Special Education Law Blog
A special education legal resource discussing case law, news, practical advocacy advice, and developments in state and federal laws, statutes and regulations. Postings include insight and sometimes humor from Charles P. Fox, a Chicago, Illinois attorney who is also a parent of child with special needs, and other guest authors.
On March 3, 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Garret F. v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 526 U.S. 66 (1999). The case was decided by the Court in a 7-2 decision in favor of the child’s right to receive one-on-one nursing as a related service. Although this case does bear directly on the provision of AAC or technology, this decision may be useful in advocating for assistive technology.
Kids with diabetes face difficult challenges on Halloween. While their friends are trading candy corn for skittles and gorging on sugary treats overflowing from pumpkin buckets and pillow cases, children with diabetes must exercise caution and refrain from indulging on too many Halloween treats. However, Halloween can still be a fun and enjoyable holiday for children with diabetes, and with a little creativity and supervision, they too can indulge in the gooey sweetness of Halloween treats and festivities.
It’s that time of year again—the time of year when, by wearing a pin or ribbon, or by engaging in “what it’s like to be disabled” simulations, schools and businesses seek to promote disability awareness month. But the big question remains unanswered: of what exactly are we becoming more aware? It cannot merely be that different types and varying degrees of severity of disability exist. The month of October, then, is really framed in the wrong context. Activities should be geared more toward propagation of the fact that disability is a natural part of life, and that a culture that promotes and actively implements an inclusive philosophy is ideal.
Cost is one of the most common reasons that school districts are resistant to discussing or providing assistive technology to students with special needs. While this “reason” may be valid, it is not a sufficient legal excuse. Under the current mandate of IDEA, if assistive technology is required to allow a child to access his or here educational environment, and if it is defined in the child’s IEP, the cost of the device is simply not an excuse. Nor can the cost of a device be pushed off onto the parents or their insurance company. The well-known requirement of a Free Appropriate Public Education or FAPE means “free” to the family. As a practical matter, to increase the likelihood of a successful and non-adversarial exchange on the subject of assistive technology, families should undertake certain preliminary steps. It will be essential that a professional evaluation be undertaken to decide that the child needs an assistive technology device and how it relates to the child’s educational program. Devices for speech augmentation, for example, may appear to have an obvious connection to the school environment, but the relationship between the device and the child’s educational program should be explained in detail.
On October 11, 2005, the Washington Post ran an article suggesting that the federal No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) has helped to institutionalize a process of protections for students with disabilities, whether or not their parents or guardians were in a position to advocate for them through IDEA. Ricki Sabia, Associate Director for the National Down Syndrome Society Public Policy Center, shared her perspective on the law: "At national conferences I have seen that some teachers and administrators are beginning to see that segregating students with disabilities in classes without access to the general curriculum or highly qualified–content trained–teachers is partly to blame for the achievement gap," she said. Unfortunately other teachers and administrators are spending more time fighting NCLB than they are spending on narrowing this gap." "The biggest impact of NCLB may be a revolution in the way we talk about education for students with disabilities," she said. "The standard has always been an appropriate education which provides some minimal benefit or progress on IEP goals. We only heard ‘world class’ or ‘state of the art’ applied to general education. With NCLB, school systems will have to start applying those terms to students with disabilities if they […]
Robotics seems like a topic that is the subject of science fiction, a NASA project, or technology limited to industrial applications. However, recent research has shown the incredible usefulness of assistive robotics for children with physical challenges — specifically the use of a robotic arm. The research centered on two primary issues: 1) whether a very young child would interact with a robotic arm; and 2) whether that interaction would involve the purposeful use of the arm as a tool to accomplish some desired or requested action. The case discussed below revolves around Leah, a little girl with CP, and it answers both questions with an emphatic yes. Leah’s story demonstrates well the usefulness of robotics for children with physical challenges.