Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Students with disabilities fit into two groups: (a) those with individualized education plans (IEPs), who are eligible under both the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and Section 504, and (b) those with 504 plans, who are eligible under Section 504 only. Updating the only previous data about the incidence of 504-only students, which was a non-governmental survey prior to the 2008 ADA amendments to the Americans With Disabilities Act, this study analyzed the data from the federal government’s 2009–2010 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The first finding was that the average proportion of 504-only students in the nation’s public schools is approximately 1%. Second, the percentage of this group is significantly higher for (a) Black and Hispanic than for White students and (b) for males than for females. Third, the percentage of 504-only students is significantly higher for (a) high IEP than for low IEP schools, (b) non-charter than for charter schools, and (c) non-Title I than Title I schools. These results suggest the need for more diligent and consistent identification of 504-only students and for more current and comprehensive research.

Keywords

ADA civil rights eligibility law/legal issues

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).

Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2012).

Artiles

A. J.

Kozleski

E. B.

Trent

S. C.

Osher

Ortiz

(2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76, 279–299.

Dear Colleague Letter. (2014, January 8). Nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf

DiCosmo

J. R.

Hayman

R. L.

Mickman

J. G.

(2013). Interest-convergence and the disability paradox: An account of the racial disparities in disability determinations under the SSA and IDEA. Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race, 4, 78–117.

Garda

R. A.

(2012). Disabled students’ rights of access to charter schools under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA. Journal of the Association of the Administrative Law Judiciary, 32, 516–542.

Gross

(2002, September 26). Paying for disability diagnosis to gain time on college boards. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/26/nyregion/paying-for-a-disability-diagnosis-to-gain-time-on-college-boards.html?pagewanted=all&;src=pm

Hardcastle

L. A.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012). The “new” Section 504: Student issues in the wake of the ADAAA. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(4), 32–39. doi:10.1177/1555458912470662

Hensel

(2009). Rights resurgence: The impact of the ADA Amendments Act on schools and universities. Georgia State University Law Review, 25, 641–697.

10.

Holler

Zirkel

P. A.

(2008). Section 504 and public schools: A national survey concerning “Section 504-only” students. NASSP Bulletin, 92, 1–19. doi:10.1177/0192636508314106

11.

Hosp

Reschley

D. J.

(2004). Disproportionate representation of minority children in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70, 185–199.

12.

Howie

L. D.

Pastor

P. N.

Lukacs

S. L.

(2014, April). Use of medication prescribed for emotional or behavioral difficulties among children aged 6–17 years of age in the United States 2011–2012 (NCHS Data Brief No. 148). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db148.pdf

13.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (2012).

14.

Katsiyannis

Conderman

(1994). Section 504 policies and procedures: An established necessity. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 311–318. doi:10.1177/074193259401500506

15.

Kauffman

Landrum

T. J.

(2010). Politics, civil rights, and disproportional representation of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality, 17, 177–188.

16.

Lee v. Macon Cty. Bd. of Educ., 267 F. Supp. 458 (M.D. 1967), aff’d mem. sub nom. Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 215 (1967).

17.

Letter to Woolsey, 61 IDELR ¶ 144 (OSEP 2012).

18.

Losen

D. J.

Gillespie

(2012). Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of disciplinary exclusion from school. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/upcoming-ccrr-research/losen-gillespie-opportunity-suspended-2012.pdf

19.

Madaus

J. W.

Shaw

S. F.

(2008). The role of school professionals in implementing Section 504 for students with disabilities. Educational Policy, 22, 363–375. doi:10.1177/0895904807307069

20.

Militello

Schimmel

Eberwein

H. J.

(2009). If they knew, they would change: How legal knowledge impacts principals’ practice. NASSP Bulletin, 93, 27–52. doi:10.1177/0192636509332691

21.

Rado

(2012, June 6). Special help starts as early as grade school—But only for selected students. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-06/news/ct-met-accommodations-folo-20120606_1_disabled-students-time-or-other-accommodations-poorest-schools

22.

Richards

(2012). Section 504: What’s new? Presentation at Utah Institute on Special Education Law. Retrieved from http://www.schools.utah.gov/sars/DOCS/calendar/12lawconference/dr_s504-wnew.aspx

23.

Ruiz-Quintanilla

S. A.

Featherston

L. W.

Houtenville

A. J.

(2009). A guide to disability statistics from the National Assessment of Educational Programs. Ithaca, NY: ILR School, Cornell University. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&;context=edicollect

24.

Russo

C. J.

Morse

T. E.

(1999). Update on Section 504: How much will schools pay for compliance? School Business Affairs, 65(5), 50–53.

25.

Schenectady (NY) City Sch. Dist., 62 IDELR ¶ 93 (OCR 2013).

26.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(20) and 794 (2012).

27.

Shah

(2013, July 10). Civil rights office proposes deeper dig on discipline data. Education Week, p. 19.

28.

Shah

McNeil

(2013, January 10). Suspension, expulsion data case some in harsh light. Education Week, pp. 12–13.

29.

Skiba

R. J.

Simmons

A. B.

Ritter

Gibb

A. G.

Rausch

M. K.

Cuadrado

Chung

C. G

. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.

30.

Sullivan

Bal

(2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79, 475–494.

31.

Sun Prairie (WI) Area Sch. Dist., 62 IDELR ¶ 125 (OCR 2013).

32.

Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).

33.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Charter schools, Additional federal attention needed to help protect access for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-543

34.

U.S. Office for Civil Rights. (2009, September). Frequently asked questions about Section 504 and the education of children with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html

35.

U.S. Office for Civil Rights. (2012a). Helping to ensure equal access to education: Report to the president and secretary of education, FY 2009–12. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/report-to-president-2009-12.pdf

36.

U.S. Office for Civil Rights. (2012b, January). Questions and answers on the ADA Amendments of 2008 for students with disabilities attending public elementary and secondary schools. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-504faq-201109.html

37.

U.S. Office for Civil Rights. (n.d.-a). Civil rights data collection. Available from http://ocrdata.ed.gov

38.

U.S. Office for Civil Rights. (n.d.-b). CRDC: Data notes. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html

39.

U.S. Office for Civil Rights. (n.d.-c). 2009–10 CRDC table layouts with definitions. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html

40.

Weber

(2010). A new look at Section 504 and the ADA in special education cases. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 16, 1–34.

41.

Weber

(2012). Procedures and remedies under Section 504 and the ADA for public school children with disabilities. Journal of the National Association of the Administrative Law Judiciary, 32, 611–647.

42.

Weiss

K. R.

(2000, January 9). New test-taking skill: Working the system. Los Angeles Times, pp. A1, A20–A21. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/09/news/mn-52442

43.

Wieselthier

(2013). Judicial clarity: Giving teeth to the application of federal disability laws in charter schools. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2013, 67–91.

44.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2009a). The ADAA and its effect on Section 504 students. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 22, 3–8.

45.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2009b). Legal perspectives: New Section 504 student eligibility standards. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(4), 68–72.

46.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2011a). Case law for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans: An empirical analysis. Seattle University Law Review, 35, 175–212.

47.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2011b). Section 504, the ADA, and the schools. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

48.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012a). The common lore of Section 504. In CASE, 54(2), 4–8.

49.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012b). A comprehensive comparison of the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. West’s Education Law Reporter, 282, 767–784.

50.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2012c). The public schools’ obligation for impartial hearings under Section 504. Widener Law Journal, 22, 135–181.

51.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2013). The trend in SLD enrollments and the role of RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 473–479. doi:10.1177/0022219413495297

52.

Zirkel

P. A.

McGuire

(2010). A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 100–112.

Section 504-Only Students

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References