Tuesday, November 30, 2004

FAPE for gifted children

A 14-year old boy genius is suing his California school district for his college tuition, claiming that the public schools have not provided him a free, appropriate public education. For more information, click here.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Parts of Special-Ed Bill Would Shift More Power to States and School Districts

See this article in yesterday's New York Times.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Light period

Sorry for the lack of posts. I check Westlaw every few days, but no new IDEA cases have popped up. I also check Google News frequently for news on cases relating to special education law, but have come up with nothing of interest to report in the past week. I'm sure things will pick up soon.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

It's expensive to flout the law!

An Oregon school district took a case against it brought by a whistleblower teacher, who sued claiming her discharge was the result of her complaints about poor services for special education students, and lost. The $1 million jury award and $404,150 in legal fees will be paid out of its general fund. Ouch! For more info, click here.

Oh, one last thing: I love the teacher's name -- Pamela Settlegood. If only the district had opted to take that route.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Invalid IEP

The Ninth Circuit, in M.L. v. Federal Way School District, has held that the failure to have a regular education teacher on the IEP team rendered the individualized education program (IEP) invalid. The decision can be found here. (Thanks to Maureen Graves from the COPAA Law list serv for the pointer.)

Monday, November 01, 2004

Supplementing the Record

Magistrate Judge Cohen, in Mr. and Mrs. I v. Maine School Administrative District No. 55, has allowed the parents to supplement the administrative record. The parents wanted to introduce testimony that would provide post-hearing information that would shed light on the reasonableness on the administrative decision not to provide special education services to their son. The Court, in reviewing the precedents, held that "courts have erred on the side of admitting evidence reflecting a child's post-hearing status on the theory that the proffered information might shed light on the reasonableness of (and thus be relevant to) the earlier decision."

The Court also allowed the parents to present testimony relating to the propriety of a neuropsychologist using a technician to administer portions of the testing given to the child. Because briefing was simultaneous, the parents did not have an opportunity to address that issue.

The decision can be found here.