The 2004 re-authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. 20 USCA SS6301 et seq. 2. 20 USCA SS1400 et seq. 3. See, e.g., at the Supreme Court Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 US 176 (1982) (its first case involving the IDEA, interpreting the Act's ‘appropriate’ standard as providing a floor of opportunities rather than as a vehicle to maximize a child's potential); Honig v. Doe, 484 US 305 (1988) (addressing discipline of students with disabilities). In addition, lower courts have resolved literally thousands of cases involving the IDEA. 4. For a complete discussion of the 1997 version of the IDEA, see Allan G. Osborne, Jr & Charles J. Russo (2003) Special education and the law: a guide for practitioners (Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press). The authors are currently in the process of preparing a second edition of this book, incorporating the 2004 changes in the Act. 5. 20 USCA S1412(a)(1). 6. For a detailed section-by-section analysis, with commentary, of the 2004 IDEA in relation to the 1997 version, see Charles J. Russo, Allan G. Osborne, Jr & Elizabeth Borreca (2005) Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act v. IDEA '97: charting the changes (Horsham, PA, LRP Publications). 7. 20 USCA SS602, 607(b), 614(b)(6). 8. 20 USCA SS1402(10), 1412 (a)(14). 9. Proposed 300 CFRS 300.18(e), Federal Register, 21 June 2005. 10. 20 USCA S1402(23). 11. 20 USCA S1417(e). 12. The leading case in this regard is Timothy W. v. Rochester, N.H., School Dist., 875 F 2d 954 (1st Circuit 1989), cert. denied 493 US 983 (1989) (in establishing the notion of ‘zero reject’ for students with disabilities, highlighting the fact that cost cannot prevent the delivery of services to qualified children). 13. 20 USCA S1411(e)(3). 14. 20 USCA SS1411(e)(7), 619, 635(c). 15. 20 USCA S1413(f). 16. 20 USCA S1411(i). 17. For a discussion of monetary concerns surrounding the delivery of special education services, see Timothy J. Ilg & Charles J. Russo (2004) Funding and special education and the IDEA: promises, promises, in: Karen DeMoss & Kenneth Wong, Money, politics, and law: intersections and conflicts in the provision of educational opportunity. Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (New York, Eye on Education), 101–113. See also City of Worcester v. Governor, 625 NE 2d 1337 (Mass. 1994) (rejecting a city's argument that the IDEA was an unfunded federal mandate). 18. 20 USCA S1412(a)(10)(A)(i). 19. 20 USCA S1412 (a)(10)(A)(i)(II). See Agostini v. Felton, 521 US 203 (1997) (permitting the on-site delivery of Title I services for specifically identified low socio-economic status students in their religiously affiliated non-public schools). For a discussion of how this case impacted students in non-public schools, see Allan G. Osborne, Jr, Charles J. Russo & Philip DiMattia (2000) IDEA '97: providing special education services to students voluntarily enrolled in private schools, Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 224–231, 247. 20. 20 USCA SS1412 (a)(24), 1418(d)(1)(A)(B). For a discussion of this issue, see Charles J. Russo & Carolyn Talbert-Johnson (1997) The over-representation of African American children in special education: the resegregation of educational programming?, Education and Urban Society, 29(2), 136–148. 21. 20 USCA S1412(a)(25). For a discussion of this issue, see Allan Demmitt, Charles J. Russo & Sawyer Hunley (2003) Children with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ritalin, and the law: recommendations for practice, Education Law Reporter, 171(2), 415–422. 22. 20 USCA S1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II)(III). 23. 20 USCA SS1414(d)(1)(A)(I), 1408. 24. 20 USCA SS1415(f)(3)(C), (i)(2)(B), (i)(3)(B)(i)(2). 25. 20 USCA SS1415(f), (k).