Although the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA), legal precedence, and the U.S. Department of Education interpretations indicate that public schools must provide the opportunity for “equitable participation” for students with disabilities attending private schools, the nature, extent, and location for service delivery are still debated. The purpose of this article was to examine the roles and responsibilities of public schools in providing services to children with disabilities placed in private and parochial schools within the legal parameters of IDEA. Public schools appear to have considerable flexibility in providing on-site services using IDEA funds as long as they are within parameters set forth by rulings of three courts of appeals, although categorical denial of services is prohibited. Furthermore, according to the 1997 IDEA amendments. Child Find activities must include private and parochial schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agostini v. Felton, U.S. S. Ct. (1997).
2.
Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 105 S. Ct. 3232 (1985).
3.
Cefalu v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 907 F. Supp. 966 (M. D. Louisiana 1995); 25 IDELR 142 (5th Cir. 1997)
4.
Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified School District, 797 F. Supp. 753 (D. Ariz. 1992), 19 IDELR 315.
5.
Falconetti, M. (1994). Constitutional law: Does the establishment clause prohibit sending public employees into religious schools?University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, 6, 277–285.
6.
Felter v. Cape Girardeau School District, 830 F. Supp. 1279 (E. D. Missouri 1993), 19 IDELR 764.
7.
Fowler v. Unified School District No. 259, 907 F. Supp. 348 (D. Kan. 1995), 23 IDELR 323; 25 IDELR 454 (10th Cir. 1997).
8.
Goodall by Goodall v. Stafford County School Board, 930 F.2d 363, 22 IDELR 972 (4th Cir. 1995).
9.
Goodall v. Stafford County School Board, 17 EHLR 745 (D. Kan. 1991).
10.
Hinds County (Miss.) School District. (1993). OCR Ruling, 20 IDELR 1175.
11.
Huefner, D. S. (1994). Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District: A foothill in establishment clause jurisprudence?West's Education Law Reporter, 87, 15–29.
12.
Huefner, D. S., & Huefner, S. F. (1992). Publicly financed interpreter services for parochial school students with IDEA-B disabilities. Journal of Law and Education, 21, 223–239.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1413.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 34 C.F.R. § 300.401.
15.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1412.
16.
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W. (1997). Ensuring appropriate education: Emerging remedies, litigation, compensation, and other legal considerations. Exceptional Children, 63, 451–462.
17.
K. R. by M. R. v. Anderson Community School Corporation, 887 F. Supp. 1217 (S.D. Ind. 1995).
18.
K. R. by M. R. v. Anderson Community School Corporation, 81 F. 3d 673 (7th Cir. 1996), 23 IDELR 1137.
19.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971).
20.
Linden, M. A. (1995). Special education services and parochial schools: Constitutional constraints and other policy considerations. Journal of Law and Education, 24(3), 345–375.
21.
McMillan, J. M. (1994). Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District. Lowering the establishment clause barrier in school-aid controversies. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 39, 337–386.
22.
Mehfoud, K. S. (1994). Special education services for private school students. Horsham, PA: LRP.
23.
Natchez-Adams School District v. Searing, 918 F. Supp. 1028 (S. D. Miss. 1996), 23 IDELR 982.
24.
Osborne, A. G. (1994). Providing special education and related services to parochial school students in the wake of “Zobrest.”West's Education Law Reporter, 87, 329–340.
25.
Peter v. Johnson, 25 IDELR 738 (D. Minn. 1997).
26.
Pierce, L. S. (1994). Making aid without Lemon?University of Cincinnati Law Review, 63, 565–605.
27.
Prince George's County Public Schools (1986). OCR Rulings, EHLR 352:226.
28.
Rapport, M. J. K. (1996). Legal guidelines for the delivery of special health care services in school. Exceptional Children, 62, 537–550.
29.
Russman v. Board of Education of the Enlarged City School District of the City of Watervliet, 22 IDELR 1028 (N.D. N.Y. 1995).
30.
Russman v. Board of Education of the Enlarged City School District of the City of Watervliet, F. 2d (2nd Cir. 1996).
31.
School District of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985).
32.
Tribble v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 798 F. Supp. 668 (Md. Ala. 1992), 19 IDELR 102.
33.
Tucker, B. P., Goldstein, B. A., & Sorenson, G. (1993). The educational rights of children with disabilities: Analysis, decisions, and commentary. Horsham, PA: LRP.
34.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Digest of educational statistics, 1993. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
35.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1986). Policy Letter, EHLR 211:414.
36.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1988b). Letter to Department of Special Education, George Peabody College for Teachers, EHLR 213:186.
37.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1988a). Letter to Cunningham. EHLR 213:125.
38.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1989). Letter to Anonymous. EHLR 213:268.
39.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1991a). Letter to Unknown. 17 IDELR 1117.
40.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1991b). Policy Letter, 17 EHLR 523.
41.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1991c). Policy Letter. 18 IDELR 276.
42.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1992a). Letter to Senator Grassley, 19 IDELR 629.
43.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1992b). Letter to Williams. 18 IDELR 742.
44.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1992c). Policy Letter. 19 IDELR 974.
45.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1993). Letter to Livingston, 20 IDELR 76.
46.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1994a). Letter to Cernosia. 22 IDELR 365.
47.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1994b). Letter to Graham, 22 IDELR 502.
48.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (1995). Letter to Champagne. 22 IDELR 1136.
49.
U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1986). Letter to Hoffman, EHLR 211:405.
50.
U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1988). Letter to Exon, EHLR 213:125.
51.
Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S. Ct 2593 (1977).
52.
Work v. McKenzie, 661 F. Supp. 225 (D. D.C. 1987).
53.
Wright v. Saco School Department, 610 A. 2d 257 (1992), 19 IDELR 99.
54.
Yell, M. L. (1995). The least-restrictive-environment mandate and the courts: Judicial activism or judicial restraint?Exceptional Children, 61, 578–581.
55.
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 113 S. Ct. 2462 (1993).
