Congress gets reports on IDEA federal cases and use of seclusion and restraints
Legal Clips, April 2009
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has issued two reports on special education. CRS reports, written in response to Congressional requests, can signal Congressional areas of interest for legislation. One report discusses the legal issues involved in the use of seclusion and restraints in public schools to control violent or noncompliant behavior by children covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and by those not covered by IDEA. Several recent reports have documented instances of deaths and injuries resulting from the use of seclusion or restraints in schools, but since there is no general reporting requirement, the exact parameters of the problem are unknown. There are no specific federal laws concerning the use of seclusion and restraint in public schools, but the CRS report notes that some uses of seclusion and restraints might arguably violate the IDEA, constitutional rights or state laws. Although there are some judicial cases, they do not provide clear guidance on when, if ever, seclusion and restraint may be used in schools. More information on controversies, litigation, and legislation over restraint and seclusion of students is available starting from the NSBA link below.
The other report summarizes U.S. Supreme Court and selected lower court decisions on the courts’ interpretation of various provisions of IDEA since 2005. The report states that since the last reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, Congress has begun the process of identifying potential issues for the next reauthorization. Among the legal issues identified in cases since that date: how much educational progress is required to meet FAPE standards; what educational benefits must be put in an individualized education program (IEP); what use of seclusion and restraints is allowed (if any) under IDEA; are all settlement agreements enforceable in federal court or only those reached through dispute resolution or mediation; is information disclosed in a resolution session confidential; what are the rights of a noncustodial parent of a child with a disability; does the Supreme Court’s decision in Schaffer v. Weast correctly allocate the burden of proof in IDEA cases; are compensatory educational services required for the same amount of time that the appropriate services were withheld; does the Supreme Court’s decision in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy correctly deny reimbursement for expert witness fees; and is there a need for more detailed guidance on systemic compliance complaints.
NSBA School Law pages on restraint and seclusion
CRS seclusion and restraints report, April 14, 2009
CRS summary of IDEA cases report, April 14, 2009