The Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds

/in , , /by Pam Katz

State: Iowa

Filed: 2021

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

Plaintiffs: The Arc of Iowa and parents of students with disabilities

Defendant: Governor Kim Reynolds, Iowa Department of Education, individual school districts

Counsel: The Arc, ACLU, ACLU of Iowa, Disability Rights Iowa, Arnold & Porter Law Firm, Tom Duff Law Firm

Overview: In the final days of the 2021 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly passed HF 847, which prohibits school districts in Iowa from requiring everyone to wear masks in their schools. As the school year begins and COVID cases soar, school districts face a dilemma: whether to comply with HF 847 or whether to meet their obligations under federal disability rights laws by protecting the health, safety, and dignity of their students with disabilities and providing equal access to their education. Parents of children with disabilities that put them at risk of severe illness should they contract COVID also face a dilemma: whether to send their children to school at risk to their health and even lives or whether to keep them at home at the expense of their education and development. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provide broad protections for individuals with disabilities. Both federal disability rights laws prohibit outright exclusion, denial of equal access, or unnecessary segregation of students with disabilities in public education.

Case Documents

Complaint

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order

Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

American Academy of Pediatrics Amicus Brief

Order Granting Extension of Temporary Restraining Order

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Eighth Circuit Brief

Eighth Circuit American Academy of Pediatrics Amicus Brief

Eighth Circuit Opinion

Eighth Circuit Per Curiam Opinion

Order on Motions to Dismiss and Summary Judgment

Press Releases

Lawsuit Challenges Iowa Law Banning Schools from Requiring Masks

Federal Court Blocks Iowa’s Law Banning Masking Requirements in Schools

Mask Mandate Preliminary Injunction Continues to Protect Iowa Children

Federal Appeals Court Decision Ensures Iowa Schools Can Require Masking to Protect Students with Disabilities

Related Media

Associated Press: Parents of disabled kids sue over Iowa ban on mask mandates

Des Moines Register: Parents of students with disabilities sue over Iowa’s COVID mask mandate ban in schools

KCRG: Parents of students with disabilities, ACLU sue Iowa over mask mandate ban law

We Are Iowa: ‘Not an equal education’: Parents of kids with disabilities sue over Iowa ban on mask mandates

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Lawsuit: Iowa’s school mask mandate ban violates disability rights

Business Insider: Iowa ban on mask mandates at schools overturned by federal judge

WQAD8: Davenport Education Association praises federal judge’s order to allow Iowa schools to mandate masks

Des Moines Register: Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds asks judge to reinstate mask mandate ban, citing concerns from parents

The Gazette: Documents: COVID outbreaks at nearly quarter of Iowa schools

Des Moines Register: Iowa school districts may continue mask mandates after judge grants preliminary injunction

NBC News: Federal judge blocks Iowa’s ban on school mask mandates

ABC Action News: Families of children with disabilities challenge mask mandate bans

Des Moines Register: Federal court will decide the fate of mask mandates in Iowa schools

KETV Omaha: Federal judges hear Iowa’s appeal over injunction of law that bans school mask mandates

Courthouse News Service: Iowa asks appeals court to uphold ban on mask mandates in schools

Iowa Public Radio: State attorneys ask appeals court to restore Iowa’s ban on school mask mandates

Des Moines Register: Iowa will not enforce school mask mandate ban for now, Attorney General’s Office says

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Appeals court rules that some Iowa schools can impose mask mandates

Our Quad Cities: ACLU, others celebrate federal ruling on Iowa mask mandate in schools

Education Week: Relaxed Mask Guidelines Raise Anxiety for Parents of Children With Disabilities

ACLU Iowa: 8th Circuit Court Decision Allows Iowa Schools To Protect Students With Disabilities With Masking Under Federal Law

Des Moines Register: Iowa must permit school districts to require masks in some cases, court rules; Iowa to appeal

Associated Press: Federal court dismisses case against Iowa governor’s ban on school mask mandates

How Marginalized Families Are Left Behind in Disability Education Services and How to Address It

/in , , , , /by Pam Katz

Historically marginalized families face many barriers in regards to education service access and supports. These disparities have significant implications on both children and their families long past graduation. In this webinar, learn about the barriers faced, the historical and systemic factors that contribute to them, and the long-term implications. Attendees will also engage in an exercise to develop advocacy plans in their communities to address these issues and create meaningful change.

Speaker Bio: Dr. Jamie Pearson, a former behavioral interventionist and autism program consultant, is an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Teacher Education and Learning Sciences at North Carolina State University. Dr. Pearson earned her PhD in Special Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where she developed FACES, a parent advocacy program designed to support African American families of children with autism.

Download the presentation here.

For further questions, please email school@thearc.org.

Ensuring Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) During COVID-19

/in , , , /by Pam Katz

This session explored some of the common hurdles for students with disabilities in distance learning/hybrid models during the pandemic. The presenters shared recommended practices and effective strategies that promote equity and meaningful progress. The presentation includes practical tips for families that can be put to use immediately.

Download the presentation slides here.

Speakers:

  • Denise Stile Marshall,M.S., CEO, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA)
  • Amy Bonn, Esq., Member and Consulting Attorney, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA)

For further questions, please email school@thearc.org.

 

Alexa Blueprints and Routines

/in , , , , , /by Pam Katz

Talking to technology is something that most of us do every day. It’s become commonplace to ask a device to set a timer or turn something on or off rather than touching a button or flicking a switch. Amazon Alexa offers two new ways for students, educators, and parents to use their voice to interact with technology that can save time, deepen learning, and provide access to critical information.

With Alexa Blueprints and Alexa Routines, students can now track upcoming events on their calendar, create study resources, or even make appointments – all without needing to open their computer. Teachers can use Alexa to prepare for upcoming lessons, create quizzes and offer Q&A resources to students. And administrators can quickly access information needed for planning and communicate with faculty about dates, timelines and meetings.

With feedback from parents and educators, Alexa Blueprints now offers a feature that focuses on helping students regulate their emotions. Parents, educators, support professionals, and students themselves can access breathing and meditation exercises, calming music and even a “glow” that changes in color and intensity, all ways to help with self-regulation. It also features the capacity to build “social stories” that model desired routines and good behaviors.

For more information, check out this overview and this user guide to get started.

Student A. v. SFUSD

/in , /by Pam Katz

State: California

Filed: November 9, 2020

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief explaining why exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required in systemic special education class action.

Excerpt: “Neither party disputed that SFUSD special education students lag far behind their non-disabled peers in educational achievement and graduation rates. Studies confirm that with effective and timely intervention, these students can be highly successful. But individual families cannot secure corrective measures on their own, especially for students without access to legal representation. And Plaintiffs are unlikely to successfully exhaust so as to file another systemic action because SFUSD can moot out any individual administrative appeal.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

TIES Center

/in , , , , , , /by Pam Katz

TIES Center is the national technical assistance center on inclusive practices and policies. It works with states, districts, and schools to support the movement of students with disabilities from less inclusive to more inclusive environments. They provide specialized resources on supporting students with disabilities who are participating in virtual learning.

C.W. v. Denver County School District No. 1

/in , , /by Pam Katz

State: Colorado

Filed: May 7, 2020

Court: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: The brief supports parents of a student with disabilities arguing that exhaustion is not required where plaintiff complains of the denial of a free appropriate public education, but the specific remedy requested–here, money damages for emotional distress available under the ADA and Section 504, but not the IDEA–is not one that an IDEA hearing officer may award.

Excerpt: “The IDEA cannot provide IDEA relief (e.g. educational placement and services or reimbursement for educationally related expenses) if no IDEA claim has been made. IDEA hearing officers also cannot provide non-IDEA relief (e.g. monetary damages to remedy discrimination) in IDEA proceedings. This, then, is precisely the type of situation the Fry Court envisioned: whether exhaustion would be required where a student sought non-IDEA relief in a case where the District both denied FAPE under the IDEA and discriminated under Section 504 and the ADA. While conceding that the student had put forth all of the evidence necessary to demonstrate the IDEA denial (which facts also demonstrate the discrimination the student would allege under Section 504 and the ADA), the District Court erroneously dismissed C.W.’s antidiscrimination claims on the grounds that the student failed to argue the legal theories relating to Section 504 and the ADA before the IDEA hearing officer.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

/in , , , , , /by Pam Katz

State: Montana

Filed: November 15, 2019

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argues that voucher and tax-credit programs like Montana’s redirect public funds to private entities largely unbound by the federal laws that for generations have guarded the rights and futures of students with disabilities. Allowing such programs to proliferate would significantly harm students with disabilities.

Excerpt: “For nearly fifty years, children with disabilities have relied on key federal laws to ensure that they receive the education to which they are entitled and are protected from discrimination and segregation in public schools. School voucher and tax-credit programs, including the Montana program at issue in this case, risk eroding these decades of progress. They redirect public money to private schools, which often fail to offer appropriate or integrated education to students with disabilities and commonly exclude them outright. And they deplete funding for public schools, which remain bound to comply with the comprehensive federal laws ensuring that students with disabilities are properly served. In the process, more and more students with disabilities will be excluded, neglected, and segregated—precisely the harms that Congress has repeatedly acted to stop.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief 

Related Media

Press Release: Advocacy Groups File U.S. Supreme Court Brief Warning That School Vouchers Harm Students With Disabilities

G.T. v. Board of Education of the County of Kanawha

/in , , , /by Pam Katz

State: West Virginia

Filed: 2020

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia

Plaintiffs: Parents of children with disabilities in Kanawha County Schools

Defendant: Kanawha County School District

Counsel: The Arc, Mountain State Justice, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights West Virginia, Latham & Watkins

Overview: In 2020, The Arc, along with other local and national disability advocacy organizations filed a class action complaint in federal court alleging that Kanawha County Schools (KCS) has failed to educate children with disabilities, including autism, intellectual or developmental disabilities, mental health concerns, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Specifically, the groups assert that KCS—the public school district serving the Charleston metro area—has failed to provide behavioral and academic supports to students with disabilities and is instead segregating them into separate schools and classrooms, or sending them home because KCS schools will not educate them. The advocates allege that KCS has violated federal laws protecting students with disabilities.

As described in the complaint, scores of children with disabilities enrolled in KCS have been separated unnecessarily from mainstream classrooms in their schools. Instead, the students are segregated for years in separate classrooms where they interact only with other students with disabilities, and receive an inferior education; placed on “homebound” status where they may only receive a few hours of tutoring each week; or suspended or even expelled from school for behaviors that are caused by their disabilities. The students are not receiving critical behavioral supports that can help them be successful in the general education classroom with their classmates without disabilities.

Specifically, the complaints allege that KCS is: 1) violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to provide children with disabilities with the special education they need to receive a “free appropriate public education” in the least restrictive environment; and 2) violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the West Virginia Human Rights Act by failing to educate children with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, and denying them equal educational opportunity.

Case Documents

Due Process Complaint

Amended Federal Court Complaint

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Motion for Class Certification

Declaration of Judy Elliott

Declaration of Sara Boyd

Order Granting Class Certification

Fourth Circuit Brief

Fourth Circuit Amicus Brief on Behalf of Civil Law Professors

Fourth Circuit Amicus Brief on Behalf of Disability Rights Groups

Fourth Circuit Amicus Brief on Behalf of Educational Officials

Fourth Circuit Amicus Brief on Behalf of Civil Rights Groups

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Fourth Circuit Decision on Class Certification

Press Releases

Class Action Complaint Filed in West Virginia Alleging Systemic Disability Discrimination in Kanawha County Schools

West Virginia, National Disability Advocacy Groups File Complaints Alleging Systemic Disability Discrimination in Kanawha County Schools

Court Rules that Federal Disability Rights Class Action Against Charleston, West Virginia School District Can Proceed

Judge Rules Kanawha County Special Education Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class Action

Related Media

Washington Post: ‘Warehousing at its worst’: Rights groups say W.Va. school system gives inferior education to special-needs students

West Virginia Record: Special needs student sues Kanawha County Schools for not properly providing for students

Charleston Gazette-Mail: Judge allows Kanawha students with disabilities case to become a class-action lawsuit

 

FINDS Community Report Data Tables

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

As our society continues to depend on the active engagement of family caregivers for the support of individuals with ID/DD, it is important to understand and respond to the needs of those caregivers.

The 2010 Family and Individual Needs for Disability Supports (FINDS) survey focused on issues including educational, housing, employment and support needs of people with ID/DD and their families. Family caregivers in 2010 reported substantial ongoing challenges to providing lifelong supports to family members with intellectual or developmental disabilities. View the Data Tables to get a more robust analysis of the data on family caregivers collected throughout the survey.