INTRODUCTION: IDEA + 25 and Counting--John Farago

  1. History
    1. Pennsylvania Ass' n for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (ED PA 1971).
    2. Mills v. Bd of Educ. Of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D DC 1972).
    3. New York City Board of Education Division of Special Education Unilateral Placement Procedures (Jose P.))
  2. The CSE Review (Services Covered)
    1. Significant Decisions Affecting the Education of Children with Disabilities--Karen Norlander
    2. Outline of Psychological Tests -- Dr. Judith Silver
    3. Sample Individulaized Education Program (IEP) and Guidance Document (New York State Education Department)
    4. Sackets Harbor v Munoz, 725 N.Y.S.2d 119 (2001) who can vote at CSE
    5. Medical Services
      1. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 US 883 (1984).
      2. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 US 66 (1999)
      3. Butler v Evans, 225 F.3d 887 (7th Cir 2000)
    6. Extracurricular and Transportation
      1. Cruz v. PA Interscholastic Ath Ass'n, 2001 WL 722560 (E.D.Pa.), waives rules under ADA
      2. Smith v. Maine School District No. 6, 2001 WL 420361 (D. Me.) (school dance)
      3. Kling v Mentor Publc School Syst, 2001 L 332492 (ND OH) [right to participate in varsity athletics notwithstanding league age rule]
      4. Roslyn Union Free School Dist. V. Univ. of the State of NY, 711 NYS 2d 582 (3rd Dept App Div 2000)
      5. Bowers v. NCAA, 118 F.Supp.2d 494 (D NJ 2000)
    7. Gifted Programs
      1. JD v. Pawlet School Dist., 224 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2000)
    8. Inclusion
      1. McLaughlin v. Bd of Ed of Holt Public Schools, 2001 WL 300317 (WD MI)
      2. TR; EMR o/b/o NR v Kingwood Twp Bd of Ed, 205 F3d 572 (3d Cir 2000)
      3. Murray v Montrose Cty Sch Dist, 51 F.3d 921 (10th Cir 1995)
      4. Sacramento City Unified Sch Dist v Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir 1994)
      5. Daniel RR v. State Board of Educ., 874 F. Supp 1036 (5th Cir. 1989)
      6. Oberti v. Board of Educ. Of the Borough of Clementon, 995 F.2d 1009 (3d Cir. 1993)
    9. Resource Room
      1. Adrian R. v NYC Bd of Ed, 2001 WL 77066 (SD NY)
  3. Responsibility for Financing
    1. Financing Special Education in New York State -- Robert Lowry
    2. Carnwath v. Grasmick,. 115 F.Supp.2d 577 (D MD 2000).
    3. Jeremy M. v. Central Bucks School District, 2001 WL 177185 (ED PA 2001)
  4. Disproportional Representation
    1. Disproportional Representation--Donald A. Lash (.pdf format, 300k)
    2. NYSED Report on Implementation of Chapter 405
  5. The New NYC Continuum
    1. The Continuum of Services for Students with Disabilities (Board of Education of the City of New York) -- Dr. Judith Rizzo
    2. Continuum Implementation Manual ("Getting Started") -- online (larger, almost 600k) OR .pdf (smaller,, 180k)
    3. IEP Manual ("Creating a Quality IEP") -- online (larger, 900k) OR .pdf (smaller, 200k)
  6. Reimbursement for Unilateral Placements
    1. School Committee of the Town of Burlington, MA v. Dept of Educ. Of MA, 471 US 359 (1985)
    2. Florence County School Dist. V. Carter, 510 US 7 (1993).
    3. Board of Educ. Of the Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. V. Rowley, 488 US 176 (1982)
    4. Justin G v Bd of Ed of Montgomery Cty, 2001 WL 747831 (D.Md.) effect of procedural defects, child never enrolled in public school
    5. see Devine v Indian River Cty Sch Board, 2001 WL 460511 (11th Cir.(Fla.)) interpreting Rowley
    6. Knable v. Bexley Sch. Dist., 2001 WL 57503 (6th Cir.)
    7. M.S. v. Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. Of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000)
    8. MS petition for cert.
    9. Sarah M. v Weast, 111 F. Supp. 2d 695 (D MD 2000) [state cannot require greater notice than IDEA]
    10. Dale M. v Bd. of Ed. of Bradley-Bourbonnais High Sch. Dist. #6, 237 F. 3d 813 (2000) [won't reimburse custodial placement]
    11. LK v. Transylvania Cty, 113 F.Supp. 2d 856 (WD NC 2000) [parents must notify district of removal]
    12. MC v Voluntown Sch. Dist., 226 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2000) [must consider subsequent IEP prior to funding]
    13. Nein v Greater Clark Cty Sch Corp., 95 F. Supp. 2d 961 (SD IN 2000) [penalty for failure to give notice]
  7. Autism and Applied Behavioral Analysis
    1. CM v. Bd of Ed of Henderson Cty,2001 WL 16593 (4th Cir)
    2. Gill v. Columbia 93S School District, 217 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir 2000)
    3. Burilovich v. Lincoln Consolidated Schools, 208 F.3d 560 (6th Cir 2000)
    4. Dong v Rochester Community Schools, 197 F.3d 793 (6th Cir. 1999)
    5. Board of Educ. of the County of Kanawha v. Michael M., 95 F. Supp.2d 600 (SD WV 2000
    6. BD v DeBuono, 2000 WL 3315847 (SDNY)
    7. Board of Educ. of the County of Kanawha v. Michael M., 95 F. Supp.2d 600 (SD WV 2000)
    8. Mr. X v. NY State Educ. Dept., 975 F. Supp 546 (SD NY 1997)
  8. Preimbursement
    1. Presentation Outline -- Elisa Hyman, Kim Sweet, Lisa Schweitzer
    2. Memorandum of Law of Student John xxxx In Favor of the Granting of Prospective Payment of Tuition Pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
  9. Residential Schools
    1. Dale M. v. Board of Educ. of Bradley-Bourbonnais High School District, 237 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2001)
    2. See also, Jeremy M. v. Central Bucks School District, 2001 WL 177185 (ED PA 2001), under Financing Responsibility.
  10. Strategizing the IEP
    1. Analyzing the IEP from the School District’s Perspective--Jeffrey J. Schiro
    2. Analyzing the IEP from the Parent’s (Child’s) Perspective--Michelle Kule-Korgood
  11. Due Process—Pendency
    1. Rome School Committee v Mrs. B, 247 F.3d 29 (1st Cir 2001) district can't reclaim pendency funding if parent loses on merits
    2. Kuszewski v Chippewa Valley Schools, 131 F.Supp.2d 926 (ED MI 2001) district need not update IEP during pendency
    3. Bd of Ed of the Pawling Sch Dist v Schutz, 137 F.Supp.2d 83 ( ND NY 2001)
    4. Susquenita School Dist. v. Raelee S., 96 F.3d 78 (3rd Cir. 1996)
    5. Connors v. Mills, 34 F.Supp.2d 795 (ND NY 1998)
    6. Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area School Dist., 78 F.Supp. 2d 138 (WD NY1999)
    7. Murphy v. Arlington Central School Dist., 2000 WL 511564 (SD NY).
    8. Warton v. New Fairfield Board of Educ., 125 F.Supp.2d 22 (D CT 2000)\
    9. Beth B. v Van Clay, 126 F. Supp. 2d 532 (ND IL 2000) [articulation to middle school]
    10. Henry v. Sch. Admin. Unit #29, 70 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D NH 1999) [articulation to middle school]
    11. Michael C. v. Radnor Twp Sch. Dist., 202 F.3d 642 (3rd Cir. 2000) [interstate move and pendency]
    12. Sanford Sch. Ctee v. Mr. and Mrs. L., 2001 WL 103544 (D ME) [hardship on district]
    13. Decision of the Commissioner #13047 (NYSED 1993) [pendency in site when change of site is subject of the challenge]
  12. Due Process—Burden of Proof
    1. Devine v Indian River Cty Sch Board, 2001 WL 460511 (11th Cir.(Fla.)) Burden on pty seeking change
    2. See: Board of Educ. of the County of Kanawha v. Michael M., 95 F. Supp.2d 600 (SD WV 2000)
    3. Wall v. Matituck-Cutchogue School Dist., 945 F..Supp. 501 (ED NY 1996)
    4. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School Dist., 42 F3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998)
    5. Brian S. v Vance, 86 F. Supp.2d 538 (D MD 2000)
    6. Dong v Rochester Community Schools, 197 F.3d 793 (6th Cir. 1999)
  13. Due Process: Non-Public Schools
    1. St. Johnsbury Academy v. DH, 2001 WL 128006 (2d Cir. (Vt.) [Independent School]
    2. Hooks v. Clark County School Dist., 228 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2000) [Home Schooling]
    3. Zobrest v. Catalina Hills School Dist., 509 US 1 (1993) [Parochial School]
    4. Agostini v. Felton, 521 US 203 (1997)[Parochial School; overrules Aguillar]
    5. Aguillar v. Felton, 473 US 402 (1985) [Parochial School; overruled by Agostini]
    6. KDM v Reedsport Sch. Dist., 196 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 1999) [Parochial School]
    7. Russman v. Board of Educ. of Watervliet, 92 F.Supp.2d 95 (ND NY 2000)[Parochial School]
    8. Grumet v Pataki, 93 NY2d 677 (1999) [Parochial School]
    9. John T. v. PA, 2000 WL 558582 (ED PA) [Parochial School]
    10. JASA v Millard Pub Sch, 206 F.3d 813 (8th Cir 2000) [Services in Private Hospital]
    11. Peter v. Wedl, 155 F.3d 992 (8th Cir 1999) [Parochial School]
  14. Appeal - State Review Office
    1. Topical Listing of SRO Decisions
    2. Search SRO Decisions
    3. SRO Website
    4. Arlington v. SRO, 185 Misc. 2d 560 (S. Ct Dutchess Cty 2000)
  15. Appeal - District Court—Post-Hearing Review
    1. Wenger v. Canastota Central School Dist., 146 F.3d 123 (2d Cir 1998) [Pro Se]
    2. Porter v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch Dist, 123 F. Supp 2d 1187 (CDCA 2000) (1983)
    3. Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2000) [1983]
    4. RB v. Board of Educ. of the City of NY, 99 F. Supp 2d 411 (SD NY 2000) [1983]
    5. Padilla v. School Dist. No. 1, 233 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2000) [983]
  16. Extraordinary Remedy - Compensatory Education
    1. Kristi H. v Tri Valley Sch. Dist., 107 F. Supp. 2d 628 (MD PA 2000)
    2. Erickson v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 199 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir 1999)
    3. Carlisle Area School v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520 (3d Cir. 1995)
    4. See also, Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area School Dist., 78 F.Supp. 2d 138 (WD NY1999)
  17. Potential 11th Amendment Challenges
    1. Bd of Trustees of the Univ. of AL v. Garrett, 2001 WL 173556 (US AL)
    2. Bd of Ed of Oak Park and river Forest High School v. Kelly E., 207 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2000)
    3. Porter v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch Dist, 123 F. Supp 2d 1187 (CDCA 2000).
    4. Jim C. v US, 235 F 3d 1079, (8th Cir 2000) (reh en banc, overturns Bradley in part)
    5. Bradley v. Arkansas Dept. of Ed, 189 F.3d 745 (8th Cir 1999)
  18. Charter Schools -- Jonathan Rosenberg
  19. Disciplining Special Education Students
    1. Doe v S&S Consolidated ISD, 2001 WL 726776 (E.D.Tex.) district may physically restrain disruiptive student
    2. Honig v. Doe, 484 US 305 (1988)
    3. Colvin v. Lowndes Cty School Dist, 114 F.Supp.2d 504 (ND MS)
    4. Demers v Leominster Sch Dept, 96 F.Supp. 2d 55 (D MA 2000)
    5. Rabideau v Beekmantown Central Sch Dist, 89 F.Supp. 2d 263 (ND NY 2000)
    6. Discipling Spercial Education Students --Roslyn Zisie Roth
  20. High Stakes Testing
    1. A. Speciial Education & High Stakes Testing for High School Graduation: An Analysis of Current Law & Policy -- Paul T. O’Neill
    2. LIH v. NYC Board of Educ., 103 F.Supp.2d 658 (2000).
    3. OSEP Memo 00-24
    4. Oregon Report:: Do No Harm
  21. Attorneys’ Fees
    1. Blackman v DC, 2001 WL 789089 (D.D.C.), no IDEA cap on fees in §1983 claim
    2. Westendorp v. Ind. Sch Dist 273, 131 F.Supp.2d 1121 (D MN 2001) award of fees for Peter vWedl case (parochial school)
    3. Board of Educ. Of Oak Park v. Nathan R., 199 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2000)
    4. Engwiller v. Pine Plains Central School Dist., 110 F. Supp. 2d 236 (SD NY 2000)
    5. Daniel S. v Scranton Sch Dist, 230 F.3d 90 3rd Cir 2000)
    6. Amy M v. Timberlane Regional Sch Dist, 2000 WL 1513769 (D.N.H.) (fees awarded for atty/aunt, admitted in other state)
    7. Calloway v DC, 216 F.3d 1 (DC Cir 2000)
    8. Pazik v Gateway Regional Sch Dist, 130 F.Supp 217 (D MA 2001)
    9. FR v Bd of Ed, 67 F. Supp.2d 142 (ED NY 1999)
    10. GM v New Britain Bd of Ed, 2000 WL 435577 (D CT)
    11. JC v Regional Sch Dist #10, 115 F. Supp.2d 297 (D CT 2000)
    12. Lucht v Molalla River Sch Dist,, 225 F.3d 1023, (9th Cir. 2000)
    13. Murphy v. Girard Sch. Dist., 1999 WL 33237032 (WD PA)
    14. Doe v. Bd of Ed of Baltimore Cty, 165 F. 3d 260 (4th Cir, 1998) )fees denied to parent/atty)
  22. Representing Children and Disabled Clients
    1. Ethical Conflicts in Representing People with Questionable Capacity -- Nancy Maurer
    2. Early Intervention & Special Education -- Katherine Locker
    3. Webster v. Ryan, 187 Misc.2d 127, 720 N.Y.S.2d 750 (Fam Ct Albany Cty, 2001) rights of foster parent to intervene in Family Court
  23. Due Process - Other
    1. Maricus W v Lanett City Bd of Ed, 142 F.Supp.2d 1327 (MD AL 2001), losing parents must pay costs in dist ct action
    2. SV v Sherwood Sch Dist, 2001 WL 709254 (9th Cir.(Or.)) statute of limitations
    3. Patricia N v Mahieu, 141 F.Supp.2d 1243 ( D HI 2001) money damages possible under Rehab Act
    4. Engwiller v Pine Plains School Dist, 199 F.R.D. 127 (SDNY 2001) class certified on hearing Officer delay
    5. Kielbus v NYC Board of Ed, 140 F.Supp.2d 284 (ED NY 2001) exhaustion of IDEA claim req in ADA claim on same facts
    6. McLaughlin v. Bd of Ed of Holt Public Schools,133 F.Supp.2d 994 (WD MI 2001) [deference to ALJ]; LRE
    7. St. Johnsbury Academy v. DH, 2001 WL 128006 (2d Cir. (Vt.) [age rof coverage through 21st or 22nd birthday?]
    8. Mr. and Mrs. R. v Maine Sch Dist. #35, 2001 WL 166358 (D ME)[statute of limitations]
    9. Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2000)[statute of limitations; effect of graduation]
    10. Mr. and Mrs. D. v Southington Bd. of Ed., 119 F. Supp.2d 105 (D CT 2000) [statute of limitations]
    11. Dickerson v brodgen, 80 F. Supp 3d 1319 (SD AL 1999) [statute of limitations]
    12. Murphy v. Girard Sch. Dist., 1999 WL 33237032 (WD PA) [statute of limitations]
    13. Kristi H. v Tri Valley Sch. Dist., 107 F. Supp. 2d 628 (MD PA 2000) [statute of limitations comp ed]
    14. In Re Beau II, 95 NY2ede 234 (2000) [relationship between IDEA and PINS]
    15. Glendal Sch Dist v. Almasi, 122 F. Supp 2d 1093 (CD CA 2000) [multiple alternatives not a recommendation]
    16. Falvo v. Owasson Ind. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2000) [FERPA]
    17. Knable v. Bexley Sch. Dist., 2001 WL 57503 (6th Cir.) [procedural defects void IEP]
    18. Mrs. M. v Bridgeport Bd. of Ed., 96 F. Supp.2d 124 (D CT 2000) [exhaustion in class action]
    19. Wenger v. Canastota Central Sch. Dist., 146 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1998) [pro se]
    20. Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Assn, 906 F. 2d 59 (2d Vir. 1990) [pro se]
    21. Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Sch. Dist., 223 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2000) [IHO cannot enforce prior order]
    22. Manning v Fairfax Cty Sch Bd, 176 F.3d 235 (4th Cir 1999), statute of limitations