Chapter 7 cases to know

FAPE

free appropriate public education

IEP preparation:Team composition

general education teacher special education teacher parents a representative of the local educational agency who is qualified to provide or supervise specially designed instruction and is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and available resources an individual who can interpret instructional implications of evaluation results other individuals with special knowledge or expertise child if appropriate Team decisions

Evaluation, Due process

if a parent refuses consent for the initial evaluation or fails to responds to the request to provide consent, the district may undertake due process to authorize an evaluation. if hearing office supports the district's request to perform an assessment the parents are required to make the child available

Mills v. D.C. (1972)

issue: Extended the right to special education to all children with disabilities importance: Reinforced the right of all children with disabilities to a free public education In the following year, in Mills v. Board of Education, seven children between the ages of 8 and 16 with a variety of mental and behavioral disabilities brought suit against the District of Columbia public schools, which had refused to enroll some students and expelled others, solely on the basis of their disability. The school district admitted that an estimated 12,340 children with disabilities within the district's boundaries would not be served during the 1971-72 school year because of budget constraints. The U.S. District Court ruled that school districts were constitutionally prohibited from deciding that they had inadequate resources to serve children with disabilities because the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would not allow the burden of insufficient funding to fall more heavily on children with disabilities than on other children.

PARC v Pennsylvania (1971)

issue: guaranteed special education to children with intellectual disabilities Importance: Court case that signaled a new era for special education and set the stage for the national special education law. The seminal 1971 case of Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania contested a state law that specifically allowed public schools to deny services to children "who have not attained a mental age of five years" at the time they would ordinarily enroll in first grade. Under a consent decree, the state agreed to provide full access to a free public education to children with mental retardation up to age 21. That case also established the standard of appropriateness—that is, that each child be offered an education appropriate to his or her learning capacities—and established a clear preference for the least restrictive placement for each child.

LRE

least restrictive enviroment

Evaluation, Parental consent

parental consent must be acquired prior to personalized testing for either an initial evaluation or reevaluation, but consent is not required for curricular, state, or district-wide assessments

Stay put provision

students with disabilities are not exempt from reasonable disciplinary measures, although due process exceeding that provided general education students is required at times, and penalties may be limited in type and duration. sometimes at issue in school discipline cases is the "stay-put" provision" this provision requires that a student remain in his or her current educational placement while school officials examine disciplinary proceedings

PGA Tour v. Martin (2001)

the Supreme Court supported a professional golfer's request to ride a cart rather than walk the course, as the event rules required. Court reasoned that shot making was the essence of golf and that walking was neither an essential attribute nor an indispensable feature of the sport

Evaluation "child find"

under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act's "child find" mandate, states are required to identify, locate, and evaluate all resident children with disabilities, regardless of the severity of their disability or whether they attend public or private schools. Although federal law requires that children with disabilities be identified, it does not dictate how this is to occur. Courts give deference to districts when their efforts are sustained in good faith, and ultimately effective. parental consentng for either an initial evaluation or reevaluation, but consent is not required for curricular, state, or district-wide assessments

K.D.M. v Reedsport School District (9th circuit 1999)

upholding an Oregon administrative regulation stipulating that if a district decides to provide services to children in private schools, such appropriate special education and services must be proved in a religiously neutral setting

IEP cases (FAPE)

*Board v. Rowley (1982)The ruling provided children with disabilities access to public schools that also provided a basic floor of opportunity. Not the best education but one where the child has passing grades in classes and is advancing to higher grades. M.M. v. School Board, Miami-Dade County (2006) parents not reimbursed for private school because child was never enrolled in public school.

Sacramento City Schools v. Rachel H. (1994)

...

IEP components

Current level of educational performance Annual and short-term goals Special services needed / frequency Program modifications / regular program involvement Interagency responsibilities identify the date to initiate services provide a statement indicating that students have been informed that their IDEA rights transfer Due process parents can refuse services or say they want more

IEP

Individual education plan

Educational setting

Least Restrictive Environment Private school placement at public expense D.S. v. Bayonnne (2010) Academic standards at private schools St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H. (2001)

IEP cases (school board sue then person won in the lower court case)

*Alamo Heights ISD v. State Board (1986) Union School District v. Smith (1994) Sumter County School v. Hefferman (2006)

General principles

*Educators must be accountable for all children *Those with qualifying disabilities have additional rights guaranteeing them to a free appropriate public education

Section 504

*Guarantees basic civil rights to all people with disabilities *requires the provision of accommodations

Services available in private schools

*students enrolled by their parents in private schools have no individual right to receive special education and related services provided by the school district. *instead public officials are responsible for meeting with parents and other representatives of the children to decide who is to receive services; what, where, and how services are to be provide; and how services are to be evaluated. *In selecting a site for the delivery of services, officials will consider available alternative delivery systems as well as whether provision on campus (e.g. at a religious school) violates state law

Hendrick Hudson Board of Education. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)

Amy Rowley was a bright first grader who was also deaf. While the school district initially decided to fund an interpreter to attend class with Amy they later changed their mind. The parents took the District to due process and lost so they continued their fight to the federal courts. The parents won in the U.S. Courts and later the U.S. Court of Appeals. The District appealed to the Supreme Court. While, Amy lost in the Supreme Court it set the standard for what is a Free Appropriate Public Education. The ruling provided children with disabilities access to public schools that also provided a basic floor of opportunity. Not the best education but one where the child has passing grades in classes and is advancing to higher grades First Supreme Court case regarding special education set the standard for what is a "Free Appropriate Public Education". The ruling provided children with disabilities access to public schools that also provided a basic floor of opportunity. Not the best education but one where the child has passing grades in classes and is advancing to higher grades.

manifestation defined

Behavior is not a manifestation of the disability if: The IEP is appropriate The student understood cause / effect The student could control behavior

student discipline

Change of placement - IEP meeting or parent consent Honig v. Doe (1988) Exception for dangerousness (2013) Only behavior that is a "manifestation of the disability" requires special treatment

Due process

Due process is a requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that sets forth regulatory basis for a formal set of policies and procedures to be implemented by schools and districts for children in special education programs. *Due process is intended to ensure that children with learning disabilities and other types of disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. These policies and procedures are typically described in a school district's procedural safeguards statement and local policies. Procedural safeguards are sometimes referred to as parent rights statements. *Due process requirements were set forth in the IDEA with the intention that, if followed, they would help to facilitate appropriate decision making and services for children with disabilities.

IDEA

EAHCA (PL 94-142)- education for all handicapped children act: guarantees FAPE in the LRE and requires each student to have an IEP IDEA (1990 / 2004): changed from PL 94-142 to IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) adds transition plans,adds autism as and traumatic brain injury a special education category

LRE cases

Florence County Schools v. Carter (1993) Foley v. Special School District (1998) *Sacramento City Schools v. Rachel H. (1994) Clyde K. & Sheila K. v. Puyallup Schools (1994) *Poolaw v. Bishop (1995) *Loren F. v. Atlanta Schools (2003) Gary S. v. Manchester Schools (2004) K.D.M v. Reedsport Schools (2006)

participation in sports cases

IDEA: The role of the IEP J.M. v. Montana High School Assoc. (1994) Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee SSAA (2001) Section 504 / ADA approaches PGA Tour v. Martin (2001)

Alamo heights ISD v State Board (1986)

IEP cases; boy has good aid during the educational year but not during the summer cause the school system didn't offer it, but it was available in a nearby town. Courts saw that the kid needs the aid in the summer or he'll regress. Services will continue including education

consequences

If the behavior is not a manifestation, regular disciplinary procedures are followed (although services must continue). Students may be suspended for up to 10 days regardless of manifestation - longer for infractions related to drugs / weapons / violence.

Honig v. Doe (1988)

In 1988, the Supreme Court held that an indefinite suspension of two students pending the outcome of expulsion proceedings was a prohibited change in placement and violated the stay-put provision of IDEA

Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985)

In Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985) the ruling gave the parent a right to reimbursement of private school tuition in certain situations. If the School District's offer didn't meet the definition of FAPE and the parent's private school placement did give FAPE then they could get reimbursed. The parent's who privately place their children and seek reimbursement do it at their own financial risk.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)

In Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) the Supreme Court once again looked at related services and decided cost is not a factor. If it's needed to attend school and doesn't meet the medical exception test the School must provide it.

Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993)

In Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) the Supreme Court decided as long as the parents meet the test for reimbursement established in Burlington parents have a right to reimbursement even if the private school is not a non-public school certified by the State.

Irving ISD v. Tatro (1984)

In this 1984 case, a child required clean intermittent catheterization every three to four hours. The court found cauterization to be essential in that it would enable the child tot attend school and thereby benefit from instruction, and noted it could be performed by either a nurser or a trained layperson. Accordingly, the service was not a medical service and could not be excluded from the child's IEP for that reason. * health services those provided by a school nurse or other qualified person such as catheterization often are essential in that they enable the child to attend school and thereby benefit from instruction.

First step cases for students with disabilities

PARC v Pennsylvania (1971) and Mills v. D.C. (1971) both cases argued that kids with disabilities are not treated equally

placement range

Regular education classroom Regular education classroom with support services Regular classroom with resource room Self-contained special classes Special schools Home instruction Instruction in hospitals or institutions

Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Section 504 applies to both public and private recipients of federal funds. Covers physical or mental impairments that limit one or more major life activities. Record of impairment: School Board v. Arline (1987) Regarded as impaired: Ray v. School District (1987)

Discipline

Students with disabilities may be expelled only when it can be shown that the behavior on which the disciplinary action is based is not a manifestation of the child's disability

Sumter County School v. Hefferman (2006)

The 4th Circuit Court Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the district's failure to implement a significant portion of T.H.'s IEP amounted to a denial of FAPE. T.H.was supposed to receive 15 hrs. per week of ABA therapy but was only receiving 7.5 of those hours. T.H. did not do well and began exhibiting "self-stimulating" behaviors. T.H.'s parents removed him from school and began homeschooling him. The Court also reaffirmed the district court's decision that the home placement program established by T.H.'s parents to educate him at home was appropriate.

J.M. v. Montana High School Assoc. (1994)

The Montana Supreme Court strongly encouraged educators to be prudent in including sports in IEPs and warned that they might be making a promise they simply cannot keep

D.S. v. Bayonnne (2010)

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in D.S. v. Bayonne Board of Education that a learning disabled student's individualized educational program (IEP) failed to provide him with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Despite the student having received high marks in his classes, the court upheld the hearing officer's finding that a New Jersey public school district failed to create an IEP sufficient to address the student's needs, and that a private school would be a more appropriate placement.

Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)

The only discipline case the Supreme Court has ever heard was Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988). It removed a school's unilateral authority to suspend or expel a student with an IEP for more than 10 days unless there is evidence of weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury. The school must get a ruling from a hearing officer or court

ruling of Mills v. D.C. (1972)

The ruling in Mills was pivotal and far-reaching. Children with disabilities had an equal right to public education offered in a form that was meaningful for them, and when the school considered a change in their status (including suspension, expulsion, reassignment, or transfers out of regular public school classes), the children were entitled to full procedural protections, including notice of proposed changes, access to school records, a right to be heard and to be represented by legal counsel at hearings to determine changes in individual programs, and regularly scheduled status reviews. All of these protections were eventually incorporated into Public Law 94-142 by Congress. The PARC and Mills cases caused a flurry of litigation. By 1973, more than 30 federal court decisions had upheld the principles of PARC and Mills.20

Irving Independent School District. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)

This landmark case defined the scope of related services and created the medical exception rule. The District must provide all support services necessary unless a physician is needed to provide the service. Amber Tatro had cerebral palsy and needed to be catheterized every few hours. While the District agreed to provide special education they refused to do the cleaning necessary for Amber to attend school. This landmark case defined the scope of related services and created the medical exception rule. The District must provide all supportive services necessary unless a physician is needed to provide the service. Since, a nurse can provide the service needed for Amber they must provide it

related services

Transportation Psychological services Nack v. Orange City Schools (2009) Health services Irving ISD v. Tatro (1984) *Cedar Rapids Schools v. Garret F. (1999) Extended school year

*Cedar Rapids Schools v. Garret F. (1999)

a child had a severed spinal column and was paralyzed from the neck down. To remain in school, he required full-time nursing care (e.g., cauterization, suctioning, Bambu bagging, ventilator assistance, emergency aid). the school district argued that the services collectively should be viewed as medical, even if individually they qualified as health services, and asserted that it would incur an undue financial burden if required to provide the services. The Supreme court acknowledge the legitimate financial concerns of the district but noted that the law as currently constructed required the Court to reject the undue burden claim. By applying the bright-line test, the Court ruled that any health service a student may need to participate in a school setting had to be provide, regardless of cost or resulting financial impact on the district

St. Johnsbury Academy v. D.H. (2001)

a parent contested a private school's policy that students had to perform at or above the fifth grade level before being assigned to the Academy's ninth grade mainstream academic classes. The Court held that, although the public school was responsible for making a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to the student (which in Vermont was done by paying students' tuition at private schools or schools outside the district), that particular private school was not required to change its policy to ensure that the student was able to receive FAPE at that school. The injunction is vacated and the district court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Academy. The judgment is further vacated insofar as it denies injunctive relief against the District, and D.H.'s claims against the District are remanded for any further proceedings.

Exception for dangerousness (2013)

after Honig , congress created a dangerousness exception when it granted school personnel the ability to remove a student for up to forty-five days to an interim alternative educational setting if the student brought drugs, a gun, or any other weapon to school