Search

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act guarantees a child with disabilities a free appropriate education tailored to the needs of that child through an individualized education plan. However, as the Tenth Circuit's decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 demonstrates, courts applying the "some educational benefit" standard fail to properly evaluate the substantive adequacy of an Individualized Education Plan in light of a child's unique needs, abilities, and circumstances. To ensure that children with disabilities receive the truly individualized education to which they are entitled, courts, state legislatures, and Congress must implement measures that encourage courts to recognize that education comes in all makes and models and varies according to the particular needs of different children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. court case Independent School District No. 12 v. Minnesota Department of Education which dealt with the inclusion of disabled children in individualized education programs (IEPs) in public schools. Information is provided on the importance of the decision which guaranteed the accommodation of disabled children in public schools, school sports, and extracurricular activities.

The article focuses on issues concerning the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for children with the disabilities in the U.S. It discusses various legal issues including the strict adherence of individualized education programs (IEP), analysis of the standards adopted by the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the history of IDEA and its evaluation. It notes the proposal of two alternatives which aims to alleviate discrepancies in special education.

Education is a fundamental right for all children which must be guaranteed in every nation. Unfortunately, children with disabilities have been marginalized in many countries preventing them from accessing an appropriate education. Although some countries have legislation that guarantees educational rights to children with disabilities, some of the laws are not comprehensive enough to ensure that these children benefit from their educational experience. Hence, for many children with disabilities the educational experience does not guarantee them positive adult outcomes. However, some industrialized countries, like the United States of America (USA), have made significant progress in this area by establishing comprehensive laws to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities to education are guaranteed through provisions that entitle them to an appropriate education. Because of this, the author uses the special education law in the USA as a benchmark in examining special education law in Zimbabwe, albeit the USA is not being treated as a gold standard but just a model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On November 14, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Schaffer v. Weast. This special education decision concerned which party bears the burden of persuasion when parents challenge a school district's Individualized Education Program (IEP) in a due process hearing. In this article, we define burden of persuasion and explain its application in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)-related cases prior to Schaffer; we discuss the relevant history of the case; we summarize the facts and analyze the reasoning of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court's decision; and we address the implications of the Schaffer decision for special educators and for the parents and children served by the IDEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA 2004) shifted the requirement to initiate transition services from age 14 back to age 16, a change with significant implications for middle school students with disabilities transitioning into high school. This study, based on practices under the Amendments to IDEA 1997 regulations, employed a survey and open-ended interviews to investigate transition practices of special education teachers who instructed eighth- and ninth-grade adolescents with learning disabilities (LD). The study focused on (a) student participation at Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, (b) strengths considered in IEP development, and (c) transition service needs focusing on a course of study. Findings demonstrated the significance of self-determination training and its application in the IEP process by the age of 14; reliance on assessments of students' strengths and needs, which include informal measures and information from family members; and teachers' support for long-range, coordinated transition planning for students beginning no later than middle school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Suggests that the procedural safeguards in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which the majority of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit justices cited in West v. Schaffer may not sufficiently protect the interests of disabled children. Claim that circuit courts are split on which party should bear the burden of proof when the family of a disabled child challenges a school district; Provision of the IDEA regarding role of school districts in designing individualized education program; Facts of the case; Opinion of the court on the remedial nature of the IDEA requiring the school district to demonstrate compliance with the law's statutory obligations.

The article discusses the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), Public Law 94-142 and the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 (HCPA), Public Law, 99-372. EAHCA is an act which provides free and appropriate public education to handicapped children. Aside from free education, Public Law 94-142 also provides procedural safeguards to parents when schools makes special education decisions. HCPA, on the other hand, allows the parents of handicapped children to recover attorney's fees in special education disputes that reach state or federal courts.

The article reports on the approval of legislations related to special education in the United States. Individual education programs need to be developed for each eligible handicapped child to comply with a funding law. All government agencies must provide free public education for handicapped children, to avoid violation of the rights and protections set forth under the federal law. Education agencies have undergone several policy and procedural changes, to provide each child the required special education and related services.

Earlier legislation mandated an appropriate education for all handicapped children and prescribed both an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). While these legislative acts seemed to indicate the need for family therapy principles, the most recent legislation gives further emphasis to family and community services. This article analyzes Public Law 101-476, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990, and sets forth postulates for the involvement of the family therapist in the education of children with disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The passage of legislation concerning the development of adequate educational programs for the gifted and handicapped children has been supported by The Council for Exceptional Children acting in unison with various organizations. This paper presents (a) a brief review of CEC's past efforts to improve federal legislative provisions; (b) organizational policy statements that were adopted in order to increase CEC's effectiveness as an instrument for the encouragement of legislation for handicapped children; and (c) a look into the future of special education based on current trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the New York Court case R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., which dealt with private school tuition reimbursement in cases where a child's proposed individual education program (IEP) fails to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with U.S. Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Topics include a child's qualifications for special education services and due process complaints.

The article discusses key issues concerning the participation of parents in the creation of individualized education programs (IEP) for handicapped children in Oregon. Key issues discussed include the degree to which parents who are committee participants in public schools have been active in developing IEP, the key stipulations of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 that provide new directives towards positive educational practices and issues' implications for special education.