Source: The Guardian
Purpose of IDEA
Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A. 557 U.S. 230 (2009) -- The purpose of IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, and to assure that the rights of such children and their parents or guardians are protected.
Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 (1982) -- In 1982, the US Supreme Court issued its first special education decision. Amy Rowley was a deaf first grader. Before Amy entered first grade, her parents asked for Amy to be provided a sign language interpreter. Although Amy could lip-read, an interpreter would enhance her learning ability in the classroom. The Court concluded that the law did not require public schools to furnish "every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's potential." The Court also stated that the child's IEP should be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive "educational benefit." Since Rowley, school systems and parents have disagreed about what constitutes a sufficient "educational benefit." In the end it boiled down to the "Cadillac/chevrolet" dispute: children are entitled to an "appropriate" education (chevrolet), but not the best education money can buy (cadillac).
Burlington v. Dept. of Educ. for the Commonwealth of Mass. 471 U.S. 359 (1982) -- In Burlington, the Court addressed IEPs and what IEPs should include: "The free appropriate public education (FAPE) mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is designed for the specific needs of the child through the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) which is a comprehensive statement of the educational needs of a handicapped child and the specially designed instruction and related services to be employed to meet those needs."
Seeking Relief under IDEA
Zahran ex rel. Zahran v. New York Dept. of Educ., N.D.N.Y.2004, 306 F.Supp.2d 204 -- Although plaintiffs cannot seek monetary damages under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) itself, such relief is available via §1983 action against local school board to enforce plaintiff's IDEA rights.
Is the IEP Adequate or Sufficient?
Romeo v. Ambach 1984-1985 EHLR DEC. 556:488 (E.D. NY 1985) -- A Federal judge in New York found that an IEP was adequate when it listed: "specific goals to which [student's] grade level are to be raised are listed in all areas of reading, verbal skill, and math." Objective tests here were changes in the child's grade equivalent scores.
Thornock v. Boise Independent School District #1 - 767 P. 2d 1241, 1987-1988 EHLR DEC. 559:486 (1988) -- The IEP provided by the school was found not "sufficient." It was not sufficient because it did not specify the criteria and evaluation procedures that would be used to determine whether the IEP goals were being met. The Court noted that: "Handicapped children are unique and that placement decisions must be made on an individual basis, by a multidiscliplinary team, according to a variety of criteria. The importance of the IEP cannot be understatated. It is the decision-making document." The court also found that the two IEPs proposed by the school district were not sufficient because they did not include "...goals, objectives and appropraite objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether 'instructional objectives are being achieved' as required by IDEA."
IDEA requires Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Kutasi v. Las Virgenes Unified School District ---F.3d---, 2007 WL 2050952 (C.A. 9, July 19, 2007) -- Following an ongoing dispute over their son’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”), John and Barbara Kutasi (collectively, “the Kutasis”) filed this action in federal district court on behalf of their son, Shane Kutasi, an autistic student in the Las Virgenes School District (“School District”). The lawsuit alleged that the School District and its officials had violated 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by taking various retaliatory and discriminatory actions against the Kutasis. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals rejected the Kutasis’ arguments that they should not be required to exhaust their administrative remedies under IDEA before filing suit. First, the Kutasis claimed that IDEA provided no administrative remedies for parents, but only for students, and that their claims as parents were separate from those of their son. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent that “rights” with respect to the IDEA applied equally to children and their parents.
Administrative law encompasses federal and state laws and legal principles governing the administration and regulation of government agencies at the state and federal level. Such agencies are delegated power by Congress, or in the case of a state agency, the state legislature, to act as agents for the executive branch of the state or federal government. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights.
There are many administrative regulations as a result of IDEA's implementation. Here are a few of those:
Regulations from the Department of Education, interpreting IDEA (effective March 18, 2013)
The Secretary of Education (Secretary) amends regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act). These regulations govern the Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities program, including the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities program. These amendments revise the parental consent requirements a public agency must meet before it may access for the first time a child’s or parent’s public benefits or insurance (e.g., Medicaid) to pay for services required under the Act; ensure that parents of children with disabilities are specifically informed of all of their legal protections when public agencies seek to access public benefits or insurance (e.g., Medicaid) to pay for services required under the Act; and address the concerns expressed by State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) that requiring parental consent each time access to public benefits or insurance is sought, in addition to the parental consent required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and section 617(c) of the IDEA, imposes unnecessary costs and administrative burdens.
Regulations from the Department of Education, interpreting IDEA (effective October 13, 2006)
The Secretary issues final regulations governing the Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program. These regulations are needed to implement changes made to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (Act or IDEA).
These regulations implement changes in the regulations governing the Assistance to States for Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program necessitated by the reauthorization of the IDEA. With the issuance of these final regulations, part 301 has been removed and the regulations implementing the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program are included under subpart H of these final regulations.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.
Infants and toddlers with disabilities (birth-2 years old) and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C. Children and youth (ages 3-21 years old) receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B.
Six Major Accomplishments of IDEA
1. Creates the requirement that the child's teacher, parents, and if possible, the child themselves, develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the child's education.
2. Creates the requirement that the child's education be conducted in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which means that the child should be educated among his/her peers to the greatest degree possible.
3. Creates the requirement of a free appropriate public education, which means that each child with a disabilty is entitled to a free public education, just like other children who do not have a disability. Appopriate means that the school and parents need to work together to determine how to best provide that education with respect to each child’s needs to make that education appropriate for them.
4. Creates the requirement of an appropriate evaluation, where each child suspected of having a disability must receive an assessment that is nondiscriminatory and nonbiased to determine if the child is eligible for additional support under IDEA.
5. Creates the requirement of parent and student participation in decision-making, such that parents and the student, if possible, play a significant role in creating the IEP and that parental consent is required before evaluation or special education placement.
6. Creates the requirement of procedural safeguards, which are a specific set of rules that exists to protect the rights and privacy of the student and parents. Parents also must have full access to their child’s school records and they must be notified before any changes are made to their child’s IEP and accommodations.
Source: Garcia v. Board of Educ. of Albuquerque Public Schools, C.A.10 (N.M.) 2008, 520 F.3d 1116
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are "eligible students."
Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student's education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records. Schools may charge a fee for copies.
Parents or eligible students have the right to request that a school correct records which they believe to be inaccurate or misleading. If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student then has the right to a formal hearing. After the hearing, if the school still decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student has the right to place a statement with the record setting forth his or her view about the contested information.
Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):
Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.
Source: Department of Education
Source: KidsHealth.org
