# data[].attributes.body
RTI is a major factor in early identification of academic and behavioral needs. With proper intervention many students will be able to be successful and need less intervention in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Parents, administrators, and teachers need to understand the components of IDEA and the implications presented in accordance with RtI.

# data[].attributes.body
As an elementary school teacher and future Campus Instructional Specialist, RtI is my first step in working to help my students academically or behaviorally. RtI is a necessary step of targeted standard based intervention. The goal of Rti is to determine if a child is advancing with intervention or if there is a possible need for additional testing.
Parents and educators need to understand the importance and limitations of the RtI program and how this program should be used.

# data[].attributes.body
Response to Intervention (RtI) is a multi-tiered approach to early intervention for students with behavioral and learning disabilities. Many educators are looking for the best ways to help their students grow, but do not understand all of the legal implications in the programs students are entered into. RtI serves as an opportunity to build targeted intervention and help close the gap or identify areas that may require further testing.

# data[].attributes.body
RtI is a major focus on my campus and throughout my current district. I have worked with my CIS to determine the best steps for my struggling students over the last seven years. In this time guidelines from the district have changed and a greater desire to fully understand RtI and IDEA have surfaced.
When I step into the CIS position I want to be able to guide teachers and parents the best way possible. To do this I have to understand the legal aspects of the programs we use to ensure success of our students.

# data[].attributes.body
Covid-19 left many of our students out of the classroom and without formal instruction for six or more months. Teachers and parents are now concerned that the gaps created will continue to grow and are struggling to find the means to resolve the problem. With Tier I of the RtI process teachers will be able to determine gaps in the students understanding and work to provide target standard based interventions. This will help reduce the number of students being placed into tier II and III of the RtI process. Decreasing the chances of unnecessary testing for students.

# data[].attributes.body
This brochure outlines the intended purpose of RtI according to IDEA. RtI is explained as a program that is not meant to be forced onto campuses, but used as a tool to help identify and support students before their academic or behavior issues become more serious. (Response to Intervention, 2010)

# data[].attributes.body
Principles and regulations established through court cases/

# data[].attributes.headline
Greenwich Board of Education v. K.M (No. 3:13-cv-00235 (CSH)) 2015

# data[].attributes.subject
Greenwich Board of Education v. K.M (No. 3:13-cv-00235 (CSH)) 2015

# data[].attributes.body
- Parents raised concerns about their child's reading abilities.
-The district declined to test the child because progress had been made within the RtI program.
-Private evaluations were preformed and noted that the child was preforming below grade level. They also noted that the student entered the RtI program on grade level and fell below grade level while in Tier I RtI interventions.
-The court found that the standard for child-find is not whether the school is certain that a child has a disability, it is just whether there are reasonable grounds for concern of a reading disability. That standard was met in the instance of this case.
-The courts ordered the district to pay for the tuition costs needed for K.M. to be provided adequate intervention at a private school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Plaintiff, a local board of education, brings this action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 ("IDEA"), to appeal a decision and order (the "Order") of a hearing officer (the "Hearing Officer") of the State of Connecticut's Department of Education. Specifically, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court under Section 1415(i)(2) of the IDEA, which grants the right to bring a civil action to certain parties claiming to have been aggrieved by the IDEA's dispute resolution process.

Although victorious below, Defendants (G.M. & J.M. the "Parents," and K.M., the "Student") bring the instant Motion [Doc. #29] to supplement the record with evidence not considered by the Hearing Officer, a right provided by Section 1415(i)(2)(C)(ii) of the IDEA. 1 Plaintiff opposes the Motion, which is fully briefed. This Ruling resolves the Motion.

I. Background

Student attended kindergarten and the first grade at Riverside Elementary School, a school within the jurisdiction of Plaintiff Greenwich Board of Education (the "Board"), for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years. Compl. [Doc. #1] ¶6. Following the first grade, Parents grew concerned with Student's academic performance, and requested that the Board refer Student's case to a planning and placement team ("PPT") to assess Student's eligibility for a special education program. Id. ¶24. The Board convened an PPT, which ultimately deemed Student ineligible for such a program. Id. ¶26. Parents filed an appeal of that decision-requesting what is known as a "due process hearing"-with the Connecticut Department of Education. Id. ¶27.

Prior to the due process hearing, in early August 2012, Parents elected not to have Student attend Riverside for the 2012-13 academic year, and instead enrolled Student in The Windward School. Id. Windward is a private school in White Plains, New York, specializing in helping children with certain language-based learning disabilities. Through the due process hearing, Parents aimed to take advantage of IDEA procedure that might allow them to be reimbursed for their Windward tuition payments. Id. Such reimbursement may be available under the IDEA where a student is improperly denied a proper special education program and the parents thereafter unilaterally enroll their child in a school they can demonstrate is "appropriate" for their child's special needs. See School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985).

A pre-hearing conference was held prior to the due process hearing, at which the issues for resolution were set. Compl. Ex. A [Doc. #1], at 1. Specifically, the Hearing Officer would determine: (i) if the Board erred in determining Student ineligible for special education; 2 and (ii) if so, whether Windward was an appropriate private placement such that Parents may receive a tuition reimbursement. Id.

Following six days of hearings, on January 3, 2013 the Hearing Officer issued a ruling in favor of Parents on both issues, and thereafter affirmed her decision in the face of a Motion for Clarification on February 4, 2013. Id., at 1-11; Compl. Ex. B [Doc. #1]. Thereafter, the Board filed suit in this Court, seeking a ruling overturning the Hearing Officer's Order. The parties contemplate that the case will be resolved by summary judgment practice, based on the administrative record and any evidence with which it is supplemented. [Doc. #27], at 10, 11.

As the instant litigation developed, Parents grew concerned about the adequacy of the record relied on by the Hearing Officer in reaching her decision. Specifically, Parents believe that the record as to the second issue for resolution-whether Windward was an appropriate private placement entitling Parents to reimbursement-is lacking and in need of supplementation. Through the instant Motion they seek to introduce additional evidence for use in this proceeding that was not accounted for by the Hearing Officer.

Principally, the Motion makes three general arguments as to why Parents should be permitted to supplement the record as to the propriety of Windward: (i) certain evidence was improperly excluded by the Hearing Officer; (ii) this Court has the power to review relevant post-hearing evidence as to the propriety of a private placement; and (iii) due to off-the-record intimations of the Board and the Hearing Officer at the due process hearing that the propriety of Windward as a reimbursable expense was not in dispute, Parents were not incentivized to-and did not-proffer certain contemporaneous evidence on that issue. 3

Specifically, Parents request the record to be supplemented with the following:
* A one-page document consisting of Student's "standardized testing conducted by [Windward]." Mem. [Doc. #29-1], at 4; [Doc. #26-8], at 25. ("Student's Windward Standardized Testing").* A November 18, 2012 e-mail from G.M. to Parents' counsel, attaching Student's progress report from Windward containing evaluations as of November 2012. Mem. [Doc. #29-1], at 4; [Doc. #26-8], at 27-41, [Doc. #26-8], at 1. ("Student's November 2012 Windward Report Card").* Student's progress report from Windward containing evaluations as of November 2012, February 2013, April 2013, and June 2013. [Doc. #39-1], at 11-26. ("Student's June 2013 Windward Report Card").* "Testimony from the private placement regarding the appropriateness of the private placement." [Doc. #29-1], at 4. ("Windward Testimony").
II. Discussion

The IDEA provides that, in an action challenging an administrative decision, a district court "(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C) (emphasis added). As evinced through the emphasized language, the IDEA does not limit a district court to the administrative record, and envisions that there may be "some supplementation at trial." Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass., 736 F.2d 773, 790 (1st Cir. 1984), aff'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In Burlington, a leading case on the issue of receiving additional evidence under the IDEA, 4 the First Circuit identified several permissible "reasons for supplementation": "gaps in the administrative transcript owing to mechanical failure, unavailability of a witness, an improper exclusion of evidence by the administrative agency, and evidence concerning relevant events occurring subsequent to the administrative hearing." Id.

"The decision whether and to what extent to admit additional evidence is committed to the discretion of the court, `which must be careful not to allow such evidence to change the character of the hearing from one of review to a trial de novo.'" A.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Educ., 414 F.Supp.2d 152, 170 (D. Conn. 2006) (quoting Burlington, 736 F.2d at 791). Courts must "give `due weight' to these [administrative] proceedings, mindful that the judiciary `lacks the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to resolve persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.'" M.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206 (1982)). A district court should be mindful that "admitting additional evidence . . . `[may] have the consequence of making the whole IDEA process more time consuming, as parties scramble[] to use the federal court proceeding to patch up holes in their administrative case.'" A.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Educ. 359 F.Supp.2d 102, 105 (D. Conn. 2005) (quoting Springer v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 134 F.3d 659, 667 (4th Cir. 1998)).

The party seeking to supplement the record carries the burden of establishing that its proffered evidence is probative of the issues before the court and of explaining why the evidence was not presented in the administrative proceeding. See Handleman v. Bd. of Educ. of Penfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 3076970, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2007); see also Plainville Bd. of Educ. v. R.N., 2009 WL 2059914, at *1 (D. Conn. July 10, 2009) ("The party moving to submit additional evidence must establish that it is relevant and necessary.").

The Court addresses Parents' proffered supplemental evidence in turn.

A. Student's Windward Standardized Testing

Parents aim to supplement the record with Student's "standardized testing conducted by the private placement, which the hearing officer excluded in its entirety." 5 Parents therefore seem to argue for the submission of this document into evidence on the ground that it was improperly excluded by the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer excluded Student's Windward Standardized Testing following the Board's objection that Parents had failed to proffer a witness who could testify as to its contents. [Doc. #23-4], at 4-5. As argued by the Board in opposition to the instant Motion, this one-page document "does not speak for itself," and "require[s] testimony from those knowledgeable about its contents and meaning." Obj. [Doc. #35], at 13; see also A.S., 414 F. Supp.2d at 172 ("records [that] do not speak for themselves," "have to be explained and placed in context" (internal quotation omitted)). The record contains nothing that sheds light on the contents and meaning of this document, and, after review, the Court is unable to unearth such content or meaning on its own. 6 See A.S., 414 F. Supp.2d at 172 (denying motion to supplement the record where the "Court lacks expertise in the . . . educational field[] and would require a substantial amount of testimony to give [meaning to the proffered documents]"). As in A.S., "[i]n order to ensure a sufficiently balanced record, the Court would have to extend discovery to allow the Board to access relevant records and depose involved witnesses." 414 F. Supp.2d at 171. This the Court elects not to do. See id., 414 F. Supp.2d at 170 (the decision to "admit additional evidence is committed to the discretion of the court, `which must be careful not to allow such evidence to change the character of the hearing from one of review to a trial de novo.'" (quoting Burlington, 736 F.2d at 791)).

Nor was it improper-contrary to what Parents argue for the first time in their reply [Doc. #39], at 2-3-for the Hearing Officer to refuse to allow a Windward administrator to testify telephonically as to this document. Doing so would have violated the Board's statutory rights. Specifically, the IDEA states, in relevant part, that "a party to [an administrative] hearing. . . shall be accorded . . . the right to present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(2). In Walled Lake Consolidated Schools v. Jones, 24 IDELR 738 (E.D. Mich. 1996), the court concluded that a hearing officer violated a school district's procedural due process rights by granting a parent's request, over the school district's objection, to take telephonic testimony from out of state witnesses. Relying on the statutory language of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d) (now 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)), the court held:
It . . . seems that in cases such as this one, telephone testimony would not penalize the [school district], would be advantageous and economical to the [parent and her child] and result in the "meaningful opportunity to be heard" required in due process hearings. . . . However, the plain language of the statute is difficult to set aside absent any legislative intent. The statute provides that any party to any hearing . . . be accorded the right to ". . . confront, cross-examine and compel the attendance of witnesses. . . ." . . . The language of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d) affords many of the safeguards of a trial. The use of the words "confront," "cross-examine" and "compel the attendance of witnesses" leaves this Court little room to find anything other than the plain meaning of those words. . . . Absent agreement of the parties to the contrary, telephone testimony in this case does not adequately allow for confrontation under the statute at issue.
Walled Lake, 24 IDELR at 739 (footnote, citations, and some quotation marks omitted). In line with these principles, the Hearing Officer's decision to preclude telephonic testimony was in line with the IDEA and therefore proper.

Moreover, even were the Court willing to reopen discovery as to the Windward Standardized Testing, there is no basis for the Court to believe that the Parents would be able to elicit such testimony from anyone at Windward. Windward refused to make anyone available to so testify at the due process hearing. Rather, Windward apparently invoked its contractual right not to "make available School administrators, teachers or staff members to testify or prepare testimony relating to tuition reimbursement proceedings initiated by or against any state or local authority." [Doc. #26-3], at 10; see also Reply [Doc. 39], at 2 ("Parents counsel had informed the Board and the hearing officer that the Parents were constrained by contract with the private placement from compelling their attendance at the Hearing"). The Court sees no reason why this contractual provision would not apply with equal force here to bar Windward's participation in this proceeding. See Burlington, 736 F.2d at 791 ("In ruling on motions for witnesses to testify a court should weigh . . . important concerns," including "the reasons the witness did not testify").

The Court denies the request to add Student's Windward Standardized Testing to the record.

B. Student's Windward Report Cards

Parents seek to introduce two report cards documenting Student's progress at Windward. The first, dated November 2012, was introduced at the hearing but only for the "limited purpose" of allowing Parents to provide their understanding of the document. [Doc. #23-4], at 5. The second, dated June 2013, purports to contain Student's grades for the entire 2012-13 academic year at Windward, which is, of course, post-hearing evidence. 7

For reasons to be made clear, the Court begins with the June 2013 Windward Report Card. The law in this Circuit is that a district court reviewing an IDEA proceeding's determination as to the appropriateness of a private placement may review the student's "final report card" from the private placement, even though that document could not have been available at the time of the hearing. M.B. ex rel. L.C. v. Minisink Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 1277308, at *2 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2013) (the court may rely on such "additional evidence [to] show that [the student] made some academic . . . progress while at [the private placement]"). The Board does not contest as such. Opp. [Doc. #35], at 15. Rather, the Board argues against the admission of the June 2013 Report Card solely on the basis that Parents failed to proffer the specific document along with the instant Motion and thus did "`not provide the Court with enough information for the Court to assess whether such evidence should be permitted.'" Opp. [Doc. #35], at 15-16 (quoting Jordan S. v. Hewlett Woodmere Union Free Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 910804, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009)). Parents have now submitted this document to the court. [Doc. #39-1], at 11-26. The Board's objection is moot. Student's June 2013 Windward Report Card will be admitted into the record before this Court.

Parents also seek to introduce Student's November 2012 Windward Report Card, which they claim is "additional" evidence despite it being included in the administrative record (and, therefore, despite it being filed with this Court as part of same). Mem. [Doc. #29-1], at 4. Parents are apparently of the view that this constitutes "additional" evidence because the Hearing Officer purported to limit its inclusion in the record such that its use was cabined to eliciting Parents' understanding of it. However, as is the Board, the Court is not entirely clear what supplementation is being requested here. See Opp. [Doc. #35], at 14 (the Board admitting that this "Court, like the Hearing Officer, will have the opportunity to review the exhibit and afford it the appropriate weight in reaching a decision in this case"). The Court fails to understand what relief Parents seek here, and, on that ground, denies the request.

However, the Board's challenge to the inclusion of the November 2012 Windward Report Card is almost all but moot given this Court's holding that it will allow Parents to supplement the record with the June 2013 Windward Report Card. This is because the June 2013 Report Card contains all of the same content-including Student's grades-that is contained in the November 2012 Report Card. Compare [Doc. 26-8], at 27-41, [Doc. #26-9], at 1 with [Doc. #39-1], at 11-26. In short, with the inclusion of the June 2013 Report Card, the November 2012 Report Card retains little to no independent significance. 8

Accordingly, as a formal matter, the Court denies Parents' request to supplement the record with Student's November 2012 Windward Report Card for the simple reason that Parents have not explained exactly how this would constitute "additional evidence." However, as discussed, the Court grants Parents' request to supplement the record with Student's June 2013 Windward Report Card.

III. Windward Testimony

Parents aim to introduce unidentified "[t]estimony from the private placement regarding the appropriateness of the private placement." Mem. [Doc. #29-1], at 4. This request can be quickly dispatched for the threshold reason that Parents altogether fail to identify with any specificity the testimony they aim to introduce. See A.S., 359 F. Supp. 2d at 104 (denying request to supplement the record where "Plaintiffs provide[d] the Court with only the vaguest descriptions of the documents they seek to add to the record," and "[w]hen it comes to informing the Court precisely what bearing these records will have on the Court's evaluation of the hearing officers' decision, Plaintiffs are equally general and conclusory"). In short, Parents offer no indication as to the individuals from which they hope to elicit testimony, the form and content of that testimony, or how that testimony will not be duplicative of evidence in the record. Additionally, as discussed above, Parents offer no indication that testimony from the private placement is even attainable.

Here, however, we are confronted for the first time with Parents' argument that they should be permitted to supplement the record as to the propriety of the private placement because they were specifically told by the Hearing Officer and the Board that this element of their claim was not in dispute. 9 Parents claim that-to their misfortune-these intimations were somehow not captured on the hearing transcript. In turn, the Board claims it never gave any indication that it would not challenge the propriety of the private placement. The parties submit mutually exclusive sworn accounts as to whether such intimations were ever made. 10

However, the Court need expend no effort in resolving this dispute as its holding just above as to lack of specificity is sufficient grounds to determine that supplementation of the record as requested is not warranted. In other words, the Court need not resolve whether Parents were unfairly deterred from introducing evidence as to the propriety of the private placement for the simple reason that Parents have failed to identify the specific evidence which they were deterred from introducing. Parents may now worry that the administrative record is ill-suited to support the Hearing Officer's decision in light of the Board's current challenge to the propriety of the private placement. 11 However, through the instant Motion, Parents were given an opportunity to identify to this Court any testimony they felt was inappropriately absent from the record below. They did not do so.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Submit Additional Evidence [Doc. #29] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

Defendants' motion to submit Student's Windward Standardized Testing as additional evidence is DENIED;

Defendants' motion to submit Student's November 2012 Windward Report Card as additional evidence is DENIED;

Defendants' motion to submit Student's June 2013 Windward Report Card as additional evidence is GRANTED; and

Defendants' motion to submit Windward Testimony is DENIED.

It is SO ORDERED.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, Jr., Senior District Judge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE Plaintiff, a local board of education, brings this action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 ("IDEA"), to appeal a decision and order (the "Order") of a hearing officer (the "Hearing Officer") of the State of Connecticut's Department of Education.

# data[].attributes.body
Regulations, guidance, or policy given to us from an administrative authority.

# data[].attributes.headline
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1401.33 (9)

# data[].attributes.subject
Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1401.33 (9)

# data[].attributes.body
-Teachers, schools, local education agencies, and States should be received of unnecessary paperwork burdens that do not lead to improvement of a students educational abilities.
-RtI can be described as a systematic process for monitoring student progress, implementing instructional interventions, and screening of all students for academic difficulties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(9) Free appropriate public education

The term "free appropriate public education" means special education and related services that-

(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;

(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;

(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and

(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title.

(10) Repealed. Pub. L. 114-95, title IX, §9214(d)(1), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2164

(11) Homeless children

The term "homeless children" has the meaning given the term "homeless children and youths" in section 11434a of title 42.

The term "Indian" means an individual who is a member of an Indian tribe.

(13) Indian tribe

The term "Indian tribe" means any Federal or State Indian tribe, band, rancheria, pueblo, colony, or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional village corporation (as defined in or established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)).

(14) Individualized education program; IEP

The term "individualized education program" or "IEP" means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with section 1414(d) of this title.

(15) Individualized family service plan

The term "individualized family service plan" has the meaning given the term in section 1436 of this title.

(16) Infant or toddler with a disability

The term "infant or toddler with a disability" has the meaning given the term in section 1432 of this title.

(17) Institution of higher education

The term "institution of higher education"-

(A) has the meaning given the term in section 1001 of this title; and

(B) also includes any college or university receiving funding from the Secretary of the Interior under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 [25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.].

(18) Limited English proficient

The term "limited English proficient" has the meaning given the term "English learner" in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 7801].

(19) Local educational agency

(A) In general

The term "local educational agency" means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for such combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.

(B) Educational service agencies and other public institutions or agencies

The term includes-

(i) an educational service agency; and

(ii) any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.

(C) BIA funded schools

The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only to the extent that such inclusion makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under this chapter with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

(20) Native language

The term "native language", when used with respect to an individual who is limited English proficient, means the language normally used by the individual or, in the case of a child, the language normally used by the parents of the child.

(21) Nonprofit

The term "nonprofit", as applied to a school, agency, organization, or institution, means a school, agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by 1 or more nonprofit corporations or associations no part of the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

(22) Outlying area

The term "outlying area" means the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The term "parent" means-

(A) a natural, adoptive, or foster parent of a child (unless a foster parent is prohibited by State law from serving as a parent);

(B) a guardian (but not the State if the child is a ward of the State);

(C) an individual acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent (including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative) with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child's welfare; or

(D) except as used in sections 1415(b)(2) and 1439(a)(5) of this title, an individual assigned under either of those sections to be a surrogate parent.

(24) Parent organization

The term "parent organization" has the meaning given the term in section 1471(g) of this title.

(25) Parent training and information center

The term "parent training and information center" means a center assisted under section 1471 or 1472 of this title.

(26) Related services

(A) In general

The term "related services" means transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the individualized education program of the child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children.

(B) Exception

The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device.

(27) Secondary school

The term "secondary school" means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public secondary charter school, that provides secondary education, as determined under State law, except that it does not include any education beyond grade 12.

(28) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Education.

(29) Special education

The term "special education" means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including-

(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and

(B) instruction in physical education.

(30) Specific learning disability

(A) In general

The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.

(B) Disorders included

Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

(C) Disorders not included

Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disabilities, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

The term "State" means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each of the outlying areas.

(32) State educational agency

The term "State educational agency" means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools, or, if there is no such officer or agency, an officer or agency designated by the Governor or by State law.

(33) Supplementary aids and services

The term "supplementary aids and services" means aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular education classes or other education-related settings to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate in accordance with section 1412(a)(5) of this title.

(34) Transition services

The term "transition services" means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that-

(A) is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child's movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation;

(B) is based on the individual child's needs, taking into account the child's strengths, preferences, and interests; and

(C) includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.

(35) Universal design

The term "universal design" has the meaning given the term in section 3002 of title 29.

(36) Ward of the State

(A) In general

The term "ward of the State" means a child who, as determined by the State where the child resides, is a foster child, is a ward of the State, or is in the custody of a public child welfare agency.

(B) Exception

The term does not include a foster child who has a foster parent who meets the definition of a parent in paragraph (23).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Section 1401 (9) - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statute/Regs Main " Statute " Subchapter I (Part A) " 1401 " 9 (9) Free appropriate public education The term "free appropriate public education" means special education and related services that- (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;Continue Reading

# data[].attributes.body
Participation in the RtI process

If a child suspected of having a specific learning disability (SLD) participated in a process to assess the child's response to evidence-based intervention, the documentation of eligibility must include a statement of

-The instructional strategies used, and the child-centered data collected.
-The documentation that the parent was notified
*the states policies regarding the amount and nature of performance data of the child that will be collected and the general education services that would be provided.
*Strategies for increasing the child's rate of learning.
*The parents right to request an evaluation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
300.311 Specific documentation for the eligibility determination.

(a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as required in §300.306(a)(2), must contain a statement of-

(1) Whether the child has a specific learning disability;

(2) The basis for making the determination, including an assurance that the determination has been made in accordance with §300.306(c)(1);

(3) The relevant behavior, if any, noted during the observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child's academic functioning;

(4) The educationally relevant medical findings, if any;

(i) The child does not achieve adequately for the child's age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards consistent with §300.309(a)(1); and

(A) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards consistent with §300.309(a)(2)(i); or

(B) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development consistent with §300.309(a)(2)(ii);

(6) The determination of the group concerning the effects of a visual, hearing, motor disability, or an intellectual disability; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; or limited English proficiency on the child's achievement level; and

(7) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention-

(i) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected; and

(ii) The documentation that the child's parents were notified about-

(A) The State's policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided;

(B) Strategies for increasing the child's rate of learning; and

(C) The parents' right to request an evaluation.

(b) Each group member must certify in writing whether the report reflects the member's conclusion. If it does not reflect the member's conclusion, the group member must submit a separate statement presenting the member's conclusions.

[71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 31913, July 11, 2017]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sec. 300.311 Specific documentation for the eligibility determination - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
300.311 Specific documentation for the eligibility determination. (a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as required in §300.306(a)(2), must contain a statement of- (1) Whether the child has a specific learning disability; (2) The basis for making the determination, including an assurance that the...

# data[].attributes.body
Written laws enacted by a legislative body

# data[].attributes.body
Outlines that prior to and as part of the evaluation process and in order to ensure the underachievement of a student suspected of having a learning disability is not due to a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or mathematics the following must be considered:
-data must be provided to demonstrate that a student was given adequate instruction.
-data based documentation of repeated assessment must be provided and may include
*Response to Intervention (RtI) progress monitoring
*In-class test on grade level curriculum
*Other regularly administered assessments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) Special education services. To be eligible to receive special education services, a student must be a "child with a disability," as defined in 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §300.8(a), subject to the provisions of 34 CFR, §300.8(c), the Texas Education Code, §29.003, and this section.

# data[].attributes.body
Tex. Con. §A.19 states that
-No citizen of the state shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by due course of the law of the land.
-Recently, cases have gone to the courts in Georgia and California about inadequate educational facilities, equipment, and educational staff.
-The courts reported that under this statue students do have the right to a fair and equal opportunity to education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION



ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS



That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:


Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.


Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.


Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.


Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.


(Added Nov. 7, 1972.)


Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.


Sec. 5. WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS. No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.


Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.


Sec. 7. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES. No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.


Sec. 8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL. Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.


Sec. 9. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.


Sec. 10. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.


(Amended Nov. 5, 1918.)


Sec. 11. BAIL. All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent bail after indictment found upon examination of the evidence, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.


Sec. 11a. DENIAL OF BAIL AFTER MULTIPLE FELONIES. (a) Any person (1) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, who has been theretofore twice convicted of a felony, the second conviction being subsequent to the first, both in point of time of commission of the offense and conviction therefor, (2) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, committed while on bail for a prior felony for which he has been indicted, (3) accused of a felony less than capital in this State involving the use of a deadly weapon after being convicted of a prior felony, or (4) accused of a violent or sexual offense committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, after a hearing, and upon evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused of the offense in (1) or (3) above, of the offense committed while on bail in (2) above, or of the offense in (4) above committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, may be denied bail pending trial, by a district judge in this State, if said order denying bail pending trial is issued within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of incarceration of the accused; provided, however, that if the accused is not accorded a trial upon the accusation under (1) or (3) above, the accusation and indictment used under (2) above, or the accusation or indictment used under (4) above within sixty (60) days from the time of his incarceration upon the accusation, the order denying bail shall be automatically set aside, unless a continuance is obtained upon the motion or request of the accused; provided, further, that the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of this State is expressly accorded the accused for a review of any judgment or order made hereunder, and said appeal shall be given preference by the Court of Criminal Appeals.


(b) In this section:


(1) "Violent offense" means:


(A) murder;


(B) aggravated assault, if the accused used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault;


(C) aggravated kidnapping; or


(D) aggravated robbery.


(2) "Sexual offense" means:


(A) aggravated sexual assault;


(B) sexual assault; or


(C) indecency with a child.


(Added Nov. 6, 1956; amended Nov. 8, 1977; Subsec. (a) amended and (b) added Nov. 2, 1993.)


Sec. 11b. DENIAL OF BAIL FOR VIOLATION OF CONDITION OF RELEASE. Any person who is accused in this state of a felony or an offense involving family violence, who is released on bail pending trial, and whose bail is subsequently revoked or forfeited for a violation of a condition of release may be denied bail pending trial if a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a preponderance of the evidence at a subsequent hearing that the person violated a condition of release related to the safety of a victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community.


(Added Nov. 8, 2005; amended Nov. 6, 2007.)


Sec. 11c. DENIAL OF BAIL FOR VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER INVOLVING FAMILY VIOLENCE. The legislature by general law may provide that any person who violates an order for emergency protection issued by a judge or magistrate after an arrest for an offense involving family violence or who violates an active protective order rendered by a court in a family violence case, including a temporary ex parte order that has been served on the person, or who engages in conduct that constitutes an offense involving the violation of an order described by this section may be taken into custody and, pending trial or other court proceedings, denied release on bail if following a hearing a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person violated the order or engaged in the conduct constituting the offense.


(Added Nov. 6, 2007.)


Sec. 12. HABEAS CORPUS. The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right, and shall never be suspended. The Legislature shall enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual.


Sec. 13. EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; OPEN COURTS; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.


Sec. 14. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty; nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offense after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.


Sec. 15. RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency. Provided, that the Legislature may provide for the temporary commitment, for observation and/or treatment, of mentally ill persons not charged with a criminal offense, for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days, by order of the County Court without the necessity of a trial by jury.


(Amended Aug. 24, 1935.)


Sec. 15-a. COMMITMENT OF PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND. No person shall be committed as a person of unsound mind except on competent medical or psychiatric testimony. The Legislature may enact all laws necessary to provide for the trial, adjudication of insanity and commitment of persons of unsound mind and to provide for a method of appeal from judgments rendered in such cases. Such laws may provide for a waiver of trial by jury, in cases where the person under inquiry has not been charged with the commission of a criminal offense, by the concurrence of the person under inquiry, or his next of kin, and an attorney ad litem appointed by a judge of either the County or Probate Court of the county where the trial is being held, and shall provide for a method of service of notice of such trial upon the person under inquiry and of his right to demand a trial by jury.


(Added Nov. 6, 1956.)


Sec. 16. BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS; IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.


Sec. 17. TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:


(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:


(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or


(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or


(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.


(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.


(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the legislature may enact a general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.


(d) When a person's property is taken under Subsection (a) of this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.


(Amended Nov. 3, 2009.)


Sec. 18. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.


Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC. BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.


Sec. 20. OUTLAWRY OR TRANSPORTATION OUT OF STATE FOR OFFENSE. No citizen shall be outlawed. No person shall be transported out of the State for any offense committed within the same. This section does not prohibit an agreement with another state providing for the confinement of inmates of this State in the penal or correctional facilities of that state.


(Amended Nov. 5, 1985.)


Sec. 21. CORRUPTION OF BLOOD; FORFEITURE OF ESTATE; SUICIDES. No conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate, and the estates of those who destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in case of natural death.


Sec. 22. TREASON AGAINST STATE. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


Sec. 24. MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.


Sec. 25. QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN HOUSES. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in the house of any citizen without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law.


Sec. 26. PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed, nor shall the law of primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.


Sec. 27. RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.


Sec. 28. SUSPENSION OF LAWS. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.


Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.


Sec. 30. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS. (a) A crime victim has the following rights:


(1) the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process; and


(2) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal justice process.


(b) On the request of a crime victim, the crime victim has the following rights:


(1) the right to notification of court proceedings;


(2) the right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim's testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial;


(3) the right to confer with a representative of the prosecutor's office;


(4) the right to restitution; and


(5) the right to information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.


(c) The legislature may enact laws to define the term "victim" and to enforce these and other rights of crime victims.


(d) The state, through its prosecuting attorney, has the right to enforce the rights of crime victims.


(e) The legislature may enact laws to provide that a judge, attorney for the state, peace officer, or law enforcement agency is not liable for a failure or inability to provide a right enumerated in this section. The failure or inability of any person to provide a right or service enumerated in this section may not be used by a defendant in a criminal case as a ground for appeal or post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. A victim or guardian or legal representative of a victim has standing to enforce the rights enumerated in this section but does not have standing to participate as a party in a criminal proceeding or to contest the disposition of any charge.


(Added Nov. 7, 1989.)


Sec. 31. FUNDS FOR COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME. (a) The compensation to victims of crime fund created by general law and the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund created by general law are each a separate dedicated account in the general revenue fund.


(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section and subject to legislative appropriation, money deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund or the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund from any source may be expended as provided by law only for delivering or funding victim-related compensation, services, or assistance.


(c) The legislature may provide by law that money in the compensation to victims of crime fund or in the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund may be expended for the purpose of assisting victims of episodes of mass violence if other money appropriated for emergency assistance is depleted.


(Added Nov. 4, 1997.)


Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.


(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)


Sec. 33. PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND USE OF PUBLIC BEACHES. (a) In this section, "public beach" means a state-owned beach bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, extending from mean low tide to the landward boundary of state-owned submerged land, and any larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to which the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over the area by prescription or dedication or has established and retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public under Texas common law.


(b) The public, individually and collectively, has an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The right granted by this subsection is dedicated as a permanent easement in favor of the public.


(c) The legislature may enact laws to protect the right of the public to access and use a public beach and to protect the public beach easement from interference and encroachments.


(d) This section does not create a private right of enforcement.


(Added Nov. 3, 2009.)


Sec. 34. RIGHT TO HUNT, FISH, AND HARVEST WILDLIFE. (a) The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.


(b) Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.


(c) This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.


(d) This section does not affect the power of the legislature to authorize a municipality to regulate the discharge of a weapon in a populated area in the interest of public safety.


(Added Nov. 3, 2015.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.

# data[].attributes.headline
Georgia Advocacy Office, et al v. The State of Georgia, et al

# data[].attributes.subject
Georgia Advocacy Office, et al v. The State of Georgia, et al

# data[].attributes.body
-Many students within these campuses are not being taught by certified teachers.
-In 2015, the US Department of justice investigated and found that the GNETS were in violation of Title II of ADA.
-Students were being segregated from their peers based on their disabilities and provided unequal opportunities to the students than those of their like peers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Georgia Advocacy Office, et al v. The State of Georgia, et al

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 19, 2020, the he Court accepted the arguments made by CPR and its co-counsel in their Current Status: Court deniedthe State of Georgia's Motion to Dismiss the GNETS case.

# data[].attributes.body
Killeen ISD describes RTI as a process to “ensure all students have access to high quality
education” (Killeen ISD, n.d.). The framework of RTI helps to support students’ academic and
behavioral needs by an early identification process that is multi-tiered. The intervention
should result in increased student achievement, professional collaboration, and
improvement in the overall performance of the school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
RTI is a process implemented throughout KISD schools to ensure all students have access to high quality instruction. The RTI framework supports students' academic and behavioral needs through an early identification process and the implementation of multi-tiered intervention resulting in: increased student achievement, professional collaboration, and overall school improvement.

State Resources
Below are links to state resources regarding RtI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RTI is a process implemented throughout KISD schools to ensure all students have access to high quality instruction. The RTI framework supports students' academic and behavioral needs through an early identification process and the implementation of multi-tiered intervention resulting in: increased student achievement, professional collaboration, and overall school improvement.

# data[].attributes.body
Killeen ISD. (n.d.) Response to Intervention. Retrieved from https://www.killeenisd.org/RTI.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ed. Dept. Finds that Texas suppressed enrollment of Special Education Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Ed. Dept. Finds that Texas suppressed enrollment of Special Education Students

# data[].attributes.body
Texas was found to be in violation of IDEA because students lingered in RtI for years and remained stagnant without additional testing or services being provided. It was also noted that some districts went around SPED labels by including students with needs for additional testing under 504. While section 504 does allow students to receive some services, it does not provide the same accommodations and additional services that SPED programs can provide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disability advocates hailed the U.S. Department of Education's finding that Texas for years put roadblocks in the path of children who potentially qualified for special education-a clear violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

"It shows that they are willing to stand up when a state is clearly not doing what's right," said Robbi Cooper, a leader of the parent advocacy group Decoding Dyslexia Texas and the mother of a son with dyslexia. "Now let's just hope that we can get the policies right."

The Jan. 11 monitoring report from the office of special education services-the first to be issued under the leadership of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos-outlines a series of IDEA violations by the state.

In conversations with Texas parents and educators, federal officials heard conflicting reports about how children with dyslexia should be screened and served. Children who struggled in school were shifted to response-to-intervention programs that were supposed to meet their needs, but, once there, some languished for years, the monitoring report said.

In other cases, the report said that districts sidestepped special education identification by providing services through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 allows students to receive supports to access the general education curriculum, but it does not offer the same level of student rights and school responsibilities as the IDEA.

All of those problems were tied to a Texas policy, now banned, that subjected school districts to additional state scrutiny if their special education enrollment rose above 8.5 percent. The state education department called the figure just a benchmark for districts, but many school officials treated it as a cap. The 8.5 percent figure came to light in 2016 through a series of investigative pieces published in the Houston Chronicle.

In the wake of those news articles, the U.S. Department of Education embarked on a listening tour through Texas, solicited comments on its website, and interviewed Texas educators, culminating in the monitoring report.

To fix the problem, Texas must now find and test students who may have qualified for special education but were not evaluated; provide guidance to districts about their responsibilities under the IDEA; and create a district monitoring plan. The federal office of special education programs indicated it would work with the state, still recovering from Hurricane Harvey, on an mutually agreeable timeline.

Texas Officials Promise Action

State officials, who originally denied that the 8.5 percent benchmark had prevented any students from getting services, took a different tack, when the letter from the federal government was released.

Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, directed the Texas Education Agency to create a corrective action plan within seven days.

"The past dereliction of duty on the part of many school districts to serve our students, and the failure of TEA to hold districts accountable, are worthy of criticism," Abbott said in a statement. "TEA must take steps now to significantly increase the oversight provided to ensure our special education students are receiving the services they deserve." In 2017, Abbott signed a law that would bar the state education agency from placing a cap or creating a benchmark on special education enrollment.

Mike Morath, the state education commissioner, said in a statement: "I share Gov. Abbott's urgency to quickly address the issues identified in this federal monitoring report. More importantly, I share the governor's commitment to doing what's right for special education students in our public schools."

Morath noted that his department has already increased the number of staff members who provide technical assistance and training to school districts.

"The corrective action plan called for by the governor will outline the specific steps TEA will take to address all the identified issues. Parent and special education advocacy group representatives will play an ongoing integral role in helping shape this plan, as well as all efforts of the agency in the years ahead," Morath said.

The Houston Chronicle series said that the state created the 8.5 percent benchmark in 2004. That year, about 12 percent of the state's students were enrolled in special education. Nationally, the percentage stood at about 14 percent.

Over the years, the special education enrollment in the state steadily dropped. Nationally, special education enrollment dipped a bit as well, but not at the same rate as in Texas. By 2014, special education students made 8.5 percent of the state's overall school enrollment, while nationally it was 13.5 percent.

Violations of Federal Law

The articles in the Chronicle captured stories of children whose disabilities would automatically qualify them for special education services in other states. For example, a child with Down syndrome was initially denied special education services because he could read on grade level. Another child, who was born prematurely and was legally blind, was denied services because she could hold written materials close enough to her face to read.

During its listening tour and interviews with school officials, the federal special education office captured other stories of special education denials.

Federal officials were told, for example, that the state's "Dyslexia Handbook" said that children with difficulty reading must present an additional disabling condition before they could even be evaluated for special education services. This is a violation of the IDEA, which does not require a child to be suspected of multiple disabilities before a screening takes place.

Texas' use of response to intervention was also called out in the monitoring report. RTI is an instructional framework that focuses on addressing problems early with students who show signs of academic weakness. Among its components are screening for academic trouble spots and targeted, research-based "interventions" of increasing intensity, based on a student's needs. The increasingly intensive interventions are generally known as "tiers."

Many state educators said they thought a child had to go through every tier of an RTI process before they could be screened. In fact, the Education Department told states in 2011 that RTI can't be used to delay or deny a special education evaluation. Teachers also said they weren't clear about how much progress children should be making to move out of RTI.

Dustin Rynders, the education director at Disability Rights Texas, discovered the special education enrollment target several years ago, when parents started complaining to his organization about the fact that they could not get services for their children.

"What I find most important is for the state to be reminded that you cannot ignore this population," Rynders said in an interview. The findings "have elevated a conversation around students with disabilities that I don't think we've ever had in our state."

Published in Print: January 11, 2018, as Ed. Dept. Finds Texas Suppressed Spec. Ed. Enrollment

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ed. Dept. Finds Texas Suppressed Enrollment of Special Education Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disability advocates hailed the U.S. Department of Education's finding that Texas for years put roadblocks in the path of children who potentially qualified for special education-a clear violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

# data[].attributes.headline
RtI may fall short in flagging certain students 

# data[].attributes.subject
RtI may fall short in flagging certain students 

# data[].attributes.body
The RtI model is intended to flag students who may be in need of additional assistance and provides targeted research-based instruction to those in need. Some note that there are improved methods to identifying students with academic and behavioral needs. RtI when used effectively monitors and helps identify students who need more intense intervention and possible accommodations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RTI May Fall Short in Flagging Certain Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a method of organizing efforts to help students who are struggling academically, response to intervention has seen widespread adoption. But as an improved method of identifying students with learning disabilities, RTI shows far less clear benefits, researchers are finding.

# data[].attributes.body
The educator shall be of moral and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.body
As an educator our duty is to ensure the students we are entrusted with get the best education possible. If a teacher knowingly does not place a student in need of RtI intervention in the program we are not doing what is academically best for the child.

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to Intervention RtI: A Primer for Parents

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to Intervention RtI: A Primer for Parents

# data[].attributes.body
This article serves as a parents guide to RtI. The article explains the legal components of RtI and advises parents about what questions should be asked when their school mentions RtI or a "problem solving process". Parents will be able to see more growth through the progress monitoring techniques used in the RtI platform than in other intervention programs. When instruction is data driven and research based teachers are able to target specific areas and set attainable goals for their students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A major concern for parents as well as teachers is how to help children who experience difficulty in school. All parents want to see their child excel, and it can be very frustrating when a child falls behind in either learning to read, achieving as expected in math and other subjects, or in getting along socially with peers and teachers. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-step approach to providing services and interventions to struggling learners at increasing levels of intensity. RTI allows for early intervention by providing academic and behavioral supports rather than waiting for a child to fail before offering help.

Some new federal laws have directed schools to focus more on helping all children learn by addressing problems earlier, before the child is so far behind that a referral to special education services is warranted. These laws include the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004. Both laws underscore the importance of providing high quality, scientifically-based instruction and interventions, and hold schools accountable for the progress of all students in terms of meeting state grade level standards. RTI is a process designed to help schools focus on these high quality interventions while carefully monitoring student progress. The information gained from an RTI process is used by school personnel and parents to inform instruction and to determine the educational needs of the child.

What are the essential components of RTI?

Simply, "Response to Intervention" refers to a process that emphasizes how well students respond to changes in instruction. The essential elements of an RTI approach are: the provision of scientific, research-based instruction and interventions in general education; monitoring and measurement of student progress in response to the instruction and interventions; and use of these measures of student progress to shape instruction and make educational decisions. A number of leading national organizations and coalition groups, including the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities and the 14 organizations forming the 2004 Learning Disabilities (LD) Roundtable coalition, have outlined the core features of an RTI process as follows:

High quality, research-based instruction and behavioral support in general education.

Universal (school-wide or district-wide) screening of academics and behavior in order to determine which students need closer monitoring or additional interventions.

Multiple tiers of increasingly intense scientific, research-based interventions that are matched to student need.

Use of a collaborative approach by school staff for development, implementation, and monitoring of the intervention process.

Continuous monitoring of student progress during the interventions, using objective information to determine if students are meeting goals.

Follow-up measures providing information that the intervention was implemented as intended and with appropriate consistency.

Documentation of parent involvement throughout the process.

Documentation that the special education evaluation timelines specified in IDEA 2004 and in the state regulations are followed unless both the parents and the school team agree to an extension.

What are the key terms?

Response to Intervention (RTI) is an array of procedures that can be used to determine if and how students respond to specific changes in instruction. RTI provides an improved process and structure for school teams in designing, implementing, and evaluating educational interventions.

Universal Screening is a step taken by school personnel early in the school year to determine which students are "at risk" for not meeting grade level standards or those who have behavioral or emotional problems that may interfere with their learning. Universal screening can be accomplished by reviewing recent results of state tests, or by administering an academic or behavioral screening test to all students in a given grade level. Those students whose test scores or screening results fall below a certain cut-off are identified as needing more specialized academic or behavioral interventions.

Student Progress Monitoring is a scientifically based practice that is used to frequently assess students' academic performance and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. Progress monitoring procedures can be used with individual students or an entire class.

Scientific, Research-Based Instruction refers to specific curriculum and educational interventions that have been proven to be effective - that is, the research has been reported in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

What role does RTI play in special education eligibility?

IDEA 2004 offers greater flexibility to school teams by eliminating the requirement that students must exhibit a "severe discrepancy" between intellectual ability and achievement in order to be found eligible for special education and related services as a student with a learning disability. This increased flexibility has led to a growing interest in using RTI as part of an alternative method to traditional ability/achievement discrepancy comparisons. IDEA 2004 addresses RTI procedures within several contexts.

Effective instruction and progress monitoring. For students to be considered for special education services based on a learning disability they first must have been provided with effective instruction and their progress measured through "data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement." Furthermore, results of the student progress monitoring must be provided to the child's parents.

Evaluation procedures. The law gives districts the option of using RTI procedures as part of the evaluation procedures for special education eligibility. Comprehensive assessment is still required under the reauthorized law, however. That means that schools still need to carefully examine all relevant aspects of a student's performance and history before concluding that a disability does or does not exist. As before, schools must rule out learning problems that are primarily the result of factors such as poor vision, hearing, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, lack of appropriate instruction, or limited English proficiency.

Early Intervening Services. IDEA 2004 allows districts the option of using up to 15% of federal special education funds for "early intervening services" for students who have not been identified as needing special education, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education setting. The types of services that can be included are central to the RTI process, and include professional development for teachers and school staff to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, as well as educational evaluations, services, supports, and scientifically based literacy instruction.

How can parents be involved in the RTI process?

The hallmarks of effective home-school collaboration include open communication and involvement of parents in all stages of the learning process. Being informed about your school's RTI process is the first step to becoming an active partner. Both the National Center for Learning Disabilities and the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities advise parents to ask the following questions:

Does our school use an RTI process? If not, are there plans to adopt one? Be aware that your child's school may call their procedures a "problem solving process," or may have a unique title for their procedures, e.g., Instructional Support Team, and not use the specific RTI terminology.

Are there written materials for parents explaining the RTI process? How can parents be involved in the various phases of the RTI process?

What interventions are being used, and are these scientifically based as supported by research?

What length of time is recommended for an intervention before determining if the student is making adequate progress?

How do school personnel check to be sure that the interventions were carried out as planned?

What techniques are being used to monitor student progress and the effectiveness of the interventions? Does the school provide parents with regular progress monitoring reports?

At what point in the RTI process are parents informed of their due process rights under IDEA 2004, including the right to request an evaluation for special education eligibility?

What are the potential benefits of RTI?

Perhaps the most commonly cited benefit of an RTI approach is that it eliminates a "wait to fail" situation because students get help promptly within the general education setting. Secondly, an RTI approach has the potential to reduce the number of students referred for special education services while increasing the number of students who are successful within regular education. Since an RTI approach helps distinguish between those students whose achievement problems are due to a learning disability versus those students whose achievement problems are due to other issues such as lack of prior instruction, referrals for special education evaluations are often reduced. RTI techniques have been favored for reducing the likelihood that students from diverse racial, cultural or linguistic backgrounds are incorrectly identified as having a disability. Finally, parents and school teams alike find that the student progress monitoring techniques utilized in an RTI approach provide more instructionally relevant information than traditional assessments.

What are next steps in implementing RTI approaches?

There are many specific issues that must be addressed in order to effectively implement RTI approaches. Strong leadership and effective collaboration are essential ingredients in implementing RTI. Schools must be prepared to offer a variety of proven instructional strategies; staff must be trained to measure student performance using methods that are sensitive to small increments of growth; parents must be kept informed of these new procedures and made partners in the process. RTI is an educational approach that has the potential to help all students reach their full potential and to successfully meet the state grade level standards.

References and web resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Response to Intervention (RTI): A Primer for Parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn what questions to ask about Response to Intervention (RTI), an approach to helping struggling learners that is gaining momentum in schools across the country. This article from the National Association of School Psychologists tells you the most important features of the process, key terms, and RTI's relationship to special education evaluation.

# data[].attributes.body
Klotz, M. B, Canter, A.  (2020). Response to intervention RtI: A primer for parents. Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/response-intervention-rti-primer-parents

# data[].attributes.body
* RtI is a research-based multi-tiered approach to academic and behavioral interventions.
* RtI was implemented under IDEA in 2004. Though RtI falls under a Federal Act it is not federally mandated to be used in schools.
* RtI is a data driven stepping stone that aims to identify and support a students academic and behavioral needs before they become serious.
* RtI is data-based and helps provide proper intervention to students. Those who are not successful in Tier I intervention more up through the tiers and are identified for possible additional testing.
*Teachers record notes on student performance throughout the tiered intervention to determine if the child is making progress towards their individual goals or if another form of intervention needs to take place.
* Under IDEA parents have the right to be informed. School districts have a time line in which parents must be notified of testing and results.

# data[].attributes.body
https://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/rti-brochure.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Samuels, C. (2017). RTI may fall short in flagging certain students. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/02/15/rti-may-fall-short-in-flagging-certain.html

# data[].attributes.body
Samuels, C. (2018). Ed. Dept. finds Texas suppressed enrollment of special education students. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/01/11/ed-dept-finds-texas-suppressed-enrollment-of.html