CART

(0) items

Special Education Law,9780136474135

Special Education Law

by ; ;
Edition:
2nd
ISBN13:

9780136474135

ISBN10:
0136474136
Format:
Paperback
Pub. Date:
1/1/2007
Publisher(s):
Prentice Hall
List Price: $42.67
More New and Used
from Private Sellers
Starting at $0.01
See Prices

Rent Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

Used Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

eTextbook

We're Sorry
Not Available

New Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

Related Products


  • Special Education Law
    Special Education Law
  • Special Education Law, Loose-Leaf Version with Pearson eText -- Access Card Package
    Special Education Law, Loose-Leaf Version with Pearson eText -- Access Card Package




Summary

With IDEA and its regulations as the foundation, this readable book provides the most current information on special education law and regulation today. The authors' approach allows readers to go to the original legislation and to examine current legislation from a historical perspective. It also gives readers the opportunity to understand the evolving nature of legislation and how it is interpreted by case law. Topics include: Overview of Special Education Services; A New Foundation for Special Education Services; Free Appropriate Public Education; Nondiscriminatory Evaluation; Individualized Education Program (IEP); Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Procedural Due Process; Parental Participation; Enforcement of Special Education Law; Mediation and Impartial Due Process Healing; Ethics and the Special Education Professional; Unresolved Issues.

Table of Contents

PART I Bases for Special Education Services 1(36)
Overview of Special Education Services
3(16)
Deinstitutionalization and Normalization
4(3)
Advocacy
7(2)
Civil Rights Movement
9(1)
The Kennedy Era
9(1)
Litigative Base
10(3)
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)
10(1)
Hobson v. Hansen (1967)
11(1)
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972)
12(1)
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972)
12(1)
Diana v. State Board of Education (1970)
13(1)
Larry P. v. Riles (1972, 1974, 1979, 1984)
13(1)
Legislative Base
13(1)
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
13(1)
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975
14(1)
Summary
14(1)
References
15(1)
Briefing: Brown v. Board of Education
16(3)
A New Foundation for Special Education Services
19(18)
The Federal Base for Special Education Services
21(5)
P.L. 89-10, Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
21(1)
P.L. 91-230, Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970
21(1)
P.L. 93-380, Education Amendments of 1974
22(1)
P.L. 94-142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
22(4)
Subsequent Reauthorizations and Amendments to EAHCA
26(2)
P.L. 99-372, Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986
26(1)
P.L. 99-457, Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986
26(1)
P.L. 101-476, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990
27(1)
P.L. 102-119, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1991
27(1)
P.L. 105-17, The IDEA Amendments of 1997
27(1)
Federal Statutes Supporting IDEA
28(2)
P.L. 93-112, Rehabilitation Act of 1973
28(1)
P.L. 101-336, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
29(1)
Summary
30(1)
References
30(1)
P.L. 105-17: Title and Findings
31(6)
PART II Six Basic Principles of Special Education Legislation 37(102)
Free Appropriate Public Education
39(16)
Equal Protection Doctrine
40(4)
Application of Equal Protection Principle in Education
44(7)
Pre-EAHCA Litigation
44(1)
Legislation Applying Equal Protection Principle
45(3)
Accessibility of Education for All Children with Disabilities
48(3)
Summary
51(1)
References
51(1)
Briefing: Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)
52(3)
Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
55(20)
Basis for the Principle of Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
57(2)
Hobson v. Hansen (1967)
57(1)
Larry P. v. Riles (1972, 1979)
58(1)
Parents in Action on Special Education (PASE) v. Hannon (1980)
59(1)
Legislative Basis for Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
59(3)
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
59(1)
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
60(1)
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
61(1)
Protection in Evaluation Procedures (PEP)
62(10)
Preplacement Evaluation
62(1)
Evaluation Materials and Procedures
63(4)
Independent Educational Evaluations
67(1)
Reevaluation
68(1)
Additional Evaluation Issues
69(3)
Summary
72(1)
References
72(1)
Briefing: Larry P. v. Riles (1972, 1974, 1979, 1984)
73(2)
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
75(20)
Basis for Individualized Education Programs
76(1)
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
77(6)
IEP Litigation
83(8)
Appropriateness of the IEP
84(1)
Related Services and the IEP
85(4)
Related Services: Other Therapies and Services
89(1)
Extended School Year
89(2)
Summary
91(1)
References
91(1)
Briefing: Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Mass. Dept. of Educ. (1985)
92(3)
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
95(18)
Genesis of Least Restrictive Environment Principle: Deinstitutionalization
96(1)
Legislative Basis for Least Restrictive Environment
97(3)
Continuum of Alternative Placements (CAP)
98(2)
Judicial Interpretations of LRE Principle
100(2)
Areas of LRE Litigation
102(6)
Mainstreaming
102(1)
Inclusion
102(3)
Neighborhood School
105(1)
Placement in a Private School
106(1)
Parental Reimbursement
106(1)
Religious Groups
107(1)
Funding Limitations
107(1)
Summary
108(1)
References
108(1)
Briefing: Mattie T. v. Holladay (1979)
109(4)
Procedural Due Process
113(16)
Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution
114(1)
Early Due Process Litigation
114(3)
Suspension and/or Expulsion
115(1)
Exclusion
116(1)
Legislation and Due Process Procedures
117(1)
Litigation After P.L. 94-142
118(7)
Providing Notice
119(1)
Required Content of Notice
120(2)
Parental Access to Records
122(1)
Mediation
122(1)
Impartial Due Process Hearings
123(1)
Timeliness of Process
124(1)
Summary
125(1)
References
126(1)
Briefing: Max M. v. Thompson (1984)
127(2)
Parental Participation
129(10)
IDEA and Parental Participation
130(1)
Parental Participation Litigation
131(3)
Special Situations
134(1)
Surrogate Parents
134(1)
Foster Parents
135(1)
Students at the Age of Majority
135(1)
Summary
135(1)
References
136(1)
Briefing: Reusch v. Fountain (1994)
136(3)
PART III Compliance Procedures 139(44)
Enforcement of Special Education Law
141(20)
Pre-EHA Judicial Methods of Enforcement
142(5)
Court Citations for Contempt
142(1)
Court-Appointed Special Masters
142(1)
Doctrine of Federal Abstention
143(1)
Grounds of Mootness
144(2)
Failure to Prosecute
146(1)
Voluntary Dismissal
146(1)
Post-EAHCA Compliance Techniques
147(5)
Authorization and Appropriation of Monies
147(1)
Exhaustion of Remedies
148(1)
Private Right of Action
149(1)
Attorney Fees
150(2)
Remedies for Violations of EAHCA
152(3)
Permanent Injunctions
152(1)
Compensatory Education
153(1)
Monetary Fines
154(1)
Punitive Damages
154(1)
Summary
155(1)
References
156(1)
Brifing: Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. (1999)
157(4)
Mediation and Impartial Due Process Hearing
161(22)
Mediation
162(4)
Requirements for Mediation Procedures
162(1)
Selection and Impartiality of Mediators
162(1)
Parents Who Elect Not to Use Mediation
163(1)
The Mediation Process
163(3)
Due Process Hearing
166(7)
Hearing Officer(s) Selection and Impartiality
167(1)
The Hearing Process
167(3)
Basic Order of a Due Process Hearing
170(1)
Due Process Hearing Report
171(1)
Due Process Hearing Decisions
172(1)
Expedited Due Process Hearings
173(1)
Summary
173(1)
References
174(1)
Due Process Hearing Decision
174(9)
PART IV Issues 183(26)
Ethics and the Special Education Professional
185(8)
CEC Code of Ethics
186(1)
The Law and Ethical Practice
187(3)
Principle-Based Ethic
187(1)
Virtue-Based Ethic
187(1)
IDEA and Ethical Practice
188(2)
Summary
190(1)
References
190(3)
Unresolved Issues
193(16)
Least Restrictive Environment
194(1)
Expansion of the Principle of Least Restrictive Environment
195(1)
Diploma and Graduation Requirements
196(1)
Discipline
196(4)
Manifestation Determination Review
197(2)
Juvenile Authority Reports
199(1)
Conflict Resolution
200(5)
Parents, Surrogate Parents, and Guardians
201(1)
Tape Recordings
202(1)
Attorney Fees
203(1)
Mediation
203(2)
Change of Placement
205(1)
Confidentiality of Records
206(2)
Conflict Between FERPA and IDEA
206(1)
Educational Records
207(1)
Summary
208(1)
References
208(1)
APPENDIX A The American Legal System 209(7)
Governance of the United States of America
209(1)
Sources of Law
209(3)
Federal Level
209(2)
State Level
211(1)
Local Level
212(1)
United States Court System
212(4)
Equity Law
212(1)
State Court System
212(2)
Federal Court System
214(2)
APPENDIX B Reading and Researching Case Law 216(6)
Analysis or ``Briefing'' of Case Law
216(1)
Case Title and Citation
216(1)
Court Type and Level
216(1)
Facts
216(1)
Issues
216(1)
Court's Holding
217(1)
Legal Doctrine
217(1)
Significance of the Decision
217(1)
Understanding Legal Citations
217(2)
Parallel or Dual Citations
218(1)
Explanation of Prior History
218(1)
Introduction to Legal Research
219(3)
Primary Sources
219(1)
Secondary Sources
219(1)
Finding Aids
219(1)
Using Computers for Legal Research
220(2)
APPENDIX C Glossary of Legal Terms 222(8)
APPENDIX D Case List 230(9)
Index 239

Excerpts

A Word to Our Readers As we were preparing this text, it became clear to us that you, our readers, might appreciate the reasoning for our choice of organization, specific cases, and so forth. This information would provide a background as to why we focused on certain aspects of the law or cited cases that you may not consider relevant. From a historical perspective the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was a response, in part, to issues raised by advocacy groups and court decisions. IDEA is, in fact, rooted in the social and philosophic fabric of the nation's ideals of equality. These ideals have led the nation to review possible injustices and loss of personal rights through litigation at the state and national level. The results of this litigation are catalogued and known as "case law." This information provides a historical, and often relevant, body of knowledge that is cited as "precedent" or "stare decisis" when issues are addressed through litigation or legislation at a later date. The study of law is, in part, the study of history. Therefore, as we prepared this text we cited and discussed cases that were brought before the courts at all levels to illustrate the points being examined in each chapter. Lower court decisions have a limited effect and only officially influence the state, district, or the specific federal circuit in which they are heard (see Appendix A). But as judge Crabtree says: "What is law? I prefer to think of it as based on prior cases as applied to the facts. The law is what a court states it is at a given time." Until a case is heard at the highest tier (the Supreme Court), the decision at the lower levels (district or circuit) provides the legal mandate for that issue in that specific area of the nation. Such decisions are used by attorneys, advocates, and legislators as a convenient compilation of information concerning a particular issue. It is important to note here that any opinions that are unpublished may be used for educational purposes only. They have no influence or effect on future court decisions, and they cannot be used as supporting citations. When we discuss issues in the text, we also use other forms of supporting information to assist in clarifying our viewpoint on the topic (see Appendix B). For instance, the United States Code is cited with accompanying federal regulations whenever we discuss the specific section of IDEA that has resulted in controversy. Along with the legislation and litigation, where available, we have used Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), and letters and memos to the various State Education Agencies (SEA) to provide you with the interpretation of IDEA and its regulations concerning an issue as it has been communicated to the states. Although these letters and memos are not considered law, they are given deference by the various courts when preparing an opinion. Of course, the selection of cases was a personal decision by the authors. We selected pertinent cases that we thought you, as readers, would find interesting as well as informative. Cases were also chosen that have been recognized as historical underpinnings for IDEA. In the chapter on future issues, we selected cases that we saw as harbingers of issues that might become more controversial. Although our philosophical preferences are exhibited throughout the text, we guarded against reinterpretation of the legal opinions. The briefings at the end of the chapters were provided to acquaint our readers with the methods used to examine disputed points of law. We urge you to review additional cases using that methodology, thereby obtaining first-hand knowledge of the reasoning of the court. As you are reading this text, we hope you will remember that IDEA is the result of a reaffirmation of the beliefs of our society thatallcitizens should be provided an edu


Please wait while the item is added to your cart...