Latest news with #Section504
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- New Indian Express
Ruth Madeley to headline Being Heumann
Actor Ruth Madeley, of Don't Take My Baby fame, will play the disability activist Judy Heumann in Apple Original Films's Being Heumann, which is an adaptation of the activist's memoir. The film is directed by the Oscar-winning CODA helmer Sian Heder. Being Heumann follows Judy Heumann as she leads more than a hundred disabled people to occupy the San Francisco Federal Building for a sit-in protest in 1977, seeking the enforcement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, enabling accessibility to federal spaces to all. Heumann was bound to a wheelchair after being affected by polio at 18 months. Subjected to discrimination since her childhood, she turned to disability rights activism after being denied enrollment in a public school. She has led several campaigns and was instrumental in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act through her civil rights organisation Disabled in Action. She occupied leadership positions under the Clinton and Obama administrations. Having starred in The Almond and the Seahorse and the Netflix film Joy, Madeley's big break came with the 2015 BBC drama Don't Take My Baby. Madeley, known for championing disability representation in the arts, was born with spina bifida - a condition affecting the spine and spinal cord development. She'll next lead BBC's The Rapture, a five-part adaptation of Liz Jensen's bestseller.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Wake students will soon have to put phones away in class. But details aren't final
Wake County school leaders gave initial approval Tuesday to restricting student cellphone use in school but said major revisions could be made before the policy is finally adopted. The new student cellphone policy requires wireless communication devices to be silenced and put away during the school day except in a few limited circumstances. But board members said they need to resolve details about the policy, such as how to handle the confiscation of phones and how much flexibility schools should be given within the policy. 'No policy is perfect,' said school board vice chair Tyler Swanson. 'This is a policy that will have to be revised and revisited many times to get accurate feedback.' School board chair Chris Heagarty reiterated multiple times Tuesday night that there will be changes made before the second and final vote on the policy that could occur June 3. Once adopted, the new policy would go into effect for the 2025-26 school year. It's supposed to replace how schools have set their own individual phone policies. Wake's policy comes amid a major push nationwide to restrict students from using phones in class. At least 22 states have laws or policies that ban or restrict students' use of cellphones in schools statewide or recommend local districts enact their own bans or restrictive policies, according to an Education Week analysis. Both the state House and Senate have passed their own bills restricting cellphone use in school and included the language in their budget proposals. Wake would have to change the policy if the Senate bill becomes law because it requires phones to be turned off and not just silenced in class. The phone ban would be in effect during the school day in elementary and middle schools. This means phones can't be used by K-8 students unless the situation qualifies for one of the exceptions. The policy allows high schools to let students use their phones during non-instructional time. This includes during lunch, breaks and class changes in the hallway. Other exceptions include: ▪ Phones can be used during school hours if they're authorized or required in the individualized education program or Section 504 plan of a student with disabilities. ▪ Phones can be used if they're part of a student's individualized health plan developed by school nursing staff. Examples include using the phone to monitor a student's glucose levels ▪ The school is allowing teachers to authorize use of devices during class for instructional purposes. ▪ School staff may authorize brief use of a device if there is a reasonable and legitimate need to communicate with someone outside the school during the instructional day. Students must ask for permission in advance, unless they're calling 911 in an emergency. One of the areas that drew board concern Tuesday is that staff revised the policy to say that the definition of the school day might vary by school. That means one school could say phones would be banned between morning and afternoon bells while another could include the time between drop-off and pick-up of students. 'If we have 200 schools and 200 potential different policies in terms of how the policy is implemented, that's a problem,' Heagarty said. Board member Wing Ng said they need to provide one consistent policy that schools can fall back on. 'If each school can do what they want, why have a policy anyway?' Ng said. Board member Sam Hershey warned he'd vote against the policy unless changes are made to provide more consistency. The policy says that a school employee such as a teacher can confiscate a phone if it's substantially disrupting the class or if a student has repeatedly violated the policy. The policy would also allow the school to require the parent to pick up the phone in certain circumstances. The policy also says that the school will not accept any liability if a student's phone is stolen, lost or damaged, even if it's confiscated. Heagarty said they could have situations where parents tell their kids to refuse to surrender the phone. 'If the policy requires the physical taking of a phone, you invite the real potential for more conflict and more disruption,' Heagarty said. The policy says phones should be stored in a locker, backpack or bag. Students wouldn't be allowed to put their phone in their pocket. Board members said a way to potentially reduce conflict would be to require students to put their phones in a pouch or other container while in class. One idea that was mentioned was to have the teacher put the student's phone in a paper bag and staple it. This way students will know where the phone is but can't have ready access. 'We'd land on the 'Tonight Show' pretty fast,' said board member Lynn Edmonds, who said she couldn't support the paper bag idea. Edmonds said she could support requiring students to put their phones in a bag or pouch. Superintendent Robert Taylor said it could $15 to $20 per pouch so it wouldn't be cost prohibitive.
USA Today
18-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court appears likely to side with MN student in disability discrimination case
AI-assisted summary The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving a Minnesota school district and parents of a student with epilepsy who say the district didn't adequately accommodate her disability. The parents, after winning an administrative ruling under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sought further action under other disability laws but were blocked by lower courts. The Supreme Court appeared likely to side with the parents, questioning the lower courts' application of a higher standard for lawsuits involving schools. Disability rights groups are closely watching the case, arguing current standards create significant barriers for families seeking help for disabled children. WASHINGTON − For years, Gina and Aaron Tharpe argued that a local school district hadn't done enough to accommodate their daughter, who has a rare form of epilepsy and severe cognitive impairment. An administrative judge in 2021 agreed, saying the reasons the Minnesota school provided for not offering Ava a full day of class under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were 'not credible.' The Tharpes, however, also sought help under two other federal laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination, hoping to get a stronger court order as well as compensation for having hired specialists to help with Ava's needs. This time, however, the courts sided with the Osseo Area School District, saying the district hadn't demonstrated 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' during the dispute. That's a tougher standard for suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act than the courts apply in cases that don't involve a school's alleged failure to meet its obligations under the IDEA. The Supreme Court on Monday sounded likely to side with the Tharpes in overturning that decision. That's in part because lawyers for the school district agreed that that there's not a two-tiered system. But Lisa Blatt, who represented the school district, pushed the court to apply a tougher standard for all cases rather than lowering the bar for cases like Ava's. That generated pushback not just from the Tharpe's attorney, but also from the justices who had not thought, when they agreed to take the case, that the school was making that consequential an argument. 'It strikes me as a pretty big deal,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said of the standard the school district is asking for, which she said would be a 'sea change' for disability discrimination cases. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the school district had violated the court's procedural rules. 'It would've been nice to have known that we were biting off that big a chunk,' she said. Roman Martinez, an attorney for the Tharpes, told the justices disability rights groups who would have "rung a five-alarm fire" if they had thought that's what the school district was asking for. Closely watched by disability rights groups The case was already being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for help sought by schoolchildren and their families. But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits for damages easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources. Litigation will also shrink those resources, lawyers for a national association of school superintendents and other educational groups told the Supreme Court in urging the justices to 'proceed with caution.' Morning seizures prevented a typical school schedule The dispute started when the Tharpes moved in 2015 to a Twins City suburb from Tennessee where they said Ava's needs had been accommodated. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. Ava's Tennessee school shifted her school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, just 65% of what non-disabled students received. And as Ava prepared to enter middle school, that time was going to shrink further. The Tharpes then went to court. Ava wins IDEA claim but blocked from other suits An administrative law judge said the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs but a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the IDEA. But while a federal judge backed that decision, the judge said the Tharpes couldn't also use the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act to seek compensatory damages and an injunction to permanently set the hours of instruction. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 decision from that circuit – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities. The Tharpes 'may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough,' the appeals court said. `Hundreds of other court cases have applied tougher standard Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to the Tharpes' attorneys. Those courts are unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases outside the school setting, their attorneys argue. That position is backed by the Justice Department. "There is no sound basis for applying different intent requirements," Nicole Reaves, a Justice Department attorney, told the court. Reaves said the school district is asking for a "breathtakingly broad rule" that no discrimination claims can be brought without an intent to discriminate. Blatt, the attorney for the school district, said the courts can choose to "level down" or "level up." "This is a big deal," Blatt said, agreeing with Barrett about what's at stake. "I understand that you don't want to take on this case but I didn't bring this petition. This petition said, `decide the standard.'" But Chief Justice John Roberts said the court wasn't asked to decide what the uniform standard should be, just whether there should be a different standard for discrimination claims arising out of the IDEA. A decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools is expected by summer.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Yahoo
Fulton County leaders considering banning cell phones, smart devices in schools
The Brief The Fulton County School Board is considering a new proposal that would ban cell phones and smartwatches when students come back to class after summer vacation. Students in grades K-9 would not be allowed to use personal electronics during the school day. High school students would have to put their phones up during instructional time, but would be allowed to carry their devices at other points in the day. Officials say the proposed change would align with Georgia's recently-passed Distraction-Free Education Act. FULTON COUNTY, Ga. - Fulton County Schools could ban smart devices like cell phones and smartwatches when students come back to class after summer vacation. The new potential policy change was brought up at a board meeting on Monday. What we know If enacted, the policy change would prohibit the use of personal electronic devices for students in grades K-9 during the school day. High school students would have to put their phones up during instructional time, but would be allowed to carry their devices at other points in the day. Students would also be discouraged from using electronic devices on the school bus, with inappropriate use possibly resulting in disciplinary action. There would be exceptions to the rule for students that have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), Section 504 plan, or medical plan that explicitly mandates the use of a personal electronic device for medical or educational purposes. The electronic devices that would be affected by the policy change include personal laptops, smartphones, smartwatches, tablets, smart glasses, headphones, and other devices that can send messages or allow access to social media. To assuage parents' fears over situations that involve contacting their children, the policy would require schools to "establish clear communication protocols that require parents or guardians who need to communicate with their student during the school day to contact the school directly." Dig deeper Officials say the proposed change would align with Georgia's recently-passed Distraction-Free Education Act. Earlier this year, state lawmakers overwhelmingly passed the bill, which would prohibit students K-8 across the state from accessing their personal electronic devices during school hours. The Marietta City School District, DeKalb County School District, and Atlanta Public Schools already require students to secure their phones in lockers or pouches during the school day. What's next If the board approves the change, it will go into effect in August. The Source Information for this story was taken from the policy proposal by the Fulton County School Board.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Yahoo
SCOTUS to Rule in Case That Could Upend Enforcement of Disabled Students' Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case that could prove seismic for students with disabilities who claim their schools have discriminated against them. If the family that brought the original lawsuit loses, cases filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the portion of the law that governs many in-school accommodations — could become extraordinarily difficult to win. A ruling in favor of Osseo Area Schools, located in suburban Minneapolis, would mean students who claim their rights were violated will have to prove their school systems acted in 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' — a higher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which the law requires in other disability discrimination cases. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter An estimated 1.5 million public school students receive disability accommodations under the ADA, ranging from modified academic materials — such as simplifying a text or supplying curriculum via a specialized device — to making classrooms, bathrooms and other school spaces accessible to wheelchair users and others. The law governs accessibility, while disabled children's educational rights are guaranteed by a different measure, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Teenager Ava Tharpe has a severe form of epilepsy that causes frequent seizures during the morning. While planning to move from Kentucky to Minnesota in 2015, when she was in fourth grade, her parents sought out a school district that would agree to start her classes at noon and extend them into the evening. After the family relocated, the district reneged, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. When the Supreme Court accepted the case, the district's position had consistently been that disability discrimination suits had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent. Osseo argued that the legal standard, which plaintiffs have been held to in some federal court circuits but not others, applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before the April 28 hearing, the district widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. 'The statutes do not impose liability for nondiscriminatory, good-faith denials of requested accommodations,' the document asserts, adding that the high court 'should not subject America's 100,000 public schools and countless other state and local entities and federal-funding recipients' to the deliberate indifference standard. The hearing erupted in verbal fireworks after the district's attorney accused the lawyers representing the federal government, which has sided with the family, of 'lying' in saying that the district had shifted its argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch snapped back, and several minutes of heated debate ensued. Later in the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' according to an account posted by SCOTUS Blog, which also reported Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was 'all but incredulous' that the district argued that the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. Osseo officials declined to comment on the case, citing Tharpe's right to privacy. 'The school district educates nearly 21,000 students, including 3,000 students with disabilities who have the right to education from birth through age 22,' it said in a comment to The 74. 'We're committed to the principles and the ideals expressed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.' The Tharpe family initially filed a complaint with state education officials under the IDEA, which guarantees disabled pupils a 'free and appropriate public education.' Noting that the girl had a right to a full school day, even if it extended into the evening, a state administrative law judge found that Ava's educational rights had been violated. When the district appealed that ruling in federal district court, the family filed a second suit under the ADA. In March 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the family's IDEA rights had been violated. But the appellate court rejected the ADA discrimination claim, ruling the Tharpes had not proven the district acted in bad faith. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling should not impact IDEA, which governs whether children with disabilities are entitled to special education services enabling them to make adequate progress toward their goals. By contrast, the ADA requires equal access to school and an equal opportunity to learn once they are there, explains Ellen Saideman, one of the authors of a friend of the court brief submitted by the Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys and several other disability advocacy groups. They argue that a ruling in the district's favor would unfairly subject schoolchildren to a much higher legal bar than other people who need accommodations. To illustrate the difference, she cites a 2004 ADA case, Tennessee vs. Lane, brought by someone who had to crawl up the stairs to get into a Tennessee courthouse that didn't have an elevator. Under the 'gross misjudgment' standard, there wouldn't be a claim. 'The building was built before the ADA was passed, so it wasn't built with any discriminatory intent,' says Saideman. 'Under deliberate indifference, they know a person has a disability and there are other people who have disabilities who can't go up the stairs. If they don't fix it, then there could be a claim.' One of the ADA's original drafters, former Rep. Tony Coelho of California, also submitted a brief arguing that Congress' intent was that families of disabled children have 'the same rights, no more, no less, that are provided all other groups … including the right to seek relief under Section 504 [and] the ADA.' A decision is expected in June or July, near the end of the court's current term.
