Education and IDEA

Question:

Can a school's choice of methodology for educating a child with disabilities be challenged under IDEA?

Answer:

A number of administrative and judicial decisions interpreting IDEA, and often misinterpreting Bd. of Education v. Rowley, have stated that states and school decisions regarding educational "methodology" must be afforded deference, and may not easily, if at all, be challenged by parents, students or their advocates. The U.S. Department of Education's new regulations implementing IDEA, issued on March 12, 1999, should help defeat such arguments.

As did the former regulations (and as does the statute), the new regulations define "special education" as "specially designed instruction...to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability...." 34 C.F.R. §300.26(a)(emphasis added). However, the new regulations add a definition of "specially designed instruction,"defining this term to mean "adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction...." 34 C.F.R. §300.26(b)(3) (emphasis added). The regulations expressly recognize, and provide that, "methodology" is a component of special education - and thus a proper subject for a complaint and due process hearing when a school system's chosen "methodology" denies a child FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(8) ("free appropriate public education) means "special education and related services" that meet certain conditions); 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(6) (parents may file complaint re: any matter relating to the provision of a free appropriate public education to child). See also 64 Fed. Reg. at 12552 (March 12, 1999) (commentary to new 34 C.F.R. §300.26).

The principle that school systems should be afforded substantial deference on questions of "methodology,"often misapplied, stems from the Supreme Court's decision in Bd. of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). In Rowley the Court held, among other things, that "once a court determines that the requirements of the Act have been met, questions of methodology are for resolution by the States." 458 U.S. at 207.The "requirements of the Act," of course, include the requirement that the program/services/ methodologies employed provide the child with FAPE. Even under the law as it existed prior to the 1997 IDEA amendments and prior to the 1998 regulations, deference was not due on "methodology" issues unless the child was, as was the student in Rowley, receiving FAPE, including sufficient educational benefit. See, e.g..,Petersen v. Hasting Public Schools, 831 F. Supp. 742 (D. Neb. 1993), aff'd., 31 F.3d 705 (8^th Cir. 1994) ("requests of a parent will not...overcome the decision of a school district regarding which signing system is appropriate given that the school's system otherwise complies with the act"; students succeeding academically) (emphasis added).

NB. This material has not been reviewed by the Office of Special Education Programs and Services, U.S. Department of Education.

Education and IDEA

Question:

Answer:

Main Menu