and then fax it to the district office at 616.235.6730. This will start the 30-school-day clock in which they need to complete their evaluation. You’ll have plenty of time to talk about your concerns when the team meets with you regarding the evaluation.

Excerpts for the Amendments Act FAQs


Q4:

How does the Amendments Act alter coverage under Section 504 and Title II?

A:The Amendments Act emphasizes that the definition of “disability” in Section 504 and the ADA should be interpreted to allow for broad coverage. Students who, in the past, may not have been determined to have a disability under Section 504 and Title II may now in fact be found to have a disability under those laws. A student whom a school district did not believe had a disability, and therefore did not receive, as described in the Section 504 regulation, special education or related services before passage of the Amendments Act, must now be considered under these new legal standards. The school district would have to evaluate the student, as described in the Section 504 regulation, to determine if he or she has a disability and, if so, the district would have to determine whether, because of the disability, the student needs special education or related services. 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(l), 104.33.

Section 504 and the ADA define disability as (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity; (2) a record of such an impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). The Amendments Act does not alter these three elements of the definition of disability in the ADA and Section 504. But it significantly changes how the term “disability” is to be interpreted. Specifically, Congress directed that the definition of disability shall be construed broadly and that the determination of whether an individual has a disability should not demand extensive analysis. 42 U.S.C. § 12102 note. Among other changes, the Amendments Act specifies that:

  • In the phrase “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity,” the term “substantially limits” shall be interpreted without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, other than ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses. Amendments Act § 4(a) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 12102). Mitigating measures are things like medications, prosthetic devices, assistive devices, or learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications that an individual may use to eliminate or reduce the effects of an impairment. These measures cannot be considered when determining whether a person has a substantially limiting impairment. Therefore, impairments that may not have previously been considered to be disabilities because of the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures might now meet the Section 504 and ADA definition of disability.
  • An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if, when in an active phase, it would substantially limit a major life activity. Amendments Act § 4(a) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 12102). For example, a student with bipolar disorder would be covered if, during manic or depressive episodes, the student is substantially limited in a major life activity (e.g., thinking, concentrating, neurological function, or brain function).

In most cases, application of these rules should quickly shift the inquiry away from the question whether a student has a disability (and thus is protected by the ADA and Section 504), and toward the school district’s actions and obligations to ensure equal educational opportunities. While there are no per se disabilities under Section 504 and Title II, the nature of many impairments is such that, in virtually every case, a determination in favor of disability will be made. Thus, for example, a school district should not need or require extensive documentation or analysis to determine that a child with diabetes, epilepsy, bipolar disorder, or autism has a disability under Section 504 and Title II.


Q9:

How can a school district meet its obligation, as described in the Section 504 regulation, to evaluate students to determine the need for special education or related services consistent with the Amendments Act?

A: Although school districts may no longer consider the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures when making a disability determination, mitigating measures remain relevant in evaluating the need of a student with a disability for special education or related services. A school district must conduct an evaluation of any individual who because of a disability “needs or is believed to need” special education or related services. 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(a). An individual evaluation must be conducted before any action is taken with respect to the student’s initial placement, or before any significant change in placement is made. 34 C.F.R. § 104.35. As explained in Q5, in determining if a student has a disability, the school district should ensure that it follows the expanded Amendments Act interpretation of disability, including the requirement that the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures not be considered. Once a school district determines that a student has a disability, however, that student’s use of mitigating measures could still be relevant in determining his or her need for special education or related services.

The Section 504 regulation does not set out specific circumstances that trigger the obligation to conduct an evaluation; the decision to conduct an evaluation is governed by the individual circumstances in each case.

For example, consider a student who has Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) but is not receiving special education or related services, and is achieving good grades in academically rigorous classes. School districts should not assume that this student’s academic success necessarily means that the student is not substantially limited in a major life activity and therefore is not a person with a disability. In passing the Amendments Act, the managers of the Senate bill rejected the assumption that an individual with a specific learning disability who performs well academically cannot be substantially limited in activities such as learning, reading, writing, thinking, or speaking. Thus, grades alone are an insufficient basis upon which to determine whether a student has a disability. Moreover, they may not be the determinative factor in deciding whether a student with a disability needs special education or related aids or services. Grades are just one consideration and do not provide information on how much effort or how many outside resources are required for the student to achieve those grades. Additionally, the Committee on Education and Labor in the House of Representatives cautioned that “an individual with an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity should not be penalized when seeking protection under the ADA simply because he or she managed their own adaptive strategies or received informal or undocumented accommodations that have the effect of lessening the deleterious impacts of their disability.” 


Q14:

Does the Amendments Act affect the situation in which a parent or guardian believes that his or her child has a disability and is not receiving special education or related services as described in the Section 504 regulation?

A:As stated in Q4 above, students who were in the past determined not to have a disability may now, in fact, be found to have a disability. If a parent or guardian of a child with an impairment believes that the child may be a student with a disability and therefore requires services that he or she is not currently receiving in school, the parent or guardian can ask the school district to evaluate or reevaluate the child pursuant to the requirements of the Section 504 regulation. The evaluation would determine whether the child has a disability, and, if so, whether the child needs special education or related services. As noted in Q9 above, school districts must evaluate a child if that child needs or is believed to need special education or related services because of a disability.

If, as described in the Section 504 regulation, a child is receiving special education or related services that the parent or guardian believes are inadequate, the parent or guardian can request changes to the educational placement. If agreement cannot be reached, the parent or guardian may invoke the procedural safeguards set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 104.36 to address the child’s needs and current educational placement.


Q10:

What should a school district do if it does not believe that a student needs special education or related services as described in the Section 504 regulation?

A:The Amendments Act does not alter the procedural safeguard requirements described in the Section 504 regulation. A school district should inform the student’s parent or guardian of its decision and of the parent’s or guardian’s rights as set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 104.36. This provision requires a school district to establish a system of procedural safeguards for the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of persons who, because of disability, need or are believed to need special education or related services. Parents and guardians must be told about this system, notified of any evaluation or placement actions, allowed to examine their child’s records, afforded an impartial hearing with opportunity for representation by counsel, and provided a review procedure. Compliance with the procedural safeguards of the IDEA is one means of meeting this requirement. 34 C.F.R. § 104.36.

Even though a school district does not believe that a student needs special education or related services, it must still consider whether the student is entitled to a reasonable modification of policies, practices, or procedures.

One Comment

  1. Very upset to read the info on this site. Residents should be shocked. Administration is well–most would say over–paid!!

    In the business world, if you do not have positive results you lose your job & certainly do not get a raise!! At EGRPS the administration keeps costing the taxpayers & students more money. How is this possible?

    Compared to the business world where you can lose customers any day-managing the finances in this district should really not be that difficult no matter what ‘cuts’ the state makes. When was the last time our district cut an administrator?

    Previous Superintendent “Dr” James Morse was able to act as district superintendent AND teach at Western Michigan AND Michigan State University AND run a real estate business. We should all be so lucky!

    Superintendent Shubel is paid MORE than Morse and spends an extensive amount of time traveling with her side jobs with some. Shubel had no previous experience as a superintendent before making this money grab off taxpayers of EGR.

    Would the board be so free with their own money?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>