Under IDEA, the process for developing a program to deliver FAPE to every student is well defined, but the educational content and services required to ensure the relevance of EPAF are not. Because the needs of students with disabilities vary widely, the special education and related services that a district will provide under SBAF are outlined in each student`s unique IEP. [19] IDEA adopts the provisions of FERPA. In addition to the protections provided by FERPA, IDEA prohibits a school district from sharing information about a student`s disability or the fact that a student has a disability with unauthorized persons without the consent of the student`s parents or guardians. As a special education agency, IDEA SSD`s additional privacy requirements prevent it from responding to FERPA`s provision of directory information, as any disclosure of student information could be interpreted as identifying a student with an educational disability. Therefore, SSD rejects requests for student information without the permission of the parent, guardian, or adult student. Given IDEA`s goal of providing all students with disabilities with access to appropriate education, it is important to consider whether a requirement beyond eligibility for special education and related services should be necessary for students with disabilities to access school choice programs. Why demand the extra step of creating an IEP when parents believe that everything the public school offers will not be enough? Requiring students to have an IEP to be eligible, rather than letting parents decide to create one, can lead to inefficient use of resources. Given that IEP development requires a significant investment of time and resources on the part of public school districts and parents, policies that allow students to participate at any time after a district has determined that a student is eligible for special education and related services would be more effective. The legal standard governing whether a student`s IEP fulfills his or her substantive right to FAPE was established in Mainstreamed[23] Children in Board of Education v. Rowley in 1982. [24] In Rowley, the Supreme Court confirmed that IDEA conferred a substantive right on FAPE, but refused to adopt a specific standard for lower courts when determining whether a student with a disability had been denied FAPE. The court held that “if the child is enrolled in the regular classes of the public education system, [an IEP] should reasonably be calculated so that the child can achieve the grades obtained and progress from one class to another.” [25] The Rowley Standard was sufficiently ambiguous to allow for substantive disagreements about what services are appropriate to the special needs of a particular ordinary student.
The appropriate benefits for non-established students with disabilities were even less clear. [41] See generally EdChoice, www.edchoice.org (updated list of elective curricula in the United States). [73] See Jay P. Greene & Greg Forster, Manhattan Institute, Vouchers for Special Education Students: An Evaluation of Florida`s McKay Scholarship Program (June 2003), www.manhattan-institute.org/html/vouchers-special-education-students-evaluation-floridas-mckay-scholarship-program-5818.html. While parents cannot be charged for public housing in a private school because IDEA requires the district to cover costs, parents using an optional private school program may be required to pay at least a portion of the cost of their child`s education if the private school they choose costs more than the amount of financial support through the School Choice Program. Parents of students with special education needs who use an optional program have no more recourse against the private school than any other parent who unilaterally brings their students to school. In other words, in a public placement, the private school is accountable to the public school district, not to the parents. However, in the case of a private placement, the private school is directly accountable to the parents, with the district playing no role. The ultimate recourse for parents who place their child in a private school and are unhappy with the outcome is to remove their child and send them to another public or private school. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a civil rights law that protects the civil and constitutional rights of persons with disabilities.
It applies to all those who receive federal funds. While the Education of Persons with Disabilities Act (IDEA) lists certain categories of disabilities, section 504 defines a disability as a mental or physical impairment that significantly limits one or more important life activities. If a student is not diagnosed with a disability under IDEA, the local county may still have obligations under Section 504. Section 504 provides for free and adequate training in the least restrictive environment, reasonable accommodation, and a written plan outlining accommodation and services. Section 504 also applies to students, the workplace, and physical access to public buildings. This law is enforced by the Office of Civil Rights. Prior to 1970, a number of state laws prohibited children with disabilities from attending public schools, and the U.S. Department of Education reported that only 20 percent of children with disabilities attended public schools. [11] The first major federal effort to improve the education of students with disabilities was a grant program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965.
[12] In 1970, the Disability Education Act replaced this program with federal grants to states to fund projects and programs for students with disabilities,[13] but it provided little guidance on how funds should be spent, and it led to minimal improvements. [14] It is the “appropriate” thing in FAPE that causes problems for families seeking services. IEPs are usually developed jointly and often lead to consensual agreements, but some disagreements are inevitable given the potentially conflicting goals of parents and public schools. Parents, of course, want to maximize their child`s IEP dispositions and benefits. As they are guaranteed FAPE regardless of what it costs the district, parents` considerations are based on their opinions about what is needed for their child. On the other hand, the desire of districts to contain costs provides an incentive to meet the legal requirements of IEPs without significantly reducing the services they must provide to other students. While resource requirements are not intended to limit the content of an IEP, the abundant case law on the “adequacy standard” for SBAF suggests that at least many parents believe this is the case. This article consists of five sections. The first summarizes federal laws protecting students with disabilities and explains how they are applied differently in public and private schools. The second section presents the curricula of choice in private public schools, with a focus on students with disabilities. The third section describes the legal safeguards built into these programs to protect students with disabilities, compares accountability mechanisms in public and private school programs, and discusses how programs differ from state to state.
The fourth section describes and provides answers to the arguments often made against private school elective programs, including the fact that participating students with disabilities lose their legal protection and that these programs harm public schools. The final section summarizes our argument in support of these programs. [42] Private voting program counts often include two similar programs in Vermont and Maine that provide vouchers to students in cities without public schools. We do not include them in our census because these programs are designed to provide education to students where no public education is offered, unlike other elective programs that offer students private options in addition to public schools. [53] See U.S. Gov`t Accountability Off., GAO-16-712, School Choice: Private School Choice Programs are growing and can complicate providing some Federally Funded Services to Eligible Students 7 (August 2016). All optional programs in private schools have two characteristics. First, they allow families to send their children to private schools instead of available public schools by providing funds to offset some or all of those students` tuition or other educational expenses. [42] Second, these are government programs that, with a few exceptions,[43] are available to qualified students across the country. The EAHCA was reapproved by Congress in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[17] and again in 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). [18] IDEA established due process rights around FAPE that remain in place today for students with disabilities.
[52] In 2014, the largest education decisions tax credit program was provided in Illinois, where 285,000 loans with an average value of $280 were issued. The largest tax deduction program for educational decisions took place in Minnesota, where 210,000 deductions were made, for an average of $1,150. Id., pp. 128-136. It is important to clarify the legal rights of students with disabilities who participate in private elective programs, not so much for the public perception of DeVos as for the perception of these expanding programs.