Autism: Special Education Law

2,868 views

Published on

Knowing the rights of your student or child is of great importance.

Published in: Education
2 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Thank you thank you so much for this slides ;) it really help :)
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Fioricet is often prescribed for tension headaches caused by contractions of the muscles in the neck and shoulder area. Buy now from http://www.fioricetsupply.com and make a deal for you.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,868
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
46
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
49
Comments
2
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Autism: Special Education Law

  1. 1. Individual rights and legal issues Laws and regulations Implications
  2. 2. Legal Bases <ul><li>Society prejudice </li></ul><ul><li>Court decision & legislation reflect societal mentality </li></ul><ul><li>Model of public law </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal: Constitution Statutes Regulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>State: Constitution Statutes Regulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local: Charter Ordinances Regulations </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Legal Bases – cont’d <ul><li>Federal Constitutional Arguments </li></ul><ul><li>(14 th amendment) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Due process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equal protection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rational basis/traditional analysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intermediate/middle-tier scrutiny </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Strict scrutiny </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Federal Statutes and Regulations <ul><li>Amendment to Vocational Rehabilitation Act (PL 93-112) - 1973 </li></ul><ul><li>Education Amendments of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 93-380) – 1974 </li></ul><ul><li>Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (PL 94-142) – 1974 </li></ul><ul><li>Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) – 1975 </li></ul><ul><li>Handicapped Children’s Protection Act (PL 99-372) – 1986 </li></ul><ul><li>Americans with Disabilities Act (PL 101-336) - 1990 </li></ul>
  5. 5. Judicial System <ul><li>State Court System (hierarchy varies depending on state) </li></ul><ul><li>Federal Court System </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I - 100 US District Courts (state courts have separate jurisdictions) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>II - 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals (mostly binding in that circuit only) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>III – Supreme Court (decision is binding throughout the US) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Legal Precedents <ul><li>Access to education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>San Antonio Independent School v. Rodriguez (1973) - “the education is not a fundamental right guaranteed by Constitution” (p. 121) however, “education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pennsylvania Association for retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC) (1972) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(persons with ID can benefit from instruction) (1972) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Legal Precedents – cont’d <ul><li>Appropriate evaluation and classification </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hobson v. Hansen (1967) – no longer allowed the use of IQ tests to place children in tracks (SES, culture) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Larry P. v. Riles (1972-84) – IQ tests could not be used as primary determinant in placing A-A students in Special Education classes (race, culture) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diana v. State Board of Education (1970) – Spanish-speaking children (language, culture) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parents in Action on Special Education v. Hannon (1980) – determined IQ tests as non-discriminatory and validated their use </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Legal Precedents – cont’d <ul><li>Free Appropriate Education (FAPE) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rawley (1982) – FAPE “consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child”, FAPE provided at public expense, under public supervision, meet State’s standards, concordance with IEP, approximate grade levels from regular ed </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Legal Precedents – cont’d <ul><li>Appropriate placement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sacramento City Board of Education v Holland (1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>=> IEP must specify to what extent the student does/not participate in general education activities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Related services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984) – Related Service: supportive service necessary for the child to benefit from special education & non-medical service </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Legal Precedents – cont’d <ul><li>Extended school year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Armstrong v. Kline (1979) – if significant gaps in student’s education cause losses in skill development that would require significant efforts to recuperate, then E.S.Y. should be granted, regardless of disability, with FAPE. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expulsion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Honing v. Doe (1988) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>J.B. v. Independent School District (1995) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>=> continuous FAPE, max. 10 day suspension, if misbehavior is a manifestation of condition-more than 10 days, weapon & drugs to school – 45 days in alternative school setting </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Institutional Rights <ul><li>Wyatt v. Stikney (1972) </li></ul><ul><li>New York Association for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller (1973) </li></ul><ul><li>O’Connor v. Donaldson (1974) </li></ul><ul><li>Halderman v. Pennhurst (1977) </li></ul><ul><li>Youngberg v. Romeo (1982) </li></ul><ul><li>Olmstead v. L. C. (1999) </li></ul>
  12. 12. Community Rights <ul><li>Local zoning ordinances </li></ul><ul><li>State legislation – advance notification & permission from neighbors </li></ul><ul><li>Restrictive covenants </li></ul><ul><li>Wyatt v. Stikney (1972) </li></ul><ul><li>Cleburne Living Center, Inc. v. City of Cleburne, Texas (1984) </li></ul>
  13. 13. Issues that span a lifetime <ul><li>Withholding treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Sexual abuse </li></ul><ul><li>Domestic violence </li></ul><ul><li>Crime victims </li></ul><ul><li>Criminal defendants </li></ul><ul><li>What are their implications on persons’ with ID lives? </li></ul>
  14. 14. Conclusions <ul><li>Understanding of legal history in the field and its impact in real life </li></ul><ul><li>Compliance with law (IDEA) </li></ul><ul><li>Reevaluation if education ended prior to FAPE </li></ul><ul><li>Vulnerability of persons with ID </li></ul><ul><li>Technology seeks to improve quality of life </li></ul>

×