Wrights
law


The Special Ed Advocate Newsletter
March 29, 2000

 Home  >  Advocacy Libraries  >  Newsletter Archives  >  2000  >  March 29

Home  
Issue - 67

ISSN: 1538-3202


The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Programs

Apr 26 - Little Rock, AR

May 9 - Los Angeles, CA

June 3 - NYC

June 22 - Chicago, IL

June 26 - Lawrence, MA

Aug 2 - Birmingham, AL

Aug 3-8 Williamsburg, VA

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Candle in window
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
 Summer School Series
 Be an Advocate!
 Organizing the File
 Letter Writing
 Back to School
 For Advocates
 For Parents
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 
1. Who Must Pay? Why Must States Take"The Bitter With The Sweet? (7th Circuit, March 29, 2000) 

On March 24, 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in two Illinois cases: 

* Board of Education of Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200 v. Kelly E. and Illinois State Board of Education. 

AND

* T. H. v. Board of Education of Palatine School District No. 15 v. Illinois State Bd. of Education and Glenn McGee, Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

(NOTE FROM WRIGHTSLAW: In T. H. v. Palatine, the District Court issued a strong decision about the appropriateness of an ABA program for a young child with autism. The decision in T. H. v. Palatine is one of the most frequently downloaded cases in the Wrightslaw Law Library. A link to the T. H. case follows)

The Court begins this decision with a question:

"Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400-87, entitle a local school district to reimbursement from the state for some or all of the expense when the district must reimburse parents for a child’s private education?"

In Bd. Educ. of Oak Park, the Judge ". . . concluded that Oak Park’s school district had made so many procedural and substantive errors in preparing an IEP for Kelly E. that her parents were entitled to reimbursement for private education."

In T. H. v. Palatine, the Judge ". . . enforced an administrative decision that T. H.’s parents are entitled to reimbursement for an intensive home-based educational program." 

WHO MUST PAY?

Illinois "leads off with a flurry of objections" about the litigation. Illinois claimed that local school districts "lack standing," and "if the local school districts may sue, still the state is not a proper defendant given the eleventh amendment."

The Seventh Circuit concluded that these arguments were "feeble, individually and collectively."

STATE CLAIMS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

"Section 604(a) of the IDEA, 20 U. S. C. Sec. 1403(a), provides that "[a] State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of this chapter." 

"Illinois contends that abrogation exceeds Congress’ powers under Sec. 5 of the fourteenth amendment . . . but this is beside the point . . . States that accept federal money, as Illinois had done, must respect the terms and conditions of the grant . . . Congress did what it could to ensure that states participating in the IDEA are amendable to suit in federal court."

"THE BITTER WITH THE SWEET"

"Thus we hold that states must take the bitter with the sweet; having accepted the money, they must litigate in federal court . . . local school districts can’t piggyback claims based on state law."

"THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION"

". . . does the Act prescribe a particular allocation of expenses between local and state bodies?" 

Read the full decision -- and get answers to this question

Read the T. H. v. Palatine decision


2. "Special Education Law: What Every Parent Needs To Know Transcript Available Now! 

On Thursday, March 23, Pete and Pam Wright were guests at HealthyPlace.com for an online conference about special education law: Special Education Law: What Every Parent Needs to Know.

We spent nearly two hours answering questions in this moderated discussion. Many people wrote to say they were unable to attend. 

We are happy to report that you can get the transcript of "Special Education Law: What Every Parent Needs to Know" at HealthyPlace.com

While you’re there, check out the resources. HealthyPlace.com is an impressive site that offers information and community. You can get an overview of the resources at

Go for a “WebTour” !


3. Editor's Choice From The Bookstore

Many readers write with questions about law and litigation: 

"HELP! I just requested a due process hearing -- now what should I do?"

"HELP! You say we must write letters to document the problems we are having with the school. Why?"

REPRESENT YOURSELF IN COURT: HOW TO PREPARE AND TRY A WINNING CASE by Paul Bergman & Sara Berman-Barrett. 

Parents often "shoot themselves in the foot" when they negotiate with the school for services. If you are thinking about due process, you should read "Represent Yourself in Court." This will help you understand the process of litigation, and how to prepare and present your case. 

One reviewer wrote:

"As a fourth year law student, this book is better than the books I have studied. I recommend this book not only for the lay person, but also for law students and new attorneys. This book takes you step by step through the Court system, explains how to bring a case into court, and how to present and win that case. The references are excellent!

Looking for a good book about IEPs? 

Our top choice is "BETTER IEPs" by by Barbara D. Bateman and Mary Anne Linden

"The heart of the law is the child's written Individualized Educational Program (IEP). 

"Better IEPs" gives special educators, regular educators, and parents the confidence and know-how to develop IEPs that are both legally correct and educationally useful. Many IEPs are neither!"

Check out "How to Represent Yourself in Court," "Better IEPs" and other good books in the Legal Section of the Advocate’s Bookstore -

http://www.wrightslaw.com/bkstore/bks_law.htm

Home

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright Wrightslaw: All About IEPs Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board

Copyright © 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map