|
Legal References
Litigation Log This case upheld the due process proceedings and time deadlines in IDEA. The court found in favor of the school system as the student and his parents failed to show violations of the procedural rights under IDEA.
A learning disability with a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is not enough to qualify for IDEA, but the need for specialized instruction must also be present. This case transcript is not available on the internet and has restrictions on publication or citing.
FAPE must be provided regardless of the severity of the child's disability and may not be refused based upon the determination that the child would not benefit from the educational services. This case transcript is not available on the internet due to the age of the case.
Parents were reimbursed for private school tuition and the cost of independent educational evaluations after the school district's evaluations were found to be inadequate.
Neither social maladjustment nor delinquent behavior alone qualifies a child exhibiting the behavior as emotionally disturbed under IDEA.
FAPE is provided when the IEP provides individualized instruction and support services to give educational benefit to the child with a disability.
IDEA does not require the school, in providing FAPE, to offer the optimal educational program for a child.
This case defined a standard for FAPE indicating the IEP and placement must offer "significant learning" and provide "meaningful benefit".
Although IDEA requires children with disabilities to be educated with children who are nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate, the school is not required to mainstream a child with a disability if the regular education classroom setting is unable to meet the educational needs of the child and provide FAPE. This case created a two part test of the appropriateness of the placement: 1) may the child be educated satisfactorily in a regular classroom with supplementary aids an services, including a comparison of the benefits a child will receive from the regular classroom as opposed to the segregated, special education classroom and the possible negative effects of inclusion on the other students in the classroom, and 2) has the school mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent possible.
The court held that the school district bears the burden of proving compliance with the least restrictive environment requirement of IDEA.
A four part test was used in this determination of LRE: 1) the educational benefits of placement in a regular class with appropriate aids and services 2) the non-academic benefits of interaction with non-disabled children 3) the effect of the disabled child on the teacher and other students in the classroom 4) the cost of mainstreaming the child with a disability.
Parents may receive reimbursement for tuition for an unilateral private school placement if the public school district did not provide an appropriate IEP or FAPE and the private school is an appropriate placement.
Compensatory education may be awarded when the IEP was found by the court to be inappropriate and FAPE was not provided. Bad faith is not required. In this case the compensatory education was denied.
The school district may require a parent or other qualified adult be present during homebound instruction. The school district and instructor refused to administer medications, requiring the available parent or other qualified adult to be responsible. The court agreed with the school district.
Neither social maladjustment nor delinquent behavior alone qualifies a child exhibiting the behavior as emotionally disturbed under IDEA.
This case defined a standard for FAPE indicating the IEP and placement must offer "significant learning" and provide "meaningful benefit".
"Medical services" are not provided under IDEA. In this case, the Court affirmed the ruling under Tatro that "medical services" are those that must be provided by a physician. The Court also ruled that school health services provided by non-physicians, when these services are needed for a child to attend school, are required as related services under IDEA.
This case affirmed some services perceived as medical to be school health related services and created a three prong "bright-line" test: 1) the child with a disability must qualify under IDEA for special education, 2) the services is necessary to aid the child with a disability to benefit from special education, and 3) the service must be able to be provided by a qualified person other than a physician. The bright line test is used to determine whether or not a specific service is considered to be a related service (fundable under IDEA) or a medical service (not fundable under IDEA). About the Litigation Log The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997
(a.k.a. IDEA or P. L. 105-17), is the statute that was passed by
Congress and signed into law on June 4, 1997. It is the basis for
the regulations which were issued by the U.S. Department of Education
on March 12, 1999. If your Federal Circuit Court has set a clear standard, you may be able to easily apply the standard. If there is no standard established in your circuit or you would like to get a broader view, consider the standards set in other circuits. This site is designed to be useful for service providers and administrators. It is researched and written by staff with experience in those areas; attorneys did not write it. We have made every effort to include only cases that are helpful in making educational decisions and to accurately reflect legal decisions in practical terms. The resources here are not meant to be the final word on court cases and certainly do not replace the need for attorneys. Those who need more definitive analysis of these or other cases should consult an attorney or law library. |
||