6. Due Process and Bargaining Rights in Public Education

Author(s):  
Charles R. Perry
Keyword(s):  
1984 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 456-462
Author(s):  
Joseph P. Heaney

A legal issue arose in New York concerning the meaning of the term “free appropriate public education” as required for the handicapped under P.L. 94–142. The parents of a hearing impaired student, Amy Rowley, were denied the services of a deaf interpreter for their daughter. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the local and state educational authorities since sufficient personal instructional and related services were provided to allow her to benefit from education even if she was not enabled to maximize her potential. This article analyzes the due process issues raised in the opinion and discusses their educational implications.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Perry A. Zirkel ◽  
Cathy Skidmore

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.


ASHA Leader ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 18-20
Author(s):  
Susan Boswell
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Power-deFur

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document