This month’s update concerns two issues that were subject to recent court decisions and are of practical significance: (a) child find and eligibility under Section 504 v. the IDEA; and, as a variation and extension of last month’s legal alert, (b) the district of residence’s obligations to a student with disabilities during the student’s placement at a residential treatment facility, which was via a juvenile court order for mental health.
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.
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.
This monthly legal alert summarizes two recent cases that are officially published federal appeals court decisions. Mr. P. v. West Hartford Board of Education (2018) illustrates various basic issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Pollack v. Regional School Unit (2018) identifies a potentially significant additional obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
This legal alert focuses on two recent cases, one including the intersection of child find and RTI under the IDEA (M.G. v. Williamson County Schools (2018)), and the other concerning the IDEA remedies for stay-put violations (Doe v. East Lyme Board of Education (2015, 2017)).