Search

Youth involved with the juvenile justice system present with a higher rate of disability, including mental illness and learning disabilities, than do nonsystem-involved youth. These young people are often eligible for special education services as provided by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Eligible youth incarcerated in juvenile detention and correctional facilities, however, often fail to receive these services. Education advocates typically bring suits against school districts and correctional institutions alike under the IDEA's mandate to provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities. Unfortunately, this approach is failing because the IDEA is not able to tackle other conditions within facilities that stand as barriers to educational access. The IDEA, however, is not the sole remedy available. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), which reaches beyond the educational context and applies to more governmental entities than the IDEA, offers a more robust litigation avenue for enforcing the education rights of incarcerated youth with disabilities. Bringing suit under the ADA, therefore, either alone or in conjunction with the IDEA, could result in more consistent enforcement of incarcerated youths' right to an education than bringing suit solely under the IDEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author talks about the issues of use of restraints and seclusion in the education system on children with disabilities in the U.S. Topics include analysis of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and history of and use of restraints and seclusion in the education system; current laws governing different types of punishments including corporal punishment in the country related to same; and steps taken by the Congress on same such as Children's Rights Convention.

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 examines the relevant requirements and mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) aimed to provide all children, regardless of their disabilities a free appropriate public education. Topics discussed include the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case 'Brown v. Board of Education;' enactment of the All Handicapped Children Act of 1975; and IDEA's definition of emotional disturbance that is faced by specially abled children.

This Article grew out of my experience as an advocate in the special education system. Too often, I have received phone calls from parents--primarily mothers--who recount the terrible treatment they and their child have received at the hands of their school district. Mothers tell me that they are blamed for their child's challenges in school and accused of lying to teachers or staff. They sometimes tell me that their school district does not carry through with promises made to them concerning their child's education. When I agree to attend a meeting with the mother at the school district, I am surprised when everyone acts so polite and helpful. We soon develop a reasonable educational plan for the child. How can this be, I wonder? Was the mother telling me the truth? Unfortunately, I have come to believe that the mother's recounting of the school district's treatment of her and her child is accurate. With limited available resources, school districts often provide the least possible resources to children with disabilities. And, unfortunately reflecting the larger devaluation of women and mothers in our society, school districts often do not treat mothers with respect when an outsider is not present to observe these meetings. The school district personnel seemingly know their behavior is inappropriate, so they act appropriately when I appear as an advocate. This repeated experience caused me to decide to investigate this phenomenon to better understand it in the context of American law and society. How and why do school districts frequently treat the mothers of children with disabilities so adversely? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on history and enactment of the federal special education law statutes including Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It mentions that development of free appropriate public education (FAPE) to provide extended school year services (ESY services) and factors applied by the local education agencies to determine eligibility to receive ESY services. It also mentions that states receiving federal funding offer school age children with disabilities.

The article discusses the impacts of race and socioeconomic status on access to accommodations in post-secondary education in America, and it mentions the provision of educational opportunities to all students in the U.S., including minority students and children with disabilities such as autism. The U.S. Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) is examined, along with psychiatric diagnoses and the country's Elementary and Secondary Education Act which was passed in 1965.

The article offers information on the federal and state congressional efforts to enact legislation for restricting seclusion, regulating time-out and restraint of children with disabilities in the U.S. schools. It focuses on the adoption of stricter reporting and parental notification statutes and regulations by the U.S. schools. It discusses the mass-media reports of the K-12 schools subjecting children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The article focuses on 20 U.S.C. § 1406(b), a law prohibiting the U.S. Department of Education from lessening protections for children under the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Topics include the laws governing the education of disabled children and special education funding in the U.S.

The article focuses on the need of audiovisual surveillance for special needs classrooms in the public school systems under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). Topics discussed include the legislative history and judicial interpretation of IDEA enacted by Congress in 1975, court cases addressing the installation of audiovisual monitoring such as Katz v. United States, and the privacy concerns of both the teachers and students.

The article discusses the educational rights of students with disabilities in the U.S. It mentions the legislation passed by the U.S. Congress to guarantee students with disabilities a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). It outlines the impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in public schools.

The article focuses on the need of special needs voucher programs that allows the families of disabled students to use public funds for a private school program. Topics discussed include the challenges faced by families of children with autism spectrum disorders in educating their children in public school systems, the benefits offered by voucher programs for students with autism in public schools and the U.S Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The article describes the legislation and regulation governing students with disabilities in the U.S. including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) and No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). It highlights the significant deficiencies of IDEA in addressing quality learning in subject math and science among students with disabilities from disadvantaged groups.

The article discusses the significance of special education for students with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges in the U.S. and analyzes the role of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in addressing educational needs of children with disabilities. It reflects on schools and districts failure in full implementation of IDEA and offers some reforms to overcome this issue.

The article focuses on the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and examines how it fails low income families that have children with disabilities. Topics include low income families' access to skilled and effective advocates to represent their children and the need for Individualized Education Programs (IEP) for all qualifying children.

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.

• This article maps out the similarities and differences among the various routes to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 dispute resolution, including those not widely and well known to special education leaders. • For IDEA-eligible students, the alternative avenues consist of not only the impartial hearing procedures and the state education agency's complaint investigation/resolution process but also the routes of legal recourse under Section 504. • For students eligible under Section 504 alone, the alternative avenues amount to not only the complaint investigation/resolution process of the Office for Civil Rights but also the required grievance and impartial hearing procedures, which are subject to considerable confusion and—in light of the IDEA's intersecting exhaustion requirement—complexity. • The various parts of this roadmap range from basic points for the new special education leader to more nuanced or advanced points for the experienced special education leader, with ample documentation of the specific legal sources. [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]

Through The Rehabilitation Act, the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act (The Tech Act), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the federal government broadened the states' roles in increasing awareness and accessibility of assistive technology (AT) devices and services to children with disabilities. As a member of the AT team, the occupational therapy practitioner plays an integral role in selecting the most appropriate device, and working with parents and other professionals to integrate the device into a child's daily routines. This literature review presents a summary of available information on AT materials and strategies that assist infants, toddlers, and school-aged children with disabilities. We begin with a brief look at legislation affecting the provision of AT. Issues concerning the use of Electronic Aides of Daily Living (EADL), and strategies for successful manipulation are presented; followed by a discussion of play and leisure, mobility, and communication devices. Finally, we conclude with a discussion concerning the importance of measuring the effectiveness of AT devices and services. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the legal aspects and implications of the articles in the issue of the journal. The author discusses the article by Hong et al. about strategies for empowering students with disabilities and its relationship to Section 504 of the United States Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The author also discusses the article by Bender about children exposed to population-wide trauma and their status under the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and/or Section 504 of the ADA.