School leaders have a prominent role on Individual Education Program (IEP) teams and often face very challenging obstacles when determining substantive educational services and placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with medical disabilities. In absence of federal statutory and regulatory policy, standard legal research methodology was used to determine whether explicit and implicit recommendations existed for school leaders elsewhere in the law for the use of homebound placements for students with medical disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Homebound instructional services can be an LRE because educational services are provided to students who would be unable to attend school programs and activities.
F.R. § 121a, Appendix A – Analysis of Final Regulation (45 CFR Part 121a) Under Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, at 531 (1978).
2.
AdlerL. (2015). Qualitative research redux: Researching contemporary legal issues concerning education. In PermuthS., MawdsleyR., & SilverS. (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (2nd edition, pp. 25–52). Cleveland, OH: Education Law Association.
3.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health. (2000). Home, hospital, or other non school-based instruction for children and adolescents who are medically unable to attend school. Pediatrics, 106, 1154–1154.
4.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edition, text revised). Washington, DC: Author.
5.
Assistance to States for the Education for the Education of Children With Disabilities and the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,406, 12638 (March 12, 1999).
6.
A.W. v. Northwest School District, 813 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1987).
7.
BarnesJ. L. (2000). Casenotes: The practice of pediatrics in pedagogy? The costly combination in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. University of Richmond Law Review, 34, 305–328.
8.
BartlettL. D. (2000). Medical services: The disputed related service. Journal of Special Education, 33, 215–247.
9.
Bellingham Public Schools, 41 IDELR 74 (Mass. SEA 2004).
10.
Benson Unified School District, 56 IDELR 244 (Az. SEA 2011).
11.
Beth B. v. Van Clay, 282 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2002).
12.
Board of Education of the Onteora Central School District, 27 IDELR 400 (N.Y. SEA 1997).
13.
BoasE.P. (1937). Heart disease in childhood. Journal of Exceptional Children, 4, 25.
14.
Boston Public Schools, 24 IDELR 985 (Mass. SEA 1993).
15.
BoylesI. F. (1947). Hospital classes and homebound instruction in Illinois. Journal of Exceptional Children, 14, 79.
16.
Brado v. Weast, 53 IDELR 316 (U.S. District Court, Maryland, 2010).
17.
Bryan County Board of Education, 21 IDELR 422 (Ga. SEA 1994).
18.
BryantT. (1995). Drowning in the mainstream: Integration of children with disabilities after Oberti v. Clementon School District. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 22, 83–117.
19.
Cedar Rapids Community School District, 22 IDELR 278 (Ia. SEA 1994).
20.
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999).
21.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2015, November 4). Autism spectrum disorders (ASD): Data & statistics: Prevalence. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
22.
ClayD. L. (2004). Helping schoolchildren with chronic health conditions: A practical guide.New York: Guilford Press.
23.
Cupertino Union School District v. K. A., 64 IDELR 275 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2014).
24.
Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. School District v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997).
25.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).
26.
DavidsonD. N., & AlgozzineB. (2002). Administrators' perceptions of special education law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15(2), 43–48.
27.
DeidrickK. M., & FarmerJ. E. (2005). School reentry following traumatic brain injury. Preventing School Failure, 49, 23–24.
28.
DeKalb County Central Community School District, 64 IDELR 90 (In. SEA 2013).
29.
DenoE. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 234–236.
30.
Easton Area School District, 37 IDELR 25 (Pa. SEA 2001).
Falmouth Public Schools, 18 IDELR 1168 (Mass. SEA 1992).
33.
Falzett v. Pocono Mountain School District, 152 Fed. Appx. 117 (3rd Cir. 2005).
34.
FrickW. C., FairclothS. C., & LittleK. S. (2012). Responding to the collective and individual “best interests of students”: Revisiting the tension between administrative practice and ethical imperatives in special education leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 207–242.
GraffH. (2008). Homebound services under the IDEA and Section 504: An overview of legal issues.Horsham, Pennsylvania: LRP Publications.
37.
Greer v. Rome City Sch. District, 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991).
38.
Gwinett County School District, 114 LRP 43625 (Ga. SEA 2014).
39.
Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
40.
Hillsborough County School Board, 64 IDELR 56 (Fl. SEA 2013).
41.
HilyerdW. A. (2005). Using the law library: A guide for educators part IV: Secondary sources to the rescue. Journal of Law and Education, 2, 34, 273–292.
42.
H.R. Rep. No. 94-332, at 11. (1975).
43.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400.1 et seq. (2012).
44.
IDEA regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 300 (2006).
45.
In re Child with Disability, 505 IDELR 157 (Ill. SEA 1983).
46.
In re Robert M., 401 IDELR 252 (Pa. SEA 1988).
47.
In re Ryan White, 507 IDELR 342 (Ind. SEA 1986).
48.
In re the Matter of a Child with Disabilities, 18 IDELR 936 (N.H. SEA 1991).
49.
In re: Student with a Disability, 48 IDELR 146 (N.M. SEA 2007).
50.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1500. (2004).
51.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984).
52.
KatsiyannisA., & YellM. L. (2000). The Supreme Court and school health services: Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. Exceptional Children, 3, 66, 317–326.
53.
K.K. v. State of Hawaii-Department of Education, 66 IDELR 12 (U.S. District Court, Hawaii, 2015).
KromreyJ. D., HogartyK. Y., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2015). The continua of disciplined inquiry: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodology. In PermuthS., MawdsleyR., & SilverS. (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (2nd edition, pp. 87–126). Cleveland, OH: Education Law Association.
56.
LashleyC. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework. Exceptionality, 15, 177–187.
57.
Los Angeles Unified School District, 54 IDELR 269 (Ca. SEA 2010).
58.
MeadJ. F., & RischJ. (2005). Fundamentals of federal disability law. In LaneK. E., ConnellyM. J., MeadJ. F., GoodenM. A., & EckesS. (Eds.), The principal's legal handbook (3rd edition, pp. 162–173). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
59.
MilitelloM., SchimmelD., & EberweinH. J. (2009). If they knew, the would change: How legal knowledge impacts principals' practice. NASSP Bulletin, 93(1), 27–52.
60.
Millis Public Schools, 25 IDELR 481 (Mass. SEA 1994).
61.
Mt. Zion Unit School District No. 3, 111 LRP 51317 (Il. SEA, 2011).
62.
NewacheckP. W., & HalfonN. (1998). Prevalence and impact of disabling chronic conditions in childhood. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 610–613.
63.
Oberti v. Board of Education, 996 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).
64.
OsborneA. G.Jr. (1999). Supreme Court rules that schools must provide fulltime nursing services for medically fragile students. West's Education Law Reporter, 136, 1–14.
65.
PetitC. C., & PattersonP. P. (2014). There's no place like home: Training, practices, and perceptions of homebound services. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 33(2), 36–52.
Plano Independent School District, 62 IDELR 159 (Tx. SEA 2013).
68.
Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1988).
69.
PrendergastD. E. (1995). Preparing for children who are medically fragile in educational programs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 37.
70.
Pub. L. No. 94-142. (1975).
71.
Pulaski County Special School District, 26 IDELR 1032 (Ark. SEA 1997).
72.
ReboreD., & ZirkelP. A. (1999). The Supreme Court's latest special education ruling: A costly decision?West's Education Law Reporter, 135, 331–341.
73.
RogersJ. (1993). The inclusion revolution. Phi Delta Kappa Research Bulletin, 11, 4–5.
74.
Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).
75.
RussoC. J. (2015). Legal research: The “traditional” method. In PermuthS., MawdsleyR., & SilverS. (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (2nd edition, pp. 5–24). Cleveland, OH: Education Law Association.
76.
Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).
77.
School Administrative District 25, 20 IDELR 476 (Me. SEA 1993).
78.
SexonS. B., & Madi-SwainA. (1993). School reentry for the child with chronic illness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 115–119.
79.
ShiuS. (2001). Issues in the education of students with chronic illness. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 48, 269–270.
80.
Stamps v. Gwinnett County School District, 59 IDELR 1 (11th Cir. 2012).
81.
StrachanL. (1935). New ways for old care in the care of delicate children. Journal of Exceptional Children, 2, 60–65.
82.
TaylorS. J. (2004). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 218, 220–221.
83.
ThiesK.M. (1999). Identifying the educational implications of chronic illness in school children. Journal of School Health, 69, 392–393.
84.
Thomas v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 918 F.2d 618 (6th Cir. 1990).
85.
Timothy W. v. Rochester, N. H., School Dist., 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989).
86.
UnumbL. S., & UnumbD. R. (2011). Autism and the law: Cases, statutes, and materials.Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
87.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). President's commission on excellence in special education, a new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
88.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 26th Annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004, Vol. 1 & 2.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
89.
VaccaR. S., & BosherW. C.Jr. (2008). Law and education: Contemporary issues and court decisions (7th edition). San Francisco: LexisNexis.
90.
WeberM. C. (2002). Special education law and litigation treatise (2nd edition). Palm Beach Gardens, FL: LRP Publications.
91.
Wilkins v. District of Columbia, 50 IDELR 276 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 2008.
92.
Wilmot Union High School District, 20 IDELR 1368 (Wis. SEA 1994).
93.
ZirkelP. A. (2002). The autism case law: Administrative and judicial rulings. Focus on Austim and Other Developmental Disabilities, 2(17), 84–85.
