ILNews

IBA: The Basics of Education Law for Lawyers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
michael-catherine-mug.jpg Michael

By Catherine Michael, J.D.Chair of the Education Law Division of Hollingsworth & Zivitz, P.C.

In an increasingly complex world full of legal intricacies and overlapping requirements, the sphere of Education Law has become a jungle filled with a multitude of federal and state laws, regulations, case law decisions, and executive orders. It is a practice area that requires a thorough knowledge of the law for both those representing schools and parents.

Federal law plays a major role in education cases today. These laws include: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, FERPA, HIPPA, and the ADA. In addition to the requirements found in the federal system, Indiana must develop, maintain and operate its own school system. In Indiana, our rules provide for school structure and guidance. An entire article of the Indiana Code, Article 7, is dedicated exclusively to laying the framework for Special Education in public schools.

For education attorneys in Indiana who represent parents, the practice frequently involves Article 7 Special Education Due Process Hearings, Section 504 Due Process Hearings, and school disciplinary issues. Both IDEA and Article 7 of the Indiana Code require all public and charter schools in the State to develop an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for each student with a disability who is qualified for special education. This IEP must be specific to the child and provide specially designed instruction. This “Specially designed instruction” must address the content, methodology or delivery of instruction, specific to the child’s unique needs resulting from the disability, while ensuring the child’s access to the general curriculum so that he or she can meet the educational standards that apply to all children. 34 CFR 300.39 (b)(3).

Unlike No Child Left Behind, there are no reporting requirements or state review as to a school’s compliance with the special education laws specific to individual children and their programs. Article 7 and IDEA require the parents to enforce the law if violations occur. This is done by instituting an “Education Due Process Hearing” thru the Indiana Department of Education. For example, if a school has not provided programming, or has failed to address an area of need for the child, the burden is on the parents to seek review.

For students with disabilities like autism or an anxiety disorder, the needs are not merely academic. The specialized and unique needs of a student with a disability encompass more than a mastery of academic subjects such as reading and math. These extend to include emotional and psychological needs, life skills, and social training. See County of San Diego v. California Special Educ. Hearing Office, 24 IDELR 756 (9th Cir. 1996).

What can often lead to litigation is that the law does not spell out to a clear and definitive degree what is “appropriate,” since it is meant to be specific to each individual child. “The contours of an appropriate education must be decided on a case-by-case basis, in light of an individualized consideration of the unique needs of each eligible student.” Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 553 IDELR 656 (U.S. 1982). This leaves practitioners relying extensively on federal case law for similar cases and expert testimony regarding the specific needs of that individual child.

Article 7 Special Education Due process hearings are hearings structured very similar to that of a trial. They can last three days or three weeks, depending on the number of witnesses and issues. Appeals of the hearing officer’s decision proceed directly into federal court.

Another focus of education attorneys representing parents is that of injury in school. Due to tort reform rules and the fact that a school is considered a public entity, the damages in school cases are capped and often there are many federal issues. There is also the need to exhaust administrative remedies in actions where one or more of the remedies may be a different education placement or need, such as a residential facility or private placement.

While this is a complex field, it is a very fulfilling one for many education focused attorneys. Practitioners for both schools and parents have the rewarding job of working to ensure that children are being educated appropriately and their needs are being met.•

Association Note: In the fall 2011, the IndyBar Pro Bono Standing Committee will be restoring its School Education Advocacy program. IndyBar teaming up with the Foster Youth Education Initiative to provide volunteer assistance to youth in need of a variety of educational services. IndyBar members interested in advocating for children with special needs, please watch Indiana Lawyer, IndyBar.org, and weekly e-bulletins for more information about early fall training sessions.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • education law
    am question is have spec need child that goes to merrivllve school district he has 28 day that he missed from school some staff have dfr to come home while present do have case.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT