Private School Placement: A Local Director's Perspective

1982 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Audette
Keyword(s):  
Private School ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Private Placement ◽  
State Education ◽  
Private Placements ◽  
Education Agency ◽  
Proper Perspective ◽  
Restrictive Environment ◽  
Local Programming

The consideration of private placement for a handicapped student's educational program by a local special services director can often be a complex deliberation. The irony of increased private placements for mild/moderately handicapped students, on the heels of landmark court cases mandating deinstitutionalization of programs for the handicapped (PARC, 1971; Mills, 1972), warrants a scrutiny of the interpretation and implementation of P.L. 94–142. Definitions of concepts such as “appropriate education” and “least restrictive environment” must be resolved. Problems of tuition rates, transportation costs, and due process activities are dilemmas which often accompany the issue of a private placement. Local education agency emphasis on well-developed local programming along with state education agency monitoring vigilance of federal regulations pertaining to least restrictive environment issues can provide a proper perspective to the question of private placement.

The Education of Children in Private Schools: A State Agency's Perspective

1982 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis Grumet ◽  
Thom Inkpen
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Private Schools ◽  
Private School ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
The State ◽  
State Education Agency ◽  
State Education ◽  
State Education Department ◽  
Education Agency ◽  
Restrictive Environment

The State of New York has utilized the private school sector for the education of children with handicapping conditions for some 20 years. As a state education agency, New York has had many appeals to the Commissioner of Education. The appeals to the Commissioner form the interpretative policy basis for implementing P.L. 94–142 in New York. The decisions of the Commissioner are summarized with respect to (a) least restrictive environment, (b) placements made by parents, (c) untimely appeals, and (d) exhaustion. The monitoring efforts of the State Education Department regarding private schools are also discussed as are the reasons for the state's prohibition on contracting with many private schools.

Getting on with the Education of Handicapped Children: A Policy of Partnership

1982 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet W. Bajan ◽  
Phyllis L. Susser
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public School ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Handicapped Children ◽  
Local District ◽  
State Education ◽  
Standards And Regulations ◽  
Adequate Provision ◽  
Restrictive Environment

The state education agency's failure to formulate a clear, consistent public policy regarding use of private schools that serve handicapped children has created problems. Examples of these problems are cited as they affect children—misinterpretation of the term “least restrictive environment,” delays in recommendations for placement, lack of adequate provision of transportation for privately funded children—and as they affect the schools themselves—comparison with public school standards (teacher certification, etc.), local district versus state programmatic and fiscal guidelines, and remedy for public school “misdiagnosis.” A policy which acknowledges the private sector as a level on the educational continuum of services and which produces a uniform set of standards and regulations is suggested.

Problems in Implementing Comprehensive Special Education Programing in Rural Areas

1981 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 514-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris I. Helge
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Initial Study ◽  
Personnel Preparation ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Rural Environments ◽  
Cost Efficient ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Data were collected for the National Rural Research and Personnel Preparation Project, funded by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, to investigate problems in implementing comprehensive special education programs. Cultural, geographic, climatic, socioeconomic and other inhibiting factors were analyzed in relation to implementation of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Although all major aspects of P.L. 94-142—the concept of the least restrictive environment; due process procedures; individualized education programs (IEP's); and parent involvement—were identified as problems for rural schools, three primary hindering factors were identified: (1) teacher retention and recruitment problems, (2) rural attitudinal problems, and (3) problems based on rural terrain. It was found that these problems emanated from tradition bound rural environments and were exacerbated by geographic and climatic demands of remote, isolated areas. The initial study was followed by a study identifying interrelated effective and cost efficient service delivery strategies and community and district subtypes.

A Speech and Language Clinician's Involvement in a PL 94-142 Public Hearing

1980 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-84
Author(s):  
Sandra Q. Miller ◽  
J. Kenneth Miller ◽  
Charles L. Madison
Keyword(s):  
Educational Program ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Restrictive Environment

The issues in a recent public hearing involved whether or not a sixteen-year-old profoundly deaf boy was receiving an "appropriate educational program" and whether his placement was actually in the "least restrictive environment." The IEP written for him in September, 1977, was challenged by his parents from the time of their first conference with school personnel to the last conference held in the spring of 1978. The document was not accepted by the parents and the controversy led to due process under PL 94-142 in which the speech clinician gave testimony. The clinician's role in the hearing is discussed and recommendations are presented for others who may become involved in such cases.

Private Placements in the Capital Markets Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank GB Graaf
Keyword(s):  
Capital Markets ◽  
Alternative Source ◽  
Private Placement ◽  
Private Placements ◽  
Capital Markets Union

This chapter looks at recent initiatives in the context of the European Commission's flagship plans for a Capital Markets Union (CMU) designed to encourage a pan-European private placement market. In reality, private placements are mainly available as a funding tool for medium-sized and larger companies. Nonetheless, private placements are regarded by CMU's policymakers as an alternative source of long-term funding, which is simple enough for smaller corporates and small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), and with benefits that they might find attractive. The Commission's initial intention in the design of a CMU was to enable a greater use by SMEs of private placements.

scholarly journals Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Michael Rozalski ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Jacob Warner
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
State Education ◽  
Education Agency ◽  
Education Act

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE was defined in the federal law as special education and related services that: (a) are provided at public expense, (b) meet the standards of the state education agency, (c) include preschool, elementary, or secondary education, and (d) are provided in conformity with a student’s individualized education program (IEP). Thus, the IEP is the blueprint of an individual student’s FAPE. The importance of FAPE has been shown in the number of disputes that have arisen over the issue. In fact 85% to 90% of all special education litigation involves disagreements over the FAPE that students receive. FAPE issues boil down to the process and content of a student’s IEP. In this article, we differentiate procedural (process) and substantive (content) violations and provide specific guidance on how to avoid both process and content errors when drafting and implementing students’ IEPs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document