Sharing the Short Bus: Eligibility and Identity under the IDEA

This Article examines the issue of eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA ), that is, what kind of disability a child must have to qualify for protection and services under the statute. The author explores whether the current legislative approach to disability and eligibility enhances the integration and advancement of children with impairments or reinforces the stigma of difference and inequality. Part I of the Article examines the legislative evolution of eligibility since the passage of the statute, then known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, in 1975. This Part also explores the legal and social implications of the rising number of special education students. Part II of the Article describes current trends in eligibility determinations, looking to judicial and administrative decisions interpreting the meaning of child with a disability. This section highlights and critically evaluates the ways in which courts and hearing officers have used the vagueness of the statutory terms to endorse an increasingly narrow view of disability. Finally, Part III evaluates the legal and public policy implications of the shift towards restrictive eligibility under the IDEA. The author concludes that although the special education population increasingly includes students with more moderate, intangible impairments, this growth is positive in some respects and consistent with early Congressional intent. She argues that the debate over the growth of special education is more appropriately focused on the extent of services available to students with disabilities, rather than the characteristics of the students who are receiving services

Vouchers for Students with Disabilities: The Future of Special Education?

Many voices over the last decade have called for reform in special education in American public schools. As the number of those receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) has grown, scholars and pundits have increasingly argued that the system not only is failing to meet the needs of many children with disabilities, but in some cases is actively causing harm to those it is intended to serve. Over the last several years, an increasing number of state legislatures have proposed or have passed laws that give children with disabilities public money to attend a private school. Rather than trying to fix the perceived deficiencies within the existing system, these states instead facilitate the exit of unhappy parents and students from public schools altogether. The evidence suggests that some voucher supporters have focused on children with disabilities because of the political viability of using vulnerable children as the first step towards universal school choice. The momentum toward vouchers has the potential to make a significant and lasting impact on the manner in which children with disabilities are educated in the United States. Because most states require students receiving vouchers to waive their rights under the IDEA as a condition precedent to receiving state money, this impact will be felt not only at the state level, but also on federal policy going forward. This article explores the impetus behind the voucher movement, the parameters of existing legislation, the legality of voucher programs, and the corresponding public policy consequences which follow their adoption

Playing God: The Legality of Plans Denying Scarce Resources to People with Disabilities in Public Health Emergencies

Public health emergencies can arise in a number of different ways. They can follow a natural disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 tsunami, and the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. They may be man-made, such as the September 11 attacks and the anthrax scare. They may also be infectious. While no pandemic flu has yet reached the severity of the 1918 flu, there have been several scares, including avian flu and most recently H1N1. Few questions are more ethically or legally loaded than determining who will receive scarce medical resources in the event of a widespread public health emergency. The answer will often mean the difference between life and death for affected Americans. Despite this reality, or perhaps because of it, there has been little guidance from the federal and state governments on how to prioritize distribution of those resources among individuals. To fill this gap, some public health and medical organizations promulgated protocols that set forth a hierarchy of resource allocation in response to the predicted H1N1 pandemic. Although these efforts at advance planning are to be lauded, they raise a number of troubling civil rights issues. Several of the protocols exclude some people with disabilities from receiving care even when their disabilities do not affect the likely success of the medical interventions at issue. Both the legality of such plans and the ethical implications of promoting the health of the community at the expense of people with disabilities are highly problematic. This Article explores the legality of the proposed allocation protocols under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. It also evaluates their compatibility with the ethical principles that guide public health decisions and discusses their implications for people with disabilities in the preplanning for public health emergencies

The Impact of Disability: A Comparative Approach to Medical Resource Allocation in Public Health Emergencies

It is a matter of time before the next widespread pandemic or natural disaster hits the United States (U.S.). The international response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza stands as a cautionary tale about how prepared the world is for such an emergency. Although the pandemic fortunately proved to be less severe than initially anticipated, it nevertheless resulted in shortages of medical equipment, overburdened hospitals, and preventable patient deaths, particularly among young people. A pandemic will inevitably lead to difficult decisions about the allocation of medical resources, such as who will have priority access to ventilators and critical care beds when demand exceeds supply. We previously evaluated the protocols public health and medical organizations have promulgated to guide allocation decisions in a public health emergency. We concluded that many of these protocols violate U.S. law and ethics with respect to people with disabilities, because they exclude some people with disabilities from receiving care altogether or because of a need for prolonged use of resources, poor “quality of life,” or limited long-term prognosis. Because the legal and social status of people with disabilities is tied to underlying societal attitudes toward impairments, cultural differences between populations may lead to significantly different distributive outcomes. In this paper, we examine other countries’ approaches to the allocation problem in public health emergencies, both to identify other approaches to these challenging problems and to provide insight into how to develop more equitable policies to guide allocation decisions during a public health emergency in the U.S

Rights Resurgence: The Impact of the ADA Amendments Act on Schools and Universities

On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the unanimously enacted Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) into law, “reinstating a broad scope of protection” to people with disabilities. The Amendments, which became effective on January 1, 2009, unquestionably will impact schools and universities with respect to both employment and the eligibility and accommodation of K-12 and university students with disabilities. This Article provides an early look at the emerging legal issues occasioned by the revised law. Part I provides a brief general overview of administrative and judicial interpretations of the disability definition prior to the enactment of the Amendments. Part II evaluates the revised law, exploring the specific provisions of the statute that have changed and the public impetus behind these changes. Finally, Part III explores the Amendments’ likely impact on schools and universities, highlighting issues that will require further discussion in the future

Rights Resurgence: The Impact of the ADA Amendments Act on Schools and Universities

On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the unanimously enacted Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) into law, “reinstating a broad scope of protection” to people with disabilities. The Amendments, which became effective on January 1, 2009, unquestionably will impact schools and universities with respect to both employment and the eligibility and accommodation of K-12 and university students with disabilities. This Article provides an early look at the emerging legal issues occasioned by the revised law. Part I provides a brief general overview of administrative and judicial interpretations of the disability definition prior to the enactment of the Amendments. Part II evaluates the revised law, exploring the specific provisions of the statute that have changed and the public impetus behind these changes. Finally, Part III explores the Amendments’ likely impact on schools and universities, highlighting issues that will require further discussion in the future