Dysphagia Services in Schools: Applying Special Education Requirements to a Health Service

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Power-deFur
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Eligibility Determination ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Related Service ◽  
Specially Designed Instruction

Abstract School speech-language pathologists and districts frequently need guidance regarding how the legal provisions of special education affect the needs of children with dysphagia. This article reviews key principles of special education that guide eligibility determination and provision of services to all children. In the eligibility process, the school team would determine if the child's disability has an adverse effect on his/her education program and if the child needed special education (specially designed instruction) and related services. Dysphagia services would be considered a related service, a health service needed for the child to benefit from specially designed instruction. The article concludes with recommendations for practice that stem from a review of due process hearings and court cases for children with disabilities that include swallowing.

Recovery of Expert Fees in Special Education Due Process Hearings

2008 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-115
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis ◽  
Joseph B. Ryan ◽  
Kimberly McDuffie
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings

Provision of Related Services for Children With Chronic Disabilities

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 92 (6) ◽  
pp. 879-881
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Children With Disabilities ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Speech Pathology ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Education Act

Since 1975 all children with disabilities specifically delineated by law have had available to them "a free, appropriate public education that includes special education and related services to meet their unique needs." This access has been made possible by the passage of Public Law 94-142,1 The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This law was amended in October 1990 with passage of Public Law 101-476, The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Part B of Public Law 101-476 primarily details the identification and provision of services for children with disabilities. Unfortunately, the implementation of Part B of this law has been limited for many children by a number of significant and complex issues. The term "related services" as currently defined in Part B of the IDEA includes the following: ... transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation and social work services, and medical and counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. Health care providers frequently view the related services listed above as medically necessary and/or helpful for children with disabilities without the proviso that these services must be necessary for special education. This difference in perspective and interpretation by pediatricians and parents often leads to misunderstandings, frustrations, conflicts, and problems in the development and implementation of related services within school programs for children with disabilities.

Special Education Due Process Hearings

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Rickey
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings

Special Education Due Process Hearings in Illinois

1983 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 417-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kammerlohr ◽  
Robert A. Henderson ◽  
Steve Rock
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
State Level ◽  
Due Process Hearings ◽  
Process Procedures ◽  
Hearing Officer ◽  
The Cost ◽  
State Board

This report analyzes the 314 due process hearings held in Illinois during 1978, 1979, and the first three months of 1980, and the 95 state-level appeals from the hearing officer decisions within these 314 cases. Data were obtained from photocopies of the hearing officer's decisions and the Illinois State Board of Education's (ISBE) appeal rulings provided by the ISBE after all identifying information had been deleted. Data are analyzed and reported by handicapping condition and the issue involved in the hearings. Hearing officer decisions are reported in terms of which party to the hearing was upheld. The analysis of state-level reviews similarly examines the proportion of appeals that upheld the hearing officer's decision or made a different decision. The time involved between certain steps in the process and the cost of the local hearing are discussed, and suggestions for improving due process procedures are offered.

Schaffer v. Weast’s Effects on California Special Education Hearing Decisions

2022 ◽  
pp. 104420732110667
Author(s):  
Tiina Itkonen ◽  
Bryan Tomlin ◽  
Manuel G. Correia ◽  
Luis A. Sanchez ◽  
Tracie Schneider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Due Process Hearings ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Due Process Hearing ◽  
Before And After

This research examined the associations between Schaffer v. Weast (2005) and special education due process hearing decisions in California. Using a database we coded from the state’s due process hearings for cases which reached a decision (years 1995–2019), this study analyzed (1) how legal representation and the filing party affected the probability of the student fully or partially prevailing in these cases, and (2) how Schaffer affected student representation and the prevailing party before and after this ruling. The results indicate that while students were statistically as likely to be plaintiffs and/or represented by an attorney before and after the 2005 time break in the study, the decision raised the bar for students as the likelihood of favorable outcomes for students fell significantly in the wake of the ruling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document