F. School Placement Decisions School placement decisions may not be based upon the unwillingness of a district to provide needed related services to a child with OHI-diabetes disability at the school that the child would otherwise attend. A district may not require the parent to waive any rights, hold the district harmless, or agree to any particular placement or related services as a condition of administering medication or assisting a student in the administration of medication at school. (See Comment to IDEA regulations at p. 46587 (federal register) involving 34 CFR sec. 300.116(c) : “Unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled Public agencies must not make placement decisions based on a public agency’s needs or available resources, including budgetary considerations and the ability of the public agency to hire and recruit qualified staff;” see also Berlin Brothers Valley (PA.) School Dist., EHLR 353:124 (OCR 1988) (blanket waiver of liability as condition to provision of medical services prohibited). For example, a district may not have a blanket policy or general practice that insulin or glucagon administration or other diabetes-related health care service are only going to be provided by district personnel at one school in the district, or that a child will always need to be removed from the classroom in order to receive diabetes related health care services. An IEP developed in the legally-required manner, which takes into account all of the relevant medical and education factors under the IDEA for each disabled child, is the only way to ensure that such a student receives an individualized determination of what constitutes FAPE under the IDEA and relevant state statutes. G. Administrative Procedures; Financial Burden Not a Defense A parent of a child with the disability of OHI or an organization can file an administrative complaint with the CDE alleging that a school district is violating the IDEA or relevant state statutes by failing to identify, evaluate, or provide a FAPE to a student with diabetes or a group of students with diabetes, including challenging a district policy or practice that restricts the provision of related health services to students eligible for such services under the IDEA. ( 34 CFR secs. 300.151-300.153; Calif. Code Regs., Tit. 5, secs. 4600-4671 .) In the alternative, a parent who disagrees with the IEP decision regarding identification, evaluation, or the provision of FAPE and related services can file for an impartial due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings. ( 20 USC sec. 1415 (e)-(i) .) An OAH judge can order that the applicable required related school health services be provided by the district, including the administration of insulin during the school day. ( 20 USC sec. 1415(f)(3)(E) .) Financial burden is not a valid defense available to the LEA under the Garret F . case. ( Cedar Rapids v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66, 75, fn. 6, 78-79 (1999) (district required to fund related school health services under 34 CFR sec. 300.13(a) where necessary in order to provide student with meaningful access to public school).)
Chapter 23 – Provision of Healthcare Services, Charter SELPA As of 09/08/2017 CAHELP Governance Council Approved
Page 18
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online