Judicial Appeal of Due Process Hearing Rulings: The Extent and Direction of Decisional Change

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Perry A. Zirkel ◽  
Cathy Skidmore
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Tuition Reimbursement ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Primary Finding ◽  
Education Act

Extending the scope of two exploratory single-state studies, this empirical analysis determined the extent and direction of the outcome change from the impartial hearing officer (IHO) decision to the final court decision for a national sample of cases under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Based on a random sample of 116 published court decisions from 1998 through 2016, the authors identified the rulings for “issue categories,” such as eligibility, free appropriate public education, and tuition reimbursement, in the final court decision and, via its published opinion, the preceding adjudicative levels down to the IHO. The primary finding for the 183 issue category rulings was that 70% had only slight or no change from the IHO to the final court level. Other findings included the following: (a) the net change was higher for states with a second administrative tier, which is a review officer, than for those with only the single tier of an IHO; (b) the net change was also higher for cases reaching the appellate rather than only the trial court level; and (c) the most frequent issue categories were free appropriate public education (55%) and tuition reimbursement (18%), both with a slight net outcome change in the district’s direction.

Applied Behavior Analysis, Students With Autism, and the Requirement to Provide a Free Appropriate Public Education

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 206-215
Author(s):  
Bradley S. Stevenson ◽  
Vivian I. Correa
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
Behavior Analysis ◽  
Applied Behavior Analysis ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Students With Autism ◽  
Education Act

The prevalence of autism has been steadily rising over the previous decades. The diverse ways in which the disorder manifests in students and the free and appropriate public education (FAPE) mandate of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that a student’s individualized education program (IEP) team tailor interventions to meet the unique educational needs of that student. Deciding on the most appropriate evidence-based intervention programs for students with autism can be complex. In fact, a frequent source of litigation is when families and school personnel disagree on the particular programming to be provided to students with autism. Often this litigation involves disagreement over the extent to which services should be based on the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA). The purpose of this article is to review select case law to analyze how courts have ruled on whether schools must provide ABA services to meet FAPE requirement when families request those services, and to extrapolate implications for practice, including guidance to families and school personnel on how to work collaboratively to resolve conflicts surrounding ABA services.

Under the Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Private Schools ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
State Law ◽  
Individuals With Disabilities ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act

Since a 1997 amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities who attend private schools have not had the same rights to services and due process that are afforded to those who attend public schools. However, as a recent Minnesota court decision makes clear, state law may grant rights that the federal regulations do not.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education

2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. T. Prince ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The U.S

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This case addressed the question how much educational benefit are public schools required to provide to students with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to confer a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The purpose of this legal update is to provide a brief overview of court developments regarding FAPE, summarize Endrew, and provide implications for practice.

How to Survive a Due Process Hearing

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-12
Author(s):  
Carl Corbin
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Special Education Services ◽  
Education Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Educational Professionals ◽  
Due Process Hearing ◽  
Education Act

Abstract Background/Introduction: Due process hearings are administrative hearings that resolve disputes between parents of children, who qualify for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), and a Local Educational Agency (“LEA”). The IDEA provides that students that qualify for special education services are entitled to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”). A FAPE has both substantive and procedural requirements. The process by which a LEA details the provision of a FAPE to a student who qualifies for special education services is through the development of an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”). Objectives: This article reviews the process to develop a legally defensible IEP. This article provides strategies for LEAs and educational professionals to avoid a due process hearing. This article provides a brief description of and timelines associated with a due process hearing. This article provides suggestions to educational professionals who may be called to testify as a witness at a due process hearing. Conclusion: LEAs and educational professionals can minimize their risk of having to undergo a due process hearing and can maximize their chances to prevail at a due process hearing through preparation and training.

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.

EAHCA (Education for All Handicapped Children Act); IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

2019 ◽  
pp. 109-112
Author(s):  
Shawn S. Sidhu
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
Spina Bifida ◽  
Board Of Education ◽  
Individual Education Plans ◽  
Individuals With Disabilities ◽  
Handicapped Children ◽  
Independent School District ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Individual Education

Chapter 14 includes two cases involving the EAHCA, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that have heavily influenced the way public education is provided to school children with disabilities. Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley helped to establish the requirements and limits of Individual Education Plans (IEP), a free academic service for any school child with a learning disability. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, although specific to a child with spina bifida, helped to establish the medical care accommodations that a school must provide for a child with a physical disability.

Instilling Collaboration for Inclusive Schooling as a Way of Doing Business in Public Schools

1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD A. VILLA ◽  
JACQUELINE S. THOUSAND ◽  
ANN I. NEVIN ◽  
CATHY MALGERI
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Doing Business ◽  
Collaborative Behavior ◽  
Effective Collaboration ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Inclusive Schooling ◽  
Broad Overview

This article provides a broad overview of the concepts of collaboration and inclusive schooling within the context of rapid change in public education. the authors examine the current definitions of collaboration and inclusive schooling. they review various rationale for collaboration, current legislation related to collaboration in schools, and the recent research (1989 to 1995) on the effectiveness of collaboration in achieving the outcomes mandated by the individuals with disabilities education act (idea). in addition, they discuss major barriers to and facilitators of effective collaboration and make several recommendations for the supports needed to establish a collaborative ethic and collaborative behavior in public schools. the authors argue that collaboration can no longer be considered a voluntary act.

Perspectives on the Future of IDEA

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Hardman ◽  
John McDonnell ◽  
Marshall Welch
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Since its original passage in 1975 as Public Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been the cornerstone of practice in special education. This federal law has enabled all eligible students with disabilities to access a free and appropriate public education. During the past 2 years, the 104th Congress has debated vigorously some of the law's basic tenets (e.g., definition of disability, content of the individualized education plan [IEP], parental rights to attorneys, fees, discipline, and placement). The basic requirements of the law remain intact and continue to shape the scope and content of special education. This article addresses whether or not the assumptions upon which IDEA is based remain valid as we approach the 21st century. We critique these assumptions within the context of four requirements of IDEA: (a) eligibility and labeling, (b) free and appropriate public education, (c) the individualized education program (IEP), and (d) the least restrictive environment. Recommendations for changes in existing law relative to each of the above requirements are presented.

Mental Health Services, Free Appropriate Public Education, and Students With Disabilities: Legal Considerations in Identifying, Evaluating, and Providing Services

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell Yell ◽  
Carl Smith ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis ◽  
Mickey Losinski
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School District ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Education Act

In the past few years, the provision of mental health services in public schools has received considerable attention. When students with disabilities are eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), mental health services are required if such services are needed to provide students with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). That is, when a student’s individualized education program (IEP) team determines that he or she needs mental health services to receive a FAPE, a school district is required to provide these services. Our purpose is to discuss when school district personnel should identify, evaluate, and serve students with disabilities who may have mental health needs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document