特殊教育工作者的十大法律课程

IF 0.6 4区 教育学 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Exceptionality Pub Date : 2020-03-11 DOI:10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341
Emma Gratton-Fisher, P. Zirkel
{"title":"特殊教育工作者的十大法律课程","authors":"Emma Gratton-Fisher, P. Zirkel","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to provide special educators with significant and perhaps surprising recent lessons in special education law. These lessons under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act range from the threshold issues of child find and eligibility through the central obligation of free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environments to specialized issues, such as discipline and the statute of limitations. The conclusion emphasizes that legal requirements in special education are often not absolute and constitute a bottom boundary, different from the generally advisable guiding norm of best practice.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":"29 1","pages":"41 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ten Legal Lessons for Special Educators\",\"authors\":\"Emma Gratton-Fisher, P. Zirkel\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to provide special educators with significant and perhaps surprising recent lessons in special education law. These lessons under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act range from the threshold issues of child find and eligibility through the central obligation of free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environments to specialized issues, such as discipline and the statute of limitations. The conclusion emphasizes that legal requirements in special education are often not absolute and constitute a bottom boundary, different from the generally advisable guiding norm of best practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46668,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exceptionality\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"41 - 46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exceptionality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exceptionality","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727341","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文的目的是为特殊教育工作者提供重要的,也许是令人惊讶的特殊教育法的最新教训。根据《残疾人教育法》和《康复法》第504条,这些教训的范围从儿童寻找和资格的门槛问题,到在限制最少的环境中提供免费和适当的公共教育的中心义务,再到专门问题,如纪律和诉讼时效。结论强调,特殊教育的法律要求往往不是绝对的,而是一个底线,不同于一般可取的最佳实践指导规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ten Legal Lessons for Special Educators
ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to provide special educators with significant and perhaps surprising recent lessons in special education law. These lessons under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act range from the threshold issues of child find and eligibility through the central obligation of free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environments to specialized issues, such as discipline and the statute of limitations. The conclusion emphasizes that legal requirements in special education are often not absolute and constitute a bottom boundary, different from the generally advisable guiding norm of best practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Exceptionality
Exceptionality EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Experiences of Teachers of Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic The Effectiveness of Teaching High-Risk Cooking Skills with Video Models to Individuals with Intellectual Disability Legal Analysis of the Interpretation of Adapted Physical Education in US Law Examining Similarities and Differences in Parent Advocacy During Early Intervention and School Services What Does a Useful Practitioner Journal Article Look Like? Perceptions of Preservice Teacher Candidates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1