Special Education
Law Quarterly
March 2001
Bulletin #2
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for
Students with Autism—Legal and Practical
Considerations
Students with autism often present significant challenges for special educators. Attempts to
design appropriate individualized education programs (IEPs), evaluate the many interventions
that have been touted as necessary for children with this complex disorder while maintaining
collaborative relationships with families who advocate for specific methodologies, can be
stressful. Perhaps as a result of the number of cases in which school districts have been
ordered to pay for expensive programming parents have demanded for their children with
autism, educators are left with the feeling that there is something different about providing a
free appropriate public education (FAPE) for these students. The truth is that the courts have
consistently applied the same legal standard established by the United States Supreme Court
in the Rowley v. Board of Education case in 1982. To provide educators a review of the
Rowley FAPE standard and the application of that standard to situations involving children
1
with autism under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B, this Special
Education Law Quarterly discusses selected court decisions and offers practice considerations
in the development of appropriate IEPs.
But before we review the court decisions, what is autism?
I. The Medical Diagnosis of Autism
Under the diagnostic manual used to classify disabilities known as the DSM-IV autism is one of
several disorders under the Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) category. Others in this
category include Rett’s Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder and PDD Not Otherwise Specified (NOS).
Although there are differences among these disorders, all are neurologically based and usually
evident by the time a child is three years old. They are all characterized by severe and
pervasive impairment in several areas of development including social interaction skills,
communication skills or the presence of stereotyped behavior, interests and activities. The
diagnosis is not always obvious and some children will not easily fit any one category or their
diagnosis may change over time. One reason designing appropriate programs for these
students can be difficult is that children with a diagnosis of autism—or others in the PDD
Page 2 of 11
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
spectrum—vary widely in their abilities, intelligence and behaviors. Although the remainder of
this bulletin addresses students with autism, regardless of the child’s diagnosis or individual
educational needs, the same legal standard in determining FAPE will be applied to all
students.
Autism is not a rare disorder. It occurs in approximately 1/1000 births and effects four times
2
as many boys as girls. The causes are unknown although it clearly is organically based and not
the result of psychological causes. A diagnosis of autism is made when a child has 6 or more
of 12 identified symptoms that fall in three major areas: social interaction, communication
and behavior. It is not uncommon for children with autism to have dual diagnoses; for
example, 2/3 of children with autism also has mental retardation. As mentioned above,
children typically are diagnosed at about age 3, although the recent research shows that
symptoms are often identifiable between 12 and 18 months.
Research into the causes—and potential cures— of autism is receiving increased attention as
work continues on appropriate interventions. Numerous intervention programs
(methodologies) have been developed for children with autism. Two methodologies well
known to educators are the Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)/Discrete Trial Training (DTT)
program developed by Dr. Ivar Lovaas (LOVAAS) and the Treatment and Education of Autistic
and Communication-Handicapped Children (TEACCH) program. Professionals do not agree that
any one of the many methodologies “works” best for all children with autism although there
does appear to be a consensus that early and intense intervention before the age of 3 or 4 is
3
optimal for minimizing the long-term effects of the disorder. This is one of the reasons many
parents are so assertive in advocating for a specific methodology such as LOVAAS that
provides intensive early intervention. It is also one of the factors contributing to the rise in
4
litigation on FAPE for infants and toddlers with autism under Part C of the IDEA.
II. The Legal Definition and IDEA Eligibility for Students
with Autism
Students are eligible for IDEA services if they have one of the identified disabilities, are the
appropriate age, and require special education and related services in order to benefit from
public education. Autism was added as one of the covered disabilities in the 1990
5
amendments to the IDEA. Therefore, if a child of the appropriate age has a diagnosis of
autism and requires special education and related services in order to benefit from public
education, he/she is eligible for IDEA services. It is possible for a student to be identified as
autistic, but not meet the requirements for IDEA eligibility. Some students with autism need
only accommodations in order to benefit from their education and could be properly served
through a 504 plan.
The federal IDEA regulations define autism as:
[a] developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and
social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive
activities and stereotype movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily
6
routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. . . .
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
Page 3 of 11
PDD is not mentioned in IDEA and it was not clear to many educators whether a student with
this diagnosis could be eligible under the autism category. The Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP), the federal administrative agency responsible for interpreting the IDEA,
responded to an inquiry regarding PDD eligibility and provided some guidance. OSEP stated
that while IDEA did not specifically reference PDD, a student with PDD could be found eligible
under one of the other disability categories and/or state regulations could provide eligibility
for this disorder under Part B. In addition, the agency noted that children with PDD could be
served in states that have chosen to serve children under the age 3-9 developmentally
7
delayed classification.
The Washington State special education regulations specifically include students with
pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) within the definition of autism so there is no
question that Washington students with this diagnosis are eligible. Autism is defined in
Washington as it is federally with the additional requirement that the developmental
disability “adversely affects a students’ educational performance and requires specially
designed instruction.” The regulations go on to state that “[i]f a student manifests
characteristics of autism after age three, that student still could be diagnosed as having
autism if the criteria . . . are satisfied.” Finally, in Washington, “[t]he term [autism] does not
apply if a student’s educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the
student has an emotional/behavioral disability….” WAC 392-172-146 Definition and Eligibility
for Autism.
III. FAPE for Students with Autism—Will you know it
when you see it?
Children with autism have all rights provided in IDEA and issues can arise in any or all areas of
a child’s educational program—i.e., determining the placement that offers the least
restrictive environment (LRE), designing transition plans or applying discipline procedures.
Although it is important that educators meet their responsibilities under the law in all areas,
this bulletin focuses on the obligations of ensuring FAPE for students with autism.
8
The United States Supreme Court in Rowley v. Bd of Education announced a two-part test to
be applied by courts when determining whether a school district has designed an appropriate
program for a child under IDEA. Although this decision is almost twenty years old, the Rowley
standard still is the rule for educators in determining whether an IEP provides FAPE for a
particular student. Under Rowley, the first question the courts ask is whether the school has
followed the IDEA procedures; the second is whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to
enable the child to receive educational benefits. If both of these are answered affirmatively,
then the FAPE requirement has been satisfied and Congress and the courts require no more of
the school district. Although the IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to
receive educational benefits,” the quantum of benefit—how much—is not clearly spelled out
by the Supreme Court except that the school is not required to provide the best program or
9
one that maximizes the benefit to the child. Since the Rowley decision, courts have
"interpreted" the FAPE standard to require more than de minimus
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Page 4 of 11
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
(minimal) or trivial educational benefit. But regardless of this additional guidance, unless a
state FAPE standard requires something more than the Rowley standard, schools are not
required to provide the "Cadillac" or best program for any child under IDEA. Parents—and
some educators—understandably may want more for a child, but IDEA does not require schools
to provide the optimal level of intervention.
IV. The Courts and Debates over Methodology
The Rowley Court also addressed disagreements between parents and school staff on the
choice of methodologies for a student. The Court ruled that educators have the responsibility
for choosing a methodology in conjunction with parents as part of the IEP process. If the
school's IEP and particular methodology provides a student with FAPE, the district has met its
responsibility to the student under IDEA. If a parent’s choice for methodology differs and
would also provide FAPE, the district is not obligated to implement the parent’s choice. If,
however, the district’s IEP is deemed to be inappropriate—i.e., does not meet the FAPE
standard—courts are likely to accept a parent’s methodological choice.
The Rowley FAPE standard—including deference to the school’s choice of methodology as long
as it provides FAPE—is the same standard to be applied in evaluating an IEP for a student with
autism. Although educators may think otherwise based on the cases in which a parent’s desire
for the LOVAAS methodology “beat” the school’s choice of a different methodology, the
numerous court decisions evaluating the appropriateness of LOVAAS or LOVAAS-based
methodology for students with autism are consistent with the Rowley standard.
The LOVAAS methodology and the duty of schools to implement this program have been the
focus of innumerable court cases over the last few years. LOVAAS is based on applied
behavioral analysis (ABA) and focuses on changing a child’s individual behavior excesses and
deficits through behavioral approaches and discrete trial teaching (DTT) strategies. It consists
of one-to-one intervention with a trained therapist typically for 40 hours a week (6 hours a
day, 7 days a week) and is typically home-based. Not surprisingly, the cost of this intensive
treatment is high, somewhere between $12,000-20,000 year.
LOVAAS is highly popular with parents. Many parents have requested the therapy be provided
on the IEP and when the district refused, have paid for it out of pocket and then sued for
reimbursement. Schools typically have not supported LOVAAS in part because of the cost but
also because the evidence that it is the only appropriate intervention for autism is not clear.
When educators can prove that the IEP they have proposed and their choice of methodology
meets the Rowley standard, the courts do not award reimbursement or require
implementation of LOVAAS as part of the IEP. Parents simply do not have the right under IDEA
to compel a school district to provide a specific methodology for their child. If the district’s
IEP provides FAPE and parents want something different, they can choose to provide private
educational services for their child at their own expense. IDEA only requires provision of FAPE
for eligible students. This, as noted above, is not necessarily the programming that would—or
might—provide the optimal outcomes for a student. However, if the school’s IEP is ruled to be
insufficient under Rowley—i.e., fails to provide FAPE—and the parents offer proof that
LOVAAS has provided FAPE, the courts are likely to require the districts to pay for the
therapy. This includes reimbursement for past therapy and costs for the on-going intervention
either in school or at home.
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
Page 5 of 11
A recent West Virginia case provides an excellent discussion of what FAPE means for children
10
with autism. http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/WV_kanawha_michaelm_00_04.pdf.
The facts are as follows: Michael had been diagnosed with autism at age 3. The school’s
preschool program consisted of 2 ½ hours of intervention for Michael, which the parents did
not accept as sufficient. When they were unsuccessful in getting the preschool to implement
the LOVAAS program for their son, they choose to home school him, paid for the home-based
therapy and began due process procedures. After losing at hearing, the school agreed to
implement 20 hours a week of DTT (one component of LOVAAS) intervention during the school
day although the parents continued to request supplemental LOVAAS home based therapy
that the school continued to refuse. Michael's parents provided the home therapy while he
received the school based services and continued to pursue due process.
The case eventually reached the district court, which agreed with the hearing officer that the
school’s IEP was insufficient to provide FAPE for Michael under the Rowley standard. If this
was all there was to the decision, it would not hold much interest. However, the opinion is
very thorough in evaluating the FAPE standard--which it calls nebulous--in regard to the needs
of students with autism. Specifically, the court stated that although regular grading and
advancement systems may be useful guides for a court in evaluating FAPE for some students
as in the Rowley case,
in Michael’s situation, the concept “educational benefit” must embrace more than academic
subjects. To determine whether an autistic child is receiving a free appropriate public
education, the court must examine the IEP to determine whether it is reasonably calculated
to provide benefit in academic areas and non-traditional areas critical to the child’s
education. Improvement in these areas is not as easily quantified through regular grading and
11
advancement systems.
Although this may sound as though the court was announcing some different standard, in
reality the decision is simply recognizing that for some children, grades and passing from
grade to grade may not be the appropriate measures of whether the IEP was sufficient under
the IDEA. Special education has always meant more than traditional academics and for some
students, IEP goals and objectives will be based in other skill areas. This court opinion
reiterates that for students with autism, the IEP may require interventions that address these
non-traditional areas in order to meet the FAPE standard.
In determining whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide some educational
benefit, the court stated that it would look at the time the IEP was created and not after
services had been provided. The ultimate success of the IEP—i.e., educational progress for
the student under the IEP interventions—is not the touchstone of the inquiry in this court’s
12
analysis; reasonable calculation is all that is required under the law. However, a student
that is not making progress on an IEP is an indicator to the district that the program is
unsuccessful and needs to be modified.
The district court placed the burden on the school district to prove that the IEP provided
FAPE as required under IDEA and found the school deficient in proving that the IEP was
reasonably calculated to provide Michael with FAPE. The West Virginia court goes on to
provide very clear guidelines on what the district needs to do to sustain its burden of proving
that its IEP was reasonably calculated to provide FAPE at the time it was written. First, the
district cannot simply provide conclusory statement that it was adequate—the court will
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Page 6 of 11
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
require that the district prove that it has met it’s legal obligations under IDEA. Specifically,
the school must show the following:
1. The proper elements are included in the IEP—i.e., the procedural requirements are
followed.
2. The annual goals, benchmarks and short-term objectives set forth in the IEP were
reasonable. They must be realistic and attainable, yet more than trivial and de minimis. The
court suggests that this can be shown through the use of expert testimony.
3. The methodology chosen by the district was tailored to meet the annual goals,
benchmarks, and short-term objectives set forth in the IEP. Again, the court suggests that
expert testimony should be used to prove this.
TEACCH is another methodology for students with autism that has been the subject of debate
in many special education due process and court cases. TEACCH is a program that creates a
classroom environment that is predictable and structured so that it is understandable for
students with autism according to the developers. The goal is to change environmental
conditions so that the student can learn. The proponents of TEACCH and LOVAAS
interventions consider them philosophically, physiologically and strategically different as well
as measuring success for students with autism differently.
An interesting case weighted the appropriateness of LOVAAS as proposed by parents and
TEACCH as proposed by the district for children with autism in a Delaware school. The court
found the TEACCH intervention model as implemented by the school district did not provide
FAPE because it only offered 10 hours a week rather than 30 hours a week as recommended
by the TEACCH developers. When awarding the parents’ reimbursement for LOVAAS, the court
stated that if the school had increased TEACCH programming to recommended levels and
provided a mainstreaming component to the program, the court would have been faced with
a battle between two interventions which it characterized as “a contest between two
teaching methodologies, either of which would be appropriate under the IDEA. At that point,
13
the Court will yield to the educational agency.”
In 1997, a due process complaint was brought against the Shoreline School District over a
14
proposed IEP for a child with autism. The school program included placement in a classroom
for children with developmental delays, but no children specifically with autism. The parents
had provided the LOVAAS program previously and wanted the district to include this
methodology on the IEP. They were also concerned that the classroom included no other
students with autism. The administrative law judge found the district IEP met the FAPE
standard, holding that there were no procedural flaws in the IEP itself and that the team
members had knowledge on autism. In addition, the classroom environment was supportive
with predictable routines, included generalization strategies, the staff met frequently to
discuss the student's behavioral issues and provided training to the parents on working with
their child. In denying LOVAAS, the judge stated that "Although this program (LOVAAS) may be
the one to insure maximum growth for their child, the law does not require the school district
to fund it."
The bottom line in debates over particular methodologies for a student is that when a school
offers an appropriate program, the choice of methodology is up to the school. Even if the
alternative methodology--in many cases LOVAAS--is shown to be superior to the school's
choice, the courts have not ordered the alternative methodology. However, as the West
Virginia, Delaware, and Washington cases illustrate, if 1) the student’s IEP initially was not
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
Page 7 of 11
reasonably calculated to provide benefit to the student, 2) and/or the child does not show
any progress towards goals, or 3) the school does not implement an alternative methodology
according to expert recommendations, a parent’s request for LOVAAS may be successful—
particularly if the parents have measures to show that the LOVAAS intervention has resulted
in progress for the child.
V. Regression and Extended School Day (ESD) or Year
(ESY)
Several courts have awarded LOVAAS reimbursement to parents because districts failed to
provide, or in one case, even consider the possibility that students with autism may require a
longer school day or year than is typically provided students. If a child will regress--i.e., lose
skills that have been gained as a result of IEP implementation--without extra programming
during the day or continued services during school holidays, the school must provide those
"extended" services. The issue is whether the services are necessary in order to provide FAPE.
Some regression is expected from any student, but the courts will look closely at how much
gain has been lost for children with autism and how long it takes him or her to recoup those
loses. Even when the IEP itself appears to provide appropriate programming, if too much
regression occurs, FAPE has not been provided. And, as we have seen, when the student is not
receiving FAPE, the courts are more likely to award LOVAAS or some other methodology
chosen by parents.
VI. Generalization of Skills to Home
The courts have struggled with the issue of whether skills identified on a student's IEP must
generalize to venues outside of school, such as home. If a student is, for example, learning
appropriate behaviors during the school day but cannot maintain those appropriate behaviors
at home, has the school failed to provide FAPE? Although, the court decisions are not
consistent on this issue, the majority of courts have ruled that generalization to other venues
is not a measure of an adequate IEP. In these cases, the courts do not look outside the
behavior of the classroom in determining whether both the programming and placement are
15
appropriate.
VII. Addressing Impeding Behaviors
Although not specifically addressing students with autism, the 1997 amendments to IDEA
added the requirement that the IEP team consider special factors in developing the IEP. One
16
of the special factors is consideration of behavior that impedes learning. Although "impeding
behavior" is not defined, it can be thought of as behavior that hinders the ability of the
student or others to learn. Challenging behaviors--such as many children with autism
demonstrate--often impede their ability to focus, retain and communicate, all of which are
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Page 8 of 11
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
necessary to learn. Since behaviors and communication are two areas in which children with
autism are often delayed, it is logical to assume that IEP teams would address the unique
needs of the child in these areas. However, the IDEA special factors requirement now makes
it mandatory that educators consider the needs of children with autism who demonstrate
impeding behaviors. In addition, the IDEA now requires that when behavior becomes a barrier
to education, this should trigger an evaluation or functional behavior assessment (FBA) and
positive interventions and supports included on the IEP to address the behaviors.
VIII. Practice Recommendations
There is no question that providing appropriate services to students with autism can be
challenging for educators; the disorder is complex, the research on beneficial interventions is
still in its early stages with experts disagreeing on what to do, and parents can be relentless
in their pursuit of specific methodologies. However, the legal guidance is not complex and the
standards to apply in determining FAPE are consistent. That is not to say that the application
of the standards to a particular IEP for a student with autism will necessarily be easy. But the
courts have provided guidelines to educators on what needs to be considered and documented
in order to prove FAPE for a student with autism when parents will not accept the IEP.
In addition to ensuring all the rights under IDEA, if special educators will keep the following
considerations in mind, they can feel confident that the program they have designed for a
student with autism will meet legal expectations.

Ensure that all students with autism have thorough evaluations or developmental
assessments from professionals who have knowledge of autism. The IEPs must be based
on information that is current—if a student’s behavior or condition appears to change,
update the evaluations.

Design IEPs for students with autism to meet the unique needs of the students. No one
intervention or methodology meets every child’s needs—the IEP must be individualized
for the particular student. This may mean a combination of interventions: TEACCH,
ABA/DDT (LOVAAS), speech/language therapy, etc.

Provide appropriate interventions to address any impeding behaviors. This may mean
conducting a functional behavioral analysis, designing positive behavior management,
providing one-on-one as well as small group instruction and environmental supports as
well as opportunities for structured participation with typical peers.

Work collaboratively with family members and consider parents’ needs for training and
practical help including counseling by someone acquainted with autism.

Design IEPs that meet the standards of FAPE and reassess when a student makes little
or no progress. Keeping the same IEP when the student is not receiving educational
benefit means that FAPE is not being provided. If regression occurs during non-school
periods, consider the necessity of supplemental services during ESD or ESY.

Be sure that the professionals evaluating students are qualified to do so and those
educational personnel who provide services have the necessary training in the
interventions they are providing under the IEP. Contact consultants in autism who can
provide training and/or individual consults on students when necessary.
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2

Page 9 of 11
Under Section 504, it is required that educators working with students with
disabilities must be trained in the area of the student’s disability. If a special or
general educator assigned to work with a student with autism lacks training, he or
she needs to request training from the district.
Recommended Internet Resources for Educators and Parents
There is a vast amount of information available on the World Wide Web (www), some more
reliable and accurate than others. We encourage you to use the resources available via the
Internet but to do so with caution. The websites mentioned below have consistently been
found useful for educators and/or parents and we offer them as a place to start if you are
seeking more information on children with autism.

Autism Society of Washington: http://www.autismsocietyofwa.org

National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY):
http://www.nichcy.org

Resources For Children With Special Health Needs And Their Families, And The
Professionals Who Care For Them: http://staff.washington.edu/sns/index.htm
What's Happening in Special Education Law

WEA special education law training: http://www.wa.nea.org/PRF_DV/SCHD_C
LS/CLASSES.htm

Special Education Advocate, is a free online special education law newsletter. To
subscribe, http://www.wrightslaw.com/subscribe.htm.
Autism Consults and Training for Educators and Parents

The Tenth Annual Best in the Northwest Conference of the Autism Society of
Washington. March 30-31, 2001 at the Yakima Convention Center, Yakima, WA. Many
presentation and vendors/exhibitors. OSPI clock hours and SPU quarter credit
available. Complete conference information and registration forms available on the
Autism Society of Washington website: http://www.autismsocietyofwa.org

The Autism Center at the Center on Human Development and Disability (CHDD)
provides evaluations for individual students and in-service training to school districts.
Call Cathy Brock at 206-543-5143. http://depts.washington.edu/uwautism

Autism 101 is a new 90-minute instructional course for parents of children recently
diagnosed with autism offered by Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, the
University of Washington Center for Human Development and Disability (CHDD) and
F.E.A.T. (Families for Early Autism Treatment). The class meets from 7:00-8:30 PM at
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Page 10 of 11
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
Children's Hospital. A $10.00 donation is suggested. Call Elaine Smith, Children's
Hospital Neurodevelopmental Program at 206-526-2204 for the upcoming course dates.

National Education Association (NEA) announced that it has set aside $30,000 to
provide increased assistance on teaching autistic children effectively to teachers and
support staff. No additional information was available at the time of this bulletin, but
contact NEA or your local association if you are interested in learning more about
these resources.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1
IDEA Part B describes the rights of eligible children ages 3-21 and the duties of schools in the
provision of educational services to these students. It should be noted that although there are
increasing numbers of due process and judicial decisions on services for children with autism
age birth-3 under Part C of the IDEA, those cases are not discussed here. Students with autism
also have educational rights under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Section 504 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act: Title II.
2
There have been reports that the incidence of autism is increasing. For example, the
Department of Education states that there has been a 150% increase from 1994-1999.
However, this is not universally accepted and some researchers argue that the diagnosis is
simply more accurate.
3
For an interesting review of eight examples of model early intervention programs for children
with autism in the USA active since the 1980s see an article by Dawson and Osterling, "Early
intervention in autism" in Guarlnick, M.J. (ed.) The effectiveness of early intervention.
Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co. (1996).
4
Another factor is the emphasis in the 1997 IDEA amendments of the importance of early
intervention in reducing or minimizing limitations, decreasing institutionalization, and increasing
independence. 20 USC 1431, 32, 35.
5
20 USC 1401(3)(A)(1).
6
34 CFR 300.7(c)(1).
7
Letter to Coe, 32 IDELR 204 (September 14, 1999).
8
458 U.S. 1786 (1982).
9
Unless the state law requires such a standard.
10
Bd. Of Education of Kanawha v. Michael M., 95 F. Supp. 2d 600 (2000).
11
Id. at 608.
12
Id. at 609.
13
Delaware County Intermediate Unit #25 v. Martin and Melinda K. , 831 F. Supp. 1206 at
1212. (E.D.Pa. 1993).
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.
Special Ed Law Quarterly, Bulletin #2
14
Page 11 of 11
Shoreline School District, 26 IDELR 923 (SEA WASH 1997).
15
Rebecca S. v. Clarke County School District, 22 IDELR 884 (M.D. Ga.1995); Weiss v. School
Bd of Hillsborough County, 28 IDELR 443 (11 Cir. 1998). But cf. M.C. v. Central Regional School District, 23
th
rd
IDELR 1181 (3 Cir. 1996).
16
20 USC 1414(d)(3)(B)(i)
Copyright © 2005 by University of Washington.