Legal Considerations for Schools When Deciding Between an IEP or a 504
One confusing area of special education law is whether a student with a disability needs an Individualized Education Program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or a 504 Plan under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
June 27, 2018 at 02:52 PM
4 minute read
- First, has the student been evaluated by the school psychologist? If a parent or teacher has raised a concern about a child's needs or performance in school, the first step is to have the child evaluated. A student can be evaluated according to 504 regulations or IDEA. Often, however, the evaluation is conducted pursuant to IDEA regulations which are more comprehensive than 504 regulations. Generally, if the evaluation satisfies IDEA, then it also satisfies 504 requirements. The evaluation is necessary and a very important tool.
- Does the evaluation report identify the student as having a disability (as listed in 34 CFR Section 300.8) and in need of specially designed instruction? If the answer to both is yes, then the school convenes an IEP team, including parent, to implement an IEP.
- Does the evaluation identify the student as having a disability, but not in need of specially designed instruction? Then an IEP is not warranted, but the school should inquire whether he needs some specific accommodations or modifications during the school day. If so, then a child study or 504 team, including parent, is convened to implement a 504 Plan.
- Has the school obtained parent input? The parent is a participant in either a 504 or IEP meeting, and “parental participation” is a requirement under both. Failure to allow the parent to meaningfully participate could result in a violation even if the 504 Plan or IEP otherwise provides a free appropriate public education or “FAPE” as required under both the IDEA and 504.
- Does the child have a medical condition? Often, a student with a medical condition has a 504 Plan to provide accommodations to address his medical needs. However, this is not always the case, and just a medical note from a doctor does not establish a need for a 504 Plan. The school should inquire, or conduct an evaluation, on whether a 504 Plan is needed.
- Is the student failing any classes? If a student has a 504 Plan, and the accommodations are working, but he recently started receiving failing grades, it may be necessary for the school to collect data to determine whether his needs have changed and possibly may qualify for another disability such as a specific learning disability. The school should consider a re-evaluation under the IDEA to see if he needs an IEP, or changes to the 504 Plan.
- If a child has a 504 Plan, are the accommodations still working? If the student has a 504 Plan but serious concerns have been raised about behavior or attendance, the school should consider an evaluation under the IDEA to see if the student's needs have changed. Alternatively, the 504 team should meet to review the accommodations to see if they need to be revised.
- Has the 504 team prepared for the child's annual review? A good rule of thumb is when the student's annual review is due, the 504 team should not only consider whether to revise the modifications, but also whether a 504 Plan is still appropriate. Even if a student's needs have not changed dramatically and the accommodations are working, the student will get older and advance to a higher grade with possible increased demands and different environment. Failure to take these types of changes into account can make a 504 that was legally defensible into one that is no longer appropriate and in violation of Section 504.
- If the student has an IEP, has she met all her goals? If a student has met all the goals in her IEP, has been re-evaluated, and the re-evaluation concludes that the student no longer needs specially designed instruction, then the IEP team should inquire whether a 504 Plan is appropriate. The team should review the modifications/accommodations that were in the student's former IEP and decide if they need to continue as part of a 504 Plan.
- Should the student be exited out of special education? Often, parents are reluctant to end the special services that their child receives, but a student should learn skills to be as independent as possible. Continuing services or accommodations beyond when they are needed can impede a student's learning and can adversely affect the student's confidence. Further, a school is legally obligated to follow the “least restrictive environment” requirement and make sure that a disabled student is educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. Also, many schools offer accommodations such as tutoring, counseling or extended time for testing to the entire student population so that a separate plan is not needed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250