We just got back from LRP’s National Institute on Special Education Law in New Orleans. As usual, it was a lot. Case law, compliance, new risks, old problems, and a clear reminder that special education leadership keeps getting more complex.

The biggest theme this year was not one single case or one single issue. It was responsibility.

Districts are being asked to move faster, document better, communicate more carefully, and respond to student needs with more precision.

1. AI was one of the biggest topics. 

That makes sense. Teachers are already using tools like Brisk, Diffit, and Snorkl to adjust reading levels, support differentiation, and save planning time. I understand why. These tools can help.

But they also create real risk.

2. FERPA still applies. 

Student information cannot be dropped into unapproved AI tools just because the tool is convenient. AI also cannot become a substitute for instruction. It can support access, but it cannot hide whether a student is actually learning. That distinction matters.

3. MTSS was another major focus. 

The message was direct: MTSS cannot delay Child Find. That is a mistake districts continue to make. MTSS is a support system. It is not a waiting room for special education evaluation. Once a district has reason to suspect a disability, the obligation changes. Progress data, repeated behavior concerns, disciplinary removals, or a parent request can all trigger that responsibility.

4. Private providers on campus also came up repeatedly. 

More families are asking to bring in ABA therapists, private nurses, counselors, and other outside providers. Often, those requests come from a good place. Still, districts need clear boundaries. If a service is required for a student to access FAPE, the district is responsible for it. We cannot casually hand that responsibility to someone outside the IEP team. Outside providers also raise concerns with confidentiality, supervision, liability, and disruption to instruction.

5. Behavior and placement were also front and center. Dangerous behavior creates urgency, but urgency does not erase LRE. Before moving a student to a more restrictive setting, teams need to understand the behavior. That means a real FBA, a BIP that is actually implemented, and a team willing to look beyond fear and frustration.

6. Threat assessments require the same care. Disability-related behaviors can be misread. Limited eye contact, flat affect, or intense focus may mean something very different for a student with a disability. Teams need training, context, and restraint.

7. The conference also returned to a basic but important reminder: your emails will be read.

Not might be read. Will be read. Maybe in a records request. Maybe in a complaint. Maybe in due process. Maybe in litigation. Staff need to write like their words may one day be read out loud in a hearing. Factual. Professional. Brief. No sarcasm. No labels. No venting.

The same applies online. Responding to criticism with student information is never appropriate. Even confirming a student relationship can create a confidentiality problem.

8. Finally, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools raises the stakes under Section 504 and the ADA. The standard for money damages is now deliberate indifference, not bad faith or gross misjudgment. That matters. Districts need to show they recognized concerns, responded appropriately, and followed through.

My biggest takeaway from LRP was this: This is daily work now.

AI use. MTSS decisions. Parent requests. Outside providers. Behavior. Placement. Emails. 504 risk. Every one of these issues shows up in real schools with real students and real pressure.

Here’s my recommendation: 

• Establish clear AI guidance

• Audit MTSS and evaluation timelines 

• tighten private provider procedures 

• train teams on FBAs and LRE

• remind staff about written communication 

• revisit 504/ADA practices after A.J.T.

Special education leadership is not about checking boxes. It is about making defensible decisions that are grounded in student need.

You Got This!

Bryce