Child Find Activities Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Recent Case Law

A.W. by H.W. and A.W. v. Middletown Area School District, 65 IDELR 16 (M.D. Pa. 2015).

Board of Education of Fayette County, Kentucky v. L.M., 47 IDELR 122 (6th Cir. 2007).

Compton Unified School District v. Starvenia Addison, 598 F.3d 1181(9th Cir. 2010).

Central School District v. K.C. by S.C. and S.C., 61 IDELR 125 (E.D. Pa. 2013).

Demarcus L. by Dominque L. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, District 299, 63 IDELR 13 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

D.L. v. District of Columbia, 845 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.2011).

El Paso Independent School District v. Richard R. ex rel. R.R., 50 IDELR 256 (W.D. Tex. 2008).

Fuchs D. Fuchs L. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4

IDEA regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 (2012).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V. 2011).

Jana, K. v. Annville Cleona School District, 63 IDELR 278, 39 F.Supp.3d 584 (M.D. Pa. 2014)

K.A.B. by Susan B. and John B. v. Downingtown Area School District, 61 IDELR 159 (E.D. Pa. 2013).

Kauffman J. M. Landrum T. J. (2013). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Musgrove M. (2011). Memorandum: A response to intervention (RtI) process cannot be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf

New Paltz Central School District v. St. Pierre ex rel. M.S., 40 IDELR 211 (N.D.N.Y. 2004).

Office of Special Education Programs. (2013). Letter to Delisle. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/041715osepmemo15-082q2015.pdf

Office of Special Education Programs. (2015). Memorandum to state directors of special education, 65 IDELR 181 (OSEP 2015).

Regional School District No. 9 Board of Education v. Mr. and Mrs. M., 53 IDELR 8 (D. CN 2009).

Shapiro B. J. Derrington T. M. (2004). Equity and disparity in access to services: An outcomes-based evaluation of early intervention child find in Hawaii. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 199–212. doi:10.1177/02711214040240040201

Simmons, v. Pittsburg Unified School District, 63 IDELR 158 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

Togut T. D. Nix J. E. (2012). The helter skelter world of IDEA eligibility for specific learning disability: The class of response-to-intervention and child find requirements. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 32, 568–610.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). 37th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 2014. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2015/parts-b-c/37th-arc-for-idea.pdf

Yell M. L. Katsiyannis A. Collins J. C. (2010). Compton Unified School District v. Starvenia Addison: Child Find activities and response to intervention. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(2), 67–69. doi:10.1177/1044207310380668

Zirkel P. A. (2015). The “red flags” for Child Find under the IDEA: Separating the law from lore. Exceptionality, 23, 192–209. doi:10.1080/09362835.2014.986615