Legal Responsibilities of Educators

[Sheila]

The Legal Responsibilities of Educators Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
February 21, 2000 by Dean B. Eggert


Originally prepared for a seminar on the subject given to the Manchester, New Hampshire School District's Middle School Teachers on February 21, 2000.

Table of Contents
Overview The Educator's Role on the Multi-disciplinary Team The Educator's Responsibility for IEP Implementation Disciplinary Options Under the IDEA Grading Special Education Students Maintaining Professionalism and Reducing Risks under the IDEA​

I. Overview
The purpose of this material is to provide the regular educator with a working knowledge of their obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. This material is not intended to cover the detailed procedural requirements of the IDEA, nor is it intended to provide the breadth of information that one needs as a special educator.
A. The Philosophy Behind the IDEA
The key to understanding the IDEA lies in understanding the philosophy behind the IDEA. When Congress adopted the IDEA, it did such with the intent of ameliorating the systemic inequities that existed with regard to the education of individuals with disabilities.
A "Free Appropriate Education at Public Expense"
The fundamental concept behind the IDEA is that every student is entitled to a free appropriate education at public expense [FAPE]. The Act does not require a school to maximize the potential of each disabled child commensurate with the opportunity provided non-disabled children. Rather, Congress sought primarily to identify and evaluate disabled children, and to provide them with access to a free public education. A School District satisfies the requirement to provide a free appropriate public education by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. Teachers are a key component to ensuring that the instruction is truly personalized. Without teachers actually implementing the student's individualized education program [IEP], there is a greatly reduced likelihood of truly affording a FAPE. The "appropriateness" standard is a floor rather than a ceiling.
What is a "FAPE?"
According to the definitions contained in the Act, a "free appropriate public education" consists of educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the disabled child, supported by such unique needs for the disabled child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child "to benefit" from the instruction. These supporting services are usually referred to as "related services."
The Test for Determining Whether You are Providing a "FAPE"
As a checklist for adequacy under the Act, the definition also requires that such instruction and services be provided at public expense and under public supervision, meet the State's educational standards, approximate the grade levels used in the State's regular education, and comport with the child's Individualized Educational Program [IEP].
Thus, if personalized instruction is being provided with sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction, and the other items on the definitional checklist are satisfied, the child is receiving a "free appropriate public education" as defined by the Act.
A court's inquiry in suits brought under the IDEA is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? Second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? The Court's inquiry is really no different than the inquiry that every teacher should make when providing instruction to a student who has been identified as having an educational disability: Is what I'm doing reasonably calculated to enable this student to make educational progress?
Key Concepts:
Know those students in your class that have been identified as educationally disabled.
Know the content of the student's IEP and how the IEP goals and objectives will be integrated into the structure of your classroom and your lesson plan.
Know the modifications that are required by the IEP and determine how they will be achieved.
Know how the IEP measures progress and gear your progress reports to touch on those areas which are being measured.
Watch for, and know how to integrate, a behavioral intervention plan in the context of your classroom.
Understand how a particular methodology, such as a reading instruction methodology, can be integrated into your classroom curriculum.
B. Reauthorization of the IDEA
With the recent reauthorization of the IDEA Congress set in law the educational concept of inclusion, by requiring that educationally disabled students be included, to the extent possible, in the regular education classroom. The regular education teacher is vital to ensuring that this inclusion requirement is met.
C. The Educator's Referral Obligations
The IDEA imposes upon all Districts the obligation to promptly find children who may have educational disabilities, and to promptly determine whether or not they have an educational disability through the multi-disciplinary team process. This obligation includes a duty on the part of educators to refer students for evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team. A failure to timely refer and identify a student can translate into a far more difficult task to ensure that the student receives a FAPE.
D. Reporting Obligations
A district can only document educational progress through the reports of its teachers and the evaluative process. Be careful in selecting descriptors that accurately report a students progress, or lack thereof. Exercise care to ensure that your progress reports are grounded in fact. Refrain from issuing opinions in areas that are outside of your areas of expertise, such as rendering ad hoc psychiatric or medical diagnoses.
Often an IEP will call for a particular method of progress reporting. This can range in frequency from daily to quarterly. It is critical to the success of the IEP that you carefully adhere to the (con't)

 

[Sheila]

reporting regimen called for in the IEP.


II. The Educator's Role on the Multi-disciplinary Team
A. "Joining the Team"
The IDEA requires that the IEP team for each child with a disability include, among others, at least one regular education teacher of the child. This teacher(s) is to participate in the development, review, and revision of the child's IEP, including determination of appropriate "positive behavioral interventions and strategies," and of supplemental aids and services, program modifications, and support for school personnel. (1)
B. Case Studies
In the case of Board of Ed. of the City School District of NY, (2) an IEP team for a mentally retarded student recommended, after an evaluation, that the student's classification be changed to autistic and that he be placed in a special education classroom with speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and an aide. The student's teacher was delayed in attending the IEP team meeting where this decision was reached, and the parent left the meeting before the teacher arrived. The parent later enrolled the student in a private school and sought an order that the district's recommended placement was inappropriate. The hearing officer declared the district's placement recommendation a nullity, because the IEP team was not validly composed due to the teacher's absence from the meeting. See also, Board of Education of Valley Stream 13 Union Free School District, (3) (school's failure to include student's teacher in IEP team meeting was fatal flaw to IEP developed, regardless of whether or not team's recommended placement may have been otherwise appropriate).
Key Concepts:
Your attendance at a meeting is vital. Without your presence the legal structure of the team has been compromised.
You have the right and obligation to understand how an IEP impacts your teaching.
Frequently the regular educator has the most practical suggestions for how to modify their curriculum or their classroom setting. You should be aware of the fact that your input is considered as significant as the input from any other team member.

Return to Table of Contents​

III. The Educator's Responsibility for IEP Implementation
As mentioned in the Overview, the IDEA requires that each District provide a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities residing in the District. This duty includes developing and implementing an individualized education program for each such child. (4)
A. Failure to Fully Implement
It is the failure on the part of a District to implement its own plan that frequently causes the most problems. Two case studies in point:
1. Arlington (TX) Indep. School District (5)
Facts: A student with ADD was the subject of a Section 504 Plan. Parents complained that classroom teacher failed to implement the student's Section 504 Plan because teacher did not provide all of the modifications described in the Plan.
Ruling: Computer course teacher failed to comply with requirements of Section 504 because she did not provide all of the modifications in the 504 accommodation plan, despite her testimony that she "accepted late assignments, given student special instructions, and extended deadlines beyond what was allowed for other modified students."

 

[Sheila]

Key Concept:
You cannot selectively implement an IEP.
2. Maryland-Montgomery County Public School (6)
Facts: A student with a mild learning disability had attended district schools for 7th, 8th and part of 9th grade year. In the 9th grade year, parents removed student to 8th grade curriculum in private school, claiming that school failed to implement IEP and failed to provide an adequate IEP. School had used methods such as counselor involvement, parent conferences, consultations with specialists and colleagues, adjusted workload, preferential seating, student conference, modifying methods and materials.
Ruling: School failed to meet goals of student's 7th and 8th grade IEP's, which called for specified hours of weekly SPED services and thereby deprived student of appropriate education for two years. School's 7th, 8th, and 9th grade IEP's were inadequate, because they were based on student's emotional problems, and not on consideration of how she learned. Parents entitled to private school tuition reimbursement, plus transportation and related costs, and two academic years of compensatory education.
Note: Hearing Officer stressed that it was clearly unrealistic to set same exact goals for 9th grade IEP which were never met in 7th and 8th grade IEP's. Officer discredited testimony of student's classroom teachers that they believed the student was learning, given her poor grades and test scores.
Key Concepts:
Repetitive IEP goals are a "red flag" in many cases.
Progress is still measured the "old fashioned way," by whether the student makes the grades and test scores, and not simply by the perception of a teacher that a student has progressed.
B. The Dangers of Unilateral Changes to an IEP: A case in point
The IEP is a document that may only be modified in a Team setting. Educators do not have the latitude to unilaterally alter an IEP.
Penn-Tyrone Area School District (7)
Facts: An eight-year-old student with mental retardation and speech and language impairment had attended District's alternative school since kindergarten. The state Special Education Bureau found that the school was not age appropriate. The District then prepared a new IEP, without convening the team and without parental participation, which transferred student to another alternate regular school. District claimed it did not include parents because it knew they opposed transfer and that "no meaningful benefit" would be obtained from holding an IEP team meeting.
Ruling: Court declared the IEP a "nullity". District had to convene IEP team and start anew.
Key Concept:
Never unilaterally deviate from an IEP without first convening a team meeting to modify the IEP.
C. Flexibility in Methodology: A case study of a "right way"
A District does have flexibility in the methodology it uses to reach an IEP's goals and objectives. However, it is important that the methodology be consistent throughout the educational program.

 

[Sheila]

Tex. El Paso Indep. School District (8)
Facts: Eighteen-year-old student had ADD, learning disability and speech impairment. Parents made unilateral private school placement because of dissatisfaction with student's IEP.
Ruling: For the school district, because:
(1) IEP was crafted with parental involvement, provided goals, and objectives, and used proper assessment methods;
(2) District's academic assessments met Rowley standard and yielded reliable information;
(3) Officer rejected parents' contentions that the IEP's goals and objectives were required to contain all or most of the grade-level objectives for every essential element, rather the IDEA does not require the IEP to be a detailed instructional plan, but rather must provide only general direction;
(4) District not required to adopt parent's preferred methodology for teaching;
(5) Evidence established student had some benefit from District placement; and
(6) In addition to using adequate assessment instruments, the District considered input from student's mother and teachers concerning her academic progress and therefore did not use any sole criteria to measure student's program.
Note: This decision is consistent with a long line of cases giving District's discretion to use particular methodologies or personnel, as long as choices are "reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit."

Return to Table of Contents​

IV. Disciplinary Options Under the IDEA
A. Understanding the Key Rules
The disciplinary options available to educators are curtailed to some extent by the IDEA. The philosophy behind this curtailment is that educationally disabled students should not be disciplined for wrong acts that are a manifestation of their educational disability, and that they should receive a FAPE even if subject to long-term suspension or expulsion. You should be aware of the following rules:
Rule: The "Ten School Day" rule
A student with a disability may be suspended or moved to an alternative setting for up to 10 school days, (as with a nondisabled student), without convening an IEP team to determine whether the misconduct was related to the student's disabilities. This is based on the concept that a suspension, or series of suspensions, totaling less than 10 school days, does not constitute a change in placement. The school need not provide services during such a "short-term" suspension or removal, unless services would be provided to a non-disabled student during such suspension or removal. (9)
Rule: The "Cumulative Suspension" rule
If a student is subjected to a series of removals that constitutes a pattern because they amount to more than 10 days in a school year, and/or because of the length of each removal, the total amount of time removed, and the proximity of the removals to each other, then the student will be considered to have been subjected to a change in placement. A change in placement requires the school to continue to provide services necessary for the student to progress in the curriculum and to advance toward achieving the goals of the student's IEP. (10)
Rule: Changes in placement never occur without "Manifestation Determinations, FBA's and BIP's"
In any suspension of more than ten school days, or removal that constitutes a change in placement, the school must:
(a) no later than the date on which the decision to take the suspension or removal action is made, notify the parents of the decision and provide a procedural safeguards notice;
(b) immediately, if possible, but in no case later than 10 school days after the date on which the decision to take the suspension or removal action is made, conduct an IEP team meeting for the purpose of determining whether there is a relationship between the student's disability and behavior (manifestation determination);
(c) within 10 business days of removing the child, convene the IEP team to conduct a "functional behavioral assessment", if it has not already done so;
(d) the IEP team must then meet to develop or revise and implement a "behavioral intervention plan" to address the behavior that caused the suspension. (11)
Rule: "Drugs and Weapons"
A disabled student may be removed to an appropriate alternative educational setting for the same amount of time that a non-disabled child would be removed, but for not more than 45 days, if the removal is for possession or use of a drug or weapon. That student must still receive a FAPE.

 

[Sheila]

B. Disciplinary History Triggering Need for Evaluation: A case in point
Corpus Christi Indep. School District (12)
Facts: Parent charged that District denied a FAPE to 5 year old student by failing to timely recognize and evaluate suspected disability condition and need for special services. Kindergarten student with early history of behavioral difficulties, including hitting other children. Student's counselor had suggested referral for speech and language testing but parent disagreed. Counselor and principal then both agreed that student did not require services under the IDEA and did not need referral for IDEA special education eligibility
Ruling: Based upon at least 31 recorded disciplinary referrals and a threatened suspension, the district should have been suspicious that student may have had a qualifying disability under IDEA. District was ordered to assess student for all suspected areas of disability and educational needs. Compensatory education may be appropriate if student is found eligible for special education.
Key Concepts:
District's child-find duty is not dependent on any request for special education testing, referral, or services, duty arises with district's knowledge of facts, such as disciplinary history, tending to establish a "suspected" disability and need for IDEA special education services.
C. Short Periods of Discipline
Some disabilities rights advocates have contended that even short periods of discipline constitute a change in placement, and thus are prohibited without having first provided the student with the due process of a team meeting. In fact, the IDEA as reauthorized, left open the possibility that all suspensions had to be preceded by a meeting to make a "manifestation determination." With the advent of the latest federal regulations, this provision was interpreted to preserve the ability of educators to recommend short-term disciplinary measures.
In the recent case of Coventry (R.I.) Public School, (13) the parent alleged that the district discriminated against a student based on his disability, ADHD/Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), by giving him detention for behavior related to his disability. The student received a one-time, half-hour detention for a "bag-popping" incident.
The Court reasoned that Section 504 requires district to evaluate a student with a disability prior to making a "significant change" in his or her placement. A change in placement is considered "significant" when actual or proposed disciplining of a student excludes the student from the educational program for more than ten consecutive school days. This detention was not a significant change in placement sufficient to trigger protection under Section 504. The Court's reasoning in this case applies with equal force to circumstances involving the short-term discipline of a student protected by the IDEA.
D. Liability for Discipline Techniques
The manner is which an educator disciplines a student may also give rise to a challenge that it violates a student's due process rights. For example, in the case of Rasmus v. State of Arizona, (14)a student with ADD and an emotional disability was locked in a small, lighted, unfurnished room, (the "time-out" room), where the student could hear and speak with the teacher, and could be observed by the teacher, as discipline for violent behavior. The Court found that the School's conduct did not violate the student's due process rights since the interference with his liberty interests was de minimis. The employees were also granted immunity by the court.
The decision by the Court in these circumstances was within the exercise of its discretion. There is no guarantee that another court would rule in accord with this decision.
Key Concepts:
An IEP written for a student with behavioral issues should contain interventions in the form of a Behavioral Intervention Plan. When the intervention is part of the IEP, it protects the student and the district from disagreement over whether or not the intervention results in a change in placement. A failure to set forth interventions leaves the educator with limited disciplinary options.
Educators should generally avoid creating new interventions for a student without first convening a team meeting.

Return to Table of Contents​

V. Grading Special Education Students
There has been a fair amount of discussion over the past few months with regard to the grading of educationally disabled students. Our goal here is to provide you with some benchmarks for grading students with educational disabilities.
A. The Basic Rules
There has been very little case law to provide definitive answers to educators' questions regarding grading of special education students. The Office of Civil Rights, ("OCR"), a division of the United States Department of Education, provided some guidance in this regard in a 1996 opinion, Letter to Runkel. (15)
OCR indicates that, unless modified on a student's IEP, each identified student is presumed to be assessed and graded as per the school's policies. Thus, there should be no informal grade modifications outside of those established through the IEP team process. Modified grades are possible, so long as the determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, and special education course grades are not categorically excluded. Under these constraints, a district may indicate course modifications or alternate grades.
A disabled student in a regular education classroom who receives special education accommodations or modifications may be given a modified grade, so long as that decision is made on an individualized basis by the team process and is specified on the student's IEP. A student's grade may not be modified solely on the basis of the student's special education status. If modified grades are permitted across the range of course difficulty, the grading system is likely to meet approval.
Key Concepts:
Educationally disabled students are entitled in most cases to a grade that is determined on the same scale used for the nondisabled students.
The grade should always consider the progress that is called for in the IEP.
An appropriate grading policy must provide adequate notice to parents and students, be simple to understand, and provide parents and students with informed choice as to whether to accept accommodations which affect grading, and provide opportunities for identified students to take courses at all levels in the district.
B. Teacher Comments
Beyond simply providing a letter grade, teacher comments on progress reports or report cards can be the impetus for complaints by parents and students. Comments are often necessary to convey specific information regarding a student's progress, or lack of progress, as well as to document a student's classroom behavior. However, teachers should use caution to assure that all comments are made timely and accurately, and should maintain records throughout the marking period. This will go far toward refuting any contention that a student is being discriminated against because of behavior related to his or her disability.
In the recent case of Coventry (R.I.) Public School, (16) an English teacher wrote the following comment on a student's report card: "behavior needs improvement". The parent complained that the comment was made solely because of parent filing a complaint, because all the student's previous comment reports had been good. The OCR found that the teacher's comments were not made in retaliation for the parent's action in filing a complaint. The hearing officer relied upon the teacher's testimony that the comment was warranted based on student's misbehavior on several prior occasions. In particular, the officer noted that there were at least two indications of some misconduct contained in teacher's prior reports.

 

[Sheila]

C. Promotion
In the special education context, disputes have often arisen over the subject of promotion, in particular, over the practice known as "social promotion". Parents and students have frequently argued on both sides of the equation; that is, they may argue for promotion when the district does not believe that the student has earned it, and they may argue against promotion when the district believes that promotion is in the student's best interest, whether because of academic or social factors, or a combination thereof. The key here is for the district, via the classroom teachers, to provide the student with the opportunity to earn promotion, and to carefully consider and document the reasons behind the district's decision to recommend for or against promotion. Even if the district gives in to pressure from a parent in determining whether or not to promote, the basis for the district's recommendation should be carefully document.
Hernando (FL) County School, (17) is a case demonstrating this debate and a district that acted properly under the circumstances. This case involved a student with diabetes and asthma. After an evaluation, the district determined that he did not have a specific learning disability. In his fourth grade year, student had a Section 504 plan, which focused on the effects the student's disabilities had on his academic performance. The district recommended against promotion to 5th grade because of academic deficiencies, but relented upon parent's insistence. In the 6th grade, student had 36 unexcused absences and failed five classes. The school refused to promote the student to 7th grade. His parent contended absences were due to the student's diabetes, and that failure to promote was therefore discriminatory. The hearing officer ruled that the district did not discriminate based on disability when it failed to promote. The officer determined, based upon the student's record and teacher testimony, that the decision was based on the student's failure to master the subject matter. Given the accommodations that the district had provided, including a liberal policy for allowing the student to make-up missed work, the student's performance not hampered by any failure of district to accommodate his needs.

Return to Table of Contents​

VI. Maintaining Professionalism and Reducing Risks under the IDEA
A. Claims of Retaliation
Parents have frequently complained that school personnel have taken adverse action against a student in response to a parent's decision to assert his or her rights under the IDEA or other legislation affording rights to parents of disabled students. This concept has become known as "retaliation" in the case law. While it would be a rare case for an educator to intentionally take adverse action against a student in retaliation for assertion of his or her legal rights, the focus is not simply the educator's intent, but rather, how the educator's action is perceived in hindsight. OCR has developed a five-part test to determine whether a district has engaged in prohibited retaliation. It may be useful for you to consider the steps of this test before taking action with respect to a student who is involved in due process proceedings or whose parents have filed a complaint with OCR.
The five questions you should consider are:
(1) has the parent/student engaged in a protected activity?
(initiated due process proceedings, filed suit in court, filed a complaint with OCR)
(2) is the district or its agents aware of the protected activity?
(how and when did district receive notice, is there a rumor or verified action)
(3) will the adverse action against the student occur at the same time as, or after, the parent/student engaged in the protected activity?
(4) will a neutral third-party decide there is a causal relationship or connection between the protected activity and the adverse action?
(5) can the district offer legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse action, which a neutral third-party will not consider to be pretextual?
B. Avoiding Allegations of Retaliation: Two Examples
In the case of Spencer County (KY) School District, (18) the parent of home-schooled child, who was receiving some special reading and writing instruction at a district school, alleged that district retaliated against her for filing a complaint, by banning her from the school and refusing to let her volunteer in son's class. The school principal had denied the parent's request to volunteer in her son's classroom, because he had received complaints from school staff regarding the parent's failure to adhere to student confidentiality rules. Under the five part test for retaliation, the hearing officer found no causal relationship existed between the principal's action and the filing of the complaint. The school had documented the complaints regarding the parent's conduct, so there was sufficient evidence to establish that the school's action was consistent with school's rules, and that the school acted for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons.
In another recent case, Forest Grave (OR) School District 15, (19) the parent of a child suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder claimed a district retaliated against her for insisting that teachers follow her daughter's Section 504 Plan. The parent claimed that a principal canceled a parent-requested meeting with teachers and that the superintendent used sensitive information about the student's hospitalization and emotion condition to intimidate the parent. The hearing officer determined that the district did not retaliate against the parent, because the principal had provided an acceptable reason for canceling meeting, relating to the inability of all necessary parties to attend. Also, the superintendent testified that his reasons for questioning the parent about the student's hospitalization and recovery were not for the purpose of discouraging parent from pursuing the student's rights, or in retaliation against the parent. His actions were justified by his desire to see that school staff was informed sufficiently to provide student the services the student would need upon return to school.
C. Duty to Communicate with Parent/Guardian
Often problems arise with special education students because parents or guardians had not been fully informed by school personnel, or did not receive timely notice of an event or issue related to the student's academic progress or behavior. Open lines of communication on a regular basis are the best strategy for avoiding complaints or litigation.

 

[Sheila]

An example of how one school district erred is demonstrated by the case of North East Indep. School District (TX). (20) A student with autism and speech impairment had been in the district's preschool program for children with learning disabilities. His parents unilaterally withdrew him from the district before his first grade year and placed him in private school, because of their complaints about the district program's class size and lack of teacher training. In his kindergarten year, the student had been placed in a general classroom with therapy, a personal assistant, and an at-home trainer, but his behavior deteriorated and punitive measures were used. Based on student's behavior and the conclusions of a private psychologist, the school proposed placing student in resource room. Parents objected to proposed placement and district's proposed first grade IEP. Parents further claimed that the district withheld important information regarding behavioral interventions, thereby denying them effective participation in the IEP process.
The hearing officer ruled that the parents were denied meaningful input into the IEP process, because the district failed to provide the parents with information about the punitive behavior management strategies used during the kindergarten year, which violated parent's procedural rights. The parents were awarded compensatory education and partial reimbursement of private school tuition. The hearing officer also stressed that parent participation involves the opportunity to have meaningful input into the IEP process
The case of City of E. Chicago School (Ind.), (21) is another illustration of the consequences for failing to keep a parent/guardian informed. The guardian of a mentally handicapped student complained that the school had not provided the guardian with progress reports on a regular basis. The student's IEP specifically required progress reports at certain intervals. The hearing officer ruled that the school's failure to provide the reports violated the requirements of the IDEA. As an additional precaution, the district was also ordered to meet with the guardian at the conclusion of each grading period to report on student's progress and goal attainment.
Key Concepts:
The regular education teacher should carefully adhere to any notice or communication requirements provided for in a student's IEP.
School personnel should be vigilant about providing notice for both procedural, (e.g., notice of a meeting), and substantive, (e.g., notice of a child's pattern of misbehavior) matters.
In hindsight, more information will always be seen as better than less information, so err on the side of inclusion when determining how much information to communicate to a parent.
Timeliness is key to adequate communication: meet all procedural deadlines for notice and promptly communicate any issues that arise.

Return to Table of Contents​

ENDNOTES


1. 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(c)
2. 24 IDELR 199, February 2, 1996
3. 25 IDELR 1027, April 9, 1997
4. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(1)(A); 20 U.S.C. §1412(4)
5. 31 IDELR 87, February 9, 1999
6. 31 IDELR 70, August 12, 1999
7. 31 IDELR 20, March 22, 1999
8. 31 IDELR 25, December 29, 1998
9. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1),34 C.F.R. § 300.121(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(a)(1)
10. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1),34 CFR § 300.121(d)
11. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.520(b);34 C.F.R. § 300.523)
12. 31 IDELR 41, January 19, 1999
13. 31 IDELR 60, February 16, 1999
14. 24 IDELR 824 (D. Ariz. 1996)
15. 25 IDELR 387
16. 31 IDELR 60, February 16, 1999
17. 31 IDELR 89, February 12, 1999
18. 31 IDELR 38, December 31, 1998
19. 31 IDELR 15, October 9, 1998
20. 31 IDELR 101, September 25, 1998
21. 31 IDELR 45, November 6, 1998