By Jo Anne Simon

This chapter presents basic information about special education law. It is important to understand the massive changes in education for children with disabilities that took place in the 1970s. With this background in mind, federal legislation and its impact on special education are discussed, along with landmark cases that led to changes in how children who have disabilities are served. Procedural safeguards within the laws are described. Next, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its amendments and who is eligible for funding for special education are discussed, along with two other important civil rights laws that protect children with disabilities. How children are identified, referred, evaluated, and receive services under their individualized educational programs (IEPs) under the law is also explained. This chapter will be updated on a regular basis to reflect changes in the law that affect children with learning disabilities.

REVOLUTION IN EDUCATION

The early 1970s brought a revolution in education. Like most revolutions, it had been brewing for some time, aided by the emergence of certain issues in the public. The failure to educate children with disabilities had been swept under the rug for many years. The landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), however, brought national attention to education as a civil rights issue for the first time. When President John F. Kennedy was elected, his family’s involvement with mental retardation became more widely known. Eunice Kennedy Shriver created the Special Olympics. Hubert Humphrey, Vice President during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, had a granddaughter who was born with Down syndrome. The attention brought to the educational needs of children with mental retardation combined with a new focus on education as a civil right, gave rise to key cases, which touched off the revolutionary changes.

            Previously, children with obvious disabilities were often provided with substandard, if any, education, and it was almost always segregated. Still other children with disabilities, such as children with learning disabilities that often went undetected, languished in classrooms without needed interventions. Education for children with disabilities was viewed as a privilege, not a right. But by the mid-1970s, federal legislation demanded that if states wanted federal funding for education, they would have to educate their children with disabilities as well.

            Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. District of Columbia Board of Education (1972) were landmark cases that became major influences in bringing about federal special education laws. PARC involved children with mental retardation, whereas Mills involved children with various disabilities. In both cases, the children also had behavioral problems. Proceeding under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the courts in both cases required the public school defendants to provide access to the public schools for children with disabilities. The courts also addressed issues of due process, establishing the requirement that basic procedural protections—the right to notice and a hearing—were required before a school system could separate children with disabilities from those in general education. Mills relied on a line of precedents dating to Brown v. Board of Education. Specifically, the court in Mills reasoned that if segregation in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional and if using culturally biased measures to place poor children in inferior public school education tracks was unconstitutional, then the District of Columbia’s total exclusion of children with disabilities from any kind of education was similarly unconstitutional.

            PARC and Mills came on the heels of the first federal efforts in funding education—the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (PL 89-10), which for the first time provided direct federal aid to the states to support their efforts in educating economically disadvantaged general education students. These are what we commonly refer to as Title I funds. That same year, an amendment to Title I also provided federal funds to the states to operate special programs for individuals with disabilities, such as state schools for the deaf, the blind, and individuals with mental retardation. The following year, the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped was created within the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, followed 2 years later by the creation of discretionary grant programs to serve handicapped students. (This office is now known as the Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP], which is within the U.S. Department of Education.)

            These legal decisions and this legislation set the tone for the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) of 1974 (PL 93-380), which amended the ESEA and expanded the funding base for basic state grants and codified the rights established in the PARC and Mills decisions.

            The following year the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, also known widely as PL 94-142, was passed. This law extensively amended the EHA in the following ways:

• It provided direct federal aid to children with one of the enumerated categories of disability.
  
  
• It elaborated on the rights established by the EHA.
  
  
• It expanded the procedural safeguards first established in PARC and Mills.
  
  
• It created the requirement of an IEP for each qualified child with a disability.

This law was amended and renamed in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; PL 101-476). At its core, this law is a mechanism to help fund special education. States receiving federal monies must provide special educational services to children with disabilities or risk the loss of these dollars. This law and its amendments protect basic educational rights for individuals with disabilities from birth through age 21. Though no state has fully complied, case-by-case enforcement by parents and attorneys has protected individual students and encouraged systemic improvements.

WHAT SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW PROVIDES

The procedural safeguards established in PL 94-142, IDEA, and later amendments protect a child’s right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE)¹ in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Children are covered if they require special educational services in order to benefit from an education. Special educational services must ensure a meaningful educational benefit. IDEA protects children whose impairments meet the criteria listed in the 13 classifications set out in the federal regulations for IDEA, although schools may also provide special educational services to children ages 3 through 9 based on “developmental delay” rather than on a specific disability classification. Table 22.1 denotes the IDEA classifications. The classifications and the state implementing regulations make the categories of children with disabilities covered by IDEA narrower than those covered by two other important statutes protecting children with disabilities, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (PL 101-336).

Section 504 and the ADA are civil rights laws that provide that qualified individuals with disabilities cannot be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by any service, program, or activity of an educational institution and further stipulate that services must be provided in the most integrated setting (Coleman v. Zatcheka, 1993; Olmstead v. Zimring, 1999). Section 504 and the ADA are designed to provide only equivalent access to educational and extracurricular programs and opportunities, not specialized education, such as individualized tutoring, smaller classes, or specialized instructional methods. Most teachers will come into contact with either IDEA (special education) or Section 504 or the ADA (equal access) in one way or another. Sometimes these laws overlap, which may cause confusion. Therefore, it is important that teachers and administrators have a basic understanding of these laws.

WHO IS PROTECTED?

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Its Amendments

IDEA protects children who fall into the categories listed in the IDEA regulations (see Table 22.1) and who require special educational services to benefit from an education. Children with disabilities are entitled to the protections of IDEA from birth through 21 years of age or the obtaining of a high school diploma, whichever comes first. No child is considered too “disabled” to be educated, and IDEA provides that special education can take place in environments that range from inclusive environments such as general education classes to very restrictive special classes, including institutional settings.² Special education is defined by the statute as

[S]pecially designed instruction at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of the child with a disability, including (A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions and in other settings, and (B) instruction in physical education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401[25])

            Under IDEA, a special education team makes the determination as to whether a child is eligible for special education and if so, which special educational services and supplemental (access) services are appropriate for a student. Different states have different names for these teams, but their function is the same. Once the team has determined that a child has a disability, it must also develop an IEP, which will become the road map to be followed in making special educational services available to that child. An IEP sets out the child’s placement as well as the long-term goals, short-term objectives, and benchmarks for measuring progress toward those goals and objectives each year and must include the opportunity for meaningful participation by the parents. Under IDEA, parents are considered equal participants in the development of their child’s educational placement, and the process should not be one of a majority vote but one of consensus building.

            IDEA is federal enabling legislation (legislation that gives appropriate officials the authority to implement or enforce the law). The accompanying regulations put flesh on the bones of the statute (law). Each state however, must have their own statutes and regulations that provide at least as much protection for children with disabilities.³ State statutes and regulations also cover the curriculum requirements and standards that are called for in the federal legislation.

            Unfortunately, placement decisions are often dependent on available resources and local politics. The level of service provided therefore may not be an accurate reflection of a child’s educational needs. There has been a rising concern among advocates and enforcement agencies regarding the incidence of harassment and retaliation in kindergarten through 12th grade when parents and caregivers seek services for their children (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

            Also subject to ongoing political debate are the definitions of several disability categories, particularly specific learning disabilities; emotional disturbance; and to a lesser extent, autism, traumatic brain injury, and other health impairments. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is not a classification covered by IDEA, but the U.S. Department of Education (1991) has indicated that children with ADHD may sometimes be classified as having specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, or other health impairment.

            In addition to the provision of specially designed instruction, IDEA calls for the provision of various supplemental aids and services without charge, including diagnostic testing and evaluation; occupational and physical therapy; speech-language pathology; specialized tutoring and resource room services; the use of audiobooks; counseling; paraprofessional assistance; and the use of note taking, testing modifications, and adaptive equipment. Thus, IDEA is quite broad in the scope of services it provides to students with disabilities but narrow in its criteria as to who is an eligible student with a disability.

Referrals

A child may be referred for evaluation for special education services by a special education team on the initiative of a parent or guardian, a teacher, or a school administrator. If the school refers the child for evaluation, the school must have the parent or guardian’s permission before the child can be evaluated, except in special circumstances. The school district must provide the evaluation free of charge and within a reasonable time after the referral. Schools have an obligation to identify, locate, and evaluate children for the presence of a disability in need of special education. This is referred to as the “child find” provision of IDEA (20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(3)(1998); Assistance to States, 2002, §300.128).

            No special education placement can occur without a complete, individualized evaluation of the child (20 U.S.C. § 1414 [a][1][A]). Many states have specific requirements as to who must be at the meeting that is initially held to determine whether a child is eligible for special education services. If the child is referred to special education after experiencing difficulty in the general education classroom, then the general education classroom teacher must provide input and share observations of the child’s functioning within the general education classroom and curriculum (Assistance to States, 2002, § 300.533 [a][1][iii]). The team must meet in person and produce a written IEP. Parents must be given a meaningful opportunity to participate. When the parents speak a language other than English, interpreters are required (Assistance to States, 2002, § 300.345[e]).

Procedural Safeguards

If the parents and the rest of the IEP team cannot come to an agreement on the child’s educational placement, the parents may seek due process by requesting an impartial hearing. Such hearings are conducted by an impartial hearing officer, not a judge. If the hearing is successful, most often that will result in a change to the IEP and the services provided. The parents may appeal an unsuccessful decision, in most states to a state review board and if unsuccessful there, may appeal further to federal district court or a state court. (In some states, there is no middle level of appellate administrative review, and parents who are unsuccessful at the hearing level may then go directly to the courts.) The federal district court is the forum chosen most often, although in some states, special education cases are more often brought in state court, where they get a more favorable review than in the federal courts.

            While a judicial or administrative proceeding is pending, the child must remain in the then current educational placement. This is sometimes referred to as the “stay put” provision of IDEA. This is to ensure that a child is not bounced back and forth between placements before the matter is finally resolved. A child’s placement, therefore, will not be modified unless the parties agree to do so.

A Leading Case

One of the leading cases in the field that, in addition to previous precedents, sets out many of the parameters of the prevailing law is the case of Florence Country School District Four v. Shannon Carter (1993). Many teachers and administrators have heard about “Carter cases” (cases that raise similar issues as the Carter case). Shannon Carter was a ninth grader with dyslexia who lived in South Carolina. Her school district proposed placing her in a general education setting and providing three individual instructional periods a week. It proposed specific goals for reading and math, which amounted to 4 months’ progress for each year of schooling. Dissatisfied with this plan, Shannon’s parents requested an impartial hearing and unilaterally placed Shannon in a special school for children with disabilities. That school, however, was not on the state of South Carolina’s list of approved schools. The impartial hearing and state review officers found in favor of the school district, and the parents sued in federal court, claiming that the school district had failed to provide a free appropriate public education for their daughter. They sought reimbursement of the tuition they had paid to the private school. The federal district court ruled in the parents’ favor, finding that the proposed IEP was “wholly inadequate” and that the private school “provided Shannon an excellent education in substantial compliance with all the substantive requirements” of the law, in that it evaluated her progress regularly and developed a plan that allowed Shannon to progress from grade to grade (17 EHLR 452). The court further found that Shannon’s parents were entitled to reimbursement of tuition and costs. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling (950 F.2d 156 [1991]). The Fourth Circuit agreed that the public school’s IEP for Shannon was inadequate and rejected the public school district’s argument that reimbursement was not proper because the parents had chosen a school that had not been approved by the state or that did not comply with all of the requirements of IDEA.

            The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and unanimously affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. It relied on its earlier decision in School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass. (1985), which provided for reimbursement of tuition when a parent unilaterally places a child and a court subsequently agrees that the parents’ placement decision was proper under IDEA. Burlington however, dealt with state-approved schools. Carter made the law clear: Tuition will be reimbursed by a school district if a court concludes that the public school placement violated IDEA and the private school placement provided FAPE. Shannon Carter’s case is a success story in many ways. Today, she is an adult managing her own business—a success by anyone’s standards (Staples, 2002).

Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Parts of IDEA are reauthorized by Congress every 5 years. The only parts that need to be reauthorized are those involving funding. Each reauthorization, however, presents an opportunity for modifications to the substantive portions, primarily Part B of the statute, which deals with services for children ages 3 through 21, and this most recent reauthorization was no exception. IDEA was due to be reauthorized in 2003. However, both the House of Representatives and the Senate had difficulty fashioning a reauthorization bill that would pass within their houses and there was much concerted opposition to these bills, in particular the House bill. As of 2006, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (PL 108-446) has been signed into law, but final regulations have yet to be approved.

            Not unexpectedly, IDEA 2004 fails to fully fund the cost of educating students receiving special education services. This has been an unresolved issue since the passage of IDEA, which has never been fully funded.

            Some provisions of IDEA 2004 are controversial and have been the subject of much comment throughout the process by which the U.S. Department of Education promulgates the regulations that will implement IDEA 2004. These concerns are among the reasons why the regulations remain in draft form and are not final as of this writing. Another factor is the complicated intersection of IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2004. That could easily be a chapter unto itself.

            One key provision of IDEA 2004 is the revision of eligibility for special educational services, primarily in connection with the classification of children with learning disabilities. For example, IDEA 2004 prohibits a child from being classified as having a disability and thus eligible for special educational services if “the determining factor for such a determination is either a lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction as defined in NCLB or a lack of instruction in math or limited English proficiency” (20 U.S.C.§ 1414[6][5]). Thus, under IDEA 2004, a local educational agency (LEA) will “not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability” and may instead use a process that evaluates whether the child “responds to scientific, research-based interventions” such as those described in NCLB (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][6]). This is what is commonly referred to as response to intervention (RTI). RTI enjoys much theoretical support, but a great deal of confusion exists as to how schools will be able to implement its principles in accordance with either the letter or spirit of IDEA 2004.

            For example, proposed regulations do not appear to require that RTI begin early in a child’s career. The proposed regulations are unclear as to what precisely is meant by RTI, making it unlikely to be successfully implemented at this time. This is further hampered by a lack of evidence-based reading materials, inadequate numbers of appropriately trained teachers, and confusion as to what methods and/or criteria should be used to evaluate a child’s failure to respond to intervention. Because the requirement of short-term goals and objectives was eliminated by IDEA 2004, teachers may have more difficulty measuring a child’s response to intervention with sufficient frequency so as to know whether educational interventions are working.

            Responding to earlier findings that children classified as having disabilities were disproportionately children of color, IDEA 2004 requires that states modify their policies, practices, and procedures “to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment” (20 U.S.C. §1412 [a][25]).

            IDEA 2004 also provides for new flexibility in parental participation in the educational planning for their children with disabilities. Proposed regulations (proposed 34 C.F.R. §300.308) would permit a lessening of the required IEP team members, permitting the following:

• A special education teacher instead of one specifically with expertise in the disability of the child in question may be on a child’s IEP team.
  
  
• Special education and general education teachers may send a report to the IEP team instead of attending the IEP meeting—seemingly at odds with the increased focus on integrating children with special needs within the general education classroom.
  
  
• In addition, parents may waive the attendance of a required team member, and there are no proposed protections to ensure that harried parents are not put between the proverbial rock and a hard place in terms of scheduling and notice practices.

Proposed 34 C.F.R. §300.39 (b) refers to the “group’s” consideration of the evidence of disability but does not specifically ensure that the child’s parents are included in this consideration, opening to door the possibility that changes to IEPs might be implemented without meaningful parental participation.

            IDEA 2004 mandates that a due process hearing may not occur prior to 30 days after receipt of a complaint to allow time for a resolution session to take place, although parents and the LEA may agree to waive the necessity for such a resolution session, provided that they do so in writing. IDEA 2004 also establishes more stringent pleading requirements for due process hearings. Under these new provisions (proposed 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507, 300.508), school districts will be able to challenge parents’ complaint notices for insufficiency, parents will be expected to file responses to school districts’ complaints, and opportunity to amend complaints will be limited. For the thousands of parents who file their due process complaint notices without the assistance of an attorney or advocate, it is essential that these requirements not be interpreted to undermine their access to due process.

            IDEA 2004 also contains significant provisions regarding student discipline. For example, proposed 34 C.F.R. §300.530 allows for school personnel to consider unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether a change of placement might be appropriate for a particular child who has violated a school code of conduct. The proposed regulations permit suspensions of up to 10 consecutive school days, and additional suspensions within the school year may be possible so long as such removals would not amount to a change of placement for that child. In addition, under certain circumstances, including where a child has inflicted serious bodily injury on another person while at school, on school premises or at a school function under the jurisdiction of a state educational agency (SEA) or an LEA, certain school personnel would have the authority to remove that child for up to 45 days. In addition, children with disabilities may be suspended for up to 10 consecutive school days without the requirement of a manifestation of disability determination.

            The points just mentioned represent only some of the more dramatic changes created by IDEA 2004. Volumes of detailed analyses are available elsewhere. Final regulations have yet to be approved.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Section 504 and the ADA protect individuals with disabilities. An “individual with a disability” is a person who 1) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, 2) has a record of such impairment, or 3) is regarded as having such an impairment (42 U.S.C. § 12102[2]; 29 U.S.C. § 706[8]).

            Most often, the students served under Section 504 and/or the ADA are those who meet the first part of the definition, having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. This definition, however, is a less restrictive definition of disability than that required for special education purposes by IDEA, which was discussed earlier in this chapter. School systems often declassify students with disabilities who are performing well and who no longer need special classes but instead need only reasonable accommodations (academic adjustments or auxiliary aids and services), thus taking these students out of special education and providing them with services under Section 504. The types of students most often served under Section 504 are those with ADHD, allergies, arthritis, asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, learning disabilities, Tourette syndrome, or vision impairments who may not need special education classes but who may need large print, additional time to read assignments, or other adjustments to succeed in a general education classroom.

            Public schools often develop 504 Plans for such students in a manner similar to developing IEPs for children covered under IDEA, to set out the services that will be provided to each such student. This is because as a practical matter, schools and teachers are more likely to carry out a plan that is in writing and because the 504 regulations for kindergarten through 12th grade provide that implementing an IEP is one means of complying with the requirements for children covered under Section 504 (Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap, 2002).

                  Case law has required that ADA cases involving students from kindergarten through 12th grade also pursue IDEA administrative remedies to the extent they involve overlapping services (Hope v. Cortines, 1995). In other words, if a child is eligible for services under IDEA, the parents must pursue IDEA procedures (impartial hearing) for services available under all three laws. Parents cannot bypass these procedures and go directly to court by asserting claims under Section 504 and the ADA only. Examples in which this would not be true are cases involving purely physical access because IDEA does not require the physical alteration of school buildings in order to accommodate students with physical disabilities—only Section 504 and the ADA do.

SUMMARY

Special education and civil rights protections for children with disabilities can seem enormously complicated, but they are also incredibly important to achieving the twin social and educational goals of an educated and productive citizenry. Few would challenge the worthiness of these goals, yet the devil, as they say, is in the details. Each reauthorization of IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 brings new opportunities for amendments to these laws, with expansions or contractions of these rights.

            Teachers and administrators are key players in the scheme of federal protections for students with disabilities and are better able to play their respective roles armed with information. Most educators will not find themselves in need of in-depth information regarding the rights of students with disabilities, but knowing where to go for additional information is always helpful. To that end, a list of resources related to this chapter  is included and will be updated regularly on this web site. When children with disabilities are appropriately educated, they become educated adults and an integral part of the fabric of society, in the workplace and the professions, enhancing and enriching our lives and theirs.

REFERENCES

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, PL 101-336, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.

Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 300 (2002).

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Carter v. Florence County School District Four, 17 EHLR 452 (1991).

Carter v. Florence County School District Four, 950 F.2d 156 (4th Cir. 1991).

Coleman v. Zatcheka, 824 F. Supp. 1360 (D.Ne. 1993).

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 94-142, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1974, PL 93-380, 88 Stat. 576.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, PL 89-10, 20 U.S.C. §§ 241 et seq.

Florence Country School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

Hope v. Cortines, 872 F. Supp. 14, aff’d, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir 1995).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, PL 101-476, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

LA R.S. § 17:7(11).

Mills v. District of Columbia Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 34 C.F.R. §104.33 (b)(2) (2002).

Olmstead v. Zimring, 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999).

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa. 1972).

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, PL 93-112, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.

School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).

Staples, B. (2002, January 5). How the Clip ‘N Snip’s owner changed special education. The New York Times.

Texas Educational Code § 38.003[d].

U.S. Department of Education. (1991). U.S. Department of Education joint policy memorandum, 18 IDELR 116 (OSEP, OCR, OESE). Washington, DC: Author

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/1998/20thar.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2000, July 25). Department of Education joint policy letter. Washington, DC: Author.

RESOURCES

Organizations

Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys
1321 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003-3027
202-544-2210
http://www.copaa.org

Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD)
The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
1110 North Glebe Road
Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22201-5704
888-CEC-SPED
E-mail: cec@cec.sped.org
http://www.teachingld.org

The International Dyslexia Association (IDA)
8600 LaSalle Road
Chester Building
Suite 382
Baltimore, MD 21286
800-222-3123
E-mail: info@interdys.org
http://www.interdys.org

Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA)
4156 Library Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
412-341-1515
http://www.ldanatl.org

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY)
Post Office Box 1492
Washington, DC 20013
800-695-0285
E-mail: nichcy@aed.org
http://www.nichcy.org

Web Sites

LD Online
http://ldonline.org

U.S. Department of Justice, ADA home page
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada

Wrightslaw
http://www.wrightslaw.com

FOOTNOTES

¹FAPE is defined as “ special education and related services” that are 1) provided at public expense; 2) meet the standards of the state educational agency (SEA); 3) include an appropriate education at the preschool, elementary, and secondary level school levels; and 4) are delivered in accordance with the child’s IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1401 ([8][)(1998]).

²IDEA has a zero-reject principle, which means that no child is considered too “disabled” to learn and to be provided with educational services. Thus, children with very low intellectual capacity who live in institutions are entitled to a free appropriate public education; so, too, are students who have been placed in juvenile detention facilities.

³See, for example, Texas’s statute requiring screening and treatment for dyslexia and related learning disorders. Texas defines dyslexia as “a disorder of constitutional origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to read, write, or spell, despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and sociocultural opportunity” (Texas Educational Code § 38.003[d]). See also Louisiana’s statute, LA R.S. § 17:7(11).

AUTHOR BIO

Jo Anne Simon, J.D., is an attorney in private practice in Brooklyn, New York, concentrating on disability rights litigation and consultation in higher education and high-stakes testing. A former disability services provider, teacher of the deaf, and sign language interpreter, she is an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law and acted as lead counsel to the plaintiff in Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners from the case’s inception. She is currently a Vice President of the New York Branch of The International Dyslexia Association. She writes often about the Americans with Disabilities Act and higher education. In addition, she regularly advises faculty and administrators regarding issues pertaining to higher education and transition for students with disabilities from high school to postsecondary education.