| |
|
|
|
|
Procedural
Safeguards & Parent Notice  When Congress enacted Public Law 94-142 as the Education for All Handicapped Children's Act in 1975, they included a system of procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their parents. During subsequent reauthorizations of the law, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Congress maintained and added to these safeguards. Procedural safeguards include the right to participate in all meetings, to examine all educational records, and to obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of the child. Parents have the right to written notice when the school proposes to change or refuses to change the identification, evaluation or placement of a child. The law includes several ways to resolve disputes including mediation, a "Resolution Session" and due process hearings. Procedural safeguards include legally binding written mediation agreements and confidentiality. Tip: Contact your state department of education or visit their web site and request all information about your parental rights and responsibilities. Ask them to advise you when new publications are available. Parent Notice When Congress re-authorized the IDEA in 1997, they added new requirements about parent notice and reimbursement for private placements. If parents decide to place their child unilaterally in a private school and want the school to reimburse them for the private placement, they must take specific steps to protect their rights. The parents must advise the IEP team that they are rejecting the proposed IEP and state “their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense.” OR 10 BUSINESS DAYS before removing the child from the public school, the parent must give the school WRITTEN NOTICE of “their intent to enroll the child in a private school at public expense.” If parents do not take these steps, they may lose their right to reimbursement for an appropriate private placement – even if the public school placement was inappropriate. Here
are some articles and other resources that are intended to protect the child’s
right to a free appropriate
public education (FAPE). Procedural
Safeguards in IDEA 2004 with commentary by Pete Wright. (pdf) Parent attorney Sonja Kerr offers valuable tips about how to handle stonewalling at school meetings. Strengthening Parent Representation The American Bar Association has launched a new website dedicated to attorneys representing parents in child protective proceedings. The site contains resources, information about upcoming trainings and other materials. Parents' attorneys can also sign up for a listserv where they can share resources, ask questions, etc. This is part of a new initiative launched by the Bar to strengthen the representation parents receive. Books, DVDs and CD-ROMs from Wrightslaw To
Top Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988). Strong decision in school discipline case on behalf of emotionally disturbed children who had academic and social problems. Court clarified procedural issues designed to protect children from school officials, parent role, stay put, that schools shall not expel children for behaviors related to their handicaps. U.
S. Courts of Appeals
Amanda C. v. Clark County Sch. Dist. and Nevada Dept. of Ed (9th Cir. 2001) This strongly written decision on behalf of a child with autism cites research about ABA/Lovaas treatment; describes purposes of the IDEA; IEPs and procedural safeguards. The Court found that the district's failure to provide parents with evaluations adversely affected the parents' ability to make decisions and damaged the child; district failed to provide FAPE; standard of review in two-tier system; credibility of witnesses. Joseph
James v. Upper Arlington City Sch. District (6th Cir. 2000). Decision about tuition reimbursement for education of child with
dyslexia in a private school that specializes in educating children with dyslexia; also statute of limitations and procedural safeguards. In
pdf In
html Knable
v. Bexley City Sch. District, (6th Cir. 2001) Child
with behavior disorder; decision includes a discussion of IEPs, draft IEPs, IEP requirements, tuition
reimbursement, placement, burden of proof, more.
Weiss v. School Board of Hillsborough County (11th Cir. 1998) Case about damages, procedural violations; denial of FAPE. U. S. District Courts Community Consolidated Sch. Dist. #93 v. John F. (IL) Important discipline case; procedural violations, prior written notice requirements, manifestation determination review, suspensions for more than 10 days, expedited hearings, special education and related services under IDEA, "passing grades" and FAPE, homebound instruction violates LRE, more. In Word In pdf Sarah M. v. Weast, U. S. District Court, Maryland. Parents remove child from public program and place her in a private school, request reimbursement. School claims that parents did not give 10-day notice, as required by IDEA-97. Judge overturns decision by Administrative Law Judge (2000) To Top
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
