OCR Early Complaint Resolution...Any experience?

[twinturbo]

I'd be a broken record that it's an effective, necessary related aid to benefit equally from a related service. See previous post about when does custody begin and when does it end. At the meeting to the school not necessarily to OCR. However, the burden of proof you have should ideally point to SOMEONE needs to be there to deal with administration. If the school does not want to have the driver trained then let's hear how they will demonstrate in loco parentis with regard to EAP.

I mean, this may not work but go down on record making the argument as close to the foundations of doctrines, law, regulations as much as possible. Treat this as a recorded interrogation going before a court later. The bus issue really is a controversial area.

Don't quote the next part but think of it this way: if you're arrested you're in custody and therefore your safety is the responsibility of the arresting agency from that moment. But with kids going to school we're wondering (we meaning the system) if there's a responsibility. Gee, ya think?

But you're there, you're the parent, this is your child, you know the specifics and what child needs for school. Good luck.

I asked "Is it within OCR's scope to determine if it is discriminatory for the district to state that they refuse to administer epi in accordance with his emergency action plan should he experience anaphylaxis on the bus?  Can the district pick and choose when they apply his emergency action plan and when they do not?"  She gave me a wishy washy non-answer.   

I'll go out on a limb here as long as you don't hold me to this. Just IMHO, not advice. Hold on to that question and keep asking it until you get clarification. I bet OCR is trying to stay within the rules knowing while they can't force a specific accommodation there really aren't too many options at this point that will satisfy FAPE. Option 1 bus driver. Option 2 any responsible adult... okay, who if not an aide?

I would change the question slightly, though. I would ask if the unaffected peers benefit from this related service to FAPE more than child with a disability. Therefore if that discrimination exists between the safety of unaffected (non-disabled peers) and the level of safety of child with hidden, episodic disability then that discrimination should be prohibited and elminiated by the use of an effective, necessary accommodation. That eliminating that discrimination in safety is not an over extension of obligation by the SD in delivering FAPE.

1. Logical structure outlining existence of discrimination (meaning non-disabled peers benefit more from same service than qualifying child), query OCR on agreement with the existence of said discrimination.
2. If agreed that discrimination exists propose accommodation.
3. If accommodation is both effective and necessary then why not use accommodation.

Some rough notes I made from OCR's letter of clarification on reasonable standard applied to K12. More for the clarification of what the SD's obligation is to deliver FAPE. I'd say the bus most closely resembles #5 in logical structure.

[spoiler]3. Adjustments may be substantial. Substantial does not equate unreasonable or not necessary (an unauthorized extension of obligation). It is only when they go beyond necessary to eliminate discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual does it become an extension (i.e. not reasonable, not necessary)
4. 504 compliance to deliver FAPE does not require any changes beyond necessary to eliminate discrimination
5. Where a school district is meeting needs of students w/o disabilities to a greater extent than students w/disabilities discrimination is occurring.
6. Even substantial modifications are not extensions of obligation to eliminate discrimination.
7. "reasonable" coincides with modifications that do not alter fundamental nature. It does not define the degree of modification.
8. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by removing barriers to existing programs-- it does not constitute affirmative action, there is no special selection conferring additional benefit to overcome disability. It merely requires adjustments, without pronouncement on degree of adjustment, necessary to eliminate discrimination. (See 5 above).[/spoiler]

[ajasfolks2]

I asked "Is it within OCR's scope to determine if it is discriminatory for the district to state that they refuse to administer epi in accordance with his emergency action plan should he experience anaphylaxis on the bus?  Can the district pick and choose when they apply his emergency action plan and when they do not?"  She gave me a wishy washy non-answer.   

So, just a suggested small edit/rewrite to your questions of OCR as stated above:

"Why is it NOT Is it within OCR's scope to determine if it is discriminatory for the district to state that they refuse to administer epi in accordance with his emergency action plan should he experience anaphylaxis on the bus? 
How can the district pick and choose when they apply his emergency action plan and when they do not?"

Just seems to put the ball even more in OCR's court to have a meaningful answer, KWIM?

[yelloww]

To add to TT's thoughts, it seems to me that if they transport one child with ANY sort of disability via some other sort of transportation other than the regular sized school bus (small bus, van, etc) to accommodate that child's disability, then they are clearly picking and choosing which disabilities they want to accommodate.

Do they have ANY children who ride a different bus?

[daisy madness]

Yelloww, it is a small, rural district.  When I made my first phone call to the superintendent's office to ask about the situation, I was told by the staff member that they cannot transport children with disabilities because they do not have a "special bus."  I so wish I had that in writing.   

Ajas, thank you for rewording that question.  I'll try it again that way.

TT, I will try my best to be sure to stick to regulations and not get side tracked.

OCR was calling the district today.  She said she'd let me know their response.  I never heard anything so I think the district probably said they'd get back to her.  They'll probably drag their feet for a few weeks before responding. That seems to be their MO.  Although it wouldn't be very smart for them to play games with OCR. 

[ajasfolks2]

I'm stunned as to the school district's statement about why cannot transport Disabled/Spec Needs kids.

I'd send a "letter of understanding" to the school district on that one.  State the date, approx time, and person who told you that and send it certified.

What is on their district website as to bus transportation?  Sometimes you can find gems online.

[daisy madness]

I sent a letter about that back in September. it was before i knew what a LOU was.  i included the staff member name, date, and content of the conversation in my initial letter to the Superintendent asking for the bus aide.  I gave a copy to OCR. 

I haven't heard anything back from OCR yet about the school's response.