3. Introduction
• The researchers:
– Explain IDEA
procedural rights to
parents
– Review rulings
– Discuss implications
(McLeskey, 2004)
4. Evidence
• Due process rights
• Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
• Free appropriate public
education (FAPE)
5. Evidence
• Schaffer v. Weast
• Arlington Central School
District Board of Education
v. Murphy
6. Evidence
• Winkelman v. Parma City
School District
• Board of Education of the
City School District of the
City of New York v. Tom F.
7. Conclusion
• Parental involvement essential
• Teacher and administrator
responsibilities under FAPE
• Special education teachers and IEPs
• Inservice training
9. Summary
• Parents play a crucial role in the
special education process
• School districts must ensure parents
are meaningfully involved
• IDEA provides legal protection for
children and parents
10. References
Yell, M., Ryan, J., Rozalski, M., &
Katsiyannis, A.. (2009). The U.S.
Supreme Court and special
education: 2005 to 2007.
Teaching Exceptional Children,
41(3), 68-75. DOI: 1625090121
Editor's Notes
Mitchell L. Yell of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Chair in the Teacher Education Program in Special EducationJoseph B. Ryan of Clemson University in South Carolina, Assistant Professor in the special education programMichael E. Rozalski of State University of New York at Geneseo, Associate Professor in special educationAntonis Katsiyannis of Clemson University in South Carolina, Professor in special education program
The researchers examine four Supreme Court cases from 2005-2007 that involved special education. With each case they explain IDEA procedural rights to parents, review rulings, and discuss implications for future cases.
IDEA stipulates all students are entitled to FAPE. Parents are also entitled to be involved in the special education process and is a crucial piece of the IDEA. If parents disagree with the school they are entitled to a due process hearing. These cases generally go to the Federal Court but can be brought to the Supreme Court in the appeals process.
Shaffer: Deals with burden of persuasion, court found it falls on whichever party requests the due process hearing (usually the student’s parents). Judge ruled in favor of the school district because the parents couldn’t prove Shaffer wasn’t provided a FAPE.Arlington: Parents sought reimbursement from the school district for private school tuition. Federal court found in favor of the school district. Murphys then sought fees for an educational consultant and won. School district took the case to Supreme Court which overturned the federal courts decision.
Winkelman: Supreme Court overturned the Circuit Court ruling. Parents were entitled to be involved and to represent their child in court. Tom F.: no ruling made because justice recused himself and the other justices were split. Affirmed Second Circuit Court ruling that parents must seek a FAPE in public school before requesting reimbursement in private school.
These Supreme Court rulings tell us 1. Parents must be meaningfully involved in the IEP process 2. Teachers and administrators need to understand FAPE and IDEA requirements 3. Special education teachers must be able to make an IEP that is both meaningful and legally sound 4. Inservice training must be provided in new research-based practices for special education
The information from this case can be applied towards chapter 2 of my special project as well as aid me in the role I play as a general education teacher in a public school.
Parents play a crucial role in the special education process. School districts must ensure parents are included in a meaningfully way or face legal repercussions.
