1 / 23

Legal Aspects of Special Education and Social Foundations

Legal Aspects of Special Education and Social Foundations. Free and Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment Chapters 9 & 12. FAPE. “Free” and “public” not disputed “Appropriate” education is often disputed Definition Provided at public expense Meet State standards

totie
Télécharger la présentation

Legal Aspects of Special Education and Social Foundations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legal Aspects of Special Education and Social Foundations Free and Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment Chapters 9 & 12

  2. FAPE • “Free” and “public” not disputed • “Appropriate” education is often disputed • Definition • Provided at public expense • Meet State standards • Include appropriate education • Conforms with the IEP

  3. Procedural Safeguards • Provide notice to parents • Invite parents to participate • Secure parental consent • Make records available • Allow independent educational evaluation if in disagreement

  4. Free Education • Special education and related services provided at no charge • Refusal due to cost is not allowed • IDEA prohibits excuse of limited federal funding • Cost relevant only when options available are “appropriate”

  5. Free Education • Title XIX of the Social Security Act was amended in 1988 to assist in funding of needed services • Private insurance can also be funding source • Can allow fees that other students without disabilities are charged

  6. State Standards • Meet requirements of State Standards which may be higher • Includes requirements of licensure and certification for educators

  7. Appropriate Education • IEP for all students in special education • Responsibility of school district • Collaboration between parents and school personnel • Components of IEP must be complete • No guarantee of achievement • No liability of educators

  8. Related Services • Supportive services • Required to benefit from special education program • Reimbursement of services may be requested • Exclude medical services and devices • Must accompany special education

  9. School Health Services • Necessary to assist child to benefit from special education • Must be performed during school hours • Can be provided by a person other than a licensed physician

  10. Litigation • Irving Independent School District v. Tatro - “Bright-Line” test • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. - medical v. school health services • Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley - appropriate education

  11. The Rowley Standard • Is the school complying with IDEA procedures? • Is the IEP designed reasonable to enable child to benefit from educational opportunities?

  12. Courts Role • Are procedural requirements being met? • Are the requirements of FAPE being followed? • Is special education providing educational benefit?

  13. 1993 Metaphor • Doe v. Board of Education of Tullahoma Schools • Cadillac v. Chevrolet

  14. Post-Rowley Litigation • Procedural aspects • Follow procedural safeguards of FAPE • FAPE is denied if safeguards are not followed • Substantive aspects • IEP is appropriate • Designed to achieve educational benefits

  15. Procedural Violations • W.G v. Board of Trustees - failed to include classroom teacher of private school in IEP process • Tice v. Botetourt County School Board - 6 month delay in evaluation and IEP • Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools and Hall v. Vance County Board of Education - violated parent participation and notification, resp.

  16. Substantive Violations • “Meaningful benefit” v. “some benefit” - Hall v. Vance County Board of Education • “Meaningful growth” - Carter v. Florence County School District Four • Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16 - any degree of progress

  17. Substantive Violations • Cypress-Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F. - four-part test • Individualized program based on assessment and performance • LRE • Coordinated and collaborative services • Academic and nonacademic benefits

  18. Methodology and FAPE • Disagreement with particular methodologies • Curriculum • Interventions • Extended school year

  19. Placement • Settings • Facilities • Equipment • Location • Personnel required • Determining placement • Tests • Recommendations • Conditions • Background • Adaptive behavior

  20. Placement Factors • Based on IEP • Annually reviewed • Least restrictive environment • As close to general education as possible • As close to home as possible

  21. Graduation • No longer eligible for FAPE under IDEA • Maximum age to receive services • Graduates from high school with regular diploma • Can receive FAPE until “age-out” of IDEA

  22. Standards • Achieved IEP goals • Written notice • Summary of academic achievement and functional performance

  23. IDEA ‘97 and ‘04 • Based on student needs • Measurable and meaningful progress • Scientific research-based programs • Ongoing evaluation

More Related