TOPIC (Zero Reject/ Child find)

Introduction:
Zero reject means that schools cannot exclude students with disabilities due to the nature
or degree of their disability (Gargiulo, 2012, p.80). This ensures that students with disabilities are
provided with a free and appropriate education, no matter how severe their disability. According
to Gargiulo (2012), included in this principle is the concept of related services, which requires
that children receive, for example, occupational therapy as well as other services as necessary in
order to benefit from special education (p. 49). An example of zero reject being violated would
be; Jake, an 18-year-old student with mental retardation, was told he could no longer attend
school after his 19th birthday. It is important to note that zero reject applies to public education,
private education, state-operated programs, psychiatric organizations, institutions for those with
disabilities, and other related services (Williams, 2006, p. 18). Zero reject also entails procedures
in locating children with disabilities.
Zero reject mandates that all students with disabilities or suspected of having disabilities,
ages birth to twenty-one, must be located, identified, and evaluated through a requirement called
the child find system (William, 2006, p. 19). An example of the child find system being violated
would be; a school district does not have a child find system in place, and many children with
disabilities living in the community are not receiving the services they need. Child find
obligations have two criteria for eligibility: a student must be determined to have a disability that
is covered by IDEA and because of the disability; the student needs special education and related
services. If a student is identified as having a disability the school district must provide and
individual educational plan otherwise known as an IEP.
Zero rejects purpose is to ensure that students with a disability have a free appropriate
public education provided at public expense. It also helps locate and provide services to all
children ages birth to twenty-one through the child find system. Zero reject also outlines
procedures for discipline of students with disabilities to ensure they are provided with an
appropriate education. It is important to note that the parents should be notified and involved
throughout the whole process to ensure the students appropriate needs are being met.
Court Cases:
W.B. v. Matula
In W.B. v. Matula, the principal did not want to provide assistance for a first grader who
suffered from ADHD. At the time the principal did not know the student suffered from this
disorder, but the students parent shared concerns to the school that she felt her child needed
to be evaluated. The school ignored the mothers request, but she had him evaluated on her
own and discovered he had ADHD. The mother requested a due process hearing to reimburse
her for the evaluation and to force the school to help her child. The case was appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court found that under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, monetary damages were available and also each child should be
evaluated in a reasonable amount of time after the school officials have been notified of a
students disability (United States, 1995). In other words the defendants were found guilty
for not satisfying the child find law that states, "all children residing in the State who are
disabled, regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in need of special
education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated ( Sheila, 2007).
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
In Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, the court was trying to figure out if the
CIC, clean intermittent catheterization, fell up under related services because the child
couldnt hold their bladder and they felt as though the CIC should clean up the accident when
they occurred (Supreme Court, 1989). Amber Tatro, an 8 year old, was provided with an
IEP which stated, Amber would attend early childhood development classes and receive
special services such as physical and occupational therapy. That program, however, made no
provision for school personnel to administer CIC (Wright & Wright, 2007). The court came
up with the decision that the CIC would fall up under related services under the Education of
the Handicapped Act which states, free appropriate public education, 1412(1),
1414(a)(1)(C)(ii), which is defined to include related services, 1401(18) (Wright &
Wright, 2007).
James S. v. Milwaukee Public School
James S. v. Milwaukee Public School is a class action lawsuit against Milwaukee Public
Schools and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction because the plaintiff filed a
complaint alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
(Class Action 2012). The case began in September 2001 and ended September 11, 2007
when the judge concluded that the school district failed to implement Child Find
requirements for at least five years. The Milwaukee Public Schools failed to adequately
follow the Education for All Handicapped Children Act that was passed in 1975 which
requires all states to implement child find procedures.
Legislation:
P.L. 94-142
P.L. 94-142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was passed in 1975 which
gave a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities, mandated education
in a least restrictive environment, gave them the right to have Individualized Education
Programs (IEPs), and also ensured them their due process rights (Autin, 2011). This law
addresses needs for children from birth to age 21 and requires all states to implement child
find procedures. This law allowed for parents/guardians to ensure their child with a disability
was provided with a free appropriate public education.
Child Find Procedure 160-4-7-03
Child Find Procedure 160-4-7-03 for the State of Georgia, ensures that each Local
Education Authority (LEA) conduct significant activity to identify, locate, or evaluate
children with disabilities (Cox, 2007). This includes children who are homeless, wards of the
state, and children attending private schools, regardless the severity of their disability. The
Child Find Procedure 160-4-7-02 coincides with 760-4-7-03 and ensures that children with
disabilities will be provided with a free and appropriate public education and will also
ensures that children with characteristics will be identified, located, and evaluated for special
education services. If this law is not upheld by the school district then this law could be used
against the plaintiff to be proceeded guilty.
Resources:
1.) National Center for Learning Disabilities
http://www.ncld.org
The purpose of this website is to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to
succeed in school, life, and at work. The website offers valuable information for parents and
other professionals on FAPE such as the facts and myths that are commonly associated with it. It
also goes into great detail about how FAPE came about after the passing of the Education of
Handicapped Act in 1974. To find the specific information about FAPE on this website go to
http://www.ncld.org/parents-child-disabilities/ld-rights/what-is-fape-what-can-it-mean-my-child.
2.) Wrightslaw
http://www.wrightslaw.com
Email: webmaster@wrightslaw.com
Wrightslaw is a website for parents, teachers, advocates and attorneys to find information
on special education law and advocacy for children with disabilities. This website can assist
parents, teachers, and other professionals on the laws that deal with FAPE and child find.
Parents, teachers, and other professionals can also find articles, law and regulations, and tips on
how to ensure a student is receiving a FAPE and to ensure that their school district is abiding by
child find procedures. To find the specific information about FAPE on this website go to
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/fape.index.htm .
3.) Learning Seed
www.learningseed.com
This website is initially intended to be a resource for educators, family members, and
friends of students with disabilities. The guide that outlines and explains the different
components of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), in reference to the zero reject
component, relates and explains zero reject as a part of all the six components included to the
view point of an educator. This guide explains and shows educators how to implement zero
reject in their classroom. The specific guide pertaining to zero reject for teachers can be accessed
at http://www.learningseed.com/_guides/1339_Inclusion_IEP_and_Special_Needs_Laws.pdf .
4.) Resources for Children with Special Needs
http://resourcesnyc.org
The Resources for Children with Special Needs website is dedicated to helping children
and youth achieve their full potential and ensure that parents develop the knowledge, skills, and
confidence to advocate for their childs FAPE. The website is versatile in that it offers tip sheets,
online references and resources, and videos pertaining to FAPE. One of the specific online
resources pertaining to FAPE is http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-
FAPE504.html . The tip sheet regarding FAPE entails information on how a child is provide
with FAPE and can be accessed at http://resourcesnyc.org/parents/tip-sheet/fape-and-lre .
5.) Coastal Georgia Learning Resources System
4 North College Street
P.O. Box 779
Claxton, GA 30417
Phone: 912-739-1551
http://www.coastalglrs.org
The Coastal Georgia Learning Resources website provides professional learning and
resources to parents and teachers of students with a disability. For teachers it provides
curriculum and assistive technology resources to ensure that the student is provide with FAPE.
This website also defines the child find law, what it is, and where to get help for parents that
believe their child may have a disability. To access this information and the resources provided
go to http://www.coastalglrs.org/child-find .
References:
Autin, D. (2011). Chapter two federal laws. Retrieved from
http://www.spannj.org/BasicRights/federal_laws.htm
Gargiulo, R. (2012). Individuals With Learning Disabilities . Special Education in Contemporary
Society (). : SAGE Publications Inc.
Shiela.(2007). Retrieved from
http://www.conductdisorders.com/community/threads/school-districts-refusal-to-
evaluate.7659/#ixzz374mKgEXh
Supreme Court of the United States.(1989). Irving independent school district v. Tatro. Retrieved
from http://www.spedwatch.org/files/Irving.pdf
William, H.L., (2006) Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (8
th
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education
Wright, P. & Wright, P. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (1995). W.B. v.
Matula (3
rd
Cir. 1995).Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/3rd.wb.matula.pdf
Wright, P. & Wright, P. (2007). The Supreme Court of the United States
468 U.S. 883 (1984). Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm
Wright, P. & Wright, P. (2012). Class Action Lawsuit: Judge orders lawsuit against school
district, remedies for kids. Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/wi.jamie.mps.wdpi.htm
(2007). Child find procedures. Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia. Retrieved from
http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/160/4/7/03.pdf







TOPIC (Evaluation and Classification)
Introduction:
Evaluation of students interindividual differences and intraindividual differences help
professionals in determining the classification of disability a student might have, and also help in
customizing instructional plans to meet the unique needs of the student. Evaluation is the
gateway to special education but referral charts the course to the evaluation process (Gargiulo,
2012, p. 63). Prior to evaluation pre-referrals and referrals must take place. After the pre-referral
and referral process has been completed and the student is still thought to have a disability it is
then mandated that the school obtain consent from the parents/guardians for evaluation. Once
this consent is obtained a multitude of tests will be done to determine the childs disability. After
the evaluation process is complete the IEP team must determine if the student is eligible for
special education services, and if so under which of the thirteen categories they fall under.
A pre-referral occurs before a referral for possible special education services in order to
reduce unwarranted referrals. This process is done through school-based intervention assistance
teams that help to provide assistance to students in order to determine rather further assistance is
needed through special education. A referral is initiated if the pre-referral process does not pose
successful for a student. According to Gargiulo (2012), A referral is a written request to
evaluate a student to determine whether a student has a disability (p. 63). The referral must
contain detailed reasons as to why the request for evaluation of special education services is
being made and typically will be accompanied documentation.
The law requires a comprehensive and nondiscriminatory school evaluation involving all
areas of suspected disability. Testing must also be done in the students native language. An
example of violating this portion would be; Samantha, whose first language is Spanish, was
identified to receive special education services based on assessments administered to her in
English. IDEA requires a multidisciplinary team to develop and individualized and
comprehensive assessment package that evaluates many developmental domains as well as the
specific areas of concern noted on the referral (Gargiulo, 2012, p. 66). As stated earlier the
testing should evaluate inter- and intraindividual differences in order to test students
performance relative to other students of chronological age and to gauge a particular level of
mastery. An example of the comprehensive and multiple test portions being violated would be;
Alice was identified as needing special education services based on the results of one IQ test.
After the evaluation process is complete it will then be determined if the student qualifies
for special education services and what category they fall under. The parents/guardians must be
sent a notification explaining the results of the evaluation and why their son or daughter is either
ineligible or eligible to receive special education services. IDEA 2004 identifies the following
thirteen categories of disability: autism, deaf-blindness, developmental delay, emotional
disturbance, hearing impairments including deafness, intellectual disabilities, multiple
disabilities, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, specific learning disabilities,
speech or language impairments, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments including
blindness. Once the student is labeled with a category of disability the multidisciplinary team
then with create an individualized education plan for that students specific need.
As stated early the evaluation and classification process has many steps and many
procedures to ensure that the student is being tested in a nonbiased manner and classified in the
most appropriate category according to their needs. The pre-referral and referral steps before the
evaluation are an important process for general education teachers and other supports to collect
data on the student being viewed as a candidate for special education services. Once the
evaluation process is started it is important that the student be tested in multiple ways and in their
native language. The pre-referral, referral, and evaluation process all lead to the classification of
a student, and if conducted properly can lead to meaningful IEPs or IFSPs (Gargiulo, 2012, p.
66).
Court Cases:
Hobson v. Hansen (1967)
The Hobson v. Hansen court case of 1967 was the first major case raising questions about
placement in special education. This case was brought about through [c]ivil rights activist Julius
Hobson [who] filed a class action lawsuit in federal trial court against the Board of Education of
the District of Columbia and its superintendent, Carl Hansen (Yettick). At the time of this case
most of the tests were uniformed on white-middle class children, thus discriminating against
other races. The court ruled against a tracking system in which children were placed into either
regular or special education classes according to intelligence test scores based off the Fifth
Amendment (Yettick). This court case and many others helped lay down grounds for PL 94-142
to ensure that assessments are not biased towards any certain individuals.
Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)
The Diana v. State Board of Education in 1970 was a case in which the use of tests to
place students was again challenged. Diana, a Spanish-speaking student in California, had been
placed in a class for intellectually disabled students because she had scored low on an IQ test
given to her in English rather than her native language. In this court case, a class action suit was
filed on behalf of nine Hispanic children who were individually given IQ tests in English and
classified as intellectually disabled in California (Connor, 2005, p.94). According to David
Connor (2005), [i]nterestingly enough, when retested by a Spanish-speaking examiner, only one
of the nine was classified as having an intellectual disability (p.94). The court ruled that non-
English proficient children cannot be placed in Special Education on the basis of culturally
biased tests or tests administered in any language other than their native language.
Cobb County Board of Education v. Sean C.
In the Cobb County Board of Education v. Sean C. a fourteen-year old boy, Sean C., had
been educated in special education classes for four years by the Cobb County Board of
Education and then was re-placed with failure to allow parents to participate. At this point his
IEP placed him in some classes with students that were classified as mildly mentally
handicapped, one class with moderately mentally handicapped and also provided one hour per
week of speech therapy (State of Georgia, 1985) . After the end of the year a school system
psychologists evaluated Sean C. without considering his adaptive behavior or contacting his
parents. The results placed him in the range of what was then called moderately retarded per the
Georgia Department of Education Rules and Regulations without consulting parents or allowing
them to participate in the decision. This violated Public Law 108- 446 by not considering his
behavior and by not contacting his parents before an evaluation was done.
Legislation:
P.L. 94-142
Public Law 94-142 Education of All Handicapped Children Act established that all
children, even the severely handicapped, have the right to a free and appropriate education
(Zettel, 1977). It also says that States have procedures to ensure that procedural safe guards in
decisions related to evaluation of handicapped children are guaranteed. This law helps ensure
that students are evaluated in a non biased manner in order to correctly classify what disability
they fall under. Before the law was passed in 1975 ESL students were not being tested in their
native language therefore it lead to an inaccurate placement for many students.
P.L. 108-446
Public Law 108-446 Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) recognized the
rights of children with special needs and their families and sought to protect those rights with
several provisions. Regarding the topic of evaluation, this law introduced two important concepts
into the field of special education. The first concept is that of nondiscriminatory assessment,
which is among the six major components of the law. This concept protects the rights of children
by ensuring a non biased evaluation. Gargiulo (2012) states, a child must be evaluated by a
multidisciplinary team in all areas of suspected disability by tests that are neither racially or
culturally nor linguistically biased (p.49). This allows for a more accurate picture of the
students abilities. In addition to the concept for nondiscriminatory assessment, IDEA 2004
provides a new model for indentifying possible disabilities. Under IDEA 2004, professionals use
a response to intervention (RTI) model, in which students are exposed to increasing levels of
intervention according to their needs. Gargiulo (2012) states several benefits of this model,
including the fact that it reduces the number of inappropriate referrals for special education (p.
214). The RTI model is now another step in ensuring accuracy in the process of evaluation and
classification.
Georgia State Education Rule Number 160-4-7-04
Georgia State Education Rules Number 160-4-7-04 states that each Local Education
Agency (LEA) must conduct a full, individual evaluation of a student before providing special
education services (Georgia Department, 2010). This evaluation must be completed within 60
days of when parental consent is given. This law provides the guidelines that parental consent is
not necessary to review existing data for evaluations, when giving a test to all students that does
not require consent from the parent and during the screening process to develop strategies for
curriculum implementation (Georgia Department, 2010). Georgia State Education Rules
Number 160-4-7-04 also ties in with rule number 160-4-7-05, which entails the eligibility
determination and categories of disabilities guidelines. The Georgia State Education Rules
Number 160-4-7-05 entails the thirteen categories a child with a disability can be labeled with
along with specific details on each, and sets guidelines for determination for eligibility and
eligibility reports. Upon completion of the administration of assessments and other measures, a
group of qualified professionals and the parents of the child (Eligibility Team) determine
whether the child is a child with a disability and the educational needs of the child. [34 C.F.R.
300.306(a)(1)] (Rules and Regulations). In other words Georgia Stated Education Rules
Number 160-4-7-05 sets the guidelines for after the nonbiased evaluation is done and the process
of determining rather the child has a disability, as well as classifying which of the thirteen
categories they fall under per an eligibility team.
Resources:
1.) National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET)
1250 Conneticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C., 20036
Phone: (800) 754 4421
http://www.naset.org
The National Association of Special Education Teachers provides services and supports
to individuals who teach students with disabilities. NASET seeks to promote standards of
excellence and innovation in special education research, practice, and policy, in order to foster
exceptional teaching for exceptional children (About section, 2007). In regards to evaluation,
one publication known as Assessment in Special Education Series, provides information for
teachers about the process of eligibility evaluation. To find the specific information regarding the
evaluation process on this website visit http://www.naset.org/2876.0.html .
2.) Georgia Department of Education
205 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Local (404) 656-2800
Phone: (800) 311-3627 (GA)
Email: askdoe@gadoe.org
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us
The Georgia Department of Education oversees public education for the entire state. One
of the goals of this organization is to promote family engagement; therefore, this organization
provides numerous resources to accomplish this goal. They provide education related
information to students, parents and teachers. In regards to evaluation, the GaDOE website
provides legal information and great resources regarding the process of evaluation and the
thirteen categories in which a student might be placed if they are determined to have a disability
after the evaluation process. In regards to evaluation, the GaDOE website also provides fact
sheets for parents that detail the process of evaluation and classification, as well as information
that answers questions about reevaluations and independent evaluations. In order to access the
evaluation and classification handout per IDEA go to
http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-
Services/Pages/SLD%20Eligibility,%20RtI%20and%20Child%20Find.pdf .
3.) Georgia Parent Mentor Partnership
www.parentmentors.org
This organization includes parent mentors, who are parents of children with disabilities that are
hired by the district to support family engagement as well as support other parents by providing
information and resources to help their children succeed in school and transition from school to
adult life. One valuable part of this website is that It provides parents with documents to assist
them through understanding the evaluation process. For example, one document this
organization provides is a list of specific questions that parents can ask their childs school in
order to fully understand what the school will do for their child. For more information on the
resources about evaluation on this website go to http://www.parentmentors.org/learning-
curve/ieps-and-evaluations/ .



4.) Houston County Board of Education
1100 Main Street
Perry, GA. 31069
478-988-6200
http://www.hcbe.net/
The Houston County Board of Education website provides information and support to
students and parents. They also assist school based professionals in implementing the universal
design in order to maximize the achievement of all students. The website has resources available
to parents/guardians, teachers, and other professionals regarding the evaluation process and
classification process per IDEA. The Houston County Board of Education even has a link to
Section 504 for those students who might not have qualified for special education services but
still need additional service in order to reach their full potential. In regards to the assessments
procedures on the Houston County Board of Education website visit
http://houstoncs.schoolinsites.com/?DivisionID=15762&ToggleSideNav=ShowAll .
5.) Wrightslaw
Email: webmaster@wrightslaw.com
http://www.wrightslaw.com
This website is for parents, teachers and attorneys providing the latest information on
special education laws for children with disabilities. The Wrightslaw website provides a link
labeled evaluations in which individuals can access articles about the evaluation process for a
student seeking special education services. This website also provides the facts and laws
regarding to the evaluation process in which IDEA stipulates. It will assist in parents making
wise decisions about their childs process to being evaluated for special education services and
help provide resources were expert advice can be given. To access the information regarding the
evaluation and classification portion on Wrightlaws go to
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/test.index.htm .
References:
Buckland, L.O. (1985). State board of education state of Georgia: Cobb county board of
education v. Sean C. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-
Policy/State-Board-of-Education/SBOEAppeals/1985-06.pdf
Connor, D., & Ferri, B. In the Shadow of Brown: Special Education and Overrepresentation of
Students of Color . , 26 , 94 . Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/261595/In_the_Shadow_of_Brown_Special_Education_and_O
verrepresentation_of_Students_of_Color
Gargiulo, R. (2012). Individuals With Learning Disabilities . Special Education in Contemporary
Society (). : SAGE Publications Inc.
Georgia Department of Education (2010). Evaluations and reevaluations. Retrieved from
http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/State-Board-of-
Education/SBOE%20Rules/160-4-7-.04.pdf
Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia. Retrieved from
http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/160/4/7/05.pdf
Yettick, H.R. (2012). Hobson v. Hansen http://educational-law.org/333-hobson-v-hansen.html
Zettel,J.J. (1977). Public law 94-142. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED140554.pdf













TOPIC (IEP and Appropriate Education)
Introduction:
An Individualized Education Plan, otherwise known as an IEP, is a written detailed plan
developed by a team for each pupil aged 3-21 who receives a special education (Gargiulo, 2012,
p. 68). This is the point in which the students unique needs will be taken into consideration by
parents, teachers, school administrators, and related service personnel to ensure that the student
receives an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. It is important to note that
the IEP should be completed prior to determining what the least restrictive environment is for the
student. An example of an IEP violation would be this situation: Kelly was identified for special
education services, but an IEP was never developed for her. A meaningful IEP states a students
current performance, goals, special education and related services, participation with typical
students, and participation in state-and district wide assessments. Four other elements to a
meaningful IEP are; dates and places for services, transition services, measuring progress, and
age of majority. The goal of an IEP is to ensure that a student with a disability has a specially
designed educational program to their specific needs for an appropriate education.
A free appropriate public education entails that all children, regardless of the severity of
the disability, must be provided with an education appropriate to their unique needs at no cost to
the parent(s)/guardian(s) (Gargiulo, 2012, p. 49). This is the most misunderstood concept of
IDEA, because what is needed for one childs disability is not always necessarily needed for
another. Children identified with disabilities are provided with modifications, accommodations,
and IEPs according to their individual needs at public expense. An example of a violation of free
appropriate public education would be this situation: Tys parents were told that Ty could not
attend his neighborhood school because his disabilities were too severe. FAPE is determined on
an individual basis for each child based on his or her individual assessment and educational
needs.
Court Cases:
Carter v. Florence County School District Four (1991)
The Carter v. Florence County School District Four court case of 1991 arose through
Shannons parents who were ultimately dissatisfied with the districts plan and sought a due
process hearing (United States 2011). Shannon Carter was a student at Timmonsville High
School, classified with a learning disability. Shannons parents didnt believe that her public
school was providing her with an appropriate education or taking the necessary steps to support
her in reaching her IEP goals, so they sought for a school that would provide her with that.
When state and local educational authorities concluded that the IEP was adequate,
Shannon's parents sued in Federal District Court, claiming the school district had
failed to provide a "free appropriate public education" as required by IDEA and
demanding reimbursement for Shannon's education at the private school
(Florence County, n.d.).
The Court ruled that Shannons parents were eligible to receive reimbursement for their
daughters education at the private school due to an inappropriate IEP and the failure of the
public school to comply with IDEA.
Georgia State Department of Education v. Derrick C.
Georgia State Department of Education v. Derrick C. entailed Derrick C., who had
autism and a language disorder, and the State of Georgia due to IEP changes (Find Law,
2011). At one year of age he was qualified as disabled and placed at the Walden School. As he
approached three years old the transitional process from his school to Dekalb County Schools an
IEP was developed, but Derricks parents refused the IEP and requested Derrick stay-put under
IDEAs provisions (Find Law, 2011). The court ruled in favor of Derrick and his parents were
reimbursed the money they put out keeping him at the Walden School.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County v.
Amy Rowley
The Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester
County v. Amy Rowley entailed parents seeking a court ruling against the school due to a sign
language interpreter being denied. Amy Rowley was a deaf student attending school at the
Furnace Woods School in Westchester County. In kindergarten she was in a regular classroom
and wore a FM hearing aid that worked in conjunction with a microphone, and during first grade
an IEP was written for her including the same placement and equipment (The Supreme 2011).
Instruction from a deaf tutor as well as speech therapy every week was included in the IEP.
Amys parents agreed to this, but also insisted on a sign language interpreter. She had been
appointed one in kindergarten, who stated that she did not need him, so after that, and talking
with the parents and teacher, it was decided that she would not receive that accommodation
(The Supreme 2011). Her parents took the matter to court saying that denial of this service did
not constitute a free and appropriate education. The court found that although Amy was doing
well, the disparity between her potential and her achievement led them to decide that she was not
receiving a free and appropriate education (The Supreme 2011). However, the U.S. Supreme
Court found that Amy was receiving appropriate educational services.
Legislation:
P.L. 94-142
Public Law 94-142 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) sets the
guidelines for what should be incorporated within a meaningful IEP.
According to Gargiulo (2012) an Individualized Education Program is required to address
(1) the present level of academic functioning (commonly referred to by school personnel
as present level of performance); (2) annual goals and accompanying instructional
objectives; (3)educational services to be provided; (4) the degree to which the pupil will
be able to participate in general education programs; (5) plans for initiating services and
length of service delivery; and (6) an annual evaluation procedure specifying objective
criteria to determine if instructional objectives are being met (p. 49).
Gargiulo (2012) states Government regulations do not specify the level of detail considered
appropriate, nor do they mention how the IEP is to be constructed (p. 69). In essence an IEP is a
management tool that stipulates who is provided a special education, what services will be
offered, when and where they will be delivered, for how long, and how successfully the goals
have been met (Gargiulo, 2012, p. 70).
Georgia State Education Rule Number 160-4-7-06
Georgia State Education Rule Number 160-4-7-.06 Individualized Education Program
(IEP) states that it must include a statement of the childs present levels of academic
achievement, a statement of measurable annual goals, a description of alternative assessments if
necessary, supplementary aids necessary, the extent to which the child cannot participate with
nondisabled children, a statement of appropriate accommodations if necessary, and date and
locations (Georgia Department). This implementation Manual for the Special Education State
Rules (2007), under Georgia Codes, serves as the legislative framework for Special Education
within the state of Georgia. Under Code IDDF (6), the legal criterion for an Individualized
Education Program is laid out for the state as a whole. These and many other rules pertaining to
the IEP process became effective in July of 2007. This piece of legislation allows for meaningful
IEPS to be written that are individualized for each individual students needs in order to succeed.
This piece of legislation should also be used as a source of reference for educators, parents, and
other professionals involved in the Individualized Education Program process to ensure the
students needs are being met.
Resources:
1.) Project IDEAL
www.projectidealonline.org
Project IDEAL is a special education law resources website with activities, topics, and
information on the federal education laws. In regards to IEP, there is an activity for the IEP
process that explains it and provides practice for those learning about it. Therefore, those
learning about the field of special education would gain benefit from this resource to get a deeper
understanding of how the IEP process works.
2.) U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327)
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/aboutocr.html
The Office of Civil Rights mission is to ensure equal access to education for everyone.
This office enforces several federal laws that prohibit discrimination in programs and activities
that receive funding from the Federal Government. The U.S. Department of Education website
is beneficial for teachers, parents, or professionals seeking the guidelines of an IEP stipulated by
IDEA in order to assure that a child is receiving a free appropriate public education. An IEP
guide can be accessed at http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/iepguide.pdf for
parents, teachers, or any other professional wanting to obtain additional information on what an
IEP is and how the process works.
3.) PACER CenterChampions For Children With Disabilities
Phone (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. CST, Monday - Friday)
Minnesota: 1.800.537.2237 or 952.838.9000
TTY: 952.838.0190
USA: 888.248.0822
Fax: 952.838.0199
Mailing Address
PACER Center, Inc.
8161 Normandale Blvd.
Bloomington, MN 55437
http://www.pacer.org/
This resource has workshops, publications, and other resources to help direct parents and
families of children with disabilities make decisions about education and other services. There
are many resources to help guide parents in the right direction and to help them obtain valuable
information about IEPs. In regards to getting a child involved with their IEP process visit
http://www.pacer.org/parent/php/php-c77.pdf . In regards to parents better understanding their
role in an IEP process visit http://www.pacer.org/parent/php/php-c27.pdf . These are just two of
the many resources available for both parents and teachers at this website pertaining to IEPs.
4.) bridges4kids
http://www.bridges4kids.org
Bridges4kids is a website that provides information for families and professionals in
regards to early childhood, special needs, at risk and disabilities. This website provides
information and referrals for children from birth to adulthood. Bridges4kids is a useful tool for
teachers when needing to write goals and objectives for a students IEP because it gives you a
bank of ideas to pull from to help construct a meaningful IEP. For many resources on this
website pertaining to IEP go to http://www.bridges4kids.org/IEP.html#top .
5.) Kids Health
http://kidshealth.org
Kids Health provides parents with information on what an IEP is and how the process
work. The website breaks it down into categories so that parents can better understand what and
who should be involved throughout the process. It also provides links to other great resources for
parents to obtain more information on their childs disability. In order to obtain more
information about an IEP and what it entails view
http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/learning/iep.html .
References:
FindLaw (2011). U.S. 11
th
circuit of appeals, Georgia State v. Derrick C. Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1464104.html
Florence County School District Four v Carter. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College
of Law. 19 June 2014. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_91_1523
Gargiulo, R. (2012). Individuals With Learning Disabilities . Special Education in
Contemporary Society (). : SAGE Publications Inc.
Georgia Department of Education: Special Education . Retrieved from
http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/160/4/7/06.pdf
Wright, P. & Wright, P. (2011) United states district court of south Carolina Florence division.5
July 2014 Retrieved from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_carter_usdist_sc.htm
Wright, P. & Wright, P. (2011). The supreme court of the United States, 458 U.S. 176. 5 July
2014Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm













LRE( Least Restrictive Environment)
Introduction
The Least Restrictive Environment, or LRE, is defined as a relative concept individually
determined for each student; principle that each pupil should be educated, to the maximum
extent appropriate, with classmates who are typical (Gargiulo 615). Basically, LRE is a term for
the environment best suited for students to learn and succeed. The difficulty of LRE is
maintaining a balance between integration and appropriate education.
Case Law:
Pennsylvania Association for Disabled Children v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(1972)
State must guarantee a free appropriate education to all children with mental retardation ages 6-
21 regardless of degree of impairment or associated disabilities. Students to be placed in the most
integrated environment. Definition of education expanded. Case established the right of parents
to participate in educational decisions affecting their children. State to engage in extensive
efforts to locate and serve (child-find) all students with disabilities. Preschool services to be
provided to youngsters with disabilities if local school district serves preschoolers who are not
disabled (Gargiulo 45).
Daniel R.R. v State Board of Education (1989)
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a segregated class was an appropriate placement for a
student with Down syndrome. Preference for integrated placement viewed as secondary to the
need for an appropriate education. Court established a two-prong test for determining
compliance with the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate for students with severe
disabilities. First, it must be determined if a pupil can make satisfactory progress and achieve
educational benefit in the general education classroom though curriculum modification and the
use of supplementary aids and services. Second, it must be determined whether the pupil has
been integrated to the maximum extent appropriate. Successful compliance with both parts
fulfills a schools obligation under federal law. Ruling affects LRE cases in Louisiana, Texas,
and Mississippi, but has become a benchmark decision for other jurisdictions as well (Gargiulo
47).
L.B. & J.B., on behalf of K.B. v Nebo School District
K.B., the minor child, was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in 1997. His parents felt as
though the school systems offer of 15 hours a week of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) was
not enough. In December 1999, the parents asked for reimbursement from the district in order to
cover the cost of K.B.s 40 hour weeks of ABA. L.B. and J.B. did not feel the Nebo School
District did not do everything possible to offer K.B. a free and appropriate education in the least
restrictive environment. Overall, the court did not agree that Nebo had denied K.B. a free and
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, but they did find the district guilty of
not assessing K.B.s IEP goals properly or on a regular basis. The appeals court affirmed and
reversed part of the decisions made prior (Wrightslaw.com)
Legislation:
PL 94-142: IDEA (1975)
to assure that all handicapped children have available to thema free appropriate public
education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique
needs, to assure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or guardians are
protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all handicapped children,
and to assess and assure the effectiveness or efforts to educate handicapped children (Gargiulo
49).
(LRE): Children with disabilities are to be educated, to the maximum extent appropriate,
with students without disabilities. Placements must be consistent with the pupils educational
needs (Gargiulo 49).
No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 aims to bring all students up to the
proficient level on state tests by the 2013-2014 school year, and to hold states and schools more
accountable for results. NCLB requires all districts and schools receiving Title I funds to meet
state "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) goals for their total student populations and for specified
demographic subgroups, including major ethnic/racial groups, economically disadvantaged
students, limited English proficient (LEP) students, and students with disabilities. If these
schools fail to meet AYP goals for two or more years, they are classified as schools "in need of
improvement" and face consequences (GreatSchools.org).
Up until this Act was passed, the schools were making adequate yearly progress as long as most
of the students were being successful academically. After NCLB passed, the schools were
responsible for ensuring the annual yearly progress of all students, including students with
special needs. NCLB now requires those students, who are in inclusion classes or the Least
Restrictive Environment, to be included in the results of annual yearly progress.

Resources:
1.) Developing Least Restrictive Environment for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive
Disabilities: A Step by Step Guide for Replication
The article gives step-by-step suggestions on how to develop Least Restrictive Environment for a
student with severe cognitive disabilities. There are 7 steps that teachers can follow in order to
better construct a classroom environment and curriculum for the student.
Accessible at: www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-
Services/Pages/Developing-LRE.aspx
2.) Least Restrictive Environment
This page contains links and many sections describing the elements of Least Restrictive
Environment. The page was designed mainly for informing parents, but is a good read for
teachers as well.
Accessible at: www.nichcy.org/schoolage/placement/placement-lre
3.) Inclusion: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions of the NEA
This FAQ page contains information for both parents and teachers about inclusion, or the Least
Restrictive Environment. The concepts are not the same, but they are closely related to one
another. The article explains rights and federal definitions for inclusion and its components.
Accessible at: www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.faqs.inclusion.htm
4.) Special Education Rights and Responsibilities: Information on Least Restrictive
Environment
Though it is a PDF, the information provided gives definitions, laws, and rights that are apart of
Least Restrictive Environment. It also provided information for parents to better understand
which environment is best their child.
5.) Least Restrictive Environment: How Do We Prepare Both Our Special Educators and Our
General Educators to Comply with the Provision?
Carolyn Keuhnes article explores different ideas for preparing future and current educators on
how to comply with Least Restrictive Environment provisions. Keuhne explains the properties,
legal ramifications, and collaboration that involves teachers and Least Restrictive Environment.
Accessible at: www.ldonline.org/article/6083/

References:
Gargiulo, R. (2012). Special Education in Contemporary Society 4. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Great Schools: No Child Left Behind requirements for Schools. www.greatschools.org/
definitions/nclb/nclb.html
Wrightslaw: Special Education Law and Advocacy. www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/




Parent and Family Involvement
Introduction:
Parent and Family involvement is incredibly important to any childs education; however, it is
vital to a child with special needs. Parents have a responsibility to their child to ensure they are
academically on track, as well as ensuring their childs needs are being met by the school district.
Parent and Family Involvement is more than just having meetings with the parents every couple
of months during a school year. It requires the teacher and the family to build a relationship in
which the teacher learns the familys way of life. This requires the family to be a bit open, which
is difficult, but for the students education to be successful, the teacher must have a general idea
of the childs family structure.

Case Law:
Doug C. v State of Hawaii Department of Education (June 13, 2013)
Reversing the district courts judgment, the panel held that the Hawaii Department of Education
violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by holding a students annual
individualized education program meeting without the participation of a parent. The panel held
that the Department of Education denied the student a free appropriate public education by
holding the IEP meeting without the parent even though the parent did not affirmatively refuse to
attend, but rather actively sought to reschedule the meeting in order to participate. The panel
remanded the case for the district court for further proceedings regarding the parents entitlement
to reimbursement of private school tuition (Wrightslaw.com).
Schafer v. Weast (November 14, 2005)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) gives every disabled child the right to a
"free appropriate public education" tailored to meet his or her unique needs. To enforce this
right, the IDEA requires every public school system receiving federal funds to develop and
implement an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each disabled child in its jurisdiction.
When the parents believe their disabled child's IEP is inadequate, they may initiate an
administrative proceeding (called a due process hearing) to challenge the IEP. The parents of
Brian Schaffer initiated a due process hearing to challenge the IEP developed for him by
Maryland's Montgomery County Public School System (MCPS). The issue in this appeal is
whether the district court was correct in assigning the burden of proof to the school system in
that proceeding. The IDEA is silent on burden of proof. Because we have no valid reason to
depart from the general rule that the party initiating a proceeding has the burden of proof, we
reverse and remand (Wrightslaw.com).
Supreme Court Decision: The majority held that, "The burden of proof in an administrative
hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that
party is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school
districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before
an ALJ."
Winkelman v. Parma City School District (2007)
One of the more significant Supreme Court rulings. The Court, by unanimous vote, affirmed the
right of parents to represent their children in IDEA-related court cases. Ruling seen as an
expansion of parental involvement and the definition of a free and appropriate public education.
Decision also interpreted to mean that IDEA conveys enforceable rights to parents as well as
their children (Gargiulo 48).


Legislation:
FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99)
is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all
schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These
rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the
high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are "eligible students" (US
Department of Education).
PL 94-142 (1975) Sometimes known as Parents Law
This law requires that parents participate fully in education decisions affecting their son or
daughter (Garigulo 115). The law is has 4 main purposes: (a) to assure that all children with
disabilities have available to thema free appropriate education which emphasizes special
education and related services designed to meet their unique needs (b) to ensure that the rights
of children and their parentsare protected (c) to assist States and localities to provide for the
education of all children with disabilities (d) to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to
educate all children with disabilities (US Department of Education).
Resources:
1.) Special Needs Children: The Power of Parent Involvement by Judy Winter
The article explains the benefits of a parent who stays involved in their childs education. The
article suggests not only does family involvement benefit the child academically; it keeps the
parent informed of their childs needs, struggles and successes. The article also suggests that
parent involvement keeps the administration, teachers and the parent on the same page when it
comes to the future education of the student.
Accessible at: www.eduguide.org/article/special-needs-children-the-power-of-parent-
involvement
2.) A Parents Guide to Understanding Rights and Responsibilities
This webpage is a part of the Georgia Department of Education. It contains vital information for
parents as well as teachers concerning their rights and responsibilities as the parent of a child
with special needs. The website is also available in multiple languages.
Accessible at: www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-
Services/Pages/Parent-Rights.aspx
3.) Increasing the Involvement of Parents in the Education of Special-Needs Children
This article is mainly for teachers and professionals to utilize in learning why Parental
Involvement is important to children with special needs. The article gives suggestions for how to
increase the amount of involvement parents give while also addressing issues teachers commonly
face with parents who are less involved.
Accessible at: www.bjdd.org/new/104/3to16.pdf
4.) Meeting All the Childs Needs Through Parental Involvement by Jan Dowling
In this article, Dowling explains that teachers need to be respectful and knowledgeable of the
students first community, their family. She continues by explaining that teachers need to make
the programs at the schools more accessible to the parents. In order for parents to be involved,
there must be a balance between both the parents and the teachers.
Accessible at: www.highscope.org/file/newsandinformation/extensions/extvol26no2_high.pdf
5.) How Can Parents Be Advocates for Their Children
The article lists 9 steps for parents to be a great advocate for their child with special needs. It
encourages parents to be involved in their childs education in order to ensure they are getting
the education they need according to their disabilities.
Accessible at: www.ncld.org/parents-child-disabilities/ld-rights/how-parents-can-be-advocates-
for-their-children
References:
Gargiulo, R. (2012). Special Education in Contemporary Society 4. Los Angeles: SAGE.
US Department of Education. Laws and Guidance: FERPA General Guide for Parents. Updated:
04/10/2014. www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/parents.html.
Wrightslaw: Special Education Law and Advocacy. www.wrightslaw.com

Due Process
Introduction:
Due Process is a citizens right to having fair treatment through the normal justice system. In the
education system, the definition remains the same in its general purpose, but it becomes much
more involved. A Due Process case in education terms means that a parent/guardian does not
agree with the education program at hand. The rights of a parent or guardian to request a Due
Process hearing are protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Case Law:
Goldberg v Kelly
Respondents were beneficiaries of public financial assistance programs in New York City,
represented in the underlying suit by named plaintiff John Kelly. As recipients of Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) funds, they claimed that that their benefits were being, or
about to be, terminated without notification or a proper hearing. Kelly filed suit on behalf of the
plaintiffs, demanded notice of termination and a fair hearing. After their complaint was filed, the
City adopted procedures that provided notice to beneficiaries that would be subject to possible
termination of benefits, but did not provide them with a pre-termination hearing, the opportunity
to appear, or the chance to review the evidence that lead to the decision in their cases.
Beneficiaries would, however, be entitled to a post-termination review, known as a fair
hearing, and challenge the determination. Kelly and the other appellees then challenged the
constitutional sufficiency of these new procedures, claiming that beneficiaries of statutory
entitlements are entitled to due process regarding any cancellation of benefits. The District Court
agreed, ruling that a pre-termination review was required as a minimum guarantee of basic due
process. Goldberg, as Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York, was one of
several named plaintiffs in the case. Goldberg appealed the district courts determination
(4lawschool.com).
Carey v Piphus
In this case, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, we consider the elements and prerequisites for
recovery of damages by students who were suspended from public elementary and secondary
schools without procedural due process. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that
the students are entitled to recover substantial nonpunitive damages even if their suspensions
were justified, and even if they do not prove that any other actual injury was caused by the denial
of procedural due process. We disagree, and hold that in the absence of proof of actual injury, the
students are entitled to recover only nominal damages (Caselaw).
Tabor v Hanson
The student was academically successful but his severe inability to control his emotions and
behavior impeded his academic achievement. After the third emergency expulsion in the school
year, the parent filed an expedited due process hearing, alleging among other things, that the
district failed to hold a manifestation determination meeting, have a current IEP, or provide the
student with paraeducator support. After the student was expelled, the district placed the student
in a private placement. The district filed its own due process hearing to request that the ALJ
order the student to remain in the private placement as an interim alternative education setting in
order to complete an evaluation of the student and develop a new IEP. The two hearings were
consolidated.
The ALJ found that the student did not require a one on one paraeducator support. Although the
district failed to hold a manifestation meeting after the students third emergency expulsion, the
ALJ found this to be a procedural violation, given that the IEP team had already determined his
behavior was a manifestation of the students disability, for the two earlier expulsions. The
district delayed in offering the student with services. However, the district did not provide
educational services for six days after the students removal, resulting in a change of placement.
In addition, the ALJ found that the district failed to convene the IEP meeting in 2012 to review
the results of an IEE. The ALJ found that while the district delayed holding the annual IEP
meeting, the delay was to ensure the parents participation, and did not deny the student a FAPE.
The ALJ granted the districts request and ordered the student to remain in the private placement
as an interim alternative educational setting. The ALJ also ordered compensatory services to
address the delay in providing services to the student after his disciplinary removal. Finally, the
ALJ ordered the district to provide training to staff at the students prior elementary school to
address the districts failure to consider the results of the students IEE (OSPI).
Legislation:
IDEA: PL 94-142
The law was created to assure that all handicapped children have available to thema free
appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed
to meet their unique needs, to assure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or
guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all
handicapped children, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate
handicapped children (Gargiulo 49).
(f) Due Process Hearings
A parent can request a due process hearing by notifying the school system special education
director in writing which includes the name and address of the child, name of the school the child
is attending, a description of the issues including facts, and a proposed resolution. The school
system special education director can provide the Georgia Department of Education form a
parent must use. Once the school system receives a request for a due process hearing, it must
promptly notify the Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH) so that this agency can
appoint an administrative law judge to hear the case. An Administrative Law Judge from the
OSAH will hear the case.
Before a hearing will be scheduled, the school and Family must conduct an Informal Resolution
Session within 15 days of the hearing request being submitted. The IRS (Informal Resolution
Session) can be waived; however, both parties must agree to such a waiver. Following an IRS
where no resolution is reached, the hearing will be scheduled. At least five days before the
hearing, each side must submit any and all evidence they intend to use at the hearing. The
hearing is a formal proceeding at which rules of evidence apply. It is suggested that parents
consult or use an attorney if possible. Further appeal of the decision can be made into either State
court or Federal court (www.georgialegalaid.org).
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation (Bill of Rights).
Amendment V guarantees all Americans the right to a fair and just trail, regardless of the reason
for the case, or who it is against. Due Process is a right of all US citizens.
Resources:
1.) About Due Process Hearings
This is a general information article containing the rights and procedures of those are interested
in or are currently involved in a Due Process Hearing.
Accessible at: www.sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_dueproc
2.) A Parents Guide to Due Process in Process in Special Education
This brochure is to inform parents of their rights to a Due Process Hearing and the
responsibilities that accompany such a choice. The brochure also explains what to expect during
the hearings.
Accessible at: www.hcpss.org/newlanguages/docs/brochure_dueprocess.pdf
3.) Dispute Resolution Parent Guides
The links listed on this page are available in both English and Spanish. The links explain
mediation during a hearing and filing a complaint to begin Due Process.
Accessible at: www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-
Services/Pages/Dispute-Resolution-Parent-Guides.aspx
4.) Chapter 11: Dispute Resolution Options Understanding Your Options for Settling
Disputes
This link gives parents the information they need to know in order to keep up with the Due
Process Hearing. It also explains the different possible outcomes and options if the parent is not
satisfied with the results.
Accessible at: www.ncld.org/parents-child-disabilities/idea-guide/chapter-11-dispute-resolution-
options-understanding-your-options-settling-disputes
5.) Understanding IEP Due Process
This article explains what IEP Due Process Hearings are, and the rights of the parents to consider
due process when the school district is not following their childs IEP.
Accessible at: www.understandingspecialeducation.com/IEP-due-process.html
References:
Bill of Rights of the United States of America. Bill of Rights Institute.
billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
Caselaw: Carey v Piphus. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/
Goldberg v Kelly Case Brief. www.4lawschool.com/case-briefs/goldberg-v-kelly
Special Education Due Process Hearings: Summaries through 2013. Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction. www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/DisputeResolution/DueProcessSummaries.aspx

Privacy and Confidentiality
Introduction:
The right to privacy is a right that is often under scrutiny. When is privacy a bad thing
and when is it a good thing. When it comes to special education, the parents and students have
the right to privacy like every other student is. There are laws and court cases that have been
fought to protect the confidentiality and privacy of students in special education. The definition
of privacy and confidentiality is also clarified in the court cases found in the following sections.
The court cases and major legislations can be found on both the state and federal levels.
An example of using confidentiality and privacy correctly would be asking for
authorization for a release of records from a parent before doing it. This makes sure that
confidentiality is not broken. An example of someone not following it would be talking about a
students educational and IEP records to another teacher without consent from the parents. This
will get a teacher in a lot of trouble.
Court Cases:
Owasso Independent School District No. I-011 v. Falvo
In Owasso Independent School District No. I-011 v. Falvo, the idea of peer grading was
challenged under the pretense that it violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974 or FERPA for short. FERPA withholds federal funds from those schools that allow
educational records to be disclosed without parental consent. A parent (Falvo) challenged that
graded papers were educational records, and that peer grading violated FERPA. The District
court found that graded papers were not educational records, but this finding was overturned by
the Tenth Circuit Court. They found that graded papers were educational records that were
maintained by the teacher, and that peer grading violated FERPA and the confidentiality of the
students records (Owasso v. Falvo).
Newport-Mesa Unified v. State of Colorado Department of Education
In the court case Newport-Mesa Unified v. State of Cal. Dept. of Ed, Jack Anthony, a
father of a special needs student, requested copies of his sons test protocols before an IEP
meeting at his sons school. The request was not fulfilled because of issues of copyrights, and the
Newport-Mesa School District stepped in. The Newport-Mesa school district told the
Department of Education that they needed to redo their policies and procedures to allow for the
request to be fulfilled. The Department of Education refused because they said it violated the
United States copyright laws. The court found that the Department of Education can give copies
of the requested test protocols to parents who request them as long as they use reasonable
measures to minimize the risk of them being used improperly (Newport-Mesa v DOE). The
confidentiality of test protocols is a delicate situation, and this court case set the precedence for
their use.
Gonzaga University v. Doe
In the court case Gonzaga University v. Doe, Gonzagas teacher certification specialist
overheard a teacher candidate talking about how they engaged in sexual misconduct. The
specialist contacted the state agency, and discussed the matter with them using the students
name. They decided not to give him his certification, and the student in turn sued the school for
violating FERPA. The student made the case that Gonzaga had release private information about
him without written consent from his parents. The state court found in favor of the student
because they decided that Gonzaga had violated FERPA (Gonzaga v. Doe). FERPA is very
strict about student privacy, and as seen here, parental consent is very important.

Legislation:
FERPA (1974)
In 1974 the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was enacted. This
legislation helps protect the privacy of children and parents, and defines its coverage to any
public or private agency or institution which is the recipient of funds under any applicable
program (Legislative history, 2014). This piece of federal legislation allows for parents to
inspect any official educational records, and it also limits access to these records by requiring
parental consent to the release of their childs records. It also deals with any amendments to
these records, and the destruction of the records (Wright & Wright, 1999).
Georgia Open Records Act
The Georgia Open Records Act was enacted in response to FERPA. FERPA does not say
that personal information must be kept private, but it does say it will take away federal funding if
privacy for the students is not kept (Baker, n.d.). The Georgia Open Records Act was enacted do
to this, and it governs the access to the records and documents of the government to the public.
The act says, The public has the right to see, inspect, and copy all public records including
some of the records of students (Georgias Open, n.d.). This allows the public to not have the
confidential information of the students as FERPA regulates, but it allows the public to know the
statistics of the students abilities in any particular school.
Resources:
1) Forum Guide to The Privacy of Student Information: A Resource for Schools
Can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006805.pdf
This guide outlines FERPA, and talks about everything it protects. It provides online
information and directory information for any questions about FERPA. For a parent with
any questions about privacy and confidentiality of their childs records, this is a great
guide to be able to allow them to understand what all is covered.
2) U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327)
URL: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/safeguarding-student-privacy.pdf
The DOE and this website are good for any parent wanting to know what the National
Governments policies are for privacy. This site is good if any parent or student has a
question regarding privacy because it gives different programs the government has set up
in order to fulfill any questions or needs.
3) Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC)
URL: http://ptac.ed.gov/
PTAC was made by the Department of Education to be a resource for anyone to learn
more about privacy, confidentiality, and security as it relates to students. This site gives
guidance on privacy and confidentiality by using different training materials and
resources to ensure a thorough understanding. This is a direct assistance site that is easy
to use, and will answer any question a parent or student has about privacy and
confidentiality.
4) UCLA Center for Mental Health
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563
(310) 206-8716
URL: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/confid_qt/
This website answers three important questions about confidentiality in education.
1) Why is confidentiality important?
2) What are the limits of confidentiality?
3) How should confidentiality dilemmas be addressed & info shared appropriately?
Along with each question there are a lot of resources to help with learning more about
confidentiality. This is a good website for teachers and parents to use in order to
understand the limits of confidentiality and how to share information appropriately
without breaking any rules.

5) Wrights law
URL: http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/ferpa.index.htm
This website reviews FERPA, and lays it out in an easy to understand way. It also
has links to different court cases that deal with privacy and confidentiality in
education. This website also provides extra resources for anyone who learns more
about confidentiality and privacy in education.
References:
Baker, T. (n.d.). Georgia Sunshine Laws. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from
http://www.gfaf.org/resources/sunshine_laws.pdf
Georgias Open Record Act. (n.d.). Georgia First Amendment Foundation. Retrieved July 11,
2014, from http://www.gfaf.org/resources/greenBook.pdf

Gonzaga University v. DOE. (2014). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved July 10, 2014,
from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-679.ZS.html
Legislative History of Major FERPA Provisions. (2014). U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved July12, 2014, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/leg-
history.html
Newport-Mesa Unified v. State of Cal. Dept. of Ed. (2014). Legal Eagle. Retrieved July 10,
2014, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/20051541371FSupp2d1170_11412.xml/NEWPORT-
MESA%20UNIFIED%20v.%20STATE%20OF%20CAL.%20DEPT.%20OF%20ED
Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo. (2001, November 27). Cornell University Law
School. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-
1073.ZS.html
Wright, P.W & Wright, P. (1999). Wrightslaw Law Library. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/ferpa.index.htm

Behavior Management
Introduction:
Behavior management is a set of activities by which the teacher promotes appropriate
student behavior and eliminates inappropriate student behavior (Classroom Behavior, n.d.). It is
a teachers job in the classroom to promote acceptable behavior. They can accomplish this in
multiple ways with different activities and procedures. It is not always easy, but without it no
learning will be done. Differentiation must occur in order to manage all students.
Differences in students makes the teacher have differentiate how they use behavior
management in their class. Every student is different in their own way, and they all have
different personalities. Along with personalities comes different behaviors. Behavior
management is essential skill to becoming an effective teacher. What follows are court cases,
legislation, and resources that could help learn more about behavior management.
An example of behavior management being correctly would be using only the behavior
management collaborated ideas made collaboratively with the parents found in a students IEP.
This ensures that punishment is not restricting a students LRE or FAPE. An example of
behavior management being used incorrectly would be to put a kid in a closet for an extended
period of time as punishment for talking out of turn. This would probably violate an IEP, takes
away the students time to learn, and the parents would probably not be happy about.



Court Cases:
Honing v. Doe
In the court case Honig v. Doe, a special education student got upset with a peer and
choked him. While be taken to the principals office he kicked out a window, and the school
suspended him for 5 days. On the fifth day of the suspension, the school district contacted the
parents of the student, and told them he was suspended in defiantly while they decided on
expulsion. In turn the parents of the student sued the San Francisco Unified School District
(SFUSD) saying that the in defiant suspension violated the stay put provision of IDEA. The
stay put provision says that during review of a student with special needs, they must stay in
their placements while the review is pending (Honig v. Doe, n.d.).
In another instance the SFUSD did the same thing to another student who then joined the
lawsuit. The SFUSD challenged that because they deemed that these students were dangerous
they should not be in a learning environment which would endanger other students. The school
district wanted a dangerous provision attached to the stay put provision. The court found that
IDEA no longer covered the first student because of his age. They also decided that they would
not make a dangerous provision for the stay put provision. The court said also that services
must be provided to students by the state if the local services fail to do so (Honig v. Doe, n.d.).
Community Consolidated School District #93 v. John F. (IL)
In Community Consolidated School District #93 v. John F. (IL), a student with special
needs made an inappropriate comment about buying guns and hating people a week after the
disaster at Columbine. This moved the Principal to go through the proper motions of dealing
with it, but there were mistakes along the way. The court found that the school district violated
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in their
decision to discipline the student. They required the student to stay at home for the last 22 days
of school, and only provided a tutor for a little bit of time during the week. Homebound
placement is not a legal Least Restrictive Environment. They also made the parents pay for extra
tutoring if they wanted it for the rest of the week (District v. John, 1999). Behavioral
management and discipline was not handled appropriately in this case, and this court case sets
precedence for future handling of FAPE and LRE in a discipline situation.
C.N. v. Willmar Public Schools
In C.N. v. Willmar Public Schools, an IEP was made for a student that was diagnosed
with autism. The IEP was made in collaboration with the teachers, parents, and a behavioral
service provider. The IEP allowed for the use of restraints and seclusion in its behavior
intervention plan. The students special education teacher used these behavioral management
procedures, and also mocked the student and pulled her hair to control her. The teacher was
reported to the Minnesota Department of Education Maltreatment of Minors Division after she
was seen doing these things. The school district launched an investigation and found out about
her misconduct, but contributed it to a lapse in judgment. The mother of the student pulled her
out of the district, and filed a complaint a year later. The court found that because the student no
longer attended in the district, they would not have a hearing, and the case was dismissed (C.N.,
2010). Teachers need to be careful when they make an IEP, and they need to make sure they
dont abuse students when they think they are helping.
Legislation:
IDEA
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a piece of legislation found in
IDEA. It promotes behavioral supports that work to achieve emotional and academic success. It
focuses on creating and improving the lifestyle of all students. This is accomplished by making
bad behavior less effective, efficient, and relevant, and it also makes good behavior more
attractive. It has three different levels of support that work to take away misbehavior for low to
high risk students. The levels are primary for all students, secondary for students with at-risk
behavior, and tertiary for students with high-risk (Positive Behavior, 2014).
Georgia Legislation Rule 160-5-1-35
A piece of Georgia legislation is Rule 160-5-1-.35: Seclusion and Restraint for all
Students. This piece of legislation was made in order to define what is allowed when a student
becomes a threat to themselves or others around them. It prohibits the use of seclusion and
allows for limited restraint in those situations. Chemical restraints are any type of medicine that
controls and relaxes the students are not allowed, and so are any type of mechanical restraints.
Pinning a student face down on the ground is prohibited, but physically restraining is allowed
when the student is in imminent danger to themselves or others. There are high restrictions on
the use of restraints to control a students behavior, and makes it necessary for the teachers to
learn other forms of behavior management. This piece of legislation was designed to protect the
students and teachers (Guidance for, 2012).

Resources:
1) Do 2 Learn
URL: http://www.do2learn.com/BehaviorManagement/overview.htm
This website goes over four different topics about behavior management. These topics
include classroom environment, assessing behavior, behavior management strategies, and
a teacher toolbox. All of these topics go into detail on how they help behavior
management, and what tools can be used in each area. They also include strategies to
help teachers deal with behavior management.
2) PBIS World
URL: http://www.pbisworld.com/
This website has a list of behaviors that maybe seen in students at home or at school.
After clicking on the behavior that the child is doing, a list of adjectives will come up and
if they describe the child it will move on to the three tier levels of intervention. This is a
great website for both parents and teachers to help with dealing with behavioral issues.
3) Georgia Department of Education
205 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Local (404) 656-2800
http://www.gadoe.org/Pages/Home.aspx#sthash.Y7Byk42h.dpuf

The Georgia Department of Education has all the resources a teacher or parent could need
to understand the laws of behavioral management and discipline for a child with special
needs. They explain what the programs are that Georgia has implement for behavioral
management.

4) Teacher Vision
URL: https://www.teachervision.com/classroom-discipline/resource/5806.html
This website has a lot of different resources, tips, and advice on behavioral management.
It has links to articles on the website that will help with conflict resolution and creating
positive student behavior. It also supplies behavior techniques, and gives ways to
organize a classroom to cut down on behavioral issues. This is a great website for any
teacher who is having behavioral issues in their class.

5) The Iris Center
Peabody College
Box 275
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 343-6006; (800) 831-6134
URL: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/iris-resource-locator/
This website is full of information on behavioral management. It contains modules that a
teacher can go through to understand the topic more. These modules are very thorough
and can help anyone that needs them. It has case studies, activities, and other resources
that can help any teacher understand and enforce behavioral management.

References:
Classroom Behavior Management Definition. (n.d.). Classroom Behavior Management
Definition. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from
http://www.behavioradvisor.com/BehManDefin.html
C.N. Appellant, v. Willimar Public Schools Independent School District. (2010). Findlaw.
Retrieved July 14, 2014, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1496616.html
Guidance for State Board of Education Rule 160-5-1-.35 Seclusion and Restraint for all
Students. (2012). Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from
https://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-
Policy/Policy/Documents/Guidance%20Seclusion%20and%20Restraint.pdf
Honig v. Doe. (n.d.). Education Law. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from http://educational-
law.org/336-honig-v-doe.html
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports (PBIS): What is PBIS? (2014). San Jose Unified
School District. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from http://www.sjusd.org/student-
services/pbis/what-is-pbis/
Wright, P.W & Wright, P. (1999). Wrightslaw Law Library. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/IL_dist93_johnf_00_10.pdf







Specialized Healthcare
Introduction:
Students with special needs sometimes required specialized healthcare. Specialized
health care for special needs students is healthcare that requires specialized knowledge for those
who have limitations on their daily routines. This includes any condition that is behavioral,
cognitive, congenital, developmental, trauma produced, or environmentally caused (Definition
of, 2012). This healthcare goes beyond regular healthcare, and is necessary to accommodate a
student with special needs in their Least Restrictive Environment. Specialized healthcare is a
related service as described in IDEA.
A related services are any transportation and other supportive services that allow a
student with special needs to benefit from special education. This is defined in IDEA, and must
be upheld by the school districts in order to give a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
and allow the student to be in their Least Restrictive Environment (Wright &Wright, 2007).
Without these services most students wouldnt be able to participate in any type of class. The
following are court cases and legislation that involve specialized healthcare.
An example of using the specialized healthcare correctly would be making sure that any
related service such as a wheelchair, ventilator, or catheter that is needed by a student it given to
them. This ensures that they can be in their LRE and that their FAPE is not being taken away.
An example of a violation would be to deny a student related service such as speech therapy
because the school district doesnt want to pay for it. This violates IDEA, and the parents will
fight it.
Court Cases:
Tatro v. Texas
In Tatro v. Texas, an 8 year old girl with spina bifida was given an IEP that covered all of
her special needs besides the placement of her catheter during the day. The school refused to
make a provision for the catheter in the IEP. Tatro sued the school saying that as a part of IDEA
they had to make a provision for her catheter because if they didnt she would be excluded from
her FAPE. The district found that placing the catheter during the day was not a related service
covered under IDEA, and no provision would be made. The Court of Appeals overturned the
decision, and said that it was a related service. Tatros daughter received the specialized
healthcare she needed, and the Texas Board of Education had to pay her lawyer bills (Tatro v.
Texas, 2014).
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Amy Rowley
In the court case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District
v. Amy Rowley, Amy Rowley was born deaf, and in kindergarten was given an IEP that was
developed by her teacher and parents. It said that she should use only a device to help her hear
better and did not need a sign language interpreter. The parents wanted this interpreter so they
sued the Board of Education saying that Amys FAPE was being violated. The New York
Commissioner of Education agreed with the findings of the Board of Education. The District
court overturned this decision saying that a sign language interpreter is a related service covered
under IDEA, and that Amys FAPE was being violated (Hendrick v. Rowley, 2014).
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
In the court case Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F, at the age of four
Garrett was paralyzed from the neck down in a motorcycle accident. He is gets around in a
wheelchair and the money awarded to the parents covered his medical bills for a few years.
After this they requested that they school start paying for Garretts health care services at school
including his ventilator as related services under IDEA. The school district denied the request,
and the mother went to the Iowa Department of Education. They found that even though
Garrets needs were considered medical services, which the District didnt have to pay, the
District had to pay all of Garrets services under IDEA. This was also upheld by the Federal
District Court and the US court of Appeals. They all found that by the District not paying for his
related services, they were violating his FAPE (Cedar Rapids v. Garret, 2010).
Legislation:
P.L. 94-142
Probably the most important piece of Federal legislation passed for special education is
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Public Law 94-142. This act
protected the rights of parents and students with exceptionalities in schools. The biggest parts of
this act are that it provides Free Appropriate Public Education, it allows students to be in their
Least Restrictive Environment in education, and its dealings with related services. For
specialized health care, the most important part of IDEA is the related services provision. This
provision makes sure that what a student needs in order to have their Free Appropriate Public
Education is given to them (What is, 2014). This is seen over in over in the court cases listed
above. This provision is essential to allow students to succeed in the classroom, and have the
ability to learn just like every other student.
Georgia Law 160-4-7-15
Georgia law 160-4-7-.15 Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support
(GNETS) supports the needs of students with special needs by using therapeutic support and
special education. The purpose of this law is create cheaper services for children with special
needs in local areas. This allows students to not have to be in more restrictive areas because
GNETS provides better environments for them. Also, they work with parents to be more
involved, and they also work with different agencies to help support these students. This is a
referral based program from an IEP team that does not violate FAPE or LRE (Barge, 2014).
Resources:
1) Childrens Medical Services
2 Peachtree Street, NW
11th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-657-2726
URL: http://www.floridahealth.gov/AlternateSites/CMS-Kids/families/families.html
The Childrens Medical Services is a collection of programs and supports that were put
together in order to help out parents with students with special needs. They also provided
some health care services for students and families who are effected by a disability. They
also help with coordination between families and nurses or other professional staff. This
is a great website that has a lot of healthcare resources for parents.
2) Georgia Department of Public Health
2 Peachtree Street, NW
15th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3186
(404) 657-2700
URL: http://dph.georgia.gov/
The Georgia Department of Public Health has a lot of information on all disabilities. On
its website they have connections to other resources and companies that can help with
specialized healthcare.


3) Center for Parent Information and Resources
c/o Statewide Parent Advocacy Network
35 Halsey St., Fourth Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
URL: http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/iep-relatedservices/
This company and website give a lot of information on related services and exactly what
it covers. They also have resources that can be used by parents and teachers.
4) US Department of Education IDEA Website
URL: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs,300,A,300%252E34,
This website has everything a person could want to know about IDEA and what it covers.
It also goes into specifics about what each section covers, and this includes related
services. It covers everything that related services covers by the law.
5) IRIS Center Website Resource Module
URL: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rs/
This module gives a description and overview of benefits of related services. It talks
about 5 of the most used related services, and also talks a bit about other parts of IDEA
2004.



References:
Barge, J. (2014, January 1). Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support
(GNETS). Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved July 13, 2014, from
http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-
Services/Documents/GNETS/FY14%20Operations%20Manual.pdf
Definition of Special Health Care Needs. (2012). Reference Manual. Retrieved July 12, 2014,
from http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/D_SHCN.pdf
Wright, P. W., & Wright, P. (2007). Irving Independent Sch Dist v. Amber Tatro, 468 U.S. 883
(1984) - Special Education Cases - Wrightslaw. Irving Independent Sch Dist v. Amber
Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) - Special Education Cases - Wrightslaw. Retrieved July 12,
2014, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm
Wright, P. W., & Wright, P. (2010). Cedar Rapids Comm Sch Dist v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66
(1999) - Wrightslaw.com. Cedar Rapids Comm Sch Dist v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)
- Wrightslaw.com. Retrieved July 14, 2014, from
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.garret.htm
Wright, P. W., & Wright, P. (2014). Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v.
Amy Rowley (458 U. S. 176) - Caselaw - Wrightslaw.com. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick
Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley (458 U. S. 176) Retrieved July 12, 2014,
from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

Wright, P. W., & Wright, P. (2014). Irving Independent Sch Dist v. Amber Tatro, 468 U.S. 883
(1984) - Special Education Cases - Wrightslaw. Irving Independent Sch Dist v. Amber
Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) - Special Education Cases - Wrightslaw. Retrieved July 14,
2014, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.tatro.htm
What Is IDEA? | Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2014). National Center
for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved July 13, 2014, from http://www.ncld.org/disability-
advocacy/learn-ld-laws/idea/what-is-idea