The Lady Lawyer The Lady Lawyer Columns
Special
Education

5th Circuit Case Law

7th Circuit Decisions

ABA via Insurance

Accommodations

Advocates

Altering Records

Assistive Technology

Autism Supplement

Basic Definitions

Being An Advocate

BSEA

Bullying / Harassment

Case Law

Charter Schools

Child Abuse Reporting

Choosing Counsel

Civil Rights Fight

Client Intake Form

Complaints

Compulsory Attendance

COPAA

Documentation

Due Process: How it Works

Evaluations

Extended School Year

Expulsions / Suspensions

Federal Laws

FERPA

First Steps

Funnies/Quotable Quotes

Glossary of Terms

Graduation

Graduation Rates

Graduation Walk

Guardianships

Hearing Officers

History of Federal Statutes

Homeschooling

IEP Checkup

Independent Educational Evaluations

Indiana State Laws

Inspirational Quotes

Insurance

Interrogation of Juveniles

LD & 18-point discrepancy model

Legal Settlement

Legislative Terms

Limitations

Mediation

Medicaid Waivers

Mental Health

Mistakes

My Calling

Neuropsych vs. Psychoeducational

New Regulations

OCR Complaints

Open Records

Options

Overview for Attorneys

Popular vs. Effective

Record Keeping

Resolution Chart

Residential Issues

Resolution Sessions

Sample Letters

Section 504

School Accountability

Special Ed Primer

Social Security

Supreme Court Cases

TAKS M/Alt

Tax Issues

TEKS

Texas Case Law

Texas Hearing Decisions

Texas State Law

Top 10 List for Judges

Top 10 Tips for Parents

Web Resources

Wheelchairs

Other Resources

LD & 18-Point Discrepancy Model

The Board of Special Education Appeals posted on its website on 09-28-04 an excellent statement for parents of learning disabled kiddos who are being denied services because they're not "bad enough" yet. The hearing number is 1415.04 and the full text is available at http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/appeals.html.

"Although the School often employed appropriate assessment instruments with respect to the Student, its continual reliance upon an 18-point discrepancy from the so-called "LD Guidelines" is a substantive procedural defect that denied the Student a FAPE. The "LD Guidelines" never possessed any scientific bases, was unreliable, was invalid and directly interfered with the function of the Case Conference Committee. The employment of this long-discredited standard resulted in an application of a sole criterion for determining eligibility, which contravenes both State and Federal law. 511 IAC 7-26-8; 511 IAC 7-25-3(i). The Office of Special Education Programs notified the Indiana Department of Education over twelve (12) years ago that the "LD Guidelines" were contrary to the requirements of the IDEA. The Department of Education notified all affected parties then and continues to do so -- that the LD Guidelines and the attendant 18-point discrepancy are invalid and are not to be used. The School in this matter is charged with knowing this."

Top of Page

Copyright © 2002 Dorene J. Philpot LawAll Rights Reserved.DisclaimerSitemapWeb Services by Narrow Gate Media