Section 504 and Public Schools: A National Survey Concerning “Section 504-Only” Students

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study is to determine a preliminary national percentage of students who are “504-only.” The survey data reveal that 504-only students represent 1.2% of the public school population. There is a significant difference in the 504-only percentage with regard to school level, with middle and high schools having a greater percentage of these students. The results of this study suggest that the prevailing practices for determining Section 504 eligibility do not square with recent judicial findings.

Keywords

Section 504 legal issues eligibility determination disability principal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Associated Press. (2003, February 26). Do too many kids get a free lunch? Retrieved March 1, 2005, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/health/printable542079.shtml

Block v. Rockford Pub. Sch. Dist., 38 IDELR ¶ 36 (N.D. Ill. 2002).

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Costello v. Mitchell Pub. Sch. Dist. 79, 266 F. 3d 916 (8th Cir. 2001).

D.P. v. Sch. Dist. of Poynette, 41 IDELR ¶ 6 (W.D. Wis. 2004).

Gross, J. (2002, September 26). Paying for disability diagnosis to gain time on College Boards. New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2003, from http://college4.nytimes.com

Hoffman, L.M. (1996). Overview of public elementary and secondary school districts: School year 1994-95. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pusearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=96219

Hoffman, L.M. (2003). Overview of public elementary and secondary school districts: School year 2001-02. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pusearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003411

Hurley, V.M. (2001). Establishing the level playing field: Implementation of Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 38.

10.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2005).

11.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations. (2006 , August 14). Federal Register, 71, 46, 540. et seq.

12.

Katsiyannis, A. , & Conderman, G. (1994). Section 504 policies and procedures: An established necessity. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 311-318.

13.

Krejcie, R.V. , & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

14.

Legislative Office of Education Oversight. ( 2002). Ohio students identified as “other health handicapped.” Retrieved August 26, 2003, from http://www.loeo.state.oh.us/reports/PreEleSecPDF/OtherHealthHandicapped.PDF

15.

Lewin, T. (2003, November 8). Change in SAT procedure echoes in disability realm. New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2003, from http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2003/11/09/2130150.xml

16.

Marshall v. Sisters of Holy Family of Nazareth, 44 IDELR ¶ 190 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

17.

Office for Civil Rights, senior staff memorandum, 19 IDELR 894 (1992).

18.

Reid, R. , & Katsiyannis, A. (1995). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and Section 504. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 44-52.

19.

Response to McKethan, 25 IDELR 295 (OCR 1996).

20.

Russo, C.J. , & Morse, T.E. (1999). Update on Section 504: How much will schools pay for compliance? School Business Affairs, 65(5), 50-53.

21.

Safer, D.J. , & Malever, M. (2000). Stimulant treatment in Maryland public schools . Pediatrics, 106, 533-539.

22.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(20) and 794 (2005).

23.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R., §§ 104 et seq. (2005).

24.

Seese, L.M. (2003). Connecticut compliance with Section 504: Policies and procedures. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (06), 1975. (UMI No. 3095844)

25.

Smith, M.J. (1996). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: The status of Arizona's public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (03), 962. (UMI No. 9622837)

26.

Soirez v. Vermilion Parish Sch. Bd., 44 IDELR ¶ 254 (W.D. La. 2005).

27.

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).

28.

Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).

29.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Eighteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

30.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Twenty-fifth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

31.

Weiss, K.R. (2000, January 9). New test-taking skill: Working the system. Los Angeles Times, pp. A1, A20-A21.

32.

Zirkel, P.A. (1997a). “Forming” a plan for Section 504/ADA eligibility and accommodation. Special Educator, 13(3), 6-10.

33.

Zirkel, P.A. (1997b). Section 504 and public school students: An empirical overview. West's Education Law Reporter, 120, 369-378.

34.

Zirkel, P.A. (2000a). Over-identification: Not all IDEA-ineligible students are Section 504. California Special Education Alert , 6(7), 1, 8.

35.

Zirkel, P.A. (2000b). A two-headed monster. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 410-411.

36.

Zirkel, P.A. (2003a). A comparison of the IDEA and Section 504/ADA . West's Education Law Reporter, 178, 529-537.

37.

Zirkel, P.A. (2003b). Conducting legally defensible Section 504/ADA eligibility determinations. West's Education Law Reporter , 176, 1-11.

38.

Zirkel, P.A. (2004). Section 504, the ADA, and the schools (3rd ed., Vols. 1-2). Horsham, PA: LRP .

39.

Zirkel, P.A. (2005). Section 504: Student issues, legal requirements, and practical recommendations. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.