The current system of procedural accountability
within special education law is a logical response to the problems that led Congress in 1975 to enact the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA): the total exclusion of some students with disabilities, the inadequate education of others, and the segregation of those in school from their nondisabled peers.
Not exact matches
Students with disabilities are served by a system of policy and practice that extends from expansive federal
laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) all the way down to the interactions between a single special education teacher and a single student within one c
Education Act (IDEA) all the way down to the interactions between a single
special education teacher and a single student within one c
education teacher and a single student
within one classroom.
Federal and state
law mandates that students with disabilities be educated in the «least restrictive environment,» ideally
within general
education classes with appropriate modifications and support, but half of New Jersey's
special - needs children are isolated from their typical peers.
It even takes account of flexibilities
within federal
special education law that allow LEAs to be innovative in how they serve students with disabilities.
While Texas officials and some outside the state argued that the policies were well
within federal
law that seek to minimize
special education placements by authorizing procedures to use comprehensive research - based supports
within the general
education setting.
If that seems like something out of the ancient past in an age of hundred - million - dollar lawsuits over your phone's bezel design, students can also come to see that
education retains an «exceptional» status
within intellectual property
law that promotes learning through fair use rights (copyright), experimental exceptions (patents), and an academic exception that recognizes the
special contribution of teachers and scholars in creating intellectual property that does not simply and automatically belong to their employer (both).
Her legal focus is on
education law, including
special education within schools, family
law, adoption and mediation.