Key Takeaways:

• Child safety standards in special education comprise legal and ethical considerations, including civil rights protections, precedent case decisions, state regulations, and professional standards of care.
• There isn’t one standard for determining whether a school has provided a reasonable individualized educational and safety plan to a student. This requires an intensive, fact-specific inquiry by courts.
• Depending on the case, parents and attorneys may be required to exhaust the administrative procedure under IDEA before pursuing legal actions under various civil rights laws.

Children with disabilities deserve to feel safe and supported in schools and special education programs. The law mandates that institutions oversee educational and functional progress. When a student is harmed, litigation often requires a closer examination of the effectiveness of the school’s policies and processes in protecting students and whether the school acted within the professional standard of care under given circumstances.

A reliable knowledge of child safety standards in special education and their nuances is crucial for attorneys to understand the facts of a case. This knowledge helps institutions stay compliant by providing adequate individualized safety plans, conducting staff training and awareness programs, and taking measures.

From IDEA, ADA, and Section 504 statutes and state regulations to duty-of-care standards and precedent cases, special education safety standards comprise various legal and ethical considerations that govern the physical, emotional, and psychological safety, transportation safety, and overall well-being of children with disabilities.

Civil Rights Protections in Special Education

Standards For Safe, Appropriate Education

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) statutes are critical child safety standards requiring school districts to substantively provide eligible students a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) through an individualized educational program (IEP). Child safety is a key part of IDEA, as any actions or inactions by a school district that interfere with a student’s education are often interpreted as FAPE violations.

How do you determine if a school has provided a student with appropriate education?

As the court clarified in Endrew F., merely more than de minimis educational and functional progress doesn’t satisfy FAPE; “[T]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Reiterating its decision from Rowley, the court stated that there isn’t any one standard for determining “when handicapped children are receiving educational benefits to satisfy the requirement of the Act.” Whether an IEP is reasonable requires an intensive, fact-specific inquiry by courts. Schools should provide individualized safety plans that are ambitious and aim for meaningful progress. Still, as with Endrew F. and Rowley, it’s not uncommon for parents to advocate for rigorous special education and child safety standards that courts reject.

When FAPE isn’t provided, parents are generally required to exhaust the administrative procedures outlined by IDEA, including due process hearings and appeals to the state Department of Education, before considering a lawsuit in state or federal courts. School districts have repeatedly moved to fight lawsuits by pushing for the exhaustion of administrative benefits.

But what if the case issue raises civil rights claims under other laws?

This has long been a contentious matter when dealing with child safety standards in special education. Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools involved a deaf student alleging that the school denied him FAPE. After the IDEA settlement, the school district promised additional schooling and other forward-looking benefits but failed to provide backward-looking relief for past harms. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff wasn’t required to exhaust IDEA’s administrative process when seeking relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws because IDEA does not permit compensatory damages.

Even though parents and attorneys can pursue legal actions under other laws, it is case-dependent and hinges on how the claim is framed.

Child Safety Standards for Equal Access and Protection

When the core claim relates to inadequate IEP or FAPE denial, the case may be dismissed for failure to exhaust IDEA’s administrative process. Suppose the complaint involves disability discrimination, accessibility, physical safety, emotional and psychological safety, transportation safety, and more. In that case, parents can seek resolution in other civil rights laws, including Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. These child safety standards protect students against disability discrimination and entitle them to reasonable accommodations.

In another case, F.H. v. Memphis City Schools (2014), a parent claimed that the aides and school personnel verbally, physically, and sexually abused the child. The parent sued the school district under Section 1983, Section 504, and ADA, alleging a breach of the Settlement Agreement and retaliation. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the Settlement Agreement released any claims that accrued before the agreement and claims that came afterward, which required exhaustion of IDEA’s administrative procedure. The Appellate Court, however, held that based on IDEA’s 2004 amendments and the agreement’s clear terms, the Settlement Agreement was enforceable in court. The court reasoned that the claim involved abusive conduct and nature of injuries that neither the Agreement’s terms nor IDEA’s administrative procedure could address.

Other Standards

Federal laws form the backbone of child safety standards in special education. States, however, constantly enact more rigorous regulations governing various areas, including child abuse reporting, physical safety, emotional and psychological safety, transportation safety, seclusion, and discipline. For instance, Illinois recently limited the use of physical restraints and face-downs in schools and special education programs.

A strong understanding of the professional standard of care is also crucial. These child safety standards are primarily grounded in accepted industry norms and constitute what a similarly qualified professional would reasonably do under comparable circumstances to protect a child.

Conclusion

Keeping students safe in special education and navigating lawsuits constitute legal and ethical considerations. A competent education expert witness can help interpret all special education safety standards and update you with legal and industry developments.

If you’re a plaintiff or defendant attorney handling child safety standards violations, the court-qualified experts at School Liability Expert Group can help strengthen your suit or defense. We provide highly individualized consultations, comprehensive reports, and expert trial and deposition testimony. Our unrivaled expertise has guided hundreds of law firms through education liability matters. We help schools remain compliant through program quality reviews, staff training and awareness programs, and recommendations to ensure emotional and psychological safety, physical safety, transportation safety, and reasonable individualized safety plans. Book a call with an expert today!