Articles of Public Interest
Chairman Miller on CNN discussing seclusion and restraint techniques
By Kruger, Mike on July 22, 2009
Chairman George Miller was on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer last night discussing the use and abuse of seclusion and restraint techniques in schools. On May 19, 2009, the Committee held a hearing examining the abusive and deadly use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In response to the GAO report delivered at that hearing, Chairman Miller said, "The GAO's report shows that in too many cases, a child's life wound up being threatened even though that child was not a threat to others. This behavior, in some instances, looks like torture. The current situation is unacceptable and cannot continue."In June 2009, the US Supreme Court rendered favorable decisions to special needs kids, other school students, and their parents. Our article below summarizes those two decisions.
First, the court's decision in Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A. settles the question whether parents who remove their disabled child from public school and place the child in an appropriate private school potentially can recover the cost of that placement from the school district, even though the district found the child ineligible for special education and refused to provide special education services and an IEP. The court's answer: "YES."
Second, in Safford United Sch. Dist. #1 v. Redding the court provides guidance on how far a school official can go in searching a middle school student for drugs or other contraband before violating her Fourth Amendment right to be free from an "unreasonable" search. It held that the "strip search" of a 13-year-old girl violated her Constitutional rights under the specific facts at issue there. As explained below, however, this decision does not mean that school officials can never conduct such an intrusive search under any circumstances. Of course, roses grow amid thorns, and the Supreme Court has drawn some blood from parents of special needs kids in recent years. In 2005, it held that under the "IDEA" the party who initiates a "due process" action challenging an IEP bears the "burden of proof," ending the practice in Pennsylvania and some other states of uniformly placing the burden of proof on the school district. (Schaffer v. Weast). In 2006, it held that prevailing parents in a due process action could not recover the cost of non-attorney expert consultants under the IDEA. (Arlington Cen. Sch. Dist. v. Murphy).
For the detailed analysis of these two 2009 favorable cases, please see the July 2009newsletter
Education Law Advocates, P.C.
Special Education Lawyers
The Culbertson Building
590 Snyder Avenue
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19382
Voice: 610.696.5006
Fax: 610.696.6590
Education Law Advocates, P.C. skillfully represents parents and their children in southeastern Pennsylvania, including West Chester, Lower Merion, Coatesville, Paoli, Downingtown and Upper Darby, and throughout the Philadelphia metro area, including Chester County, Montgomery County, Delaware County, Bucks County, Lancaster County and Berks County.
Printer Friendly View
Add To Favorites
Send To A Friend
