LibGuides: ED-331 : Critical Issues in Special Education: Laws and Cases

Terminology

IEP: Individual Education Program

FAPE: Free Appropriate Public Education

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Section 651(e)). This used to be called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975. Public Law 94-142.)

U.S. Laws for Special Education

Laws that Affect Special Education

1. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Public Law No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27.

Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 which was one of President Johnson's signature issues. Its main feature, Title I, sent federal dollars to school districts across the nation to raise the achievement of disadvantaged children.

Here is a link to an article written by the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

2. Education for All Handicapped Children ( EAHCA or EHA, or Public Law 94-142). This law was signed by President Gerald Ford. It was codified at 20 U.S.C. Section 1400-1482 (2004) and is the predecessor of IDEA.

This act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental disabilities.

It was modified in 1983 by Public Law 98-199.

In 1986 Congress modified it again and highlighted the importance of the preschool years by lowering to age three the age at which children were eligible for special education and related services (Public Law 99-457). The amendments also established the Handicapped Infants and Toddler Program to assist children and their families from birth to age three.

3. In 1992 Education for All Handicapped Children was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Public Law 101-476.

4. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Public Law 103-227. This law was signed into law on March 31, 1994 by President Bill Clinton.

This act is to improve learning and teaching by providing a national framework for education reform; to promote the research, consensus building, and systemic changes needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities and high levels of educational achievement for all students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all Federal education programs; to promote the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and certifications; and for other purposes.

5. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Public Law 105-17, Section 601(c)(5)(A). were signed by the President Clinton on June 4, 1997. The Final IDEA '97 Regulations were released on Friday, March 12, 1999. These amendments to the Act focused on improving the education of children with disabilities by:

Identifying children with special needs before they enter school and providing services to help them,
Developing individualized education programs (IEPs) that focus on improving educational results through the general curriculum,
Educating children with disabilities with their nondisabled peers,
Setting higher expectations for students who are disabled and ensuring schools are held accountable,
Strengthening the role of parents and fostering partnerships between parents and schools,
Reducing unnecessary paperwork and other burdens.

IDEA - Federal Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities; Final Rule (December 1, 2008).

6. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This act encompasses Title I, the federal government's flagship aid program for disadvantaged students.

7. The IDEA Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) was reauthorized and amended in 2004 by the IDEA of 2004, Public Law No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647. It is usually referred to as IDEA '04. It was implemented July 1, 2005.

Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

The following cases are linked to the Library of Congress record. Another site to use is the Wrightslaw Special Education site which allows you to easily search for these cases. Google Scholar also has a feature that allows you to search for legal options and journals..

Brown V. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
This is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court which found that segregated schools are inherently unequal. The decision is relevant to children in segregated special education placements.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley - 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
The lower courts had interpreted the Act to mean that the school district had to provide an interpreter for the student, who was deaf, because having an interpreter would maximize the student's educational potential. The school district argued that the Act did not require this level of services.
more...less...
In doing so, the Court held that (1) the lower courts erred when they held that the act required states to maximize the potential of each handicapped child commensurate with the opportunity provided nonhandicapped children; (2) the evidence firmly established that the student was receiving an adequate education because she performed better than the average child in her class and easily advanced from grade to grade; and (3) insofar as the school district was required to provide a handicapped child with a "free appropriate public education," it had satisfied that requirement by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the student to benefit educationally from that instruction.
Irving Independent School District v. Amber Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984)
The Court affirmed the order of the court of appeals granting the parents of the handicapped child the right to medical procedures as part of her individualized educational program, to be provided by the school district under the Education for the Handicapped Act. The Court reversed the part of the order granting relief, including attorney fees, under the Rehabilitation Act.
more...less...
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=6496&sr=CITE(468+u.s.+883)
Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Board of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985)
Petitioner town sought review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which remanded the decision of the district court against respondents, Massachusetts Department of Education Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) and parents, that required the town to pay for private school expenses for the parents' handicapped son, pursuant to the Education of the Handicapped Act (Act), 20 U.S.C.S. § 1401 et seq.
more...less...
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, which remanded the decision requiring the parents to pay the town for private school expenses of their handicapped son because the Act authorized the power to order school authorities to reimburse parents for their expenditures on private special education.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
A case involving an emotionally disturbed student who has brought suit for injunctive relief against a state's superintendent of public instruction--in which suit the student claims that he was deprived of his educational rights under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (20 USCS 1400 et seq.) when he was suspended indefinitely from a public high school for violent and disruptive conduct related to his disability.
more...less...
The court clarified the procedural issues designed to protect children from school officials, parent role, stay put, that schools shall not expel children for behaviors related to their handicaps.
Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993)
Petitioner parents filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.S. § 1400 et seq., claiming that respondent school district breached its duty to provide the student with a free appropriate public education and seeking reimbursement for tuition and costs from a private school.
more...less...
The court affirmed a judgment ordering reimbursement to petitioner parents because respondent school district breached its duty to provide a student with the free appropriate public education.
Cedar Rapids v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)
The court affirmed the judgment that petitioner school district was financially responsible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide continuous one-on-one nursing services for respondent student. Respondent student, who was paralyzed from the neck down, attended school within petitioner school district. Respondent depended on a ventilator for life support. Respondent's mother asked petitioner to pay for the health care services that respondent needed to attend school.
more...less...
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment that petitioner school district was financially responsible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide continuous one-on-one nursing services for respondent student. The medical services exclusion did not apply because the services that respondent needed to stay in school did not require the services of a doctor.
Davis v. Monroe Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999)
Petitioner brought suit against respondent school district, alleging that her fifth-grade daughter was the victim of sexual harassment by another student in her class. Petitioner claimed monetary and injunctive relief under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq.
more...less...
The court reversed and remanded judgment dismissing petitioner's action against respondent school district, where "student-on-student," or peer, harassment provided grounds for private cause of action under Title IX.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, et. al, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
Respondents challenged the Pilot Project Scholarship Program, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3313.974-3313.979 (Anderson 1999 and Supp. 2000), as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional and does not violate the Establishment Clause.
more...less...
The State of Ohio established the pilot program to provide educational choices to families with children who reside in the Cleveland City School District. Cleveland's public schools had been among the worst performing public schools in the nation. The program provided tuition aid for students to attend a participating public or private school of their parent's choosing and tutorial aid for students who chose to remain enrolled in public school. The Court held that the program was entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provided benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permitted such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program was therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, the Court held that the program did not offend the Establishment Clause.
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005)
Petitioners, a minor and parents, sued respondents, including a school district, challenging an administrative law judge's decision in an individualized education program (IEP) hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.S. § 1400 et seq. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the school district, finding that the parents bore the burden of persuasion.
more...less...
The Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment.
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Pearl and Theodore Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006)
Using the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Joseph Murray's parents sought reimbursement from the school district for fees they had paid to an educational consultant during the proceedings.
more...less...
The Supreme Court held that IDEA did not authorize reimbursement of expert fees.
Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516 (2007)
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a non-lawyer parent of a disabled child may argue in federal court either on his own behalf ("pro se") or on behalf of his child.
more...less...
The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit by a 7-2 vote, ruling that "[p]arents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf."
Board of Education of New York City v. Tom F., 552 U.S. (2007)
The question was whether parents of a child who has never received special education from the public school district can obtain reimbursement for a unilateral private placement. The Supreme Court issued a split decision (4-4).
more...less...
This result leaves open the issue of reimbursements for private school placements under the IDEA when parents reject a public school placement and the child has not received special education services in the public school.
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable, 555 U.S. 246
Petitioners alleged an inadequate response to peer-on-peer sexual harassment, and they raised a claim under § 1983 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause under U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The court of appeals held that Title IX's implied private remedy was sufficiently comprehensive to preclude the use of § 1983 to advance constitutional claims and to advance statutory claims based on Title IX. The Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
more...less...
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Samuel A. Alito, the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It held that a claim filed under Title IX for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not preclude the use of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to further constitutional claims.
Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009)
When a public school failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and the parents placed the child in an appropriate private school without the district's consent, reimbursements for the private education costs could be ordered.
more...less...
The Supreme Court held that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide free appropriate public education (FAPE) and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education services through the public school. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act did not establish a categorical bar to such tuition reimbursements and remanding the case, was affirmed.

Searching for Legal opinions and journals

Under the Google Scholar's Advance Search you can search for Legal Opinions and Journals.

Google Advanced Scholar Search
Google Scholar allows you to search by all legal opinions and journals, search opinions of federal and state courts and search options of individual state courts.