Litigation and Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Special education is the most highly litigated area within the field of education. Therefore, the purpose of the current article is to highlight cases (court decisions, Office of Civil Rights rulings, and State Educational Agency hearings) involving students with disabilities in 2015. Highlights from the case law point to the need for school districts to ensure that students with disabilities are provided free appropriate public education, ensure timely and comprehensive evaluations once a suspected disability is of concern, ensure that students with autism have access to an range of services, provide evidence in factors considered when determining placement, remove students only when they present imminent threat to self or others, and appropriately address bullying/harassment instances.

Keywords

special education courts litigation IDEA FAPE

In 2013, nearly 6 million students between the ages 6 through 21 qualified for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The most prevalent disability categories included specific learning disabilities (SLDs; 39.5%), speech or language impairments (17.9%), other health impairments (13.8%), autism (8.2%), intellectual disabilities (7.1%), and emotional disturbance (6.0%) (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities as mandated under IDEA, however, has been a challenging and often controversial endeavor. Indeed, during the 2013-2014 school year, special education accounted for 2,813 fully adjudicated hearings, 6,035 mediations (3,425 of which were in conjunction with a due process hearing), and 3,043 complaints were made with reports issued (i.e., dispute resolution procedures; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In addition, some of the hearing decisions were appealed to federal courts and as a result, special education remains the most litigated area in education.

Consequently, as “special education practice has had an inextricable link to case law,” a review of recent case law is important in providing legal information, identifying emerging areas of need, and in informing practice (see Losinski, Katsiyannis, Balluch, & White, 2015). Therefore, the purpose of the current article is to highlight cases (court decisions, Office of Civil Rights [OCR] rulings, State Educational Agency [SEA] hearings, and Office of Special Education Program [OSEP] letters) involving students with disabilities in 2015. Also, without minimizing the importance of district and circuit court decisions as far as precedence is concerned and the particular jurisdiction for which the opinion is binding, opinions of hearing officers and OCR rulings are included as a means to alert readers to emerging issues and provide guidance to school districts in order to be compliant with IDEA. Federal Acts are binding and must be followed by all states, while 12 regional Circuit Courts of Appeals establish decisions that are binding for districts within specified regions that are made up of groups of states. Opinions of hearing officers and OCR rulings though binding to specific districts may help identify emerging issues of concern. Rulings at each level are important because often decisions at lower levels can influence the logic applied to make decisions in higher courts. This is known as persuasive authority (Yell, Katsiyannis, Rose, & Houchins, 2016).

This review is not intended to be a comprehensive review of case law decided in 2015; rather, it is an overview of cases in contentious areas based on frequency. Additionally, bullying/harassment is discussed as a point of growing concern under the heading of Behavior/Discipline. Over the past several years, the OCR and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative services have been concerned with addressing bullying issues as a violation of students’ rights resulting in a number of Dear Colleague Letters (DCLs) being issued to provide guidance to schools, administrators, and teachers on the issue of bullying. In its most recent bullying DCL, from October of 2014, OCR identified bullying issues as a challenging issue in American schools especially for students with disabilities (Yell et al., 2016). The following areas are addressed in the article, FAPE, Autism, Placement, Evaluation, Discipline/Behavior, and Bullying/Harassment.

Method

Cases for current review were located by conducting a hand search of the Decisions & Guidance section of The Special Educator journal published between January 9, 2015, and December 11, 2015. The Special Educator is published by LRP publications. LRP publications specialize in the fields of education administration, education law, education technology, federal employment, human resources, workers’ compensation, and disability. The Special Educator provides the latest special education case law and trends affecting the way students with disabilities are served (see http://www.shoplrp.com/product_p/300002.htm). Furthermore, The Special Educator not only covers current developments in legislation and court rulings but also reports on administrative due process hearing decisions, OCR rulings and Office of Special Education interpretations of IDEA (a unique feature). Litigation was examined for the purpose of identifying special education legal trends across the year. Information was recorded by the categories of case type (Supreme Court, appellate court, district court, OCR ruling, OSEP letter, SEA decision, and other), topic, disability identification, and prevailing party. Headings from The Special Educator were used to identify the topic. If no heading was available, the topic was identified within the text. Disability categories recorded reflect IDEA identifications, undisclosed, not applicable, or other. The undisclosed category was identified by the terms undisclosed or unreported being included within the article, or the disability was not included or referred to in the article. If disabilities were provided that were not IDEA categories, that is, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), diabetes, and so on, the disability was recorded as “other,” followed by the specific disability listed in the coding sheet. A final category of “not applicable” was also included for generic references to all disabilities. The prevailing party was recorded as parents, district or not applicable. Reliability checks in coding were conducted on 55% (12/22) of the journal issues. Cases were chosen for elaboration within the review based on the prevalence of the topic and the disability identification. However, case law presented is intended to be a summary of pertinent facts and rulings; was not intended to be a comprehensive review of each case. This approach allowed for more cases to be reported and consequently cover the breadth of issues currently occurring within the field. Still, sample cases were a small representation of available examples in each category. Cases reviewed in text under each of the topics were exemplar cases at multiple levels of adjudication to reinforce the prevalence of issues within the topic. Cases selected for inclusion within the tables are representative of interpretive decisions made across jurisdictions.

Results and Discussion

A total of 384 cases were reviewed across appellate court, district court, OCR, SEA, and OSEP letters, in 2015. Table 1 provides a breakdown of cases by disability area and court type. Courts ruled on 213 (56%) cases, of which 42 (11%) were circuit courts and 171 (45%) were district courts. Additionally, there were 71 (19%) SEA, 78 (20%) OCR, and 17 (4%) OSEP decisions. Four issues (1%) were determined through other venues (i.e., State Supreme Court).

Table 1.

Number of Cases (n) by Disability Category.^a

Disability	Appellate	District	SEA	OCR	OSEP	Other	Total	%
Undisclosed	7	31	22	34	1	0	95	25
Other	8	48	12	25	0	2	95	25
Autism	12	35	12	6	1	0	66	17
Not applicable	3	6	5	7	13	2	36	9
Specific learning disability	7	20	3	2	0	0	32	8
Emotional disturbance	1	3	7	0	0	0	11	3
Intellectual disability	1	6	3	0	0	0	10	3
Hearing impairment	1	5	1	1	1	0	9	2
Speech or language	1	3	3	0	0	0	7	2
Deaf	0	5	0	1	0	0	6	2
Visual impairment	0	2	1	2	1	0	6	2
Multiple disabilities	1	3	1	0	0	0	5	1
Other health impairment	0	3	2	0	0	0	5	1
Traumatic brain injury	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	2
Deaf-blindness	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Orthopedic impairment	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	42	171	72	78	17	4	384	100.2

Note. SEA = State Educational Agency; OCR = Office of Civil Rights; OSEP = Office of Special Education Program; Undisclosed = disability not given or listed as undisclosed; Other = disability reported was outside the 13 disabilities under IDEA (e.g., ., diabetes, peanut allergy); not applicable = generic reference to all disabilities.

Total % >100 due to rounding.

During 2015, students identified under the IDEA category of autism spectrum disorder were involved in litigation at the highest rates (n = 66, 17%) of any identified disability category. In one quarter of cases, the disability category was “undisclosed,” while another quarter of cases fell into the “other” category (disability outside the 13 IDEA-specified disability categories).

The various cases covered 16 total topic areas, with the highest prevalence rates involving FAPE (n = 64, 17%), Placement (n = 27, 7%), Evaluation (n = 23, 6%), and Discipline/Behavior (n = 22, 6%). Table 2 identifies court and hearing officer cases based on topics identified and reported within The Special Educator journal issues. In light of the trends demonstrated, the following areas were chosen to be highlighted within this article: FAPE, Autism, Evaluation, Placement, Discipline/Behavior, and Bullying/Harassment. Section 504 violations were not identified for further discussion because a focus was placed on IDEA eligible students. Additionally, due to widespread social concern and media attention, Bullying/Harassment was included under Discipline/Behavior as an area of rapidly growing interest.

Table 2.

Number of Cases (n) by Topic.^a

Topic	Appellate	District	SEA	OCR	OSEP	Other	Total	%
Section 504	2	7	0	26	0	0	35	9
Abuse and neglect	1	5	0	0	0	0	6	2
Attorney’s fees	4	6	0	0	0	0	10	3
Child find	1	2	3	2	2	0	10	3
Discipline/behavior	2	10	4	5	1	0	22	6
Discrimination	0	4	0	7	0	0	11	3
Due process	3	0	2	0	1	0	6	2
Eligibility	2	3	3	1	1	1	11	3
Evaluation	1	5	7	6	4	0	23	6
Exhaustion of remedies	3	6	0	0	0	0	9	2
Extracurricular activities	0	2	0	3	0	0	5	1
FAPE	6	21	28	8	0	1	64	17
Harassment	1	9	0	6	0	0	16	4
IEP	1	3	5	2	2	0	13	3
LRE	0	2	3	2	0	0	7	2
Other^b	4	19	5	6	6	2	42	11
Parent/student particulars	1	5	2	0	0	0	7	2
Placement	6	18	3	0	0	0	27	7
Practice and procedure	0	13	0	0	0	0	13	3
Procedural safeguards	2	11	5	0	0	0	18	5
Reimbursement	1	4	0	0	0	0	5	1
Remedies	0	6	0	0	0	0	6	2
Retaliation	1	2	0	4	0	0	7	2
Section 1983	0	6	0	0	0	0	6	2
Transfer students	0	2	3	0	0	0	5	1
Total	42	171	72	78	17	4	384	102

Note. SEA = State Educational Agency; OCR = Office of Civil Rights; OSEP = Office of Special Education Program; FAPE = free appropriate public education; IEP = Individualized Education Program; LRE = least restrictive environment.

Total % >100 due to rounding. ^bOther = categories with less than five cases combined (e.g., maintenance of effort, stay-put, Title IX, transportation, expert fees, funding).

FAPE

According to Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), a precedent setting Supreme Court case, FAPE is provided when a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) is developed according to procedures, and services outlined in the IEP are carefully designed to confer educational benefit; maximizing potential is not required. Determining what constitutes an appropriate education (i.e., benefit), however, is both complex and subject to individual circumstances. Nonetheless, courts have also concluded that for a child to receive FAPE, she or he must receive “meaningful progress,” not trivial progress, and the benefit should produce “significant learning” (e.g., Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael, F., 1997).

For example, in T. R. v. Humboldt County Office of Education (2015), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the court found that the school district failed to provide needed services to a teenager who was deaf, who spent 9 months in juvenile hall due to his severe emotional and behavioral problems. The court concluded that under California law, the district was responsible for providing FAPE to the student during his detention, which necessitated intensive mental health services per the recommendation of a nationally recognized expert that such services were essential for the student to make progress. Consequently, the court allowed grandparents of the student to proceed with Section 504 and Title II claims for relief.

Similarly, in Student with a Disability (2014), the hearing officer concluded that a district denied FAPE to a student with ADHD by failing to develop and implement a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) that would allow the student to receive educational benefit from his program. Though the district had developed and implemented multiple BIPs, the student continued to spend more time outside the class, because of behavioral infractions, than in the classroom receiving instruction. The hearing officer observed that the BIPs the district developed were inadequate and therefore the district was required to develop a behavior plan designed to benefit the student. Indeed, the behavior plan must include a system of data collection to determine that the student is receiving the benefits he or she is entitled under IDEA. The hearing officer opined that the district should “with great haste devise both an IEP and a BIP that is calculated to benefit this child.”

In contrast, in Morgan, M. by Barbara, B. and Arthur, W. M. III v. Penn Manor School District (2015), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reversed the ruling by a hearing officer that the district failed to provide a first grader with autism with the supports needed to provide FAPE during a period of 21 weeks. Specifically, the child’s IEP included a full range of services designed to address her identified needs in the areas of social skills, sensory processing skills, behavioral skills, and receptive communication skills. The Judge further pointed out that the services included in the IEP are more important than the label affixed to those services (i.e., autistic support). Similarly, in Endrew, F. by Joseph, F. and Jennifer, F. v. Douglas County School District (2015), the 10th Circuit ruled a fourth grader with autism was making some progress in his academic and functional skills despite escalating behavioral problems; and therefore, the district afforded the student FAPE. Specifically, the student’s second-, third-, and fourth-grade IEP contained progressively more challenging objectives with demonstrated progress, which provided support for demonstrated progress. Consequently, the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the child’s unilateral placement. See additional case law in Table 3.

Table 3.

Selected Case Law for FAPE.

Case	Facts	Rulings
Endrew, F. by Joseph, F. and Jennifer, F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 115 LRP 39422 (10th Circuit 08/25/15)	A Colorado school district implemented an IEP for a student with autism in his second-, third-, and fourth-grade year before being unilaterally placed in a private school due to escalating behavioral problems. The parent requested tuition reimbursement for his placement. Although behavior escalated, the student made some progress toward his functional and academic goals while attending the public school.	Although some courts adopt a “meaningful benefit standard” of FAPE, the 10th Circuit Court adopts a “some educational benefit” standard. Based on school documentation and increasing short-term goals each year, the court ruled that the student had received some educational benefit and the school was not required to provide reimbursement for the student’s unilateral placement.
Grants Pass School District v. Student, 65 IDELR 207 (D. Or. 2015)	An Oregon school district used regression and recoupment data to determine a student’s need for ESY services. Expert testimony stated that the school should have used different data collection methods. An administrative decision was made in the parents’ favor based on the expert testimony.	An Oregon district did not deny FAPE by using regression and recoupment data to determine that he was not eligible for ESY services.
Kyrene Elementary School District, 64 IDELR 289 (SEA AZ, 2014)	A student was identified as SLD by an Arizona school district. The student’s parents were concerned that his disability was not identified as severe dyslexia and that the student’s progress was slow. The district addressed the student’s difficulties with reading, writing, and speech to allow the student to receive some educational benefit.	An Arizona school district provided an IEP to a student that allowed for educational benefit. The student was offered FAPE; therefore, parents were not entitled to reimbursement for private school tuition.
Student with a Disability, In re, 65 IDELR 310 (SEA OH, 2015)	An Ohio district did not include behavior goals on a student’s IEP although an evaluation indicated such a need. The initial IEP referenced a behavior rewards system, but no goals.	The school denied FAPE and failed to draft an IEP that met IDEA regulation due to the IEP missing goals, specialized instruction, and progress monitoring to address behavior.

Note. FAPE = free appropriate public education; IEP = Individualized Education Program; ESY = Extended School Year; SLD = specific learning disability; SEA = State Educational Agency; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

What Administrators Need to Know

FAPE remains a fertile area of disagreement within special education. As these cases demonstrate, the district must carefully design educational programs that result in educational benefits and validate, through data collection, meaningful progress toward significant learning. Additionally, services must be provided even when the student is removed from the general education setting (e.g., during suspension or detention). Failure to provide needed services, such as mental health services or adequate behavioral supports, will result in FAPE violations. In contrast, services that allow the student to make educational progress, though not maximizing potential, will be deemed adequate (see Rowley ruling).

Autism

From 2014 to 2015, over a half million (513,688) students with autism received special education services, representing 8.2% of the special education population. This represents a continued steady growth over the years (443,994 in 2012). Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), estimates that about 1 in 68 children has been identified with an autism spectrum disorder. This exponential growth has often resulted in increased disagreement between parents and school officials regarding the scope and adequacy of necessary services under IDEA to ensure FAPE.

For example, in H. W. and A. W. ex rel. M. W. v. New York State Education Department (2015), the District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that the parents of a 7-year-old student with autism, ADHD, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder were entitled to recover tuition and transportation costs for their son’s private school placement. Specifically, though the student struggled to make progress in a special education class where he received one-to-one instructional support, the district proposed a placement in a general education class without an aide the following year. Evidence that the student often needed prompting or redirection to complete academic tasks suggested the need for an aide; the student also received very low scores on standardized assessments of his reading, math, and speech-language skills. Furthermore, the district’s admission that the student performed much better in class where he received one-to-one instructional assistance weakened the district’s argument the student could benefit from a part-time general education placement without an aide. Similarly, in Student with a Disability (2015), the hearing officer ruled that a Montana district deprived an elementary school student with autism from receiving FAPE when it failed to measure and report her educational progress. Indeed, IEP provisions mandate measuring a student’s progress to ensure whether the student is receiving educational benefit. In this case, the student’s April 2014 IEP and October 2014 IEP did not specify how teachers would assess the student’s progress toward her math, reading, behavior, and speech and language goals. Consequently, the hearing officer ordered compensatory services and mandatory staff training to address the violation.

Furthermore, in a Dear Colleague Letter, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2015), OSEP warned districts to include speech pathologists and other appropriate professionals, not just applied behavioral analysis (ABA) therapists, when evaluating and conducting IEP meetings for students with autism, and to provide an array of services to address individual needs. Specifically, relying on a single type of service provider, such as an ABA therapist, is likely to violate the IDEA’s evaluation requirements and result in an IEP that limits the range of services potentially needed, particularly speech-language services. The letter also emphasized IDEA’s mandate that multidisciplinary teams assess a child in every area related to the suspected disability (i.e., autism), including, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities, as appropriate.

Finally, in Los Angeles (CA) Unified School District (2014), OCR ruled that the district resolved allegations of discrimination by revising its policies regarding the participation of students with disabilities in extracurricular activities. The parent of a high school student with autism complained to the OCR that the district denied FAPE by failing to consider her son’s participation in athletics (i.e., baseball team) as part of his educational placement. Before a ruling was rendered by the OCR, in a resolution agreement, district officials agreed to modify its Section 504 policies to specify how a student’s Section 504 or IEP team should evaluate requests for participation in an extracurricular activity as part of the student’s educational program. See additional case law in Table 4.

Table 4.

Selected Case Law for Autism.

Case	Facts	Rulings
Burbank Unified Sch. Dist., 64 IDELR 320 (SEA CA 2014)	A school was unable to address emotional and behavioral issues of a 9-year-old with autism and proposed placement at a therapeutic center. The parent felt that the student’s needs could be met at his current school with a one-on-one aide and that the placement was too restrictive because the student displayed excellent behavior at home.	The ALJ ruled that placement at the therapeutic center was appropriate due to the student’s clinically significant behavior problems and evidence that the school was unable to address them appropriately. Behavior at home or in the community could not be considered when determining the appropriate placement.
Lainey, C. by Maile, C. and Romeo, C. v. Department of Educ. State of Hawaii, 65 IDELR 32 (9th Circuit Court)	The Hawaii ED proposed an IEP that did not include a one-to-one aide, but included a social skills group and autism consultation. The parents of the student contended that the proposed IEP denied the student FAPE.	The 9th Circuit Court affirmed the district court ruling that the proposed IEP appropriately met the student’s needs and that the goals addressed the student’s socialization needs. An aide may have resulted in the student becoming more isolated and less independent.
Morgan, M. by Barbara, B. and Arthur, W. M. III v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist. 12 ECLPR 65 (E.D. Pa. 2015)	A Pennsylvania school district did not meet the local requirement of labeling communication, social interaction, and behavioral support services for autism in a student’s IEP. Although the services were not labeled as autism support, the appropriate services were included in the student’s IEP.	The district court vacated the IHO’s decision that the student was denied FAPE. The IHO’s decision focused more on the labeled terms rather than the content of the IEP, which addressed student’s needs.
M. S. by Sartin v. Lake Elsinore Unified Sch. Dist. 66 IDELR 17 (C.D. Cal. 2015)	A California school district failed to assess behaviors that raised health and safety concerns and did not take adequate steps to include a student’s parents in the IEP process, for example, an aide collected data while observing the student. Furthermore, the aide was not qualified to complete the assessment, and determined that the student’s aggressive and self-injurious behaviors of ripping out her own hair, eyelashes, fingernails, and toenails were merely attention seeking.	The district court reversed an administrative decision in the district’s favor. The district was ordered to reimburse parents for the student’s private school fees from a unilateral placement.

Note. SEA = State Educational Agency; = ALJ = Administrative Law Judge; ED = education department; IEP = Individualized Education Program; FAPE = free appropriate public education; IHO = impartial hearing officer.

What Administrators Need to know

Litigation involving students with autism remains a rapidly increasing area of contention. Of particular importance is the OSEP letter of guidance emphasizing the need for districts to evaluate development of IEPs to ensure that the range of unique needs of students with autism, particularly communication needs, are addressed. One key element in the development of services to provide access to FAPE for students with autism is the need for evaluation of all areas of suspected disability. Thoroughly inclusive evaluations prompt the need to involve appropriate staff in IEP meetings who can address the services that will potentially be provided, such as communication specialists, those who provide social skills instruction, or mental health support services. Furthermore, IEP teams must demonstrate that students benefit from services by providing documentation of measurable progress. Emphasis on these vital components will further advance the provision of FAPE to this population.

Evaluation

IDEA requires that schools conduct a full and individual initial evaluation in determining (a) whether the child is a child with a disability and (b) the content of the child’s IEP . . . (Section 614 (b) (2) (A)). This process involves numerous stipulations such as avoiding the use of a single measure to determine eligibility and programming, and the use of technically adequate instruments. Specifically, evaluation materials must be selected and administered in a nonbiased manner, in the child’s native language/mode of communication, by trained professionals, for the purpose for which they are valid and reliable, and following prescribed directions (Section 614 (3) (A)).

In Chicago (IL) Public Schools (2015), the OCR ruled that an Illinois district failed to evaluate a student with a suspected disability in a timely manner. Specifically, parents alleged the district, despite ongoing evidence of need for an evaluation (e.g., deteriorating grades/performance), failed to initiate the evaluation process. In a resolution agreement, the district agreed to (a) conduct in-service training for staff related to providing FAPE to all qualifying students with disabilities, (b) perform preplacement evaluations, and (c) establish evaluation and reevaluation procedures. Similarly, in Memorandum to State Directors of Special Education (2015), OSEP clarified the need for districts to evaluate students suspected of having a disability without regard to whether they have high cognition. This requirement includes students who are considered “twice exceptional” (gifted and disabled). Consequently, personnel responsible for child find, referral, or initial evaluation requests are aware that they may not refuse to refer or evaluate a student suspected of a disability on the basis that the student has superior cognitive skills.

In South Kingstown School Community v. Joannn, S. ex rel. P. J. S. (2014), the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island ruled that a parent’s signature on a settlement that called for a district to conduct four specific evaluations of a 13-year-old student with severe anxiety prevented her from seeking a psychoeducational assessment of her son 6 months later. This ruling was based on evidence that the student’s circumstances had not changed since the agreement.

Furthermore, in Letter to Baus (2015), OSEP ruled that parents have the right to a publicly funded independent educational evaluation to address gaps in the district’s evaluation. Indeed, relevant requirements under evaluations explicitly state the need for a comprehensive evaluation to address all areas of the suspected disability. Failure to execute this requirement will potentially force the district to defend its evaluation or pay for an independent educational evaluation. See additional case law in Table 5.

Table 5.

Selected Case Law for Evaluation.

Case	Facts	Rulings
Phyllene, W. ex rel. M. W. v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 64 IDELR 242 (N.D. Ala. 2014)	After considering teacher feedback, curriculum-based assessments, and the student’s mastery of previous IEP goals, an IEP team decided that additional assessments were not needed to determine if the student’s needs were being addressed. Although the parent did not request additional testing or identify overlooked needs, the parent contended that the school had violated IDEA by failing to conduct additional assessments.	The district court upheld an administrative decision in the district’s favor stating that evaluation includes a review of existing data, and if an IEP team can determine a student’s special education needs based on existing data, it does not have to collect additional assessments, unless a parent requests testing. In this case, the parent did not request additional testing.
Cassia County Sch. Dist. #151, 65 IDELR 218 (SEA ID 2015)	Parents requested an IEE after an IEP team proposed an IEP that used paraprofessionals to deliver related services rather than licensed therapist. The district had considered several prior evaluations furnished by the parent when making decisions. The parents’ concern was not over the evaluation, but over paraprofessionals delivering services.	The IHO denied parents’ request for an IEE because parents are only entitled to an IEE at public expense if they disagree with the evaluation completed by the district.
School Dist. of Newberry County (SC), 64 IDELR 286 (OCRXI, D.C. (SC) 2014)	An OCR complaint was made due to allegations that a school was disregarding medical diagnoses and parental requests for evaluation in favor of initiating or continuing RTI after it failed to evaluate two elementary students in a timely manner. The school entered into a voluntary resolution agreement to resolve the issue.	The district was required to revise its policies, provide staff training on the new policies, and review past denials of evaluation requests. The updated policies included the following: acknowledgement that a parent requests testing or provides medical documentation may trigger the district’s duty to evaluate the student for a suspected disability, district’s responsibilities are not satisfied through prolonged RTI or repeated interventions, if the district denies a request for evaluation, parents must be provided with a notice of denial and procedural safeguards.

Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; IEE = independent educational evaluation; IHO = impartial hearing officer; OCR = Office of Civil Rights; RTI = response to intervention.

What Administrators Need to Know

It is clear that districts have an affirmative responsibility to initiate the evaluation process once there is suspicion of a disability. This process must be conducted in a timely fashion and does not exclude students who are twice exceptional. Means to ensure that such evaluations take place may involve ongoing staff training and related monitoring.

Placement

IDEA 2004 requires that students with disabilities be educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with same age peers as long as they receive educational benefit. Consequently, school personnel must offer a continuum of placement alternatives to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities (34 CFR § 300.115(a)). The IEP team needs to consider whether the student can remain in the general education setting with the provision of supplementary aids and services. Regarding educational setting, in 2012, 62.1% of students with disabilities spent 80% or more of the day in the regular classroom; 19.2% between 40% and 79% of the day; and 13.7% less than 40% of the day. Also, students were educated in more restrictive settings: 2.9% in separate schools; 0.3% in residential facilities; 0.4% in hospital settings; and 0.3% in correctional facilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

In Fort Bend Independent School District v. Douglas, A. ex rel. Z. A. (2015), the 5th Circuit determined that the district was not obligated to reimburse the parents of a high school student with reactive attachment disorder for the expenses related to a unilateral out-of-state placement in a mental health treatment facility. The court concluded that the placement was not based on the student’s educational needs and therefore not subject to reimbursement. The 5th Circuit further noted that because the mental health facility focused primarily on treating reactive attachment disorder, the district was not financially responsible for the student’s placement. Indeed, the three-judge panel explained that it considers two factors when determining whether a residential placement is appropriate (a) whether the parents placed the student in the facility for educational reasons and (b) whether the facility evaluates the student’s progress primarily by educational achievement. Similarly, in Murfreesboro City Schools (2014), the hearing officer ruled that a father’s preferred residential program was inappropriate for a student with disruptive behavior disorder and a mood disorder under the IDEA. Specifically, the transfer stemmed from the child’s behaviors rather than educational concerns, and the facility failed to implement his IEP for 3 months. Because the hearing officer concluded that the residential placement was chosen to address psychiatric problems as opposed to a lack of educational benefit while enrolled in the school district, the father was denied reimbursement.

In H. L. by George, L. and Susan, F. v. Downingtown Area School District (2015), the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district denied a student with an SLD FAPE when the district failed to provide a rationale for pulling a fourth grader out of her general education classroom for reading and writing instruction. Specifically, district personnel failed to identify factors considered in determining that the student could not adequately receive instruction in math and reading in the general education classroom. Indeed, the court noted that the first step in the least restrictive environment analysis is determining whether the district can satisfactorily educate the child in the general education setting with the use of supplementary aids and services and provide evidence in supporting the placement decision.

Finally, in J. F. ex rel. J. F. v. Byram Township Board of Education (2015), the 3rd Circuit ruled that the parents of a 14-year-old intrastate transfer student with SLDs and ADHD failed to show that a New Jersey district violated the IDEA when it offered their son a public school placement instead of the private program identified in his most recently developed IEP. Specifically, the 3rd Circuit held that the IDEA provisions governing interstate (and intrastate) transfers take precedence over the stay-put provisions. Therefore, once the receiving district was able to provide comparable services in its own schools, it had no obligation to implement the private placement set forth in the IEP from the previous district (nonetheless, the stay-put provision would have applied to the original district). See additional case law in Table 6.

Table 6.

Selected Case Law for Placement.

Case	Facts	Rulings
J. T. ex rel. A. T. v. Dumont Public Schools, 12 ECLPR 55 (NJ Superior Court Appellate Division 2014)	A New Jersey district did not deny a kindergartener with autism of FAPE by placing him in an inclusion class outside of his home school because he “unquestionably benefitted” from the nonneighborhood school placement.	The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division dismissed a parent’s claim that the district violated a law prohibiting disability discrimination because districts in NJ can provide placements in centralized special education programs.
Leggett ex rel. K. E. v. District of Columbia, I115 LRP 30253 (D.C. Circuit 07/10/15)	The fact that a high schooler with SLDs, anxiety, and depression would have gone without special education for the first several weeks of the school year due to the district’s delay in developing her IEP convinced the circuit court that a unilateral boarding school placement was educationally necessary.	The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the student could have received the services she did at a less expensive day school. A D.C. district will reimburse the student’s mother for private school tuition.
M. C. v. Starr, 64 IDELR 273 (D. Md. 2014)	A Maryland District’s placement of a student with ADHD, Tourette Syndrome, and an anxiety disorder at a therapeutic day school was determined appropriate for providing the student with needed services, including the mental health and transition supports the student’s mother claimed her child needed.	The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland dismissed a parent’s request for reimbursement for her child’s out-of-state boarding school tuition. The court held that the district’s original placement in a therapeutic day school provided all necessary and appropriate services.
K. R. and S. R. ex rel. Matthew, R. v. New York City Department of Education, 65 IDELR 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)	Parents of a student with autism claimed that a New York District not only excluded them from their son’s IEP meetings but also placed him in a school inadequate in meeting his sensory needs.	A New York district violated IDEA by denying a student of FAPE when placing him in a school inadequate in meeting his sensory needs and when they excluded his parents from IEP meetings. The court ordered the district to reimburse the parents for their son’s private school tuition.

Note. APE = free appropriate public education; SLD = specific learning disability; IEP = Individualized Education Program; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; FAPE = free appropriate public education.

What Administrators Need to Know

School personnel must be deliberate in determining placements across the least restrictive environment continuum and be able to document/articulate factors considered in determining that a particular placement is appropriate. Furthermore, while the 5th Circuit has taken a more restrictive view in determining the appropriateness of unilateral residential placements (i.e., educational need as opposed psychiatric needs), versus other circuits that embrace the idea that students’ needs are inextricably intertwined, districts under the Circuit’s jurisdiction enjoy a better defined and more conservative standard in cases of unilateral placements.

Discipline/Behavior

From 2011 to 2012, students with disabilities accounted for 19% of in-school suspensions, 20% of one-time out-of-school suspensions, 25% of multiple out-of-school suspensions, 19% of expulsions, and were more than twice as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension (13%) than students without disabilities (6%) (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2014a). Furthermore, from 2011 to 2012, Black students (16%) were suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than White students (5%). American Indian and Alaskan Native students were also disproportionately suspended and expelled, representing less than 1% of the student population but 2% of out-of-school suspensions and 3% of expulsions (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2014a). IDEA 2004 mandates that within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability due to a violation of the school’s prescribed code of conduct, relevant members of the IEP team must conduct a manifestation determination to determine whether a student’s behavior had a “direct and substantial relationship” to the student’s disability, or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the local educational agency’s failure to implement the IEP [34 CFR 300.530(e)(1) and (2)] [20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(E)]. If the team determines that the behaviors were a manifestation of the child’s disability, a functional behavioral assessment must be conducted to implement a BIP [34 CFR 300.530(f)] [20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(F)]. School officials may also unilaterally place students with disabilities in an interim placement for up to 45 days for offenses involving drugs, weapons, or serious bodily injury.

In Troy School District v. K. M. by Janice, M., and Warren, M. (2015), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the school district could not prevent a student with a disability from returning to his public high school placement while an administrative dispute over a proposed placement change was pending. Specifically, the court concluded that the district failed to demonstrate evidence that the teen would injure himself or others if it followed his IEP. An interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 school days, may be appropriate when there is sufficient evidence that the student’s presence is substantially likely to cause serious and imminent personal harm (in such cases, the stay-put provision does not apply).

In contrast, in Jefferson County District R-1 (2015), the state education department ruled that the district was not obligated to conduct a manifestation determination before placing a student in an alternate setting for 6 hours per week on a temporary basis. In this case, the district was justified in removing the student to a temporary interim alternative educational setting due to the following events: was either medicated or taken for medical assistance, had self-inflicted injuries, indicated an inclination to inflict harm, and demonstrated a lack of control over the student’s own body or mind. Therefore, concerns over safety allow districts to change a student’s placement without conducting a manifestation determination when the change is not due to disciplinary reasons or in response to a violation of a student code of conduct. Similarly, in Wayne-Westland Community Schools v. V. S. by Y. S. (2015), 4 months after it obtained a temporary restraining order that prevented a physically violent teenager with a disability from entering the grounds of his alternative high school, a Michigan district convinced the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to extend that ban. In this case, the threat of unacceptable safety risk was substantiated because the 6-foot-tall, 250-pound student kicked two staffers who restrained him from attacking a schoolmate, threatened other staffers by holding a pen in a stabbing position, threatened to rape a female staffer, and punched the school’s principal. The court concluded that the district met all four standards in seeking permanent injunction (a) it will suffer irreparable harm, (b) the remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that harm, (c) the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and (d) the injunction would not be against the public interest.

Bullying/Harassment

Students with disabilities are also protected under the IDEA and other legislative mandates (e.g., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) from disability-based harassment. In such cases, simply addressing the misconduct is not considered to be an adequate response. Instead, schools are obligated to (a) examine the nature of the misconduct itself for possible civil rights violations and (b) examine whether the harassment interferes with a student’s participation in and benefits from educational services, activities, or opportunities (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2014b). According to Yell et al. (2016), school officials must attend to the following (a) the student has a disability, (b) the student was harassed based on the disability, (c) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it created an abusive educational environment, (d) the defendant school district knew about the harassment, and (e) the defendant school district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.

For example, in G. M. by Marchese v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (2014), the 9th Circuit heard a case involving a sixth-grade student with an SLD who experienced disability-based bullying in his physical education class. The parents claimed that the school did not respond appropriately to the bullying; however, the court dismissed this claim. Because both the physical education teacher and school counselor spoke to the offender about his misconduct, and the physical education teacher prohibited the offender from working with the student, the court determined that the school was not indifferent to the peer harassment. Due to the school’s actions and the parents’ inability to present evidence that the district acted with deliberate indifference, the district avoided a claim for monetary damages under Section 504.

In contrast, in K. R. S. by McClarnon v. Bedford Community School District (2015), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that a district failed to defend a disability-based harassment claim regarding a ninth grader with an SLD. The student’s football teammates reportedly verbally abused him and threw footballs at his head, which resulted in hospitalization. The student, according to the district, is required to show that the other students who were harassing him did so specifically because of his disability; however, the court explained that the student only needed to demonstrate that his teammates’ alleged actions were reasonably connected to his disability. Because the offender’s taunts of “moron” and “idiot” suggested a link to his SLD, the court denied the district’s motion for judgment. See additional case law in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 7.

Selected Case Law for Discipline/Behavior.

Case	Facts	Rulings
C. C. by Cripps v. Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District, 64 IDELR 265 (N.D. Tex. 2015)	Parents alleged a student with a disability was more harshly punished than nondisabled peers for photographing and publishing pictures of a classmate on the toilet. After finding the violation unrelated to the student’s disability, the district placed the student in an IAES.	A Texas district did not have to defend Section 1983 or Section 504 claims due to a decision to place a student in an interim alternative educational placement for 60 days.
Z. H. by R. H. and J. H. v. Lewisville Independent School District, 65 IDELR 147 (E.D. Tex. 2015)	A sixth grader created a shooting list of classmates. The district, in a manifestation determination meeting, found the behavior was not a result of his ADHD diagnosis because the list was created over several days. Additionally, no evidence was offered that the list was tied to the student’s depression diagnosis. Five days after the list was revealed, a doctor diagnosed the boy with pervasive developmental disorder. The district offered to conduct an autism evaluation after the incident, but parents refused to grant permission.	The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, reversed an interim administrative decision in favor of the parents; parents failed to show a Texas district violated IDEA when it determined their son’s creation of a shooting list was not a manifestation of his disabilities.
Wayne-Westland Community Schools v. V. S. by Y. S., 64 IDELR 176 (E.D. Mich. 2014)	Michigan district personnel spoke with the parent of a student with a disability four times prior to seeking relief through court ordered request of removal. The parent’s lack of response to district attempts at communication allowed the court to interpret the parents nonresponse as uncontested facts set forth by school district.	The District Court of Michigan ruled in favor of the district to extend a restraining order preventing a disabled student from entering alternative school grounds. The district’s reports of the student’s violent behavior (unopposed by parents) showed a preliminary injunction was necessary for safety.
Charleston County (SC) School District, 66 IDELR 85 (OCRXI, D.C. (SC) 2015)	A district suspended a student twice, leading to her arrest, when it did not follow an existing BIP. During an OCR investigation, the school offered to revise BIP, submit the new BIP to the OCR for review, and conduct staff training, as well as OCR follow-up for compliance.	OCR concerned disability discrimination was resolved once the District revised BIP and conducted staff training.

Note. IAES = interim alternative educational setting; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; BIP = behavioral intervention plan; OCR = Office of Civil Rights.

Table 8.

Selected Case Law for Bullying/Harassment.

Case	Facts	Rulings
Eskenazi-McGibney v. Connetquot Central School District, 50 NDLR 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)	Parents of a New York district student alleged bullying/harassment by a schoolmate.	The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, ruled a New York district did not have to defend against violations of 504 and Title II harassment because the parents failed to link the alleged bullying to their son’s disability.
	The school failed to address the alleged bullying complaint.	The court ruled that harassment must be directly related to a student’s disability in order to meet Section 504 and Title II standards.
Pasadena CA Unified School District, 64 IDELR 254 (OCRIX, San Francisco (CA) 2014)	A parent claimed disability-based discrimination by district staff when a teacher “created a hostile environment” for a student with an undisclosed disability.	OCR closed a complaint of staff harassment of a student with a disability when the district agreed to implement staff training and monitoring of compliance for 2 years regarding concerns related to Section 504 and Title II harassment claims.
Schiffbauer v. Schmidt, 65 IDELR 100 (D. Md. 2015)	A classroom aide restrained a student on one occasion after he attempted to attack a classmate on the playground. Parents did not establish indifference to harassment on the district’s part or pervasive harassment, due to the fact that the onetime event did not create an abusive learning environment.	A Maryland district did not have to defend Section 504 and Title II claims from a single incident where an educational aide physically restrained a boy. The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland dismissed the parent’s claims based on failure to allege “hostile educational environment.”
Sevier County Tennessee School System, 65 IDELR 154 (OCRIV, Atlanta (TN) 2014)	After a teacher accused a student of using his ADHD as an excuse for laziness, the district moved the child to another classroom. After switching classrooms, he had no other issues with his previous teacher and did well in the new class. The district’s swift resolution of the issue by investigating immediately after the complaint was made, reprimanding the teacher, and moving the student to a new class, prevented the environment from becoming hostile.	OCR concluded that a Tennessee district did not subject a middle schooler to a hostile environment due to alleged disability harassment by a teacher. The district agreed to resolve issues with procedures to respond to internal and grievance procedures.

Note. OCR = Office of Civil Rights; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

What Administrators Need to Know

Discipline remains a volatile area in special education. As indicated in recent case law, school officials may remove a violent student from school premises only when they can demonstrate that the students is imminently about to harm himself or others. In addition, in regard to bullying/harassment, schools must demonstrate they have appropriately addressed allegations of disability-based bullying/harassment in a timely manner in order to fulfill legislative requirements.

Conclusions

Recent case law provides numerous insights for school personnel, particularly administrators, in ensuring that students with disabilities receive an appropriate education. Highlights from the case law point to the need for school districts to ensure that students with disabilities are provided FAPE, ensure timely and comprehensive evaluations once a suspected disability is of concern, ensure that students with autism have access to an range of services, provide evidence in factors considered when determining placement, remove students only when they present imminent threat to self or others, and appropriately address bullying/harassment concerns.

Of particular interest may be the OSEP letter of guidance regarding services to students with autism. Specifically, the need for districts to evaluate development of IEPs to ensure the range of unique needs of students with autism, particularly communication needs, are addressed (as opposed to concentrating exclusively on ABA services). Another potential issue of interest may be the process associated with removing physically violent students. In Wayne-Westland Community Schools v. V. S. by Y. S. (2015), four standards were articulated when districts seek permanent injunction (a) it will suffer irreparable harm, (b) the remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that harm, (c) the balance of hardships tips in its favor, and (d) the injunction would not be against the public interest.

School officials may keep abreast of legal developments by accessing federal and state government resources such as the U.S. Department of Education, OSEP’s website (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html), professional organizations such as the Council for Exceptional Children (http://www.cec.sped.org/Policy-and-Advocacy), and the RTI Network of the National Center for Learning Disabilities (http://www.rtinetwork.org/). Specialized advocacy groups, such as Wrightslaw Special Education Law and Advocacy (http://www.wrightslaw.com), and LRP publications, such as The Special Educator (http://www.shoplrp.com/product_p/300002.htm), also provide information regarding legal developments.

In conclusion, this overview highlights “emerging” areas of case law and points to the need for school personnel to be vigilant in ensuring that students with disabilities receive FAPE. This process has been proven to be both challenging and controversial. Consequently, school personnel need on-going training, monitoring of procedures, and, most important, services that allow students with disabilities to receive substantive educational benefits. Such an aim will not only benefit students but also minimize potential litigation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Antonis Katsiyannis is a professor of special education with Clemson University. He has published extensively in the areas of legal and policy issues, transition, and delinquency. He is serving as the president of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Jennifer Counts is a PhD student in Special Education at Clemson University. Her research interests include legal and policy issues, disproportionality in school discipline, and academic interventions for at-risk students.

Michelle Popham is a PhD student in special education at Clemson University. Her research interests include academic interventions for students with learning disabilities and legal and policy issues in special education.

Joseph Ryan is a professor of Special Education and serves as the Executive Director of Clemson LIFE (Learning is for Everyone). His research interests include behavioral interventions for students with emotional and behavior disorders.

Madeline Butzer is an undergraduate student in special education at Clemson University. Her professional and research interests include Autism Spectrum Disorders, intellectual disabilities, and adaptive sports.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). CDC estimates 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0327-autismspectrum-disorder.html

Chicago (IL) Public School District 299, 65 IDELR 244 (OCRV, Chicago (IL) 2015).

Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael, F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997).

Endrew, F. by Joseph, F., and Jennifer, F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 115 LRP 29422 (10th Cir. 08/25/15).

Fort Bend Independent School District v. Douglas, A. ex rel. Z. A., 65 IDELR 1 (5th Cir. 2015).

G. M. by Marchese v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, 64 IDELR 231 (9th Cir. 2-14).

H. L. by George, L., and Susan, F. v. Downingtown Area School District, 65 IDELR 223 (3rd Cir. 2015).

H. W., and A. W. ex rel. M. W. v. New York State Education Department, 65 IDELR 136 (E. D. N. Y. 2015).

Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 485 U.S. 176 (1982).

10.

In re: Student with a Disability, 64 IDELR 255 (SEA OK 2014).

11.

In re: Student with a Disability, 65 IDELR 157 (SEA MT 2015).

12.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.311 et seq.

13.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.

14.

J. F. ex rel. J. F. v. Byram Twp. Board of Education, 66 IDELR 180 (3rd Cir. 2015).

15.

Jefferson County District. R-1, 66 IDELR 148 (SEA CO 2015).

16.

K. R. S. by McClarnon v. Bedford Community School District, 65 IDLER 272 (S.D. Iowa 2015).

17.

Letter to Baus, 65 IDELR 81 (OSEP 2015).

18.

Los Angeles (CA) Unified School District, 65 IDELR 114 (OCRIX, San Francisco (CA) 2014).

19.

Losinski

Katsiyannis

Balluch

White

(2015). Litigation and students with disabilities: A legal overview of key issues from 2013. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 28, 25-38.

20.

Memorandum to State Directors of Special Education, 65 IDELR 181 (OSEP 2015).

21.

Morgan, M. by Barbara, B., and Arthur, W. M., III v. Penn Manor School District, 12 ECLPR 65 (E. D. Pa. 2015).

22.

Murfreesboro City Schools, 64 IDELR 318 (SEA TN 2014).

23.

South Kingstown School Comm. v. Joanna, S. ex rel. P. J. S., 114 LRP 52148 (1st Cir. 12/09/14).

24.

T. R. v. Humboldt County Office of Education, 65 IDELR 293 (N.E. Cal. 2015).

25.

Troy School District v. K. M. by Janice, M., and Warren, M., 64 IDELR 303 (E.D. Mich. 2015).

26.

U. S. Department of Education. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide for improving school climate and discipline. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/guiding-principles.pdf

27.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). 37th Annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2014. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2015/parts-b-c/37th-arc-for-idea.pdf

28.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). IDEA Section 618 data products: Static tables. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html#part-b

29.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014a). Civil rights data collection data snapshot: School discipline. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf

30.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014b). Dear colleague letter: Responding to bullying of students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-bullying-201410.pdf

31.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2015). Dear colleague letter: Autism spectrum disorders. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/US-Dept-Education-ASD-Services-Letter.pdf

32.

U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). Dear colleague letter: Nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/dcl.pdf

33.

Wayne-Westland Community Schools v. V. S. by Y. S., 65 IDELR 13 (E.D. Mich. 2015).

34.

Yell

M. L.

Katsiyannis

Rose

Houchins

(2016). Bullying and harassment of students with disabilities in schools: Legal considerations and policy formation. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 274-284.