If you read OP's other thread you would have noticed the following post re the 504 plan. It was OP's belief that her son had asked to discontinue it when he reached high school and later in this thread where apparently OP discussed this with the counselor and agreed to drop the plan and believed it was dropped when they started this thread, it was only after the meeting that they learned that they had forgotten to sign to drop the plan and now want to hold that against the school, changing their story as suits them.notsmartmark said:
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
504 Violation
- Thread starter rtbrain
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Notsmartmark
Before I answer you questions I just want to say this, there seems to be a lot of confusion on what is going on. Maybe it’s my fault if I didn’t make things clear. I have 2 separate issues. Met4nzkx refers to the original post which in under the criminal section. My son was arrested and I don’t think the 504 applies and is separate from the school issue I’m dealing with. Feel free to read the other post but remember I have to deal with them separately. I will try to state the events without emotion and stick to the facts. Maybe that will help clarify some of the confusion. This statement concerns only the 504 plan and sequence of events with it. Keep in mind it was January of last year that guidance contacted me and thought it would be ok to end the 504.
After the first event he was called to the guidance one time. So far that is the only service since the incident. I have a meeting today with the school to update his 504 with appropriate services.
He remained in school until the hearing.
My 16 year old son who is diagnosed with ADHD was put on a 504 plan in the 6th grade. His 504 remained active and was utilized by his teachers through 8th grade. He began high school in 2003 and is currently in his junior year. His 504 plan followed him to high school where it remains on file. He was contacted for the first time in January of 2005 by guidance to discuss his 504. At this time he was halfway through his sophomore year. There was no contact regarding his 504 in his freshman year. The guidance counselor for sophomores contacted me on January 27, 2005. She told me she had spoken to my son about his 504 plan and he felt like he no longer needed it. She explained that she had looked over his records and it seems things had been going well and he had been staying out of trouble. It was her opinion that it would be ok to end it and if I agreed I would need to sign the paperwork. Things had improved so I agreed.
My son got into trouble at school before Christmas break and was recommended for expulsion. I contacted the junior class guidance counselor, after school resumed to find out when his 504 had ended. She said she would find the information and get back with me. The next time I spoke with her, she told me it was noted in his file by last year’s counselor, that it was ended on January 27, 2005. At that time I let her know I wanted to put his 504 back in place. Since my son’s hearing was about a week away and a meeting would be required she thought it best to wait until we had the results of the hearing.
The hearing was held on January 24, 2006. It was brought up, during the hearing, that my son had not received the services he had been entitled to under his 504 plan when it was in place. The vice principle, stated that the 504 wad ended by the mothers request. I stated that I never requested to end the 504. She then asked me directly, “you never requested to end the 504?” I said “I never requested to end it”. She then said the meeting is over. I had no idea what was going on. I asked to speak and told them I signed the paper to end it but I never requested to end it, rather the guidance counselor suggested ending it. They said the hearing could continue. At that time I had no reason to believe my son had an active 504 because I was told the previous week it ended a year ago. I believed I must have signed the paperwork since I was given the ending date. It does seem that the school did not check to be sure the 504 paperwork was in order before proceeding with the expulsion hearing. I believe my sons’ behavior was related to his ADHD and that if services he was entitled to were given, he may have made better choices.
My husband requested a copy of everything in my sons 504 plan and received it on Friday. When I returned home from work Friday evening I discovered there was nothing in his file that I signed to end the 504. The only reference to ending the 504 is the handwritten note dated January 27, 2005 which states: Need to have mother sign paper to end 504. I did not realize the paperwork had never been done. Therefore my son still has an active 504. The school failed to follow proper procedure for a student that has a 504. He was entitled to a manifestation meeting. If after that meeting it was decided that his behavior was not related to his ADHD they could go forward with the expulsion hearing.
Before I answer you questions I just want to say this, there seems to be a lot of confusion on what is going on. Maybe it’s my fault if I didn’t make things clear. I have 2 separate issues. Met4nzkx refers to the original post which in under the criminal section. My son was arrested and I don’t think the 504 applies and is separate from the school issue I’m dealing with. Feel free to read the other post but remember I have to deal with them separately. I will try to state the events without emotion and stick to the facts. Maybe that will help clarify some of the confusion. This statement concerns only the 504 plan and sequence of events with it. Keep in mind it was January of last year that guidance contacted me and thought it would be ok to end the 504.
After the first event he was called to the guidance one time. So far that is the only service since the incident. I have a meeting today with the school to update his 504 with appropriate services.
He remained in school until the hearing.
My 16 year old son who is diagnosed with ADHD was put on a 504 plan in the 6th grade. His 504 remained active and was utilized by his teachers through 8th grade. He began high school in 2003 and is currently in his junior year. His 504 plan followed him to high school where it remains on file. He was contacted for the first time in January of 2005 by guidance to discuss his 504. At this time he was halfway through his sophomore year. There was no contact regarding his 504 in his freshman year. The guidance counselor for sophomores contacted me on January 27, 2005. She told me she had spoken to my son about his 504 plan and he felt like he no longer needed it. She explained that she had looked over his records and it seems things had been going well and he had been staying out of trouble. It was her opinion that it would be ok to end it and if I agreed I would need to sign the paperwork. Things had improved so I agreed.
My son got into trouble at school before Christmas break and was recommended for expulsion. I contacted the junior class guidance counselor, after school resumed to find out when his 504 had ended. She said she would find the information and get back with me. The next time I spoke with her, she told me it was noted in his file by last year’s counselor, that it was ended on January 27, 2005. At that time I let her know I wanted to put his 504 back in place. Since my son’s hearing was about a week away and a meeting would be required she thought it best to wait until we had the results of the hearing.
The hearing was held on January 24, 2006. It was brought up, during the hearing, that my son had not received the services he had been entitled to under his 504 plan when it was in place. The vice principle, stated that the 504 wad ended by the mothers request. I stated that I never requested to end the 504. She then asked me directly, “you never requested to end the 504?” I said “I never requested to end it”. She then said the meeting is over. I had no idea what was going on. I asked to speak and told them I signed the paper to end it but I never requested to end it, rather the guidance counselor suggested ending it. They said the hearing could continue. At that time I had no reason to believe my son had an active 504 because I was told the previous week it ended a year ago. I believed I must have signed the paperwork since I was given the ending date. It does seem that the school did not check to be sure the 504 paperwork was in order before proceeding with the expulsion hearing. I believe my sons’ behavior was related to his ADHD and that if services he was entitled to were given, he may have made better choices.
My husband requested a copy of everything in my sons 504 plan and received it on Friday. When I returned home from work Friday evening I discovered there was nothing in his file that I signed to end the 504. The only reference to ending the 504 is the handwritten note dated January 27, 2005 which states: Need to have mother sign paper to end 504. I did not realize the paperwork had never been done. Therefore my son still has an active 504. The school failed to follow proper procedure for a student that has a 504. He was entitled to a manifestation meeting. If after that meeting it was decided that his behavior was not related to his ADHD they could go forward with the expulsion hearing.
Last edited:
Met4nzkx
I need to address your last post. First I want to say that on some of your post you seem like you are trying to be helpful. On others, you seem to be attacking me. It does not matter to me which you prefer but please choose one and stick to it.
At the time of the original post you refer to, I had no idea my son’s 504 was active. I did not have a copy of the file until last week. I believe the school should be accountable for their actions just as they believe my son should be accountable for his actions. You have taken a part which was an answer to one of your post and it does not explain things correctly. Maybe that’s where a lot of confusion has come in because people have taken bits and pieces and put them in their post so it’s out of context.
He chose not to continue the plan in high school: Out of context-He was called to guidance to discuss his 504 for the first time and he had been there for a year and a half. My son told the guidance counselor he felt he did not need it anymore. She agreed after going through his records and she thought things had been going well. She told me she went through his records and thought it would be ok to end it. I had no reason not to believe her. When I received a copy of the 504 last week I discovered there were no records in his 504 except his records from middle school. Not 1 single entry for high school. It was not my idea to end the 504 and it was not my place to follow-up on the paperwork
Please give me one good reason that the school does not have to be accountable for their actions or inactions. What makes their accountability any different than my sons?
I need to address your last post. First I want to say that on some of your post you seem like you are trying to be helpful. On others, you seem to be attacking me. It does not matter to me which you prefer but please choose one and stick to it.
At the time of the original post you refer to, I had no idea my son’s 504 was active. I did not have a copy of the file until last week. I believe the school should be accountable for their actions just as they believe my son should be accountable for his actions. You have taken a part which was an answer to one of your post and it does not explain things correctly. Maybe that’s where a lot of confusion has come in because people have taken bits and pieces and put them in their post so it’s out of context.
He chose not to continue the plan in high school: Out of context-He was called to guidance to discuss his 504 for the first time and he had been there for a year and a half. My son told the guidance counselor he felt he did not need it anymore. She agreed after going through his records and she thought things had been going well. She told me she went through his records and thought it would be ok to end it. I had no reason not to believe her. When I received a copy of the 504 last week I discovered there were no records in his 504 except his records from middle school. Not 1 single entry for high school. It was not my idea to end the 504 and it was not my place to follow-up on the paperwork
Please give me one good reason that the school does not have to be accountable for their actions or inactions. What makes their accountability any different than my sons?
"I stated earlier, social skills were suppose to be one of the services he was to receive."
Okay, another question ~ why was your son suppose to get social skill training? I have never seen this in a 504 (but whatever). If your child needed social skill training there is more going on then just ADHD. You also stated "He does not isolate himself socially, quite the opposite, he is very outgoing".
So again my question regarding the need for social skills intervention!
Also as a parent, it is up to you to make sure your child is receiving appropriate services, even in H.S.. Did he ever get social skills? What did they work on?
You also stated that verbally you agreed to discontining the 504. Now, because of trouble, you want that change, it does not work that way. I also am checking to see if manifestation conferences are required for 504, it is my understanding it is used for children with IEP's. But I will double check.
Okay, another question ~ why was your son suppose to get social skill training? I have never seen this in a 504 (but whatever). If your child needed social skill training there is more going on then just ADHD. You also stated "He does not isolate himself socially, quite the opposite, he is very outgoing".
So again my question regarding the need for social skills intervention!
Also as a parent, it is up to you to make sure your child is receiving appropriate services, even in H.S.. Did he ever get social skills? What did they work on?
You also stated that verbally you agreed to discontining the 504. Now, because of trouble, you want that change, it does not work that way. I also am checking to see if manifestation conferences are required for 504, it is my understanding it is used for children with IEP's. But I will double check.
notsmartmark
Member
The best news is the school is willing to work with you. I too think the event requires punishment as you have said numerous times, but not a loss of a scholarship. I hope you can work out a reasonable resolution.
Also, thanks for the timeline clarification. I think you still have a position that might win, but it is a much weaker case than I had thought. Your signature for removal is a minor issue that I do not think would carry a lot of weight. The reason is you were contacted and told the 504 Plan was no longer necessary. You did not raise any concerns or complaints when contacted. Since he was exited, a Manisfestation Determination meeting was not necessary. Since the behavior occurred after he was exited, he is not entitled to protections under Section 504.
The other concern you raised was that services were not provided while the 504 Plan was in place. It could be found to be moot to you complaint. It might be a different complaint, but it would be difficult to link the lack of services a year after an event occurs. It's not impossible, but making a direct connection to the two issues would be challenging.
Now given that bad news here is some better news. The district did not complete a "formal" evaluation to discontinue the 504 Plan. It doesn't matter who initiated it discontinuation, but evaluating him out does. It's not a slam dunk because if cornered the district no doubt will say the counselor completed an appropriate evaluation. The evaluation was file review, input from staff and parent. Given the social nature of the accommodation, it could be found that it was an appropriate evaluation. But if you win the point about evaluation, then Manisfestation, services and protections come right back in with a win.
The bottom is I hope your son learns from the events and gets a scholarship if he is deserving.
Also, if he continues to need social accommodations while in college, he will need to learn how to access the supports through the appropriate means on campus. If you enter into a new 504 Plan that transition needs to be given consideration. If you do not know 504 Plans do not necessarily transfer from HS to college. In fact, they normally do not.
Also, thanks for the timeline clarification. I think you still have a position that might win, but it is a much weaker case than I had thought. Your signature for removal is a minor issue that I do not think would carry a lot of weight. The reason is you were contacted and told the 504 Plan was no longer necessary. You did not raise any concerns or complaints when contacted. Since he was exited, a Manisfestation Determination meeting was not necessary. Since the behavior occurred after he was exited, he is not entitled to protections under Section 504.
The other concern you raised was that services were not provided while the 504 Plan was in place. It could be found to be moot to you complaint. It might be a different complaint, but it would be difficult to link the lack of services a year after an event occurs. It's not impossible, but making a direct connection to the two issues would be challenging.
Now given that bad news here is some better news. The district did not complete a "formal" evaluation to discontinue the 504 Plan. It doesn't matter who initiated it discontinuation, but evaluating him out does. It's not a slam dunk because if cornered the district no doubt will say the counselor completed an appropriate evaluation. The evaluation was file review, input from staff and parent. Given the social nature of the accommodation, it could be found that it was an appropriate evaluation. But if you win the point about evaluation, then Manisfestation, services and protections come right back in with a win.
The bottom is I hope your son learns from the events and gets a scholarship if he is deserving.
Also, if he continues to need social accommodations while in college, he will need to learn how to access the supports through the appropriate means on campus. If you enter into a new 504 Plan that transition needs to be given consideration. If you do not know 504 Plans do not necessarily transfer from HS to college. In fact, they normally do not.
To Rtbrain:
I have not been able to read the most recent replies here, but wanted to say that if the school indeed does want to end the 504, they are suppose to 'by law' give you a letter called 'prior written notice' stating WHY they are going to stop the 504. It doesnt' matter if you sign to agree for this to be stopped or not, they are still suppose to send you this.
And, if they continue the 504, if they make any changes they are also suppose to send you this 'prior written notice' stating 'what' they are changing. Prior written notice is suppose to be written by school and sent to parents whenever the school wants to start, change, or stop services.
You might think this is not important to do, but many things can come up down the road that having this PWN will be very beneficial to you, in case the school does do things wrong.
If their reasons are on paper, they can't come back and say they didn't say this or that, or they can't say they didn't do this or that.
Just thought you might wanted to know this in case you didn't already.
Has there been any progress in your situation?? If you would not like to answer that here, I certainly understand..
I have not been able to read the most recent replies here, but wanted to say that if the school indeed does want to end the 504, they are suppose to 'by law' give you a letter called 'prior written notice' stating WHY they are going to stop the 504. It doesnt' matter if you sign to agree for this to be stopped or not, they are still suppose to send you this.
And, if they continue the 504, if they make any changes they are also suppose to send you this 'prior written notice' stating 'what' they are changing. Prior written notice is suppose to be written by school and sent to parents whenever the school wants to start, change, or stop services.
You might think this is not important to do, but many things can come up down the road that having this PWN will be very beneficial to you, in case the school does do things wrong.
If their reasons are on paper, they can't come back and say they didn't say this or that, or they can't say they didn't do this or that.
Just thought you might wanted to know this in case you didn't already.
Has there been any progress in your situation?? If you would not like to answer that here, I certainly understand..
I have read all the replies now and am confused myself. Is the school going to continue with the 504, or are they still going to end it because you 'agreed' to that, without signing anything?
If they are going to continue it, why did they feel to start with that it was no longer necessary? And WHY are they going to continue it if it is already stopped (according to the school).
It seems to me that if they say they are going to continue it, they would need your 'permission' to do so, since it is supposedly already 'stopped.'
They can't 'continue' the 504, because they ended it. Instead of 'continuing' it, they will need to 'start' it again. This is the legal process they need to take
All the PWN for this will be very important for you. It doesn't matter the 'reasons' concerning all this. A good lawyer will look at it this way- that the school is not following the legal process right, and not following the 'procedural safeguards' in this matter. This will make them lose in court every time, if it come to this. And by 'court' I mean the matter of the 504 not being done properly, and not about your son's problems.
Now, if the school is still saying the 504 is 'stopped' they are suppose to give you PWN of WHY they are stopping it. No matter if you signed anything or not. If they don't do this, they are still violating the laws.
If they are going to continue it, why did they feel to start with that it was no longer necessary? And WHY are they going to continue it if it is already stopped (according to the school).
It seems to me that if they say they are going to continue it, they would need your 'permission' to do so, since it is supposedly already 'stopped.'
They can't 'continue' the 504, because they ended it. Instead of 'continuing' it, they will need to 'start' it again. This is the legal process they need to take
All the PWN for this will be very important for you. It doesn't matter the 'reasons' concerning all this. A good lawyer will look at it this way- that the school is not following the legal process right, and not following the 'procedural safeguards' in this matter. This will make them lose in court every time, if it come to this. And by 'court' I mean the matter of the 504 not being done properly, and not about your son's problems.
Now, if the school is still saying the 504 is 'stopped' they are suppose to give you PWN of WHY they are stopping it. No matter if you signed anything or not. If they don't do this, they are still violating the laws.
I'm sorry, I forgot to add that if the school is wanting to 'continue' the 504 after it has already been ended, and even though the process they are doing this is not legal, they are probably wanting to 'continue' the 504 because they know that you know they have messed up by not following the 504 to begin with, and they are doing this to cover their butts and not get in trouble over it.
The process they are doing to 'continue' this 504, if this is what is happening, is not being done legally. Since they already ended the 504, even without your signature, they can't 'continue' it after they already 'ended' it. They are suppose to 'start' it again.
Also, in order for them to 'end' the 504, the school is suppose to follow a certain legal process to do this. One of these is the PWN I mentioned earlier. They may have to do an evaluation to see if your child no longer needs a 504. The 504 can't be ended legally by 'word of mouth', just because 'someone says so'. It has to be written in black and white as proof.
Come to think of it, since nothing was signed by you, since nothing was written saying the 504 is actually ended, they might come back say they can 'continue' it because it was never 'ended'. They can say this because even though they DID end it, there is no written proof they did and they can come back and say the 504 never ended. This is why the PWN is so important. This will keep them from doing things like this. Now I'm not saying this is what is happening in your case, but it very well could be possible.
The process they are doing to 'continue' this 504, if this is what is happening, is not being done legally. Since they already ended the 504, even without your signature, they can't 'continue' it after they already 'ended' it. They are suppose to 'start' it again.
Also, in order for them to 'end' the 504, the school is suppose to follow a certain legal process to do this. One of these is the PWN I mentioned earlier. They may have to do an evaluation to see if your child no longer needs a 504. The 504 can't be ended legally by 'word of mouth', just because 'someone says so'. It has to be written in black and white as proof.
Come to think of it, since nothing was signed by you, since nothing was written saying the 504 is actually ended, they might come back say they can 'continue' it because it was never 'ended'. They can say this because even though they DID end it, there is no written proof they did and they can come back and say the 504 never ended. This is why the PWN is so important. This will keep them from doing things like this. Now I'm not saying this is what is happening in your case, but it very well could be possible.
I have been trying to help you. You are the one changing. I understand why, but it makes it frustrating for those trying to help you and confusing for the rest. Can you please enable your PM feature?rtbrain said:Met4nzkx
I need to address your last post. First I want to say that on some of your post you seem like you are trying to be helpful. On others, you seem to be attacking me. It does not matter to me which you prefer but please choose one and stick to it.
It is irrelevant that you didn't know your son's 504 plan was active, it is only a technicality that it is not only because YOU didn't sign the paper after agreeing your son didn't need the 504 plan, nor did you actively request any services once he got to high school. Look up the meaning of the terms "estoppel" and "ex post facto" . You can't have your cake and eat it too. You have said he has no problem and then he has major problems with impulsiveness, again a red flag for Asperger's and why I originally told you to investiagte that possibility.At the time of the original post you refer to, I had no idea my son’s 504 was active. I did not have a copy of the file until last week. I believe the school should be accountable for their actions just as they believe my son should be accountable for his actions. You have taken a part which was an answer to one of your post and it does not explain things correctly. Maybe that’s where a lot of confusion has come in because people have taken bits and pieces and put them in their post so it’s out of context.
Your son committed a serious behavioral infraction and was given a punishment, which you agreed was appropriate, so your son was given the benefit of the doubt and given 1 more chance to behave appropriately with the understanding that no 504 plan was in place by all parties in Dec 2005 11 months after the plan was discontinued. Then, your son, knowing it was not appropriate, intentionally mooned the school bus, which while a criminal matter, still involved the schools in several ways, so it is not a separate matter. The school is well within their rights to violate his school probation since he failed to obey some very simple rules.
This is where you start to play the waffle word game because you can't infer the meaning of words except for in a very concrete manner dictated by you. Splitting hairs between agreed/asked, when the object of the quesiton was that the 504 plan was discontinued after consulting both you and your son and a review of his records. You have not sought any services because you believed there is nothing wrong with your son other than ADHD, the fact that social skills were a part of the plan indicates that somewhere along the way, someone evaluated your son to have something other than ADHD.He chose not to continue the plan in high school: Out of context-He was called to guidance to discuss his 504 for the first time and he had been there for a year and a half. My son told the guidance counselor he felt he did not need it anymore. She agreed after going through his records and she thought things had been going well. She told me she went through his records and thought it would be ok to end it. I had no reason not to believe her. When I received a copy of the 504 last week I discovered there were no records in his 504 except his records from middle school. Not 1 single entry for high school. It was not my idea to end the 504 and it was not my place to follow-up on the paperwork
Because you are in denial and didn't ask for services, you instead ask to have the school coddle a sexual offender.Please give me one good reason that the school does not have to be accountable for their actions or inactions. What makes their accountability any different than my sons?
OP admitted she signed it at the hearing, after she was told not to say anything more, she insisted she signed it, then only after her husband obtained copies of the file discovered she had not followed through but believed she had signed it. It is only for the technicality after the fact that she is using the 504 plan as an excuse for her son's criminal behavior and the school's restricitons following breaking his school probation. Under public policy, the school's duty is to the greater student body and district pupils, this has greater weight than her son't right to have his criminal behavior excused and condoned by the school, that is how it will play in court. It is not an ADA issue.sisymay said:I'm sorry, I forgot to add that if the school is wanting to 'continue' the 504 after it has already been ended, and even though the process they are doing this is not legal, they are probably wanting to 'continue' the 504 because they know that you know they have messed up by not following the 504 to begin with, and they are doing this to cover their butts and not get in trouble over it.
The process they are doing to 'continue' this 504, if this is what is happening, is not being done legally. Since they already ended the 504, even without your signature, they can't 'continue' it after they already 'ended' it. They are suppose to 'start' it again.
Also, in order for them to 'end' the 504, the school is suppose to follow a certain legal process to do this. One of these is the PWN I mentioned earlier. They may have to do an evaluation to see if your child no longer needs a 504. The 504 can't be ended legally by 'word of mouth', just because 'someone says so'. It has to be written in black and white as proof.
Come to think of it, since nothing was signed by you, since nothing was written saying the 504 is actually ended, they might come back say they can 'continue' it because it was never 'ended'. They can say this because even though they DID end it, there is no written proof they did and they can come back and say the 504 never ended. This is why the PWN is so important. This will keep them from doing things like this. Now I'm not saying this is what is happening in your case, but it very well could be possible.
My replies to rtbrain here have nothing to do with the issue of her son. They are about the 504 process itself, regardless if her son is in trouble or not.
When I read her message, it states that at the hearing she said she did not AGREE to end the 504. She did NOT state that she DID 'sign' to end it.
In my replies here to rtbrain, I am not in anyway trying to use the 504 and the disclipline action together. I am not mentioning the child's problems at all. I do not know if she is trying to use the 504 issue to get the child out of trouble. I have not been concerned about that. I have only been telling her the laws of the procedures and process that must be followed regarding a 504. I have not said this issue was an ADA issue or even made any references to that.
When I read her message, it states that at the hearing she said she did not AGREE to end the 504. She did NOT state that she DID 'sign' to end it.
In my replies here to rtbrain, I am not in anyway trying to use the 504 and the disclipline action together. I am not mentioning the child's problems at all. I do not know if she is trying to use the 504 issue to get the child out of trouble. I have not been concerned about that. I have only been telling her the laws of the procedures and process that must be followed regarding a 504. I have not said this issue was an ADA issue or even made any references to that.
YOU cannot claim his sexual offenses are protected by section 504 due to his ADHD.
“Evaluation” does not necessarily mean “test.” In the §504 context, “evaluation” refers to a gathering of data or information from a variety of sources so that the committee can make the required determinations. §104.35(c)(1). Since specific or highly technical eligibility criteria are not part of the §504 regulations, formal testing is not required to determine eligibility. Letter to Williams, 21 IDELR 73 (OCR 1994). Common sources of evaluation data for §504 eligibility are the student’s grades, disciplinary referrals, health information, language surveys, parent information, standardized test scores, teacher comments, etc. If formal testing is pursued, the regulations require that the tests are properly selected and performed by trained personnel in the manner prescribed by the test’s creator. §104.35(b)(2). When interpreting evaluation data and making placement decisions, the District is required to “draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior.” Information obtained from all such sources is to be documented and carefully considered. §104.35(c)(1)&(2). “[This] paragraph requires a recipient to draw upon a variety of sources in the evaluation process so that the possibility of error in classification is minimized.” Appendix A, p. 430.
A comprehensive reevaluation is required periodically for each eligible student. Districts are considered to be in compliance if they complete reevaluations every three years (as they do with IDEA students). As a practical matter, and to ensure some continuity in the child’s program, Districts should consider an annual review of the child to determine whether changes are necessary due to differences in the child’s schedule in the coming year or changes in the child’s abilities and disabilities. Once the information has been gathered by the §504 Committee, it will determine eligibility based on the criteria previously addressed. If the child is found to be eligible, the Committee will create an accommodation plan for the child which describes the child’s “placement.”
Current Drug/Alcohol Exception to the Procedural Safeguard. “For purposes of programs and activities providing educational services, local educational agencies may take disciplinary action pertaining to the use or possession of illegal drugs or alcohol against any handicapped student who currently is engaging in the illegal use of drugs or in the use of alcohol to the same extent that such disciplinary action is taken against nonhandicapped students. Furthermore, the due process procedures at 34 C.F.R. 104.36, Procedural Safeguard, shall not apply to such disciplinary action.” 29 U.S.C. §706 (8)(C)(iv) (italics added).
OCR has interpreted this phrase to mean that if a student is currently using illegal drugs or alcohol, and is to be disciplined by the school for use or possession, the student loses the procedural protections provided by §504, including the manifestation determination prior to a change in placement for disciplinary reasons even if the child has another disability (for example, AD(H)D) that could be related to the misconduct. 1991 OCR Policy Memo on ADA Amendments to §504 (OCR 1991).
The Ten-Day Rule and Manifestation Determination. Students who qualify under §504 may not be subjected to a disciplinary change in placement for more than 10 days unless the appropriate §504 committee first determines that the behavior giving rise to the discipline was not linked to the student’s handicapping condition or to an inappropriate placement. To do otherwise is to punish the child because of his disability. Removals for less than ten days can be effected without §504 Committee approval. Note, however, a series of small removals (including teacher removals under §37.002 of the Education Code) over the course of the school year that exceeds ten total days may constitute a pattern of exclusions which is itself a violation of federal law.
D. Extracurricular Activities
Under §504, disabled students must be provided an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities. 34 C.F.R. §104.37(a)(1). Disabled students may try out for any extracurricular activity they desire, but they must generally meet the regular performance standards applied to all students. For example, a student with Tourette’s Syndrome was not subjected to discrimination when he was allowed to try out, albeit unsuccessfully, for a school baseball team. The coach ranked the students on a variety of performance criteria: speed, balance, coordination, hand-eye coordination, sprint speed, lateral movement, and softness catching the ball. Out of fourteen students vying for two openings, the claimant finished eighth, and did not receive a position on the team. OCR found no violation since the “student was given an equal opportunity to compete for a position.” Maryville City (TN) School District, 25 IDELR 154 (OCR 1996).
Students must submit to the general behavioral, academic, and performance standards applied to nondisabled students. For example, no 504 violation was found when a district suspended a student from participation in sports for four months due to his criminal conviction. The suspension was required by district policy and there was no evidence of discriminatory application. Cabarrus County (NC) School District, 22 IDELR 506 (OCR 1995). Similarly, a school district did not violate §504 when it removed a disabled student from the wrestling team for failing to follow instructions during practice, since nondisabled students were also removed for the same offense. Carmel (NY) Central School District, 23 IDELR 1195 (OCR 1995).
Disability does not offer a “free ride” to participate in competitive sports. Some accommodations, however, may be required in order for students to have an “equal opportunity to participate.” And those accommodations can be expensive. A district in West Virginia violated §504, for example, by failing to provide a deaf student with a sign language interpreter for use in basketball games and practices. Lambert v. West Virginia State Bd. of Education, 21 IDELR 647 (W. Va. 1994).
The good news is that although OCR does not recognize the “reasonable” limitation on accommodations that affect a FAPE, it appears to recognize that accommodations to allow for participation in extracurricular or nonacademic activities are subject to the “reasonable” limitation. An accommodation in the field of extracurricular or nonacademic activities becomes an unreasonable accommodation when it would require a “fundamental alteration in the nature of a program,” which in turn means “undue financial and administrative burdens.” See OCR Senior Staff Memoranda, “Guidance on the Application of Section 504 to Noneducational Programs of Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance,” January 3, 1990. For example, a 17-year-old student with Down’s Syndrome alleged that the district failed to allow him to participate in extracurricular activities to the maximum possible extent. The student was co-manager of the varsity basketball team, but was not allowed on away games, and was not allowed to sit with the team at home games. The school district showed that the student required too much supervision on away games, could not use the phone or count change, could not keep a shot chart, and could not perform most of the duties of a manager. In addition, the student was not alert enough to get out of the way of an incoming play on the bench. Despite accommodations the student was unable to perform the basic functions of the position of manager, and thus, was reassigned to co-manager. OCR found no violation of §504. Crete-Monee (IL) School District 201-U, 25 IDELR 986 (OCR 1996).
http://www.504idea.org/504overview.htmlExceptions to “Physical or Mental Impairment.” Homosexuality and bisexuality are not considered impairments under §504. 1992 OCR Memorandum on Differences Between ADA Title II and §504 Regulations (OCR 1992). Transvestitism was excluded under §504 by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. The following are not disabilities under ADA, and may or may not be disabilities under §504 (1)...pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorder not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders; (2) compulsive gambling, (3) kleptomania, (4) pyromania. Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12211. 1992 OCR Memorandum on Differences, see above.
“Evaluation” does not necessarily mean “test.” In the §504 context, “evaluation” refers to a gathering of data or information from a variety of sources so that the committee can make the required determinations. §104.35(c)(1). Since specific or highly technical eligibility criteria are not part of the §504 regulations, formal testing is not required to determine eligibility. Letter to Williams, 21 IDELR 73 (OCR 1994). Common sources of evaluation data for §504 eligibility are the student’s grades, disciplinary referrals, health information, language surveys, parent information, standardized test scores, teacher comments, etc. If formal testing is pursued, the regulations require that the tests are properly selected and performed by trained personnel in the manner prescribed by the test’s creator. §104.35(b)(2). When interpreting evaluation data and making placement decisions, the District is required to “draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior.” Information obtained from all such sources is to be documented and carefully considered. §104.35(c)(1)&(2). “[This] paragraph requires a recipient to draw upon a variety of sources in the evaluation process so that the possibility of error in classification is minimized.” Appendix A, p. 430.
A comprehensive reevaluation is required periodically for each eligible student. Districts are considered to be in compliance if they complete reevaluations every three years (as they do with IDEA students). As a practical matter, and to ensure some continuity in the child’s program, Districts should consider an annual review of the child to determine whether changes are necessary due to differences in the child’s schedule in the coming year or changes in the child’s abilities and disabilities. Once the information has been gathered by the §504 Committee, it will determine eligibility based on the criteria previously addressed. If the child is found to be eligible, the Committee will create an accommodation plan for the child which describes the child’s “placement.”
Current Drug/Alcohol Exception to the Procedural Safeguard. “For purposes of programs and activities providing educational services, local educational agencies may take disciplinary action pertaining to the use or possession of illegal drugs or alcohol against any handicapped student who currently is engaging in the illegal use of drugs or in the use of alcohol to the same extent that such disciplinary action is taken against nonhandicapped students. Furthermore, the due process procedures at 34 C.F.R. 104.36, Procedural Safeguard, shall not apply to such disciplinary action.” 29 U.S.C. §706 (8)(C)(iv) (italics added).
OCR has interpreted this phrase to mean that if a student is currently using illegal drugs or alcohol, and is to be disciplined by the school for use or possession, the student loses the procedural protections provided by §504, including the manifestation determination prior to a change in placement for disciplinary reasons even if the child has another disability (for example, AD(H)D) that could be related to the misconduct. 1991 OCR Policy Memo on ADA Amendments to §504 (OCR 1991).
The Ten-Day Rule and Manifestation Determination. Students who qualify under §504 may not be subjected to a disciplinary change in placement for more than 10 days unless the appropriate §504 committee first determines that the behavior giving rise to the discipline was not linked to the student’s handicapping condition or to an inappropriate placement. To do otherwise is to punish the child because of his disability. Removals for less than ten days can be effected without §504 Committee approval. Note, however, a series of small removals (including teacher removals under §37.002 of the Education Code) over the course of the school year that exceeds ten total days may constitute a pattern of exclusions which is itself a violation of federal law.
D. Extracurricular Activities
Under §504, disabled students must be provided an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities. 34 C.F.R. §104.37(a)(1). Disabled students may try out for any extracurricular activity they desire, but they must generally meet the regular performance standards applied to all students. For example, a student with Tourette’s Syndrome was not subjected to discrimination when he was allowed to try out, albeit unsuccessfully, for a school baseball team. The coach ranked the students on a variety of performance criteria: speed, balance, coordination, hand-eye coordination, sprint speed, lateral movement, and softness catching the ball. Out of fourteen students vying for two openings, the claimant finished eighth, and did not receive a position on the team. OCR found no violation since the “student was given an equal opportunity to compete for a position.” Maryville City (TN) School District, 25 IDELR 154 (OCR 1996).
Students must submit to the general behavioral, academic, and performance standards applied to nondisabled students. For example, no 504 violation was found when a district suspended a student from participation in sports for four months due to his criminal conviction. The suspension was required by district policy and there was no evidence of discriminatory application. Cabarrus County (NC) School District, 22 IDELR 506 (OCR 1995). Similarly, a school district did not violate §504 when it removed a disabled student from the wrestling team for failing to follow instructions during practice, since nondisabled students were also removed for the same offense. Carmel (NY) Central School District, 23 IDELR 1195 (OCR 1995).
Disability does not offer a “free ride” to participate in competitive sports. Some accommodations, however, may be required in order for students to have an “equal opportunity to participate.” And those accommodations can be expensive. A district in West Virginia violated §504, for example, by failing to provide a deaf student with a sign language interpreter for use in basketball games and practices. Lambert v. West Virginia State Bd. of Education, 21 IDELR 647 (W. Va. 1994).
The good news is that although OCR does not recognize the “reasonable” limitation on accommodations that affect a FAPE, it appears to recognize that accommodations to allow for participation in extracurricular or nonacademic activities are subject to the “reasonable” limitation. An accommodation in the field of extracurricular or nonacademic activities becomes an unreasonable accommodation when it would require a “fundamental alteration in the nature of a program,” which in turn means “undue financial and administrative burdens.” See OCR Senior Staff Memoranda, “Guidance on the Application of Section 504 to Noneducational Programs of Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance,” January 3, 1990. For example, a 17-year-old student with Down’s Syndrome alleged that the district failed to allow him to participate in extracurricular activities to the maximum possible extent. The student was co-manager of the varsity basketball team, but was not allowed on away games, and was not allowed to sit with the team at home games. The school district showed that the student required too much supervision on away games, could not use the phone or count change, could not keep a shot chart, and could not perform most of the duties of a manager. In addition, the student was not alert enough to get out of the way of an incoming play on the bench. Despite accommodations the student was unable to perform the basic functions of the position of manager, and thus, was reassigned to co-manager. OCR found no violation of §504. Crete-Monee (IL) School District 201-U, 25 IDELR 986 (OCR 1996).
From: http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/sec504.index.htm
Section 504
Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Section 504 ensures that the child with a disability has equal access to an education. The child may receive accommodations and modifications.
Unlike the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 does not require the school to provide an individualized educational program (IEP) that is designed to meet the child's unique needs and provides the child with educational benefit. Fewer procedural safeguards are available for disabled children and their parents under Section 504 than under IDEA.
Advocacy
To be an effective advocate for a child with a disability, you need to know your rights and responsibilities under the IDEA and Section 504. You also need to learn advocacy skills.
Download Free Flyer! Help for College Students with Disabilities Flyer. College-bound students need to learn self-advocacy skills - how to present information about their disability and accommodations so professors want to help. If students master these skills, they are more likely to make a successful transition from high school to college.
Who is Eligible for Protections Under Section 504 . . .
but Not Under IDEA?
Print this page
Q: Who may be protected under Section 504, but not under IDEA? A student with AIDS? A student with ADD? A student with chronic asthma?
A: Section 504 is a civil rights law. Section 504 protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination. Section 504 ensures that children with disabilities have equal access to an education.
All three students would be protected from discrimination under Section 504. Each of these students may also be eligible for special education and related services under IDEA.
Eligibility for special education and related services under IDEA (and eligibility for protection from discrimination under Section 504) is not disability-specific. This means that one child who has ADD or asthma or AIDS is eligible for special education services under IDEA (which always makes a child eligible under 504) while another child who has ADD or asthma or AIDS is not eligible for services under IDEA, but may be protected from discrimination under Section 504.
These decisions are specific to each child.
If the child has a disability that adversely affects educational performance, the child is eligible for special education services under IDEA. Children who eligible for special education services under IDEA are protected under Section 504 (but the converse is not true).
If the child has a disability that does not adversely affect educational performance, then the child will not be eligible for special education services under IDEA but will usually be entitled to protections under Section 504.
Section 504
Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Section 504 ensures that the child with a disability has equal access to an education. The child may receive accommodations and modifications.
Unlike the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 does not require the school to provide an individualized educational program (IEP) that is designed to meet the child's unique needs and provides the child with educational benefit. Fewer procedural safeguards are available for disabled children and their parents under Section 504 than under IDEA.
Advocacy
To be an effective advocate for a child with a disability, you need to know your rights and responsibilities under the IDEA and Section 504. You also need to learn advocacy skills.
Download Free Flyer! Help for College Students with Disabilities Flyer. College-bound students need to learn self-advocacy skills - how to present information about their disability and accommodations so professors want to help. If students master these skills, they are more likely to make a successful transition from high school to college.
Who is Eligible for Protections Under Section 504 . . .
but Not Under IDEA?
Print this page
Q: Who may be protected under Section 504, but not under IDEA? A student with AIDS? A student with ADD? A student with chronic asthma?
A: Section 504 is a civil rights law. Section 504 protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination. Section 504 ensures that children with disabilities have equal access to an education.
All three students would be protected from discrimination under Section 504. Each of these students may also be eligible for special education and related services under IDEA.
Eligibility for special education and related services under IDEA (and eligibility for protection from discrimination under Section 504) is not disability-specific. This means that one child who has ADD or asthma or AIDS is eligible for special education services under IDEA (which always makes a child eligible under 504) while another child who has ADD or asthma or AIDS is not eligible for services under IDEA, but may be protected from discrimination under Section 504.
These decisions are specific to each child.
If the child has a disability that adversely affects educational performance, the child is eligible for special education services under IDEA. Children who eligible for special education services under IDEA are protected under Section 504 (but the converse is not true).
If the child has a disability that does not adversely affect educational performance, then the child will not be eligible for special education services under IDEA but will usually be entitled to protections under Section 504.
You need to read OP's post carefully she said she agreed to end the 504 plan when the counselor called her after a review with her son. She didn't ask to have it end. She then claimed she signed the paper, forgot about it. She was under the impression her son did not require accommodation any longer.sisymay said:My replies to rtbrain here have nothing to do with the issue of her son. They are about the 504 process itself, regardless if her son is in trouble or not.
When I read her message, it states that at the hearing she said she did not AGREE to end the 504. She did NOT state that she DID 'sign' to end it.
In my replies here to rtbrain, I am not in anyway trying to use the 504 and the disclipline action together. I am not mentioning the child's problems at all. I do not know if she is trying to use the 504 issue to get the child out of trouble. I have not been concerned about that. I have only been telling her the laws of the procedures and process that must be followed regarding a 504. I have not said this issue was an ADA issue or even made any references to that.
Under section 504 the offenses are not exceptions thus, they cannot be ignored in some challenge to a discontinued 504 plan no matter how or why it was discontinued, it would not matter even if her son had an active 504 plan. District policy covers students in ECA's insofar as behavior expectations. The only way OP's son could possible have her son's criminal activity covered as a disability would be if the criteria for ADHD included : exhibitionism, ADHD does not, however, Asperger's might include that and therefore qualify as an exclusion.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">