Follow us on Facebook
CLE strives to make the right of all students to a quality education a reality.
Articles and Publications
- CLE discusses Students with Disabilities and Chronic Absenteeism in new NCEO Issue Brief (PDF) This Brief provides information about chronic absenteeism and possible implications for students with disabilities when a state selects it as a measure of school quality or student success. Ithighlights both the benefits and potential risks in light of requirements in the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504),and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Brief also suggests actions that states might consider taking to address chronic absencesamong students with disabilities at the state and local levels as they work to include this newmeasure in accountability systems. Please see below for links to resources related to the full Brief (linked above):
- Chronic Absenteeism and Students with Disabilities: Health Status of Students with Disabilities – Impact on Attendance (PDF)
- Chronic Absenteeism: Recognizing Child Find Obligations (PDF)
- Chronic Absenteeism and Students with Disabilities: Frequently Asked Questions (PDF)
- Charter Schools and Implications for Students with Disabilities (PDF)
- CLE’s Analysis of the Administration’s Blueprint: through the Lens of Students with Disabilities (PDF)
-
CLE's brief released: “Responding to ‘A Blueprint for Reform’ through the Lens of Students with Disabilities” (PDF) This review analyses the first three priority areas of the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for the ESEA reauthorization – (1) College-and-Career-Ready Students; (2) Great Teachers and Leaders; and (3) Equity and Opportunity for All Students – through the lens of students with disabilities. Identified areas of concern include, but are not limited to: the watering down of accountability provisions for students with disabilities, and the intermingling of IDEA and ESEA funds.
- Policy Brief for the National Center for Learning Disabilities: Accessible Instructional Materials: Ensuring Access for Students with Learning Disabilities, Joanne Karger, Oct. 2010 (PDF) CLE attorney Joanne Karger argues that many students with disabilities may be excluded from the NIMAS/NIMAC process introduced in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA due to limiting and confusing eligibility criteria. Because of this, some students may not receive the accessible materials to which they are entitled, in violation of IDEA Sec. 504 and Title II of the ADA.
- "IDEA and Recovery Act Funds: What Special Education Advocates Need to Know," (April 2009) (PDF) Powerpoint presentation addressing how funds can be spent under ARRA and IDEA for students with disabilities.
- Joanne Karger and Kathleen B. Boundy, "Including Students with Dyslexia in the State Accountability System: The Basic Legal Framework" (Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Fall 2008) (PDF) Article by staff attorney Joanne Karger describing the legal framework established by Title I/NCLB that ensures meaningful accountability of states to all students with disabilities protected by IDEA and Section 504. Participation in the state system is critical to ensure that students with disabilities are effectively taught a rigorous curriculum and learn to proficient and advanced standards.
- Kathleen B. Boundy and Joanne Karger, "Special Issues Affecting Inclusion of Students with Dyslexia in Statewide Assessments and Their Implications" (Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Fall 2008) (PDF) Article by co-director Kathleen Boundy about issues and challenges relating to the inclusion of students with disabilities in State assessment systems, including, invalid inferences being drawn based on students being inappropriately identified, educated and assessed based on modified standards.
- Kathleen B. Boundy, "Examining the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004: What Advocates for Students and Parents Need to Know" (Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, May-June 2006) (PDF) Article discusses statutory changes to IDEA as reauthorized in 2004 and in the context of the proposed 2006 regulations that, if implemented and enforced, should improve educational achievement and outcomes for students with disabilities. Also flagged are the provisions that eliminate, alter, or otherwise compromise the rights of students with disabilities and present special challenges for parents and advocates.
- Akinseye v. District of Columbia, (D.C.Cir. DATE), Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of U.S. Senator Kennedy, Harkin, Jeffords, U.S. Representative Kildee, Miller, Owens; Counsel for Amici, Attorney Eileen Ordover, Center for Law and Education (PDF) Brief argues that Buckhannon v West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources limiting attorney fee awards is not applicable to the attorney fee provision of IDEA.
- Eileen L. Ordover, "When Schools Criminalize Disability/Education Law Strategies for Legal Advocates" (2002) (PDF) Comprehensive guide discussing strategies for challenging school policies and practices that result in schools characterizing in-school, disability-related behavior as criminal, resulting in police/court involvement, and unilateral removal of students from their educational arguably in violation of the provisions of the IDEA. Includes hypothetical case scenarios, with legal analyses, strategies and anticipated defenses, recommendations, and a brief synopsis of other issues pertaining to the school system's abuse of the juvenile justice system and the education rights of court-involved youth.
- See also T.D. v. LaGrange School District No. 2, (CA 7th Cir., XXX), Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of U.S. Senator Kennedy, Harkin, Jeffords, U.S. Representative Kildee, Miller, Owens; Counsel for Amici, Attorney Eileen Ordover, Center for Law and Education (PDF) This brief argues that the decision of the district court was correct: Congress in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorized the award of attorneys’ fees to prevailing parents when disputes are resolved by settlement agreements, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), does not change this.
- Eileen L. Ordover, "Disciplinary Exclusion of Students with Disabilities" (Clearinghouse Rev. Vol. 34, p. 50, May-June 2000) (PDF) Discussion of the special rights and protections of students with disabilities who are subject to disciplinary exclusion under the IDEA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Note: IDEA was reauthorized and amended in 2004.