Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and the adjudication process of a special education dispute
autside.substack.com
In the recently decided case, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the US Supreme Court justices focused on the adjudication process of a special education dispute. That dispute began when the family of Miguel Perez, a deaf student who attended Michigan’s Sturgis Public School District, sued the district saying they had been misled about their child’s ability to earn a regular high school diploma. He instead was awarded a certificate of completion. Additionally, the family said Perez had unqualified aides who didn′t support his individualized needs.
Whilst both the family and school system — using the IDEA administrative process — agreed to a settlement that provided more schooling for Perez, the sides differed on what paths the family could take to seek other remedies, including monetary relief.
Although the Perez decision didn′t directly address the intersection of IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, some experts say it raises the need for better understanding about the similarities and differences between the two laws. It also demands comprehension of other federal civil rights laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, that may apply to students with disabilities.
Students can have an IEP, a Section 504 plan, or both. While either type of plan supports individual needs for students with disabilities, they have different aims. An IEP centers on educational benefits for a student, while Section 504 focuses on students′ accommodations and access.
There is misunderstanding, however, of how Section 504 relates to the more familiar and more widely used IDEA system. The U.S. Department of Education is currently considering updating Section 504 rules, which have been largely unchanged for 45 years.
Several disability rights advocacy groups applauded the court′s decision in statements shortly after the March 21 ruling.
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and the adjudication process of a special education dispute
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and the adjudication process of a special education dispute
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and the adjudication process of a special education dispute
In the recently decided case, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the US Supreme Court justices focused on the adjudication process of a special education dispute. That dispute began when the family of Miguel Perez, a deaf student who attended Michigan’s Sturgis Public School District, sued the district saying they had been misled about their child’s ability to earn a regular high school diploma. He instead was awarded a certificate of completion. Additionally, the family said Perez had unqualified aides who didn′t support his individualized needs.
Whilst both the family and school system — using the IDEA administrative process — agreed to a settlement that provided more schooling for Perez, the sides differed on what paths the family could take to seek other remedies, including monetary relief.
Although the Perez decision didn′t directly address the intersection of IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, some experts say it raises the need for better understanding about the similarities and differences between the two laws. It also demands comprehension of other federal civil rights laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, that may apply to students with disabilities.
Students can have an IEP, a Section 504 plan, or both. While either type of plan supports individual needs for students with disabilities, they have different aims. An IEP centers on educational benefits for a student, while Section 504 focuses on students′ accommodations and access.
There is misunderstanding, however, of how Section 504 relates to the more familiar and more widely used IDEA system. The U.S. Department of Education is currently considering updating Section 504 rules, which have been largely unchanged for 45 years.
Several disability rights advocacy groups applauded the court′s decision in statements shortly after the March 21 ruling.