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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT