1 / 0

Special Education Law

Special Education Law. IEP FAPE LRE MDT 504 DD LD. IEE OSEP OCR FBA SLP COTA CIC. Special Ed Acronyms.

hansel
Download Presentation

Special Education Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Special Education Law

  2. IEP FAPE LRE MDT 504 DD LD IEE OSEP OCR FBA SLP COTA CIC Special Ed Acronyms
  3. “… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment
  4. “No otherwise qualified individual with disabilities in the United States…shall solely by reason of his/her disability be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance…” 29 USC 794 Vocational Rehabilitation Act 1973
  5. You are the principal of Hokie High School. Your science department chair told you about a conversation that occurred this morning between her and one of her colleagues, Tom. When notified that Tom was expected to attend an IEP meeting as a representative of the regular ed staff. He said he doesn’t believe in “accommodations” and thinks the child in question is “just lazy” and is “working the system.” Case Study
  6. It is the duty of all schools to provide a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for every child between the ages of 3 & 21 who has identifiable disabilities Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act 1975
  7. Free Appropriate Public Education Individual Education Plan Special Ed Services Related Services Due Process Least Restrictive Environment Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act - Provisions
  8. 1986 1990 Attorney fees 0-3 program, optional 3-6 program essential Services for deaf-blind/ multi-handicapped TBI, Autism Transition services Prevent schools from using the 11th amendment ESY Amendments
  9. Extensive parent rights Discipline Access to regular curriculum/assessment Access to regular program Non-categorical eligibility Limits services to private school students 1997 IDEA
  10. NCLB coordination Special Ed services for children in private schools Changes eligibility definitions for LD Flexibility for intervention prior to eligibility determination (15%) Modified dispute resolution More refined disciplinary rules for students with disabilities IDEA 2004
  11. Removal for 45 alternative placement for causing serious bodily injury at school Manifestation team, must include parents, district, and relevant members of IEP team Child can be in alternative placement until decision is made in hearing, or period of discipline ends Discipline Changes
  12. FAPE ESY Regression-Recoup Procedural safeguards IEPs ADHD LRE Private School Placement Related services Discipline Stay-put provision Compensatory education Attorney’s and Expert fees Liability for reimbursement of parents Court Cases
  13. EACHA 1975 ACCESS Rowley 1982 SC FAPE Tatro 1984 SC Related Services Burlington 1985 SC Reimbursement Robinson 1986 Attorney fees Honig 1988 SC Discipline Timothy W 1989 1st C Ability to benefit Zobrest 1993 SC Parochial school Cases
  14. Florence 1993 SC Reimbursement Oberti 1993 3rd Circuit LRE Holland 1994 9th Circuit LRE Garrett 1999 SC Related Services Van Clay 2002 7ircuitLRE Shaeffer 2005 SC Burden of Proof Arlington 2006 SC Non-Attorney fees Alvin 2007 SC ADHD Cases (continued)
  15. Henry Hudson v Rowley 1982 SC Defined FAPE EAHCA does not require maximum ed services, but a floor of opportunity Questions of methodology for provision of services are to be determined by state and local ed systems FAPE
  16. Irving v Tatro 1984 SC CIC is a related service Cedar Rapids v Garrett 1999 SC Continuous nursing service is a related service Related Services
  17. Parents of a medically fragile child are insistent that their child be totally integrated into the school mainstream. Due to a cardiac condition, it is possible that the child will have to be resuscitated at some point during the school day. Additionally, trach suctioning and naso-gastric tube feeding are required. The parents demand that a full time nurse be provided to ensure that their child receives the necessary medical attention. How would you handle this?
  18. Honig v Doe 1988 SC Discipline rights May suspend a child for up to 10 days with out violating the stay-put provision Why are suspension and expulsion procedures for students with disabilities different from those for non-disabled? Discipline
  19. During most of his years in the Shrenk School District, Tommy demonstrated no need for special education services. He had average grades and progressed from grade to grade. Although diagnosed ADHD, he was not on any medication. In high school he left school one day with friends, all of whom admitted to smoking marijuana at his home. Later the group returned to school, where Tommy used a pellet gun to shoot at another student on the school track. The student was not seriously injured. When Tommy was expelled his parents filed a due process complaint saying he should have been served as a special education student. What should the school do?
  20. Timothy W v Rochester 1989 1st Circuit Oberti v Bd of Ed 1993 3rd Circuit Sacramento v Holland 1994 9th Circuit Beth v VanClay 2002 7th Circuit What are the factors in the 4 part Holland test? http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/rachel.htm LRE
  21. Florence v Carter 1993 SC Parent entitled to reimbursement for private placement (not parochial) Zobrest v Catalina 1993 SC Provision of services at parochial schools Foley v Special School District 1998 8th Circuit Voluntary parochial placement, no entitlement KDM v Reedsport 1999 9th Circuit Not entitled to services in parochial school Special Ed and Private Placements
  22. Martinez v School Bd 1988 11th Circuit Aids, risk v accommodation Timothy v Cedar Rapids 1999 8th Circuit 504 and transportation for choice Schaeffer v Weast 2005 SC Burden of proof is on the party seeking relief Arlington v Murphy 2006 SC Non-attorney fees are not reimbursable costs Additional Cases
  23. If 504 and Special Education serve students with disabilities – what are the differences?
  24. 504 vsSpecial Ed
  25. Be familiar with district policies and procedures regarding sped Ensure proper placement of qualified transfer students Make sure disciplinary actions conform with the law Complete assessments within time limits Checklists
  26. www.nichcy.org www.angelfire.com www.school.familyeducation.com http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/programreview/TechnicalAssistance.aspx Resources
More Related