This site will periodically highlight major new legal developments, with a focus on student issues under the IDEA and Sec. 504/ADA. To sign up for email notifications of these updates, please scroll all the way down the page (if viewing on a mobile device) or scroll right (if viewing on a desktop computer). Thanks!
This month’s update concerns two issues subject to recent court decisions and of practical significance: (a) juvenile justice proceedings for students with disabilities, as illustrated by Commonwealth v. Geordi G. (Mass. Ct. App. 2018); and (b) the meaning of “placement” along with the interaction between the IDEA’s adjudicative and investigative dispute resolution mechanisms, as illustrated by Steven R.F. v. Harrison School District No. 2 (D. Colo. 2018).
This month’s legal alert summarizes two new cases. First, Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School District (2018) addresses various current issues, including the possible child find-RTI connection. Second, Johnson v. Boston Public Schools (2018), illustrates the generally nondramatic impact of Endrew F. These various issues are further explained and updated in various articles listed in the “Publications” section of perryzirkel.com.
As a follow-up to the October legal update, this Special Supplement provides an alternate 504 eligibility form, which provides a different graphic to show the applicable frame of reference for the often critical third essential element–“substantial” limitation. The Publications section provides a newly posted article under the “Section 504 and ADA” subheading explaining the legal basis for this alternate version (see “Identification of Students 504-Only Students: An Alternate Eligibility Form“).
This monthly legal alert provides, as a follow up to the state-level analysis in the July 2018 update, both district-level and school-level analyses of the rate of 504-only students (i.e., those with 504 plans, not IDEA IEPs).
This monthly legal alert addresses the significant rulings of two recent federal appeals court decisions— Krawietz v. Galveston Independent School District (2018), which reinforced the ad hoc nature of school district’s ongoing obligation of “child find” under the IDEA, and L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education (2018), which provided a new twist on both least restrictive environment (by showing the difference between LRE and FAPE) and and reimbursement for private placements (by importing the Endrew F. standard).
This month’s legal alert addresses three significant IDEA issues. In Burnette v. San Mateo-Foster City School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals answered whether a child find violation entitles the parents to a remedy when the child is determined not to be eligible, and whether child-identified e-mails that are not part of the child’s file are education records under the IDEA. In M.C. v. Knox County Board of Education (2018), the federal district court in Tennessee answered whether planning time is a “related service” or a “support for school personnel” under the IDEA.
This monthly legal alert addresses Section 504 and IDEA issues, respectively. First is an update of the national and state-by-state percentages of “504-only” students. Second is the summary of a recent federal appellate court decision concerning child find and eligibility IDEA.