FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W238789508> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W238789508 startingPage "201" @default.
• W238789508 abstract "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),1 originally passed by Congress in 1975 as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, was enacted to ensure that all handicapped children have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE).2 A pair of federal lower court rulings3 contributed to Congress' formulation and design of the Act.4 The IDEA allows states to receive federal funds to educate students with disabilities if state educational programs comply with the Act's requirements.5 Local school districts must provide FAPE in conformity with the required elements of an individualized educational program (IEP)6 to students who meet the eligibility requirements of the Act.7 School officials working in conjunction with parents create the IEP for the student8 by assessing current levels of performance, developing goals and objectives, and determining appropriate services.9 As its cornerstone, the IDEA provides parents with a set of procedural safeguards, including as the foundation, a due process hearing by an impartial hearing officer, followed by a right to judicial review to resolve disputes about eligibility, appropriateness, or any other issue under the IDEA.10 Individual states can choose to implement either a one-tier system of local administrative dispute resolution, or a two-tier administrative system in which the second tier is the state-level review of the local-level hearing officer's decision.11 If not satisfied with the final administrative decision, the losing party can bring a civil action in an appropriate state or federal court for judicial review.12 In such cases, the IDEA specifies that the court receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear at the request of a party, and basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.13 While the IDEA sets guidelines for the courts in reviewing administrative proceedings, a key issue remains unsettled. Should the phrase additional evidence14 in this context be construed as establishing a relaxed standard or, instead, a standard that strictly limits the parties' ability to present evidence? In the absence of clear guidance in the IDEA and its legislative history concerning the appropriate construction of the phrase,15 the courts have taken different, conflicting, and often haphazard approaches to admitting during the IDEA judicial review. The purpose of this Article is to canvass the approaches taken by the courts in admitting or excluding during the IDEA judicial review16 and to formulate a consistent, coherent, and appropriate standard for guiding the courts and, to whatever extent appropriate, Congress. The first part of this Article reviews the concepts that are related to, and sometimes confused with, the issue of evidence. The second part presents a systematic and exhaustive overview of the continuum of approaches applied by the courts in construing IDEA'S clause. Finally, the third part recommends an interpretation of additional evidence for adoption by the courts or Congress. I. RELATED CONCEPTS There are several concepts related to that courts discuss and sometimes confuse in their justification for admitting or denying under the IDEA.17 While these concepts are not the main focus of this article, they are briefly described to show their relationship to and distinction from the issue of evidence. First, the standard of judicial review refers to the degree of deference that courts accord to the findings and conclusions of the administrative proceedings in a case. Pointing out a widespread confusion, one commentator has correctly cautioned that the standard of judicial review should never be mistaken for . . . evidentiary directives,18 such as the quantum and burden of proof or the standard for admission of evidence. …" @default.
• W238789508 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W238789508 creator A5026802122 @default.
• W238789508 creator A5061025573 @default.
• W238789508 creator A5086740661 @default.
• W238789508 date "2004-04-01" @default.
• W238789508 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W238789508 title "Additional Evidence under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The Need for Rigor" @default.
• W238789508 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W238789508 type Work @default.
• W238789508 sameAs 238789508 @default.
• W238789508 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W238789508 countsByYear W2387895082014 @default.
• W238789508 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W238789508 hasAuthorship W238789508A5026802122 @default.
• W238789508 hasAuthorship W238789508A5061025573 @default.
• W238789508 hasAuthorship W238789508A5086740661 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C2777189325 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C2778381420 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C2779614053 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C28858896 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W238789508 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C11413529 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C17744445 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C199539241 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C2777189325 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C2777351106 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C2778381420 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C2779614053 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C28858896 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C3116431 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C39549134 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C41008148 @default.
• W238789508 hasConceptScore W238789508C48103436 @default.
• W238789508 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W238789508 hasLocation W2387895081 @default.
• W238789508 hasOpenAccess W238789508 @default.
• W238789508 hasPrimaryLocation W2387895081 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W1581567782 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W1595582457 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W1595967737 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W1856130142 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W1995508527 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W2114498909 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W221306532 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W2224310428 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W2343528536 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W2494051219 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W2908018640 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W3026939907 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W3045381967 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W3122224649 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W3125229705 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W3126142249 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W315205763 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W336613965 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W57178519 @default.
• W238789508 hasRelatedWork W933687992 @default.
• W238789508 hasVolume "9" @default.
• W238789508 isParatext "false" @default.
• W238789508 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W238789508 magId "238789508" @default.
• W238789508 workType "article" @default.