on and staff members who can serve as contacts with whom students can discuss concerns or incidents, or can otherwise check in.”In light of the CSDE’s guidance on this point, it is a good idea for school leaders to consider designating appropriate administrative support staff for gender identity issues in student handbooks and policy documents as well as other ways in which students may be made aware of available supports and resources that schools may have to offer.Gender Dysphoria and Section 504 and the IDEAThe CSDE provides that students who struggle with “gender dysphoria,” which the Mayo Clinic defines as “the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics,” may be eligible for accommodations or services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 (“Section 504”) or under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§1400, et seq. (“IDEA”).The 2017 Department guidance did not address this issue so it is important for special education administrators and Section 504 coordinators to recognize that students who are struggling with gender identity issues may be eligible for services under Section 504 or the IDEA. Based on the CSDE’s new guidance, educators involved in the 504 and PPT team process should consider including provisions that make clear that students suffering from gender dysphoria be referred to by the name, pronouns, and gender markers that correspond to the student’s gender identity or expression in 504 plans and IEPs.New TerminologyThe guidance introduces the term “gender diverse” into the transgender student accommodation dialogue and uses it interchangeably with the word “transgender.” The new term appears to replace the arguably pejorative phrase “gender non-conforming” that was used in the 2017 CSDE guidance.Parental Notice, Communications, and ObjectionsConflicts between students and t

pecial education in the Rehabilitation Act or in other statutes.The statutory language of Section 504 does not expressly or implicitly address special education or special education concepts such as “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) or extended school year (ESY) services. The focus of the statute is to ensure that:“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, […] shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under anyprogram or activityreceiving Federal financial assistance or under anyprogram or activityconducted by any Executive agency or by theUnited States Postal Service.”Local education agencies are included in the “program or activity” that may not exclude a person with a disability. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(2)(B).Additionally, Congress has addressed special education in exhaustive detail in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., which was first passed as the Education of the Handicapped Act in 1975. Despite Congress’ direction as set out in the IDEA, the U.S. Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has interpreted the Rehabilitation Act to impose special education requirements on all public school systems. 34 CFR. 104.33; see Clark County (NV) Sch. Dist.,16 IDELR 311(OCR 1989);Dallas County (TX) Suburban Coop. & Dallas County Sch.,352 IDELR 360(OCR 1987);Coachella Valley (CA) Unified Sch. Dist.,311 IDELR 42(OCR 1985); andBaltimore (MD) City Pub. Schs.,352 IDELR 185(OCR 1986).Applying the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine, the language of the Rehabilitation Act does not address special education at all, whereas Congress has specifically and thoroughly addressed special education in the IDEA. Based on the Court’s major questions doctrine, this strongly suggests that Congress did not give authority for the U.S. Dept. of Education to issue regulations on special education pursuant to the Reha

for violations of the federal antidiscrimination statutes and collect compensatory damages before exhausting their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA")? In a unanimous decision issued on March 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.Miguel Perez, a deaf student at Sturgis Public School District—a small district in southwest Michigan—complained that his assigned aides were unqualified or absent from the classroom. Perez and his parents also complained that the district misled led them to believe he was on track to earning a high school diploma, when in fact he was not eligible for graduation. Perez and his parents filed a due process complaint with Michigan's Department of Education, alleging the district fell short in meeting its obligations under IDEA. IDEA guarantees students with disabilities a "free appropriate public education" to prepare them for further education, a career, and a fulfilled independent life. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The district eventually settled and promised to provide Perez with certain relief, including additional schooling at the Michigan School for the Deaf. But the settlement did not provide either Perez or his family with money.Perez then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and sought compensatory damages for the emotional distress he endured based on the years of educational deprivation. The district court dismissed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that because Perez had settled his IDEA claim, he did not fully "exhaust" the dispute-resolution mechanism available under the IDEA before filing his federal lawsuit.In an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court reversed. The ADA, like other federal anti-discrimination laws, provides compensatory damages that are not available under IDEA. Therefore, a plaintiff is not barre

A student convicted of sexual assault upon another student enrolled in the same public school entity shall notify the public school entity of the conviction no later than 72 hours after the conviction.Prior to admission to a public school entity, the parent, guardian or other person having control or charge of a student shall, upon registration, provide a sworn statement or affirmation stating whether the student was previously or is presently expelled under the provisions of this section [1318.1].A public school entity shall, in the case of students with disabilities, take all steps necessary to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 91-230, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.).School entities should inform all members of the school community — parents, students, teachers and administrators — of the changes to school policies to ensure awareness and compliance. Additionally, schools should review what notification they expect to receive from the juvenile probation department under 42 PA CS § 6341 following an adjudication.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1, No. 15-827: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) provides a right to a “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for certain children with disabilities. See 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. States under the IDEA must provide a disabled child with special education and related services “in conformity with the [child’s] individualized education program” (“IEP”), which must inter alia, set out “measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals.”

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1, No. 15-827: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) provides a right to a “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for certain children with disabilities. See 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. States under the IDEA must provide a disabled child with special education and related services “in conformity with the [child’s] individualized education program” (“IEP”), which must inter alia, set out “measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals.”

One of those issues presently before the Court is public education, specifi cally, the mandate expressed in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act— the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§1401, et seq.—that all students receive a “free and appropriate public education.” See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400(d)(1)(A); 1401(9). The key to the statute, as case law has confi rmed, is the mandate that local school districts fashion an “individualized education plan” (an IEP in education law parlance) for each disabled student.

On September 29, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case of Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County SchoolDistrict RE 1, Docket No. 15-187 to decide the question “What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.?” SeeAppellant’s Petition for Certiorari.

Lewis v. Clarke, No. 15-1500: Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment. Endrew v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1., No. 15-827: What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.? McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248: Whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do, consistent with this Court’s precedents concerning the choice of standards of review. Goodyear Tire v. Haeger, No. 15-1406 and Musnuff v. Haeger, No. 15-1491: Is a federal court required to tailor compensatory civil sanctions imposed under inherent powers to harm directly caused by sanctionable misconduct when the court does not afford sanctioned parties the protections of criminal due process?

This article was originally published in The Early Childhood Leaders' Magazine, here, with a pdf version of the full article below.This article discusses the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400. The ADA is a federal civil rights law that was passed in 1990 with the aim of securing equal rights for persons with disabilities in the employment, housing, government, transportation, and public accommodation contexts.