IEPs and 504 Plans

As we have noted a number of times, questions from families seem to come in groups. Most recently, we have received several inquiries from the families we serve about Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) versus 504 Plans (whose name derives from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of l973). What most often triggers these questions is the misguided approach of some schools that these two kinds of services and supports are interchangeable in all instances and that, in effect, a 504 Plan is an "IEP lite."

Only by understanding the origins and purposes of these two laws will schools and families be able to best apply each of them in the appropriate circumstances. Let's break these differences and similarities down to compare and contrast.

The IDEA is an educational funding law. It requires that each state that receives federal funds (and that is ALL of them)  provide a free, appropriate public education (universally referred to as FAPE) to all K-12 students who meet the definition of disability in one of 13 areas. Among the most common areas  are Specific Learning Disability, Speech and Language Impairment and Other Health Impaired (a bit of a catch-all, which often includes ADHD). The IDEA applies to all students who have been determined to have one of these disabilities, whether they attend a public or private school, although the funds available to students in private schools come from a different funding stream and can sometimes be more limited than those available to public school students.

Section 504 is a civil rights law. It is often described as a law that seeks to "level the playing field" by providing students with disabilities the same access and opportunities as students who do not have disabilities. It only applies to schools and school systems that receive federal funding, so it does not apply to most private schools (unless they have some sort of federal funding, such as for a lunch or enrichment program). Its definition of what constitutes a disability is far broader than the IDEA, and is defined generally as  a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. There is no limiting definition of what kind of impairment "substantially limits a major life activity," but Section 504 notes that this definition includes (but is not limited to): learning, concentrating, thinking, reading, hearing, communicating, seeing, and working. So, students who have a defined disability under the IDEA will also fit the definition of a disability under Section 504.

Why, then, do we say that these are not interchangeable? A good explanation of the differences between these two laws can be found in a document from the U.S. Department of Education:

First of all, the IDEA provides very specific procedures for how it is to be applied. Details of evaluations, meetings to develop the IEP, and remedies if there are problems with any aspect of the IEP procedure are set out in the IDEA and its regulations with great precision. There can be some differences from state to state in how these work in practice, but every state must provide at least what is set forth in the IDEA. One of many aspects of the IDEA is that parents are a required part of the team that creates the IEP.

In addition, the IDEA provides a rich array of services, including special education and related services. Special education is defined under the IDEA as specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability and related services (things like speech, occupational, and physical therapy) are defined as supportive services that are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.

Under Section 504, school districts are required to develop and implement a system of procedural safeguards to address FAPE concerns specifically, such as the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of students with disabilities. Procedural safeguards include notice; an opportunity for records review by parents or guardians; an impartial due process hearing, with an opportunity for participation by the student’s parents or guardian and representation by counsel; and a review procedure. 

Section 504 does not include parents as part of the team that initially creates the 504 Plan, only after the fact if a hearing is required because of a disagreement. And, while some states follow the procedures in the IDEA and use these as the required system of due process safeguards that Section 504 requires, not all states or districts do this. 

We believe that as implemented by most schools, an IEP affords more support for students and input for parents than a 504 Plan. By setting goals and methods for determining if these educational goals are being met, an IEP focuses not simply on access, but more broadly on educational methodology and improved performance. 

School districts must supply data to their state and states, in turn, must account to the federal government for the number of students who receive IEPs. This is related to the IDEA's status as a funding law and is designed to make sure that districts aren't classifying too many students or too many students of a particular background, as requiring IEPs. There is thus some pressure on some districts to limit the number of students with IEPs. Such data is not required in the same way for 504 Plans, so some districts may be more comfortable offering a 504 Plan in lieu of an IEP. 

When appropriate, such as for a student with a medical condition, or with ADHD and without any concurrent learning difficulties, or for a student who only needs accommodations, such as extended time on exams, Section 504 can be an important and effective law. But for students whose issues are more complex and include substantial learning challenges requiring special educational services and supports, we urge parents to seek an IEP as the best way to obtain what will best serve their child.  

Paying for IEEs - Revisited

Parents frequently ask us about having their school district pay for an independent educational evaluation - an IEE - such as those we provide here at The Yellin Center. We wrote about this subject at length in a post from November 2013, but it has become clear to us that it is time to share this discussion again. We have added some additional information, (see the boldface text below) and hope this post helps answer questions that you may have.

 
When Must School Districts Pay for Evaluations?

Parents sometimes ask us if they can have their school district pay for their child's evaluation at The Yellin Center. The simple answer is "maybe, under certain circumstances," and we thought it might be helpful to explain the laws and regulations that govern this area.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) recognizes that an evaluation of a student in all suspected areas of disability is a crucial first step to determining whether that student is eligible for IDEA services and what kind of services will help that student to succeed in school. In fact, the "clock begins to run" with respect to the time limits set forth in the IDEA only once the parent consents to an evaluation of the student. The law anticipates that the school will then conduct an evaluation of the child and share the results with the parents and the IEP team, the committee that creates the student's Individualized Education Program. 

In many situations, this works out well for all concerned. The school district conducts an evaluation at no cost to the family; the findings make sense to the parents; the findings are incorporated into the student's IEP; and nothing more needs to be done. 

However, sometimes families do not agree with the findings of the school district evaluators and feel there may be something more going on with their child. Sometimes parents have had a long history of difficulties with the school and simply do not trust them to do an evaluation. Some parents of children enrolled in a private school do not want to have to work with the local public school district (especially in New York City). And, quite often, parents want the kind of in-depth, multi-disciplinary evaluation done here at The Yellin Center, rather than a more "cookie-cutter" series of tests given by their school's evaluators. In each of these situations, the parents seek an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) such as the ones we conduct here at The Yellin Center.

Before we look at specific rules and scenarios, we need to emphasize one important point. Parents have the absolute right to have their child independently evaluated and federal law requires that the public school district must consider the results of such evaluation. Dr. Yellin and his team frequently attend IEP meetings (via phone or other technology) to discuss the results of our evaluations and have been universally well-received by schools. However, the law does not require that districts follow the recommendations of our reports (or any outside evaluator).

So, when can a parent have a district pay for an IEE? 

1. The parent must disagree with the evaluation conducted by the district or consider it inadequate and notify the district of their intention to obtain an IEE.
2. The district must then either file for a due process hearing with a State Hearing Officer or agree to pay for the IEE.
3. The district can set criteria for the IEE's they will fund -- how much they cost, the geographic location of the evaluator(s), and the specific qualifications of the evaluator(s). However, the U.S. Department of Education notes that, "the district must allow parents the opportunity to demonstrate that unique circumstances justify an IEE that does not fall within the district's criteria. If an IEE that falls outside the district's criteria is justified by the child's unique circumstances, that IEE must be publicly funded." So, even if your district tells you that you are restricted to using the private evaluators on a list they provide, that is not strictly correct and you can and should push back to obtain the services of the evaluator you choose. 
4. An IEE can also be ordered by a State Hearing Officer as part of a due process hearing when aspects of an IEP are in dispute. 

We also encounter situations where a district paid evaluation at The Yellin Center is part of an ongoing discussion between a family and a school district, especially when the district has not been successful in addressing a child's educational needs. And families need to keep in mind that The Yellin Center has always had a sliding scale for families who need assistance in paying for our services. 

There are countless resources available to explain this process to parents and school administrators, but some you might find useful are:

• For New Jersey familes, a memo from the New Jersey Department of Education, with a list of Frequently Asked Questions about IEEs.
• From the U.S. Department of Education, a memo discussing why districts cannot set absolute cost limits on IEEs. 

One subject not addressed in our original post on this topic is the rights of parents when a district refuses to evaluate, either because they do not believe that the child has a disability, or without even providing a reason. The IDEA only addresses the situation where a family disagrees with an evaluation that has been already conducted. To the frustration of many families, if the school district declines to evaluate a student, the only remedy of the family is to file a complaint with a State Hearing Officer to challenge this decision. In addition, as noted above, parents always have the right to go ahead on their own to seek an IEE. 

Shining a Light on NYC Special Education Crisis

Anyone dealing with special education laws in New York City -- parents, attorneys, teachers, schools, and hearing officers -- knows that this is a system in crisis. Too few hearing officers, extensive delays, even too few hearing rooms (all of which are located in often inconvenient downtown Brooklyn) are just a few of the issues apparent to those who are seeking legal intervention to obtain the services and setting that children with disabilities are entitled to under law, specifically, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Now, thanks to a report prepared by an outside consultant, Deusdedi Merced of Special Education Solutions, LLC, and made public by The City, the full extent of the problems with this system and how these problems impact students and families is being made clear. The report was initially commissioned in early 2018 by the New York State Department of Education and the consultant was charged with examining the policies, procedures, and practices relating to impartial hearings in New York City. According to Mr. Merced, a well-regarded attorney who has served in roles in all aspects of the special education system in New York, D.C., and elsewhere, delays in completing this report were "directly attributed to actions taken by the New York City Independent Hearing Office and/or New York City Department of Education."

When the 49 page report was issued on February 22, 2019 it was only released after a public document disclosure request by The City was granted. The news of the report with a link to its contents appeared in yesterday's edition of The City.

In addition to the discussion of the report in The City, there is another piece about the report, its findings, and the current state of special education proceedings in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

Both news reports make for a quick and concerning read. The report itself is dense with information, but some crucial findings include:

• New York State has almost as many due process complaints (the initial step to contest an issue under the IDEA) filed each year as the next six largest states combined; 90 percent of these are filed in New York City.
• Logistical issues abound:  On an average day there are 122 hearings scheduled but there are only 10 hearing rooms. Hearing rooms often lack sufficient furniture and are poorly ventilated.
• Hearing officers are poorly compensated and there are frequent recusals. There are insufficient hearing officers for the number of matters. Hearing officers are appointed without anyone checking on their availability (few do this as a full time career).
• Failure to use uncontested methods -- mediation - or to keep students in their current uncontested placements adds to the burdens on the system. 

The report urges prompt action -- by both NY City and NY State -- to keep this vital avenue for parental redress open and functioning. We hope someone is listening.

Does Classification Matter?

Students can have an IEP for a wide array of reasons. The IDEA specifies 13 different categories of disability that can be the basis for providing IDEA services to a student. But we know that children can have more than one area of disability. We often suggest that parents think of their child's classification on their IEP as a key that unlocks the right to whatever services their child may require, whether or not those services are directly related to the classification that appears at the top of the IEP document itself.

A student with a specific learning disability can also have an attention problem, which most often falls within the Other Health Impaired (OHI) classification. Or a child with an intellectual disability may also have an orthopedic impairment and require use of a wheelchair. An IEP does not have to list more than one disability for a child to receive services for more than one disability. The only situation where more than one disability might be listed on an IEP is where a student has educational or medical needs that can't be met by a single program. 

Parents sometimes ask if it matters what classification is listed on their child's IEP. It can, but only in very limited circumstances. Non-public schools that are approved by a state to provide educational services will be limited to students that are classified as having one of the disabilities for which that school is approved. So, a child with a classification of "other health impaired" will not be sent by her school district to a school that is approved only for students with a specific learning disability.

Even in that situation, if the school is otherwise a good fit for the child, it is possible to have the student's classification modified by the IEP Team to another classification, so long as the new classification reflects the reality of the student's difficulties. 

No one likes labels, but they are part of the IDEA. Even so, their impact on the day-to-day workings of a student's IEP do not limit the services and supports that a student should receive. Of far greater importance are the special education and related services, modifications, and accommodations that are provided to each student and the goals that are set out for the student to meet.  

  

Understanding Federal Disability Laws

Parents often ask us to explain the differences between the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). And, for post-high school students who are no longer eligible under the IDEA, we get similar questions about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We've written about each of these laws numerous times in our more than 900 posts, often comparing and contrasting them. You can use the search feature on the right hand side of this page to search the "tag" for each law.

A 2016 Arizona case that ended up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit contains a helpful explanation comparing and contrasting these several laws. Thanks to attorney Pete Wright for bringing it to the attention of his colleagues. The excerpts from the Circuit Court decision appear without quotation marks, citations, or footnotes, and we have added in headings to make it easier to read. You can see properly formatted text in the full court decision.

The Circuit Court explained:

There are three primary and overlapping pieces of federal legislation... The IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the ADA.

The IDEA
Congress enacted the IDEA to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education [or FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living. The IDEA focuses on making a FAPE available to disabled students through development of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). States receiving federal financial assistance under the IDEA must have in place policies and procedures to properly develop IEPs for qualifying children.

Section 504

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is broader than the IDEA; it is concerned with discrimination in the provision of state services to all individuals with disabilities. It provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
Like the IDEA, section 504 applies to public schools that receive federal financial assistance ...
The regulations adopted pursuant to section 504 require qualifying public schools to provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person.

How FAPE Differs Under Each Law
FAPE is defined differently for purposes of section 504 than it is for the IDEA. Under ... section 504 regulations, FAPE requires "regular or special education and related aids and services that
(i) are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met and
(ii) are based upon adherence to procedures that satisfy the requirements of [the law]".
Section 504's regulations gauge the adequacy of services provided to disabled individuals by comparing them to the level of services provided to individuals who are not disabled. One method of ensuring that the educational aids and services are designed to meet individual education needs as required under [504] is to implement an IEP developed in accordance with the IDEA, but a showing that FAPE was denied under the IDEA does not necessarily establish a denial of FAPE under section 504.

The ADA
Title II of the ADA was modeled after section 504.... It provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
[Both Section 504 and the ADA include the right to sue for damages. However, a public entity can be liable for damages under § 504 (or the ADA) only] if it intentionally or with deliberate indifference fails to provide meaningful access or reasonable accommodation to disabled persons.

While the IDEA remains the best option for many of the students we see, it is important to be aware that there are other federal laws that can help students -- and all individuals -- get the help they need to overcome their challenges. 

Supreme Court Hands Win to Students with IEPs

Yesterday, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the findings of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose members currently include Neil Gorsuch, who has been nominated to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court bench) that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that students entitled to special education receive an “educational benefit [that is] merely . . . more than de minimis.”

We have written previously about this case, Endrew F., and looked at how courts have interpreted the requirements of the IDEA that students receive FAPE - a free, appropriate, public education. The questions for courts over the years have focused on the meaning of "appropriate" and looked at what schools were required to do for students who qualified for special education under the IDEA. 

The seminal case on this question was Rowley, which we examined in this blog almost seven years ago. In yesterday's decision, the Supreme Court looked back at Rowley and noted that it involved a student who was in a regular classroom, doing well, and able to participate in tests to measure her progress. The Justices noted, 

 “Rowley sheds light on what appropriate progress will look like in many cases: For a child fully integrated in the regular classroom, an IEP typically should be 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade' ... [However, they also noted that] Rowley did not provide concrete guidance with respect to a child who is not fully integrated in the regular classroom and not able to achieve on grade level."

For students like Endrew F., who has autism and significant behavioral issues which interfere with his ability to benefit from his education, the standards applied to Amy Rowley back in 1982 were not of practical use. These children have disabilities that make it unlikely or impossible for them to function in a regular classroom and the standards used for more typical learners with IEPs could not readily be applied to them. What some schools -- and the courts reviewing their conduct throughout the country -- did was to take advantage of the differences between a student like Amy Rowley and students with more extensive disabilities. Since advancing from grade to grade, passing tests along the way, was not a practical goal for these students, schools and courts believed that schools were required to provide an education that merely offered "some" or "more than de minimus" or a "just above trivial" educational benefit. 

In yesterday's decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court soundly rejected that approach, and noted that "If ...it is not a reasonable prospect for a child, his IEP need not aim for grade level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives." Furthermore, ... "the progress contemplated by the IEP must be appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances... A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be 'specially designed' to meet a child’s 'unique needs' through an '[i]ndividualized education program.' "

As the Supreme Court noted in the conclusion to its decision, "When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing 'merely more than de minimis' progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all."

US DOE Guidance on Section 504 and ADHD

K-12 students who struggle with attention may be entitled to support and accommodations under either the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).  For those students whose ADHD (which we will use here to include students with attention difficulties, whether or not they include hyperactivity) has a significant impact on their academic performance, or for whom attention difficulties occur together with learning or related challenges, the IDEA is often the best way to receive what they need to be successful in school.

The IDEA generally provides more extensive services, permits more parental input, and is available to students in both public and private schools. However, not all students meet the criteria for receiving IDEA services, which include having a specific category of disability (attention generally falls under "other health impaired"), and being in need of "special education and related services." For students with ADHD who do not meet the IDEA requirements and who are in public schools, Section 504 can provide what these students need to be successful in school despite their attention difficulties.

Earlier this year, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education, which administers Section 504, issued a letter to offer guidance to states and school districts about problems with the way in which Section 504 was being applied to students with ADHD. These problems included:

• Failing to identify students who may have ADHD;
• Failing to properly evaluate students suspected of having ADHD;
• Inappropriate decisions about the education, services, and setting that may be required by students who had been properly identified and evaluated; and
• Failure to let the appropriate school personnel (especially teachers) know about the 504 Plan so it could be properly implemented. 

In addition to the extensive guidance letter (42 pages), the OCR created a brief, clear, two page document titled Know Your Rights: Students with ADHD. One point mentioned in this document, which often is raised by schools when they decline to consider a student with attention difficulties for a 504 Plan, is "Regardless of how well he or she performs in school, a student who has trouble concentrating, reading, thinking, organizing or prioritizing projects, among other important tasks, because of ADHD may have a disability and be protected under Section 504." We frequently find that schools use the excuse "but she gets good grades" or "but he is doing well on tests" when parents know that their child is struggling with attention and could learn and perform better with the accommodations and supports available under Section 504. We hope that seeing this issue set forth in black and white might help schools better understand their obligations to students with ADHD.

Least Restrictive Environment Revisited

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) has long been a fundamental part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA mandate with respect to LRE states that,

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

We have written about LRE before, and have thought that it was such a settled part of current law and practice that it was not subject to question. We were wrong. A recent blog post on the website of AASA, the School Superintendents Association, urges that Congress consider changing the LRE requirements of the IDEA to look only at the educational benefit to be provided by placing students in the least restrictive environment and not to consider benefits to such students that are not strictly educational, such as communication, collaboration, and social skills. The blog also suggests that revised guidelines on LRE, "could lead to a reduction of litigation ... [and have the] potential to ease the educational, financial, and emotional strains that are placed on parents and school officials when special education litigation reaches the courts." In short, the author wants to reduce the cost of litigating LRE issues when parents exert their rights to have their children educated in the least restrictive educational environment.

Our colleagues at COPAA, The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, quickly responded to the blog post. In a detailed public post, the COPAA leadership discussed the court cases where LRE has been considered (and well settled) and noted that, "including students with disabilities in general education benefits students without disabilities. Research shows that time spent with non-disabled peers not only benefits students socially and connects them with their community but also enhances academic achievement for students with disabilities."

COPAA also posted a blog written by educational leaders which noted that LRE was not being appropriately implemented in all parts of the country and urged that it be expanded -- not limited -- and properly utilized for all students. These leaders did agree with the AASA blogger that the time and energy now used for litigating LRE issues could be put to better use, but noted that their recommendations for how to reduce such litigation were quite different. The COPAA bloggers wrote:

"We support efforts to scale-up the use of universal design for learning principles to all classrooms. We support efforts to expand access to communication and assistive technology to all students who need it. And we support school improvement and restructuring efforts ... including greater family and community engagement, strong administrative leadership, multi-tiered systems of supports used with fidelity, values- and evidence-based inclusive policy and practice, and integration of all support services for the benefit of all students."

We hope the folks at AASA -- and in Congress -- are paying attention.

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Look at "Educational Benefit" under IDEA

Parents of students who receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are aware that this federal law requires that their child receive a free, appropriate, public education, universally referred to as FAPE. But just what is considered appropriate has been the subject of litigation almost since this law was enacted in its earlier form (under a different name) in 1975.

The prevailing standard for "appropriate" was articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1982 in the Rowley case, which we examined in this blog more than six years ago. As we noted at that time, the Court set the standard for appropriate far lower than parents and their supporters would have wanted, stating that the IDEA required only:

"...personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction … and should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade."

Over time, the Rowley standard has been subject to interpretation by courts throughout the country and the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, whose decisions are subject to review only by the Supreme Court, have diverged in their views about what constitutes an appropriate education.

Now, a case is being considered for review by the Supreme Court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the decision of a lower court that providing "some" educational benefit to a Colorado student with autism was sufficient to meet the standards required for FAPE. The Supreme Court has asked the Obama administration's representative, the U.S. Solicitor General, to weigh in as to whether the Court should take on this case.

 The question posed by this case is described in the amicus brief  filed by Autism Speaks, which urges the Supreme Court to consider it:

 "Some circuits require a substantial educational benefit (often described as a “meaningful” one) while others ... require only a just-above-trivial educational benefit. [Supreme Court] review is necessary to resolve the conflict over an issue of paramount importance to children with disabilities, their parents, and their school districts."

The problem, as the amicus brief notes, is  "that the just-above-trivial educational standard adopted by the Tenth Circuit ... and by other courts of appeals, is not reasonably calculated to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities, and therefore impairs their access to an education and opportunity for independence and self-sufficiency."

We will continue to follow this case and to see if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to grant a writ of certiorari and accept this case for review.

How Schools Serve - and Fail - Students with IEPs

Two new reports landed in our "in box" recently, both looking at how students with IEPs under the IDEA are served in public schools -- one specifically looking at New York City high schools and the other, far broader, at students of all ages throughout the U.S.

Students with Disabilities in NYC High Schools

INCLUDEnyc, formerly Resources for Children with Special Needs, a long-time resource for students with disabilities in New York City, has looked at the new 2017 New York City High School Directory and, together with the folks at InsideSchools.org, has some cautionary words for families of students with disabilities seeking to apply to public high schools.

The 2017 Directory no longer states, for every school, "This school will provide students with disabilities the supports and services indicated on their IEPs." This simply was not true and parents often found out their child could not get their mandated IEP services at their new high school. The new Directory has more information on how schools serve students with disabilities, but the way that they define disability and the retrospective nature of the information they include may not be helpful to families seeking definitive answers.

So what should parents do?  Consider attending one of the July information sessions held in each borough. And definitely ask specific questions of each school you are considering.


New D.O.E. Report on How Students with Disabilities Fare in K-12 Schools

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights has released a new report (with data from the 2013-14 school year), which found:

• Students with disabilities served by IDEA are more than twice as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as students without disabilities. 
• Students with disabilities are more likely to be retained or held back in high school: Students with disabilities served by IDEA are 12% of the student population, but 21% of high school students held back or retained. Even more disturbing discrepancies are found with students of color and English language learners.
• Elementary school students with disabilities served by IDEA are 1.5 times as likely to be chronically absent as elementary school students without disabilities. 

U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. said about this data, "The ... data are more than numbers and charts—they illustrate in powerful and troubling ways disparities in opportunities and experiences that different groups of students have in our schools ... [and] create the imperative for a continued call to action to do better and close achievement and opportunity gaps.

IDEA and High Expectations

This month marks the 40th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – the IDEA – first signed into law November 29, 1975. As most of our readers know, IDEA is the basis for educational services and supports for most students in pre-K through high school with a wide range of disabilities, including specific learning disabilities.

To coincide with this anniversary, the U.S. Department of Education has released a new guidance document for State Education Departments, noting that the IEP (Individualized Education Program) for a student who receives services under the IDEA must be aligned with the academic content standards for the grade in which that student is enrolled. This guidance has been welcomed by parents and advocates who have been concerned that students with disabilities are not being held to high enough standards. As noted by The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), “the power of an IEP written with high expectations and its impact on a student’s ability to achieve” are important to students’ lifetime success.

Although exceptions are made for students with the significant cognitive disabilities, even students who are far behind their peers will be held to these academic content standards. However, where students without significant cognitive disabilities are “performing significantly below the level of the grade in which the child is enrolled,” the IEP should contain goals that are “ambitious but achievable.” The Department of Education notes that schools should provide children with specialized instruction to help close the gap between their level of achievement and state standards.

While we welcome high standards and expectations for all students, we will take a “wait and see” position as to whether schools can properly support students with IEPs who are below grade level in one or more subjects, especially those with specific learning disabilities that impact a particular aspect of learning, such as math. While high standards for all students are a laudable goal, the "devil is in details." Such standards need to be reasonable and relevant, not arbitrary.

For example, schools need to focus not just on content mastery, but also on competencies and skills that students can use to help them succeed in the future. Students need to have access to content and methodologies for demonstrating/assessing mastery that take into account their specific disabilities. These methodologies must not be inherently discriminatory and need to conform to the principals of Universal Design for Learning, including multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression. For instance, for some students, schools should consider a portfolio component of assessment.

We would hope that this new guidance does not result in grade retention for students who do not meet grade level assessments, when their failure to do so may be due to years of inappropriate instruction and inadequate methods of demonstrating mastery.

What Happens to My Child's IEP When We Move?

Questions from Yellin Center families tend to come in bunches, and recently we have spoken to several families who are planning to move at the end of the school year and are concerned about what happens to their child's IEP in their new location.

The answer depends on where you are going. The simplest situation is when you are moving from one neighborhood to another in the same city or school district. Since IEPs (Individualized Education Programs) are created with a school district rather than an individual school, they are not affected when a student moves from one school to another within the district. For that same reason, students moving from an elementary to a middle school, or from a middle school to a high school, do not necessarily need a new IEP -- although changes in the school setting, like having multiple teachers or dealing with new and more difficult academic demands, may require a change in academic supports or accommodations.

When a family moves from one school district to another district within the same state, the IDEA provides that a student with an IEP shall receive "...services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents until such time as the [new district] adopts the previously held IEP or develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP that is consistent with Federal and State law." [Sec. 614(d)(2)(C)(i)(I)].

So, when a student moves within the same state, the new district may utilize the IEP from the prior district or develop a new IEP. Note that no new evaluation is required; the new district can use the existing evaluation if it is still timely (less than three years old).

The rules are a bit different when the move is from one state to another. In that circumstance, the new district, in the new state, is required to provide the student with "services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents until such time as the [new district] conducts an evaluation ..., if determined to be necessary by [the new district], and develops a new IEP, if appropriate, that is consistent with Federal and State law." [Sec. 614(d)(2)(C)(i)(II)]. Thus, a move to a new state should also trigger a new evaluation, although a full evaluation may not be required if a new evaluation had been begun before the move.

IDEA regulations require school districts to promptly exchange relevant records when a child changes school districts, subject to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Relevant records include existing evaluation data, and such an exchange of any relevant records can avoid duplicating previously conducted evaluations, and provides critical data to the new school district to ensure the timely completion of the evaluation.

For most students, a move to a new school district is not a common occurrence. Families can often plan their moves so that they happen during the summer, between terms. But for some highly mobile children, including those from military families, migrant children, children in the foster care system, and children who are homeless, moving from one school to another can happen often, and sometimes on short notice. In 2013 the U.S. Department of Education reached out to State Directors of Special Education to address the needs of such children and to make sure that their rights are honored during their transitions.

photo credit: TheMuuj via flickr CC

The Jury is Out on New NYC Special Education Rules

Parents who place their children in private special education schools in New York City and seek to have their tuition payments either made directly by the public school system (Connors funding) or reimbursed to them (Carter funding), have long come up against a NYC Department of Education which has put up extensive procedural barriers to avoid making these payments. Even the Mayor's office noted, in a press release, "The special education placement process has been fraught with contention and litigation in recent years."

    

Now, in the face of a bill pending in the New York State legislature which would make it easier and quicker for families to receive public funding, the City has decided to remove the most onerous barriers faced by families seeking school funding and, according to a statement by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, is "...turning the page, making changes that will ease the burden on these parents [by] ... cutting red tape, speeding up the process, and reaching outcomes that do right by families.”  A 2012 bill which would have permitted funding in religious schools was vetoed by the Governor, but the current bill (which has been put on hold in light of this action by New York City) did not include this provision.


The specifics of the new policy are scheduled to be put in place by September of this year and include:

• Expedited Decisions: The City will now seek to reach a settlement with parents (in cases where settlement is appropriate) within 15 days of receiving notice from the parent of their intention to place their child in a private special education school.
• Ending Unnecessary Litigation: The City will no longer litigate cases which were settled or decided in prior years, or where the Department of Education fails to offer a school placement, except where there is a change in the kind of educational setting the student requires.
• Less Paperwork: Parents will no longer need to submit full documentation every year. The new requirement will be for documentation every three years.
• Quicker Payments: The City will make monthly payments where required by a school and give parents a payment schedule for other payments. 
• Payments Pending Appeals: Where parents have won a claim for tuition reimbursement which the City seeks to appeal, the City will pay the tuition while the appeal is pending.

Attorneys practicing in the area of special education are hopeful that these new policies mark an end to the very difficult relationship between the City and it's Department of Education and parents. Still, the devil is always in the details and families and the attorneys representing them are reserving judgement until they see how this new approach works in practice. 

Least Restrictive Environment

Some recent parent questions have prompted us to take another look at a basic principle of the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), the concept of Least Restrictive Environment, or LRE.

The text of the IDEA defines the goal of LRE in somewhat labored prose, as:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

A simpler way of looking at LRE, and one that has been adopted by the New York City Department of Education, among others, is to think about a continuum. One end of this spectrum would be educating children in their neighborhood schools in a regular class without any special supports. That would be the least restrictive setting possible. Next, and somewhat more restrictive, would be educating children in regular classes with specialized supports. This could include providing accommodations or curriculum modifications to a particular child in the regular class, or having a para-professional come into the regular classroom to assist a student. To the extent that a student is "pulled out" of the classroom for some or all of the day, for services like speech and language therapy or resource room, that would be more restrictive, but still within the confines of a regular class most of the time. 

Further away from the least restrictive end of the continuum would be a self-contained class in a regular school, followed by a specialized school. On the most restrictive end of this continuum would be residential schools for children with the most significant disabilities, who cannot be served in any less restrictive setting. As the New York City Department of Education notes, any move away from a general education class should be considered only if a "child would not be able to make meaningful progress in a general education class, even with the help of supports and services."

Why is this important? Being in a regular class offers children with learning and other challenges the opportunity to make friends in their neighborhood and to improve behavior, communication, academic, and social skills. Typically learning children benefit as well; they gain in social and emotional growth and in their understanding and acceptance of diversity. Classes where typical learners are educated alongside students with learning challenges, with the addition of a special education teacher in the room (sometimes called Collaborative Team Teaching) is one way significant numbers of students are getting the benefits of these opportunities. 

Not every child will do well in a general education setting, and many children only begin to thrive when they are in a more restrictive setting where they can improve both their academic skills and confidence. But all parents should understand the goals of LRE and consider how they may apply to their own child's educational setting. 

There's No Child Find After High School

The obligation of public school districts to identify students who may have disabilities and to proactively determine if they qualify for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a rarely discussed aspect of the law, called "Child Find."

This section of the IDEA requires that all children with disabilities residing in each State, including children who are enrolled in private schools, be "identified, located, and evaluated." This provision effectively makes it the responsibility of each district to seek out students who are struggling, to determine if they qualify for services, and to provide them with needed services. It goes hand-in-hand with the affirmative obligation of school districts to establish an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each child who qualifies for services, and to meet at least once each year to review the student's progress and update his or her IEP. 

While we have written about Child Find before*, we haven't specifically noted how the absence of Child Find impacts students who have graduated and are no longer eligible for IDEA services. This shift of responsibility, from the school to the individual student or employee, can be a rude awakening for college students or those entering the workplace from high school. Neither colleges nor employers have any obligation to seek out individuals with disabilities. Unless the individual informs the college (by providing documentation of a disability to the Office of Disability Services) a student will have no right to any accommodations, auxiliary aids and services, or modifications which they might require to access the curriculum or campus. 

This is an important reason for high school students to understand the nature of their disability -- learning, medical, or otherwise -- and to be able to articulate what they need to learn effectively. Students who have been involved in their education, by discussing their learning needs, attending IEP meetings, and generally being aware of what they require to build on their strengths and overcome their challenges, are well equipped to step up when they are no longer covered by the IDEA and need to take the initiative to arrange the accommodations they will need to succeed beyond high school.

*The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case we discussed in our prior post on this subject.

Photo credit: Inf-Lite Teacher via Flickr

Compensatory Education

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifically sets forth remedies for certain violations of student rights. For example, an IEE, an Independent Educational Evaluation, must be provided at public expense where a district fails to conduct a timely or complete evaluation of a student, or even when a parent simply disagrees with the findings of a school evaluation. Likewise, the IDEA includes the right to reimbursement of private school tuition for parentally placed students where the district has not provided a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and certain other conditions are met. However, there is no specific statutory remedy designed to aid students who have graduated high school or aged out of IDEA eligibility (generally at age 21) without receiving the educational services to which they were entitled by law.

For these students, the courts have utilized the equitable remedy (meaning that it was created by judges to right a wrong) of compensatory education. Compensatory education for younger students, who are still subject to the IDEA, comes into play when a school district has seriously deprived a student of the educational services he or she should have received. For example, a student with a learning disability whose district consistently refused to evaluate him could be awarded compensatory educational services by a hearing officer or court -- services such as summer tutoring, additional supports during the school year, or placement in a specialized school -- which are designed to "make up" for the school's failure to properly identify the student as one who needed IDEA services. 

But what about students who have already graduated from high school or aged out of eligibility for IDEA services?  As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has noted, “In order to give meaning to a disabled student’s right to an education between the ages of three and twenty-one, compensatory education must be available beyond a student’s twenty-first birthday. Otherwise, school districts simply could stop providing required services to older teenagers, relying on the Act's time-consuming review process to protect them from further obligations.”1

Federal Courts have found that the age of the student seeking "post graduation" compensatory services does not make a student ineligible for such services. As a federal court in Indiana noted, the fact that the student was “now 24 years old does not moot his case. The Court may award adult compensatory education if it is necessary and appropriate to cure a past violation of the IDEA.”2

The courts that first crafted this use of compensatory education built on the reasoning in cases that provided for tuition reimbursement under the predecessor statute to the IDEA, noting that, like retroactive tuition reimbursement, compensatory education required school districts to “belatedly pay expenses that [they] should have paid all along.”3

For students no longer covered by the IDEA - because they have graduated or have aged out of eligibility - compensatory education can take the form of post-secondary education, requiring payment for a student who had already graduated high school to attend a reading program at a college for students with learning disabilities. It has also been used to  require a school district to provide annual reevaluations and annual IEPs for a student over the age of 21. However, it is generally available only where there has been a gross deprivation of a student's rights. It is not an easy remedy to obtain and cannot really compensate for having an appropriate education during the years prior to graduation.


Photo credit: Janet Lindenmuth/Creative Commons

[1] Phil v. Mass. Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 1993)

[2] Brett v. Goshen Community Sch. Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 930 (N.D. Ind. 2001)

[3] 800 F.2d 749, 754 (8th Cir. 1986).

Related Services

Both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the two federal laws that families rely upon when their children need help in school because of learning or other disabilities, mandate that children be provided with "special education and related services." We've written before about both of these laws and how they work, but our focus here is on the related services that both laws require schools to provide for students.


What are related services? The IDEA defines such services as:

"...transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the individualized education program of the child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children.

The IDEA specifically notes that related services do not  include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device. These devices can include a cochlear implant for students with hearing loss or an insulin pump for students with diabetes. Section 504 refers to "related services" without such an extensive definition, but districts generally apply the same definitions as they do to IDEA services.

Let's look at each of these services and see how they might apply to your child.

Transportation above and beyond regular bus service provided for all children may include bus service to and from school in a regular bus, or service in a bus with a bus aide, or transportation to school related activities. For students who have been placed by their district or parents in private special education schools, this can include transportation beyond the distances generally allowable to other students. Note that special transportation services must be specifically provided for in a student's IEP or 504 Plan; such service is not automatic.

Speech-language services include a wide variety of services provided by a licensed speech and language pathologist. These services are generally provided in small groups, but can be individual. They go beyond correcting difficulties with articulation and can be very helpful to students with expressive language problems of all kinds. Note that the IEP or 504 Plan needs to specify the frequency and duration of such services and the student-therapist ratio. In an IEP this can look like: "Student will be provided with speech-language services three periods of 45 minutes per week in 5:1 setting (ie: one speech therapist working with a group of five students)." Usually, the smaller the group, the more intensive the services provided.

Audiology, interpreting, and orientation and mobility services are provided to students with hearing and/or vision difficulties or blindness.

Occupational therapy is often provided to students with graphomotor (handwriting) issues and can assist these students with both handwriting and keyboarding.

Physical therapy helps students with mobility, balance, and movement difficulties manage their movements around the school. Note that these services, as well as the other services discussed, all must be specified in the IEP or 504 Plan as to frequency, ratio, and duration.

Other related services that can be included in an IEP or 504 Plan can include counseling, social work, and psychological services, all of which can be provided to any student who needs them. Medical services can also be provided, but are limited to diagnostic services. This distinction between educational and medical services is consistent with the focus of the IDEA on providing only those services which help as student to obtain a benefit from his or her education.

Specific Learning Disabilities in College

As we have written before, students who have graduated high school are no longer covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which comes to an end either upon graduation or when students who will not be graduating with a standard diploma "age out" of their eligibility for public education under their state's laws (usually age 21). Instead, students in college are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The protections afforded by the ADA are broad, but there is one particular area where it differs from the IDEA that can make college entrance and college completion a problem for students who have specific areas of learning challenge.

The IDEA permits modifications to curriculum. So, for example, a student with a language disability may not be required to take a foreign language in high school, or a student with a disability of mathematics may not be required to take the same math courses as their classmates; the curriculum for each of these students can be modified in their area of specific learning disability. Note that these students may not be eligible for certain academic diplomas if their curriculum is significantly different than that of their classmates, but they are usually still eligible for a "local" diploma, one that is accepted by colleges, employers, and the military.

The ADA does not require colleges to make any modifications to curriculum. It requires accessibility, in both a physical and academic sense, but a student must be "otherwise qualified" for admission and graduation. What that means is that colleges can set standards for qualifications for students they admit, and they need not admit students who are lacking certain courses (staying with our example, this could be students who are lacking advanced math or foreign language courses), and even if such students are admitted, they may not be permitted to graduate without taking required courses or obtaining a waiver of such requirements from a college committee charged with granting such waivers.

This issue is of particular concern to some students in community colleges. These colleges are generally "open enrollment" in that they accept all high school graduates from their community. Because they do not rely on the stricter standards of selective colleges, they need a way to make sure students are prepared for college work. For students who have taken SAT or ACT exams, good scores in these exams are a way to demonstrate such preparation. Students who cannot submit strong scores on standardized tests, often because their learning disabilities impact their performance, must take placement tests to demonstrate their proficiency in areas such as reading, writing, and math. Those who cannot pass these tests are required to take remedial coursework and to pass such remedial courses in order to fully matriculate. Then, like all college students, they must also take the courses required for their major in order to graduate. Furthermore, students have to pay for remedial coursework just like they pay for regular courses, but do not receive credits towards their diplomas for these. And, often, they are limited in how many times they can take a particular course -- a "three strikes and you're out" approach.

The issue requires a balancing between the legal right of a college to set standards for admission and graduation and the rights of students with specific learning or other disabilities to be able to access a college education. There is no easy answer and it raises some fundamental questions that we expect courts to deal with at some point in the future.

IEP and 504 - What Parents Ask

Your blogger presented a webinar earlier today for ADDitude Magazine, for which she writes the "Your Legal Rights" column.  The topic was "IEP vs. 504 Plans: Which Does Your ADHD/LD Child Need and How to Go About Getting It." Hundreds of parents listened in and many of them had questions, some of which are no doubt shared by most parents who deal with these two laws. There is a link to hear the complete webinar but in the meantime, some of the most common questions -- and their answers -- were:

Can a student have both a 504 Plan and an IEP at the same time?

No. Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) specifically states that having an IEP (an Individualized Education Program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act -- IDEA) satisfies the requirements of Section 504. So, if a student would qualify for services under both laws, the student should get an IEP.

Which law would apply to a student with ADHD? 

It depends on the extent to which the student requires special education or related services because of his ADHD. If the student's attention problem is so significant that it seriously impacted his ability to learn, or if the student also has a specific learning disability, he would qualify for an IEP under the category of Other Health Impaired or Specific Learning Disability. [IDEA requires that a student fall within one of ten categories of disability in order to receive services.] If the student has ADHD but the impact is less significant and doesn't rise to the level of his needing special education services because of it, he would generally not qualify for an IEP but would be eligible to receive services under Section 504.

How do I start the process of getting my child an IEP or a 504 Plan?

First, parents should have met with their child's teacher and discussed how things are going in school. Once they have done so, if they believe that their child needs a 504 Plan they should make a written request to their school's 504 Team. Most schools have specific forms for this and you can obtain them from the school office or even the school website. Complete the form, along with any documentation you may have, and submit it to the 504 Team. You may be invited to their meeting, but the law does not require this and the procedure varies from place to place. The 504 Team will decide if more information is needed (and any evaluations they require will be at school expense) and will decide upon a plan for your child. 

To begin the IEP process, parents need to advise the school -- the guidance office or principal is generally the point of contact -- that they believe that their child requires special education services and sign a consent for their child to be evaluated. The evaluation process must be completed within 60 days of the consent and is followed by a meeting which includes the parents, to decide whether the student qualifies for IDEA services and to create the IEP, which must be in writing.

We have a written a number of blogs, linked below, which deal with some of these topics, including:

• Section 504 Q and A
• Special Education Terminology
• Getting Services in Private Schools
• Preparing for IEP Meetings
• Changing an IEP
• IEP Tips and More Tips

When Must School Districts Pay for Evaluations?

Parents sometimes ask us if they can have their school district pay for their child's evaluation at The Yellin Center. The simple answer is "maybe, under certain circumstances," and we thought it might be helpful to explain the laws and regulations that govern this area.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) recognizes that an evaluation of a student in all suspected areas of disability is a crucial first step to determining whether that student is eligible for IDEA services and what kind of services will help that student to succeed in school. In fact, the "clock begins to run" with respect to the time limits set forth in the IDEA only once the parent consents to an evaluation of the student. The law anticipates that the school will then conduct an evaluation of the child and share the results with the parents and the IEP team, the committee that creates the student's Individualized Education Program. 

It's Our City

In many situations, this works out well for all concerned. The school district conducts an evaluation at no cost to the family; the findings make sense to the parents; the findings are incorporated into the student's IEP; and nothing more needs to be done. 

However, sometimes families do not agree with the findings of the school district evaluators and feel there may be something more going on with their child. Sometimes parents have had a long history of difficulties with the school and simply do not trust them to do an evaluation. Some parents of children enrolled in a private school do not want to have to work with the local public school district (especially in New York City). And, quite often, parents want the kind of in-depth, multi-disciplinary kind of evaluation done here at The Yellin Center, rather than a more "cookie-cutter" series of tests given by their school's evaluators. In each of these situations, the parents seek an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) such as the ones we conduct here at The Yellin Center.

Before we look at specific rules and scenarios, we need to emphasize one important point. Parents have the absolute right to have their child independently evaluated and federal law requires that the public school district must consider the results of such evaluation. Dr. Yellin and his team frequently attend IEP meetings (via phone or other technology) to discuss the results of our evaluations and have been universally well-received by schools. However, the law does not require that districts follow the recommendations of our reports (or any outside evaluator).

So, when can a parent have a district pay for an IEE? 

1. The parent must disagree with the evaluation conducted by the district or consider it inadequate and notify the district of their intention to obtain an IEE.
2. The district must then either file for a due process hearing with a State Hearing Officer or agree to pay for the IEE.
3. The district can set criteria for the IEE's they will fund -- how much they cost, the geographic location of the evaluator(s), and the specific qualifications of the evaluator(s). However, the U.S. Department of Education notes that, "the district must allow parents the opportunity to demonstrate that unique circumstances justify an IEE that does not fall within the district's criteria. If an IEE that falls outside the district's criteria is justified by the child's unique circumstances, that IEE must be publicly funded." So, even if your district tells you that you are restricted to using the private evaluators on a list they provide, that is not strictly correct and you can and should push back to obtain the services of the evaluator you choose. 
4. An IEE can also be ordered by a State Hearing Officer as part of a due process hearing when aspects of an IEP are in dispute. 

We also encounter situations where a district paid evaluation at The Yellin Center is part of an ongoing discussion between a family and a school district, especially when the district has not been successful in addressing a child's educational needs. And families need to keep in mind that The Yellin Center has always had a sliding scale for families who need assistance in paying for our services. 

There are countless resources available to explain this process to parents and school administrators, but some you might find useful are:

• For New Jersey familes, a memo from the New Jersey Department of Education, with a list of Frequently Asked Questions about IEEs.
• From the U.S. Department of Education, a memo discussing why districts cannot set absolute cost limits on IEEs and a link to a number of other memos discussing other aspects of the IEE funding process.
• For a review of court cases that have dealt with the IEE issue, a law review survey of cases by Perry Zirkel.