Source: http://www.williamgoren.com/blog/tag/special-education/
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 15:56:52
Document Index: 172897297

Matched Legal Cases: ['§504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504']

special education | Understanding the ADA
special educationEndrew Decided
March 23, 2017 By William Goren 3 Comments As you know, it is rare that I blog more than once a week. I do make exceptions for extraordinary situations. This is one of those situations. Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court decided Endrew The decision contains stirring language, and is a huge victory for students with disabilities with IEP’s. It will also fundamentally change the way the vast majority of school districts go about dealing with students with IEP’s. Finally, it is also going to change the lives of special education attorneys on both sides of the aisle. Let’s see why by looking at the court’s reasoning. Of course, I have some takeaways for you as well. The reader is free to read either of the categories or both.
Filed Under: Federal Cases, IDEA Tagged With: ambitious, appropriate progress, appropriately ambitious, Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Westchester County v. Rowley, burden of proof, challenging, challenging objectives, deaf schools, deference, Endrew v. Douglas County school district, free appropriate public education, general education, IDEA, IEP, merely more than de minimis, passing marks and advance from grade to grade, progress appropriate in light of his or her circumstances, Reasonably calculated, special education, state schools for the deaf, substantive obligationFry Decided
February 27, 2017 By William Goren 1 Comment Last week the United States Supreme Court came down with the decision in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, the oral argument of which I discussed here. A whole bunch of people have blogged on the case, but I thought I would share my thoughts here. The blog entry is divided into three categories: court’s reasoning; concurrence reaoning; and takeaways. The reader will probably want to read all of it. It was a unanimous decision with Justice Kagan writing the decision for the court and Justice Alito and Justice Thomas writing a concurring opinion.
Filed Under: ADA, IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, Title II Tagged With: §504, 504 plan, ADA, Endrew v. Douglas County school district, exhaustion, free appropriate public education, Fry v. Napoleon community schools, IDEA, IDEA exhaustion, IEP, reasonable modifications, rehabilitation act, service dog, special education, title IIIf you waive one law, do you waive others? Intersection of IDEA, § 504, and the ADA
March 5, 2013 By William Goren 6 Comments In the kindergarten through grade 12 context, for students with disabilities, there are actually three laws to be aware of. Those laws are the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). IDEA is a law that demands a student with a disability obtain a free appropriate public education(FAPE). That law is extremely technical and has very specific eligibility requirements. It requires an individual education plan (IEP) and that plan needs to include performance measures and goals. It is much more narrowly focused than § 504, and therefore, a student could be eligible for § 504 services but not be eligible for IDEA services. That said, a person eligible for IDEA services would most certainly be covered under § 504. § 504 and the ADA are laws that we have discussed many times in this blog and they are designed to do something else, which is ensure that a person with a disability is able to get to the same starting line as everyone else. What happens if you have a person that asks out of or rejects an IEP, does that mean they have also waived any rights they have under §504 or under the ADA?
Once the laws were discussed, the court turned to the claims. With respect to that, the court said since IDEA as well as its implementing regulations specifically say that they are not meant to interfere with the rights given to students with disabilities under other laws, including the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, a waiver of one law does not waive rights given under the other laws. This sounds good for the plaintiff. However, the school held a section 504 meaning subsequent to the plaintiff’s rejection of the IEP under IDEA, and at that section 504 meeting, a § 504 plan was proposed that was identical to the rejected IEP. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s rejected the 504 plan as well. Accordingly, the rejection of the 504 plan put the school district off the hook. What is to prevent a school district from offering an IEP they know the parents will reject and then offering the same IEP in a subsequent 504 meeting knowing that the parents will reject that as well as a strategy for not having to provide services at all. Certainly, it is a strategy that the school district could try. However, the court did mention that there might be two checks on whether that strategy would prevail. First, if the plaintiff could show that the strategy was based on discriminatory intent, the strategy would fail. Second, since the laws are different, a school district is still under a continuing obligation under § 504 as well as the ADA to protect the student from discrimination while the student remains a qualified student with a disability. Accordingly, the school district has to offer and continue to offer, despite any rejection of an IEP or a § 504 plan, any accommodations or services ensuring that the student is provided an opportunity for free appropriate public education under § 504.
Filed Under: Federal Cases, Final Federal Regulations, General, Rehabilitation Act, Title II Tagged With: § 504, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 504, 504 broader than IDEA, 504 plan, ADA, adversarial, Americans with Disabilities Act, but the hook, child's present performance, collaborative, continuing obligation, design of a child's educational program, discriminatory intent, District Court of Colorado, educational program that is as adequate as the need of a child without a disability, eligibility requirements, evaluation criteria and procedures to determine whether a child has met the goals, FAPE, file suit, flexibility, goals and objectives, IDEA, IEP, implementing regulations, individual disabilities in education act, individual education plan, informed consent, informed consent of the parent, Kimble v. Douglas County school District, negotiation process, not interfering with or limiting the rights procedures and remedies under other laws, performance measures and goals, preventive law, preventive law measure, proposed changes to IEP, proposed IEP, rejection of 504 plan, rejection of IEP, revoking consent, school district, special education, special education related services, specific services enabling a child to meet those goals, starting line, strategic decision, substantive standards the same, title II, vagueness, waiver of one law does not waive another, written statementPrimary SidebarSearch