This document discusses child find requirements under IDEA for both public school students and parentally placed private school students. It covers key concepts such as the districts' child find obligations, timelines for evaluations, consultation requirements with private schools, and limitations on districts' ability to conduct evaluations without parental consent for students in private schools. The document also provides examples from case law related to fulfilling child find duties.

1. Child Find in IDEA
Part B and Part C
Presented by
Sharon L. LaPointe
LaPointe & Butler PC
Okemos MI 48864

2. Introduction to Child Find
Identify, locate, evaluate
Children “suspected” of having a disability
0-26 in Michigan
– In or out of school:
• Preschoolers
• Drop-outs
• Migrant/homeless
• Children in foster care
– Public or private schooled
IDEA 04 concerned about students falling
through the cracks: homeless, transfer/
migratory students, wards of state, private
school students

3. Introduction to Child Find
General concepts for identifying children with
suspected disabilities
– Requires knowledge
• Of what constitutes a disability
• Specifically the “conditions” and suspected adverse
impact
– Requires efforts
• In house
• Out house
– Requires documentation

4. PART C
INFANTS AND
TODDLERS WITH
DISABILITIES

5. Part One
Current Part C Statutory
and Regulatory Language

6. IDEA 2004 Part C Congressional
Findings (A-15)
“Urgent and substantial need”:
– To recognize the significant brain
development that occurs during a
child’s first 3 years
– To enhance ability to child-find and meet
needs of all children, particularly…..infants
and toddlers in foster care.

7. Part C-State Grant Requirements
Additional language requiring Statewide
early intervention system to include : (A-
16)
– A rigorous definition of developmental delay
– Child find referral system to “ensure rigorous
standards for appropriately identifying infants
and toddlers with disabilities for services
under this part that will reduce the need for
future services.”

8. Part C-State Grant Requirements
Why the focus on rigorous definition of
developmental delay?
– Portal term
– ITWD=individual under 3 who needs early
intervention services because
• experiencing developmental delays as measured by
appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in 1
or more of the areas of cognitive, physical,
communication, social or emotional, and adaptive
development
• Has a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a
high probability of resulting in developmental delay
(established condition)

9. Part C-State Grant Requirements
Additional language requiring
– Public awareness program information
disseminated by lead agency to all primary referral
sources
• “to be given to” versus “for” parents
• “especially to inform parents with premature infants,
or infants with other physical risk factors associated
with learning or developmental complications
• Not just EIS under Part C, but also SE under Part B-
Section 619.
– See A-16

10. Flex C State Incentive Grants
If federal Part C appropriations exceed
$460,000,000 in any fiscal year
– USDOE to reserve 15% of total Part C
appropriation for State Flex C grants (S-166#1)
• Flex C allows parents of Part C eligible children who
also eligible for Part B SE under Section 619 to elect
(pre-3) either continued EIS under Part C or FAPE
under 619 until enter/eligible to enter kindergarten
– Not applicable in FY 05($444) or 06 because
appropriation did not exceed $460M.

11. IDEA 2004 Requirements if State
Does Flex C
If State participates in Flex C
– State system for Part C must include
• Mandatory referral for evaluation for EIS
– of any child
» Joint Conference Committee Report reflects
House ceded to Senate language, which
described as child below 3
» Actual IDEA language doesn’t limit;
presumably would include 0-5
– experiencing substantiated trauma from family
violence per Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act. See A-38

12. Part C State Application:
Mandatory Referral?
Added language/assurances
– State policies/procedures that “require the
referral for EIS...of a child under the age of 3
who
• Is involved in a substantiated case of child abuse or
neglect, or
• Is identified as affected by illegal substance abuse,
or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug
exposure”
– Joint Conference Committee Report indicates
that this is really a referral for screening (as to
whether a suspected disability versus
evaluation due to already suspected disability).

13. Part Two
Proposed Part C Regulations

14. Proposed Child Find Changes
(A-19 & 20)
Would clarify that child find includes methods
for determining which children are in need of
early intervention services and which are not
Would add language requiring child find
coordination with
– Head Start and Early Head Start
– Child protection programs,
– State agency responsible for administering Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
– Programs that provide services under the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act for States
electing to make EIS available to 3-5 yr olds.

15. Proposed Referral Changes
Currently referral required within 2 working
days from time that child identified as
suspected Part C (A-30)
Because USDOE anticipating more referrals,
2 WD’s not practicable; proposing “as soon as
possible” after identified.
Mandatory referral of specific at-risk children
– involved in substantiated case of child
abuse/neglect
– ID’d as affected by illegal substance abuse, or
withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug
abuse (A-22)

16. Proposed Referral Changes
Expanded definition of “primary referral
sources”
– Schools, clinics, public agencies and staff in child
welfare system including child protective service
and foster care, homeless family shelters, and
domestic violence shelters and agencies for
States electing to make EIS available for 3-5 year
olds
– See A-22

17. Screening (A-24)
Always allowed pre-referral
New language to allow post-referral
– ID from increased # of potential referrals those
potentially eligible for EIS
– If screening indicates that child is suspected of
having a disability, lead agency must conduct
evaluation to determine
– If screening suggests that not disabled, notice to
parent that will not be conducting an evaluation
• If parent requests evaluation, then must conduct
– If child’s eligibility already determined

18. PART B & MMSEA
Children/Students with
Disabilities (Ages 3-26)

19. Part One
General Principles

20. Reasons Districts Should Care
About Child Find
Fulfilling obligation under the law
Assisting a child in need
Early intervention should help AYP
Bad things can happen when you don’t
– See Lakin v. Birmingham Public Schools
• Court awards partial reimbursement for private
placement.

21. Case Law on Successful
Community Child Find
Widely disseminate information
Use media/organizations as outlets
Develop/participate in outreach programs
Document ongoing efforts
Child Find efforts are systemic until the
district has a specific suspicion, e.g., a
specific parent inquiry is made
See Doe v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, 34
IDELR 256 (6th Cir. 2001).

22. In-House Child Find
All staff are potential child-finders
Training on red flags
– Excessive disciplinary referrals
– Failing grades
– Low achievement scores
– Excessive absenteeism
RTI can be effective tool
– IDEA 2004 allows districts receiving Part B funds
to use up to 15% for early intervening services
• At risk K-12 children not eligible for special education

23. Intervention
1 2
5 4 3
Gen Ed Intensive
1 2 Special Ed
5 3 Instruction:
4 Core &
1 General Education Intensive
2
With Support Program
5 3
4
Amount of Targeted
Resources General Instruction: Core
Needed
To Solve
Education & Supplemental
Problem Program
Benchmark
Instruction:
Core Program
Intensity of Problem

24. Part Two
Child Find and Non-Public Schools

25. Parentally Placed Private School
Children –IDEA 04 Regs
Regulations apply to parentally-placed
children with disabilities enrolled in private
elementary and secondary schools as
defined by state law.
– In Michigan, “school” is grades K-12.
See generally, USDOE guidance “Questions
and Answers on Serving Children with
Disabilities Placed by Their Parents at Private
Schools” (March 2006)

26. IDEA 04 and Private Schools
General Assurances (A-2)
– Apply to district where the private school is located,
aka DOL
– Proportionate share of Part B funds
• State and local funds may supplement, but not
supplant the proportionate share of federal $
• Share based on results of thorough and complete
child find after timely and meaningful consultation
with private school reps
• LEA records on # evaluated, #eligible, # served
Practice Tip: Private schools not a post-
script.

27. Private School Assurances
Child find process (A-2)
– Designed to ensure accurate count and
equitable participation
– Similar activities and time frames as for public
school students
– CF/eval costs can’t be counted toward
proportionate share requirements
Practice Tip: Child Find activities and
timelines must be documented.

28. Private School Assurances
Timely, meaningful consultation (A-2)::
– Child find process: how parent-placed private
school (PPPS) children suspected of having
disability can participate equitably; how parents,
teachers and officials informed of
– Ongoing consultation between LEA, private school
officials and parent representatives
– How and when service decisions made
– Written explanation if LEA disagrees with private
school views on provision of services or types
Practice Tip: Develop checklists, logs, forms

29. Private School Child Find
Limitation
Fitzgerald v. Camdenton Sch. Dist., 45 IDELR
59 (8th Cir. 2006):
– Court ruled that school district attempting to fulfill
child find did not have the unfettered right to
conduct evaluation of child with suspected
disability by override hearing, where parents
waived IDEA rights
• Refused consent
• Withdrew student to home school
• Evaluated privately and provided SE services through
private sources
Codified by IDEA 2004 regulations

30. Parentally Placed Private School
Children– IDEA 04 Regs (A-4)
District where private school located (DOL) is
responsible for child find.
– Parent may refuse consent for evaluation. DOL
cannot override refusal.
– Child find responsibility includes reevaluation.
– DOL must provide procedural safeguards notice
upon conducting initial evaluation.
Child find obligation is for all enrolled
students, even if not residents of Michigan.

31. Parentally Placed Private School
Children– IDEA 04 Regs
District of residence (DOR) responsible for
making FAPE available to child. (A-11)
– Need not offer if parent makes clear intent to keep
child in private school
– DOL cannot notify DOR that it has identified a
CWD who is resident of DOR without parental
consent (A-10)
– DOR could be required to do FAPE evaluation at
same time DOL doing child find evaluation (A-11)

32. Parentally Placed Private School
Children– IDEA 04 Regs
Parental rights for alleged CF violations in
private school situations:
– Parent may request due process hearing against
DOL for violation of child find requirements –
identification and evaluation
– For child find, parent entitled to all procedural
safeguards from DOL, including IEEs
– Parent may also file Part 8 complaint against DOL
on child find issues
– Parent limited to Part 8 complaint on offer or
provision of services issues