{ "id": "R40521", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R40521", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 387084, "date": "2011-05-04", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T00:54:19.577534", "title": "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Selected Judicial Developments Following the 2004 Reauthorization", "summary": "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major federal statute for the education of children with disabilities. IDEA both authorizes federal funding for special education and related services and, for states that accept these funds, sets out principles under which special education and related services are to be provided. The cornerstone of IDEA is the principle that states and school districts make available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities. IDEA has been the subject of numerous reauthorizations; the most recent reauthorization was P.L. 108-446 in 2004. Congress is currently beginning the process of identifying potential issues for the next reauthorization. Some of the issues raised by judicial decisions include the following:\nWhat amount of educational progress is required to meet FAPE standards?\nWhat educational benefits are required to be put in an individualized education program (IEP)?\nWhat use of seclusion and restraints is allowed (if any) under IDEA?\nAre all settlement agreements enforceable in federal court or only those reached through dispute resolution or mediation?\nIs information disclosed in a resolution session confidential?\nWhat are the specific rights of a parent of a child with a disability?\nWhat are the rights of a noncustodial parent of a child with a disability?\nDoes the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Schaffer v. Weast correctly allocate the burden of proof in IDEA cases?\nAre compensatory educational services required for the same amount of time that the appropriate services were withheld?\nDoes the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy correctly deny reimbursement for expert witness fees?\nDoes there need to be more detailed guidance on systemic compliance complaints?\nThis report examines the Supreme Court decisions, and selected lower court decisions since July 1, 2005, the effective date of P.L. 108-446.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40521", "sha1": "24cfd974af84e3712a23e3de59d127246a8dd0f9", "filename": "files/20110504_R40521_24cfd974af84e3712a23e3de59d127246a8dd0f9.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40521", "sha1": "c9cc4ae9a008f1f023214714a43c3d86e09ba1c2", "filename": "files/20110504_R40521_c9cc4ae9a008f1f023214714a43c3d86e09ba1c2.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc805131/", "id": "R40521_2009Aug13", "date": "2009-08-13", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Selected Judicial Developments Following the 2004 Reauthorization", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20090813_R40521_d69f136f04cd7e6df8d59c7c86d52e18f851d4a3.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20090813_R40521_d69f136f04cd7e6df8d59c7c86d52e18f851d4a3.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [] }