Special Education Case Study Analysis Janelle, a sixth grade student, is having learning difficulties in school. This has been an ongoing issue with Janelle however her parents did not agree to services offered in the past. Mother sought assistance and guidance from a developmental pediatrician to determine whether she needed to pursue the referral, evaluation and eligibility process for an Individualized Education Program IEP. Parents and children ages two through twenty-one are also assured to obtain a free appropriate public education FAPE in which they will receive life skills, obtain an education suitable to their needs, and to prepare for employment as stated in the IDEA Code of Federal Regulations IDEA Regulations, 34 C.
He works with other MAC attorneys on systemic special education issues, consults to attorneys representing low-income parents and students in special education disputes, and writes occasional postings for the MAC blog.
This is the first of what I hope to be a more or less monthly posting on special education law and practice. I then briefly cover all of the remaining Supreme Court decisions pertaining to special education.
In my October posting, I plan to provide an overview of all of the relevant First Circuit decisions. In subsequent postings, I will discuss other important court decisions, state law and regulations that may extend beyond the federal floor, as well as practice suggestions.
I welcome reader feedback, particularly any suggestions as to how these postings could be improved, including what other areas of special education law or practice I might address.
Readers may contact Bill directly at bcrane massadvocates. In language that lower courts continue to quote, the Supreme Court explained: Many courts including the First Circuit in its two most recent IDEA decisions have adopted a meaningful benefit standard.
I quote here extensively from Rowley because of the importance of this point: The determination of when handicapped children are receiving sufficient educational benefits to satisfy the requirements of the Act presents a more difficult problem.
The Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied. It is clear that the benefits obtainable by children at one end of the spectrum will differ dramatically from those obtainable by children at the other end, with infinite variations in between.
One child may have little difficulty competing successfully in an academic setting with nonhandicapped children while another child may encounter great difficulty in acquiring even the most basic of self-maintenance skills.
We do not attempt today to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act. Rather, educational benefit can only be understood appropriately within the context of what each particular student would be expected to be able to learn if provided an appropriate educational program.
Judges and hearing officers cite to and are governed by the above-described legal standards, as well as elaborations of these standards found in countless federal court decisions. But, what is apparent from reading many, many IDEA decisions is that a relatively subjective factual analysis is usually determinative in a FAPE dispute.
And, as with Rowley, a number of these decisions provide an important backdrop to the lower court decisions that have filled in much of the details of special education law. Parma City School Dist. The Court held that the party seeking relief bears the burden of proof in an administrative due process proceeding, such as the BSEA.
Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. Florence County School Dist. The Court discussed the standards pursuant to which a parent may obtain reimbursement for a private educational placement. There are now a number of Circuit Court decisions including a First Circuit decision that will be discussed in my next posting that have relied on this decision to describe more specifically the requisites of a private educational placement that can be reimbursed.
The Court established, for the first time, the right of parents to be reimbursed for their expenditures for private special education.
The services requested did not fall within the medical exclusion because they need not be performed by a physician.• Analyze cases and case studies as they apply to rules of law in specific educational as “special education.” Educational Law Course Educational Law. Educational Law. Educational Law a.
disability. Educational Law. Educational Law. Educational Law. Ten Supreme Court Special Education Cases You Need to Know. Bill's Blog: Ten Supreme Court Special Education Cases You Need to Know by Bill Crane, Esq.
Bill Crane is Of Counsel to Massachusetts Advocates for Children. This is the first of what I hope to be a (more or less) monthly posting on special education law and practice. In . Print this page. Special Education Caselaw U. S. Supreme Court l Courts of Appeals District Courts l Noteworthy Cases.
The Caselaw section of the Wrightslaw Special Education Law Library is organized as follows. New noteworthy decisions are listed first. Special education law is a combination of federal and state statutes and regulations which are interpreted by case law.
These seven important cases provide a great introduction to the way the law addresses special education issues. In Wrightslaw: Special Education Legal Developments and Cases (publication date ), L.H.
v. Hamilton will likely be a Case of the Year. For more information about cases and legal research, please check the Directory of Legal and Advocacy Resources.
Eighteen case studies capture important issues within the IDEA and NCLB legislations and provide real-life context for studying special education and the law/5(12).