(More can be found at <[link removed]>
www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org/sb-276. Please share.)

This is the third email in a series answering questions A Voice for Choice
Advocacy has gotten about SB276/SB714. This email addresses ?If my child
has an IEP (Individualized Education Plan), how do the California
vaccination laws apply??
?An IEP is a written statement that describes your child?s present levels of
performance, learning goals, school placement, and services. In order to
obtain an IEP, your child must first be assessed.?
([link removed]
.pdf)
?In order to qualify as an individual with exceptional needs under the
eligibility criteria, the assessment must demonstrate that the student?s
impairment adversely affects her educational performance and requires
special education. The qualifying areas of impairment set out in state
eligibility regulations are:
(1) Hearing impaired; (2) Both hearing and visually impaired; (3) Speech or
language impaired; xxxxxxrmation on Eligibility Criteria 3 - 2 (4) Visually
impaired; (5) Severely orthopedically impaired; (6) Impaired in strength,
vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute health problems (other health
impaired); (7) Exhibiting autistic-like behaviors; (8) Mentally retarded;
(9) Seriously emotionally disturbed; (10) Learning disabled; (11) Multiple
disabilities; and (12) Traumatic brain injury.
([link removed]
.pdf)

SB276/SB714 do not change the vaccination law for those on IEPs. SB277,
which passed in California in 2015 states ?(h) This section does not
prohibit a pupil who qualifies for an individualized education program,
pursuant to federal law and Section 56026 of the Education Code, from
accessing any special education and related services required by his or her
individualized education program.?
([link removed]
160SB277)

Educate.Advocate, a special needs organization that AVFCA works closely with
has been advocating for children in CA on IEPs and keeping them in school.
Educate.Advocate has helped a number of students with IEPs, who have been
removed from school, get a ?stay put? in the courts, so that the child
remains in their least restrictive environment, regardless of their
vaccination status. These have been significant wins against California?s
vaccine mandates and are listed at the bottom of this website
([link removed]).

Educate.Advocate further explains the implications of SB277
([link removed]):
Federal IDEA provides an offer of FAPE for eligible special education
students via their IEP and as such, a more restrictive state law cannot
usurp the rights set forth in the federal law, the exemption is implicit and
is not required to be documented within the IEP. More on this via
Understood.org

"State laws can?t contradict IDEA, and they can?t provide less than the
federal law requires.?
([link removed]
ut-childs-rights/special-education-federal-law-vs-state-law)

Exclusion of a child with an IEP based on immunization status would also
bring up concern over placement from LRE (Lease Restrictive Environment) to
an exclusive environment, without prior parental consent. Federal IDEA law
addresses placement in LRE and removal in 34 CFR ?300.114 (2) (i) & (ii):

" (2)Each public agency must ensure that?
(i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including
children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are
educated with children who are nondisabled; and
(ii) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the
nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular
classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily.?
([link removed])

The 2016-17 Kindergarten Immunization Assessment - Executive Summary,

published by the California Department of Public Health, Immunization
Branch reads:
?Also, students who have an individualized education program (IEP) may
continue to receive all necessary services identified in their IEP
regardless of their immunization status."
([link removed]
.pdf)

Also see CDPH resources:
[link removed]
[link removed]

Additionally, Judge Dana Sabraw of the US District Court for the Southern
District of California (9th Circuit), clarified the intent of SB277 with his
ruling in Ana Whitlow v. State of CA as follows:
?SB277 provides three exemptions to the vaccination requirements at issue:
One for medical reasons, Cal. Health & Safety Code 12030(a), one for
children in a ?home-based private school or... an independent study
program[,] Cal. Health & Safety Code 120335(f), and one for students who
qualify for an individualized education program, or IEP. Cal Health &
Safety Code 120335(h)."
([link removed]'s%20Mot
ion%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction.pdf)

The Office of Administrative Hearing has released an Administrative Law
Judge?s ruling regarding a student with an IEP removed from school for
failing to meet SB277 requirements. The ruling states:
?Student?s IEP requires placement in a general education environment, with
specified behavior intervention services. Home instruction cannot replace
this placement and services, and thus is not stay put. Long Beach must
return Student to Marshall with the placement and services specified in his
IEP.?
([link removed]
ing%20Stay%20Put.pdf)

NOTE: SB277 does not apply to students on 504s or IFSPs, two other types of
special needs accommodations.

AVFCA Recommendation: If your child has one of the twelve above listed
impairments, request a special education services assessment from your local
school district. This can be done even if they attend private school,
although private schools do not have to adhere to the IEPs.
NOTE: If your child does not have one of these twelve impairments and you
try to get an IEP to try to avoid vaccinations, you would be committing
fraud. It also hurts those who truly need those services, potentially
placing a target on the backs of those legitimately on IEPs.

Disclaimer: These are A Voice for Choice Advocacy?s and Educate.Advocate?s
interpretations based on the SB276/714 wording (which is very circuitous)
and current xxxxxxrmation on Shots for Schools (the CDPH website regarding CA
vaccination requirements) with regard to how SB277 has been implemented, and
Federal law.

If you found this xxxxxxrmation helpful and appreciate the work A Voice for
Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.
<[link removed]>
Thanks and Happy Holidays!
C

Christina Hildebrand
President/Founder
A Voice for Choice Advocacy, Inc.
www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org
408 835 9353
Giving issues a voice, A Voice for Choice Advocacy advocates for people?s
rights to be fully xxxxxxrmed about the composition, quality, and short- and
long-term health effects of all products that go into people?s bodies, such
as food, water, air, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.

WWW.AVOICEFORCHOICEADVOCACY.ORG <[link removed]>
You are receiving this email because you signed up on the AVFC or AVFCA
website or an in person sign up list or an AVFCA petition. If you would
like to be removed from receiving all emails, please reply to this email
with ?Unsubscribe? in the email subject line. If you would prefer just to
get Action Alerts, please reply to this email with ?Action Alert Only? in
the email subject line.