“Child Find” is a concept that is fundamental in the understanding of the relationship between a family and a school district: identify and evaluate.
The purpose of the child find provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) are to identify, locate, and evaluate those students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made. [1]
The IDEA created obligations on the states and school districts with the “Child Find” obligation being a critical element of the law. Federal funding is contingent on a state demonstrating that it has a plan in place to identify children with disabilities. That plan must identify and evaluate “[a]ll children with disabilities residing in the State, including children who are homeless or wards of the state and children with disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in need of special education and related services.” [2]
The affirmative child find obligation extends to children “who are suspected of being a child with a disability…and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade….” [3] When a child is identified as potentially requiring special education services, the district must complete the evaluation process, and failure to complete the process constitutes a denial of Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”). [4] The school district must evaluate the student within a reasonable time after notice or suspicion of a disability. [5]
To conduct the evaluation, the school district “shall use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining” whether the child is disabled under the Act. [6]
IDEA’s child find provisions do not require school districts to evaluate any child who is having academic difficulties. Instead, under the Child Find provisions, districts must initiate a referral and conduct evaluations to determine whether a student needs special education services or programs when a student has not made adequate progress after an appropriate amount of time receiving instruction through the school’s response to intervention. [7]
Because the child find obligation is an affirmative one, the IDEA does not require parents to request that the district evaluate their child. [8] A district’s child find duty is triggered when the district has “reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability.” [9]
Additionally, the “standard for triggering the child find duty is suspicion of a disability rather than factual knowledge of a qualifying disability.” [10] To support a finding that a child find violation has occurred, “the [d]istrict must have ‘overlooked clear signs of disability’ or been ‘negligent by failing to order testing,’ or there must have been ‘no rational justification for deciding not to evaluate'” [11]
Child find is often the starting point for a district’s responsibilities under IDEA. Parents should also remain steadfast in their advocacy for their children who are demonstrating less progress than expected.
_________________________________________________________________
[1] See Handberry v. Thompson, 436 F.3d 52, 65 [2d Cir. 2006], which holds that the purpose behind the “child find” provisions is to locate children with disabilities who are eligible for special education services who might otherwise go undetected.
[2] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A).
[3] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(c)(1).
[4] See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A)(i).
[5] See C.F.R. §300.301(c)(1).
[6] See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A)(i).
[7] See O.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2012).
[8] See, Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 [D.C. Cir. 2005] which notes that “[s]chool districts may not ignore disabled students’ needs, nor may they await parental demands before providing special instruction”]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-153; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal Nos. 11-092 & 11-094).
[9] See J.S., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 660, quoting New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 307 F. Supp. 2d at 400 n.13.
[10] See Reg’l Sch. Dist. No. 9 Bd. of Educ. v. Mr. and Mrs. M., 2009 WL 2514064, at 12 [D. Conn. Aug. 7, 2009].
[11] See, J.S., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 661, quoting Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 313 [6th Cir. 2007]; A.P., 572 F. Supp. 2d at 225). SRO 18-001.