Is this legal?
A Special Education Quick Audit
Review each scenario, and decide whether the school is following federal special education law. Click "reveal" to check your thinking and explore the explanation.
Get Started
IDEA Principles
Scenario 1
Cases
Enrollment Denied
Think About It...
- Is this legally compliant?
- Which IDEA principle applies?
- Is there a relevant case?
A school refuses to enroll a student with significant disabilities, stating they do not have the resources to support the student.
Reveal
Not Compliant
This violates the Zero Reject principle under IDEA. Schools cannot deny access to education based on the severity of a disability.
Timothy W. v. Rochester (1989) reinforced that all students, regardless of disability severity, are entitled to education.
Case Connection:
IDEA Principles
Scenario 2
Cases
IEP Without Parents
Think About It...
- Is this legally compliant?
- Which IDEA principle applies?
- Is there a relevant case?
An IEP meeting is held without notifying the student’s parents because the school wanted to move quickly.
Reveal
Not Compliant
This violates Procedural Safeguards and Parent Participation requirements under IDEA. Parents are essential members of the IEP team and must be included in decision-making.
IDEA Principles
Scenario 3
Cases
Free Services Provided
Think About It...
- Is this legally compliant?
- Which IDEA principle applies?
- Is there a relevant case?
A student receives speech therapy services during the school day at no cost to the family.
Reveal
Compliant
This aligns with Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Students with disabilities are entitled to necessary services at no cost to their families.
IDEA Principles
Scenario 4
Cases
Separate Placement First
Think About It...
- Is this legally compliant?
- Which IDEA principle applies?
- Is there a relevant case?
A student with a disability is placed in a separate classroom without first considering general education placement options.
Reveal
Not Compliant
This violates the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement. Schools must first consider placement in general education settings with appropriate supports before moving to more restrictive environments.
Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. (1994) established criteria for determining appropriate placement in the LRE, emphasizing inclusion in general education when appropriate.
Case Connection:
IDEA Principles
Scenario 5
Cases
Supported Inclusion
Think About It...
- Is this legally compliant?
- Which IDEA principle applies?
- Is there a relevant case?
A student with disabilities is placed in a general education classroom with support services and accommodations.
Reveal
Compliant
This reflects both LRE and FAPE. The student is educated alongside peers while receiving appropriate supports to meet their needs.
Making the connection
As you reviewed each scenario, you explored how federal laws shape decisions in special education. These situations reflect real challenges schools face when working to meet legal and ethical responsibilities.
As you move forward, continue to consider how legal frameworks shape your role in supporting all learners.
6600 Module 1 Analysis
iteach Design Duo
Created on April 14, 2026
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Magazine dossier
View
Momentum: Onboarding Escape Game
View
Momentum: Manager Guide
View
Wizardry Letter
View
Search Bar Card
View
Piñata
View
Microlearning: When to Use Chat, Meetings or Email
Explore all templates
Transcript
Is this legal?
A Special Education Quick Audit
Review each scenario, and decide whether the school is following federal special education law. Click "reveal" to check your thinking and explore the explanation.
Get Started
IDEA Principles
Scenario 1
Cases
Enrollment Denied
Think About It...
A school refuses to enroll a student with significant disabilities, stating they do not have the resources to support the student.
Reveal
Not Compliant
This violates the Zero Reject principle under IDEA. Schools cannot deny access to education based on the severity of a disability.
Timothy W. v. Rochester (1989) reinforced that all students, regardless of disability severity, are entitled to education.
Case Connection:
IDEA Principles
Scenario 2
Cases
IEP Without Parents
Think About It...
An IEP meeting is held without notifying the student’s parents because the school wanted to move quickly.
Reveal
Not Compliant
This violates Procedural Safeguards and Parent Participation requirements under IDEA. Parents are essential members of the IEP team and must be included in decision-making.
IDEA Principles
Scenario 3
Cases
Free Services Provided
Think About It...
A student receives speech therapy services during the school day at no cost to the family.
Reveal
Compliant
This aligns with Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Students with disabilities are entitled to necessary services at no cost to their families.
IDEA Principles
Scenario 4
Cases
Separate Placement First
Think About It...
A student with a disability is placed in a separate classroom without first considering general education placement options.
Reveal
Not Compliant
This violates the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement. Schools must first consider placement in general education settings with appropriate supports before moving to more restrictive environments.
Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. (1994) established criteria for determining appropriate placement in the LRE, emphasizing inclusion in general education when appropriate.
Case Connection:
IDEA Principles
Scenario 5
Cases
Supported Inclusion
Think About It...
A student with disabilities is placed in a general education classroom with support services and accommodations.
Reveal
Compliant
This reflects both LRE and FAPE. The student is educated alongside peers while receiving appropriate supports to meet their needs.
Making the connection
As you reviewed each scenario, you explored how federal laws shape decisions in special education. These situations reflect real challenges schools face when working to meet legal and ethical responsibilities.
As you move forward, continue to consider how legal frameworks shape your role in supporting all learners.