# The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR48068 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** Reports - **Published:** September 26, 2025 - **Citation:** R48068 ## Text The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA Updated September 26, 2025 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R48068 SUMMARY The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA R48068 September 26, 2025 Abigail A. Graber Legislative Attorney The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) each play a part in federal efforts to support the education of individuals with disabilities. These statutory frameworks, Kyrie E. Dragoo while overlapping, differ in several ways, including which students they cover and the rights and Analyst in Education Policy services they afford. When students with disabilities transition between levels of schooling, or between public and private schools, the accommodations and services required by federal law may change. For example, while the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA apply to schools from preschool through 12th grade, only Section 504 and the ADA apply to institutions of higher education. Application of the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA to students with disabilities is also determined by each law’s (1) definition of “disability”; (2) mechanisms to determine whether a student has a qualifying disability; (3) required services, aids, and accommodations; (4) prohibited conduct; and (5) enforcement mechanisms and available remedies. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The IDEA, as amended, authorizes federal grants to states to support the education of children with disabilities. As a condition of receiving IDEA funds, the act requires states to implement a range of services and procedural protections for students with disabilities. For example, state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) must (1) identify, locate, and evaluate all children residing in their jurisdictions who may have qualifying disabilities to determine which children are eligible for special education and related services; (2) convene a team, which includes the parents of each eligible child with a disability, to develop an individualized education program (IEP) spelling out the specific special education and related services to be provided to that child to ensure a free appropriate public education (FAPE); and (3) implement procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their parents, including a right to an administrative hearing to challenge eligibility determinations and educational placements, with the ability to appeal the ruling to federal court. Of the three legal frameworks discussed in this report, only the IDEA focuses squarely on education and only the IDEA funds services for children with disabilities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) Section 504 is an antidiscrimination provision in a broader federal law providing rehabilitation services to people with disabilities. Section 504 protects individuals from disability discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance (as well as in federal executive branch programs). As Section 504 is linked to federal funding, it applies to all public elementary and secondary schools, as well as some private ones, and most colleges and universities. While Section 504 summarily describes covered entities’ obligations, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) implementing regulations are more extensive. ED’s implementing regulations and caselaw interpreting Section 504 require covered schools to ensure that students with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated differently because of their disabilities, unless a school can demonstrate that accommodating a disabled student would fundamentally alter the nature of the school’s program or cause an undue financial burden. Some overlap exists between ED’s Section 504 regulations and the IDEA’s requirements. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) The ADA broadly protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination in a range of contexts—both public and private— including employment, state and local government services, transportation, telecommunications, and public accommodations. In the educational context, the ADA, like Section 504, applies to all public and many private schools, from preschool through postsecondary education. Courts usually interpret the ADA to provide the same general substantive protections as Section 504. The ADA’s statutory provisions and implementing regulations are, for the most part, not education specific. They outline some types of modifications that all covered entities must make for people with disabilities, including, for example, removing certain barriers, allowing service animals, and making available accessible examinations and course materials. Congressional Research Service The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities ..................................................................................... 2 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ......................................................... 2 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 .......................................................................... 4 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ............................................................... 6 Defining “Disability” ...................................................................................................................... 7 The IDEA’s Categorical, Education-Centered Definition of “Disability”................................. 7 Section 504 and the ADA’s Cross-Contextual Definition of “Disability” ................................. 9 The Rights of Students with Disabilities ........................................................................................11 Identification and Evaluation of Children with Disabilities .................................................... 12 Preschool, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................ 12 Postsecondary Education: Identification and Evaluations ................................................ 16 Placement ................................................................................................................................ 17 P–12 Education ................................................................................................................. 17 Postsecondary Education: Transition and Admissions ...................................................... 21 Services for Students with Disabilities.................................................................................... 22 Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) ...................................................................... 22 Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services ............. 29 Other Protections ..................................................................................................................... 32 Disparate Treatment .......................................................................................................... 33 Disparate Impact ............................................................................................................... 34 Harassment........................................................................................................................ 35 Retaliation and Interference .............................................................................................. 36 Enforcement and Remedies ........................................................................................................... 38 Enforcement and Remedies Under the IDEA ......................................................................... 38 Enforcement and Remedies Under Section 504 and the ADA ................................................ 40 Tables Table 1. IDEA Part B, Section 504, and the ADA: Summary and Comparison of Selected Provisions ............................................................................................ 43 Contacts Author Information........................................................................................................................ 47 Congressional Research Service The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA Introduction Several federal laws require schools to provide services and accommodations to students with disabilities and to protect them from discrimination. The application of these laws may change depending on students’ circumstances. Times of transition—when a student moves to a new school district or state, or from preschool to kindergarten, elementary to middle school, middle to high school, or high school to postsecondary education—may result in changes to which law applies, what the law requires, and what services the student needs. Moving from the services provided in the preschool through 12th grade (P–12) public education system to those available at a college or university can be a particularly significant transition.1 At the P–12 level, three main federal laws protect the rights of students with disabilities: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),2 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504),3 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).4 For students receiving special education under the IDEA or accommodations and services under Section 504 or the ADA, transitioning from the P–12 public education system to an institution of higher education (IHE) may affect how a school assesses their disabilities, their eligibility for accommodations or services, and the services and accommodations available to them. Students may also experience different treatment in the same educational context depending on which laws apply to them. This report examines the impact of these laws on students with disabilities in certain key respects: • • • • • • how the laws define disability; how the laws require schools to determine eligibility for services and protections; how the laws ensure students with disabilities receive the accommodations and services they need; the scope of legal protection guaranteed to students with disabilities; how families enforce their rights; and the available remedies. For a summary comparing the provisions examined in this report, see Table 1. Glossary of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition ADA Americans with Disabilities Act DOJ U.S. Department of Justice EAHCA Education for All Handicapped Children Act ED U.S. Department of Education EHA Education of the Handicapped Act FAPE Free appropriate public education IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1 See infra “Postsecondary Education: Identification and Evaluations” and “Postsecondary Education: Transition and Admissions.” 2 Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975) (as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, tit. I, 118 Stat. 2647, 2647–99) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482). 3 Pub. L. No. 93-112, § 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794). 4 Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213). Congressional Research Service 1 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA IEP Individualized education program IHE Institution of higher education LEA Local educational agency LRE Least restrictive environment OCR Office for Civil Rights OSEP Office of Special Education Programs P–12 Preschool through 12th grade SEA State educational agency Section 504 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Title VI Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title IX Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities While the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA often entitle students to similar services, the laws have different purposes and scopes of coverage. The distinctions reflect a basic difference in statutory design: the IDEA “guarantees individually tailored educational services,” while the ADA and Section 504 are focused on eliminating discrimination in public life.5 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Congress and the President first established a grant program to the states to facilitate the education of children with disabilities in 1966,6 which they replaced with the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) in 1970.7 In 1975, they enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA),8 which amended the EHA. The EAHCA was the first comprehensive legislative attempt to attach specific requirements to states’ receipt of federal funds for the education of children with disabilities.9 At the time it passed the EAHCA, Congress found that more than half of all children with disabilities were not receiving “appropriate educational services” and that one million children with disabilities were “excluded entirely from the public school system.”10 Congress determined that many children participating in public school programs had undiagnosed disabilities that hindered their educational progress.11 To address these findings, Congress laid down a clear mandate to any state seeking funds under the act: to receive those funds, the state must “identify and evaluate” all children with disabilities residing “within its borders” to ensure those children receive a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE).12 The 5 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 170–71 (2017). 6 Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-750, § 161, 80 Stat. 1191, 1204–08 (1966). 7 Pub. L. No. 91-230, tit. VI, 84 Stat. 121, 175–88 (1970). 8 Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975). 9 See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179–80 (1982) (recounting the legislative history of the EAHCA). 10 Pub. L. No. 94-142, sec. 3, § 601(b), 89 Stat. at 774. 11 Id. 12 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181, 200. Congressional Research Service 2 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA EAHCA was later renamed the IDEA, and it has been comprehensively reauthorized five times since its original enactment in 1975, most recently in 2004.13 The IDEA remains the main federal statute governing special education for children from birth through age 21.14 It imposes requirements only on public schools, although in some circumstances it requires public school districts to provide services to children in private settings, such as hospitals or private schools.15 The statute operates by supplementing state and local funding with federal funding to pay for some of the additional costs of educating children with disabilities.16 State educational agencies (SEAs), i.e., the state offices that oversee public P–12 education, and local educational agencies (LEAs), i.e., public boards of education or other public entities that govern P–12 public schools, primarily implement the IDEA.17 Of particular significance to this report is Part B of the IDEA,18 which protects the right of individuals with disabilities, from ages 3 through 21, to a FAPE.19 A school provides a FAPE for each IDEA-eligible student through an individualized education program (IEP), a written plan developed by a specific group of knowledgeable individuals (the IEP team) setting forth, among other things, a functional assessment of the child, their educational goals, and the services the child will receive.20 In this report, references to the IDEA are to IDEA Part B. In the 2022–2023 school year, approximately 7.6 million children ages 3 through 21 received special education and related services under Part B of the IDEA.21 Students served under Part B of the IDEA represent about 14.7% of all P–12 public school students.22 The IDEA is administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).23 OSEP administers the IDEA’s formula and discretionary grants programs. OSEP also 13 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482). 14 For more information on the IDEA, see CRS Report R43631, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part C: Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2024), and CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2019). 15 Lynn M. Daggett, “Minor Adjustments” and Other Not-So-Minor Obligations: Section 504, Private Religious K-12 Schools, and Students with Disabilities, 52 U. LOUISVILLE L. REV. 301, 304 (2014); see infra “P–12 Education.” 16 A “state” within the meaning of the IDEA includes “each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each of the outlying areas,” i.e., “the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(22), (31). For more information on IDEA funding, see CRS Report R44624, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding: A Primer, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2019). 17 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19), (32). 18 Id. §§ 1411–1419. 19 Id. § 1412(a)(1). 20 Id. § 1414(d). 21 IDEA Section 618 Data Products: Static Tables Part B Child Count & Educational Environments Table 1, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Feb. 6, 2024), https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products-static-tables-part-b-countenviron-table1/resources [https://perma.cc/87LV-3TMW] (in the column to the left of the screen, download the XLSX file from 2022–2023). 22 Digest of Education Statistics, Table 204.70, Number and Percentage of Children Served Under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by Age Group and State or Jurisdiction: Selected School Years, 1990-91 Through 2021-22, NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT. (Feb. 2023), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/ dt22_204.70.asp [https://perma.cc/8PSW-AUHK]. 23 20 U.S.C. § 1402; U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFF. FOR C.R., PARENT AND EDUCATOR RESOURCE GUIDE TO SECTION 504 IN (continued...) Congressional Research Service 3 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA monitors states’ implementation of the IDEA and collects data and disseminates information on children served under the IDEA, including through an annual report to Congress.24 Unlike ED’s role with regard to Section 504 and the ADA, discussed below,25 OSEP does not investigate individual complaints of IDEA noncompliance. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 In 1973, two federal district court decisions called into question the constitutionality of policies denying children with disabilities access to public education.26 Subsequently, Congress enacted the first of a series of civil rights statutes addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities: the Rehabilitation Act.27 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established the Rehabilitation Services Administration and funding for projects and studies supporting the employment of people with disabilities. At the time of its adoption, Section 504 was the only section concerned with the civil rights of people with disabilities. That provision broadly prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.28 Indirect federal funding, including federal financial aid that students pass on to schools, triggers Section 504 responsibilities.29 Section 504’s nondiscrimination guarantee therefore stretches quite PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 41 (2016) [hereinafter OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE], https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/504-resource-guide-201612.pdf [https://perma.cc/2EEK-C3SR]. On March 11, 2025, ED announced a large-scale reduction in force (RIF) across the agency. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force (Mar. 11, 2025), https://www.ed.gov/about/news/ press-release/us-department-of-education-initiates-reduction-force [https://perma.cc/N6UU-4VL3]. That RIF has reportedly eliminated “the entire staff that provides IDEA-implementation guidance to states and other grantees, and the entire communications staff that sends key information to students, parents, schools, and states.” New York v. McMahon, No. CV 25-10601-MJJ, 2025 WL 1463009, at *11 (D. Mass. May 22, 2025), preliminary injunction stayed pending appeal, McMahon v. New York, 145 S. Ct. 2643 (2025). On March 21, 2025, President Trump announced at a press conference his intent to move “special needs” programs from ED to the Department of Health and Human Services. C-SPAN, President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth Deliver Remarks on F-47 Fighter Jet, at 01:45 (CSPAN, Mar. 21, 2025), https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-trump-and-defense-secretaryhegseth-deliver-remarks-on-f-47-fighter-jet/657517. As of the last update to this report, Congress has not made changes to OSEP or OSERS. 24 See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFF. OF SPECIAL EDUC. & REHAB. SERVS., 44TH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 2022 (2023), https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/ 44th-arc-for-idea.pdf [https://perma.cc/FPC4-3N27]. 25 See infra “Enforcement and Remedies Under Section 504 and the ADA.” 26 See Mills v. Bd. of Educ., 348 F. Supp. 866, 874–75 (D.D.C. 1972) (concluding that “denying [children with disabilities] not just an equal publicly supported education but all publicly supported education while providing such education to other children, is violative of the Due Process Clause” of the Fifth Amendment); Penn. Ass’n for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279, 293–97 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (concluding that claims based on the denial of education to children with disabilities were “colorable” under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). The Supreme Court subsequently held that “[p]ublic education is not a ‘right’ granted to individuals by the Constitution.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221 (1982) (citing San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973)). A state’s decision to deny access to education to some children that it provides to others may be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. See generally Plyler, 457 U.S. 202. 27 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–797b. 28 Id. § 794(a) (“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .”). 29 See Grove City Coll. v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 564–69 (1984) (addressing meaning of “federal financial assistance” under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX)), superseded by statute on other grounds; BennettNelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that Grove City applies to Section 504). Congressional Research Service 4 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA far, covering not just all P–12 public schools (including public charter and magnet schools)30 but also private schools that accept federal funding and most IHEs.31 Under Section 504, covered entities must refrain from taking adverse actions on the basis of a person’s disability, such as refusing students with disabilities equal access to educational programs.32 They must also grant reasonable accommodations when necessary to afford students with disabilities “meaningful access” to educational programs.33 Section 504 is not a grant program and does not provide funding for serving people with disabilities, although schools may have their federal funding revoked if they engage in disability discrimination.34 Section 504 affects a significant number of students. In the 2017–2018 school year, ED reported that nearly 1.4 million public school students received some sort of service or accommodation solely under Section 504.35 While ED does not report the number of students receiving Section 504 services at the postsecondary level, in the 2015–2016 school year, approximately 19.5% of undergraduates and 12.0% of post-baccalaureate students reported having a disability (although the survey tool did not use Section 504’s definition of disability).36 30 B.H. v. Portage Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:08-CV-293, 2009 WL 277051, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2009) (“Because every state receives federal money to operate its public education system, section 504 applies to public elementary and secondary education programs.”); see Disability Discrimination: Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Jan. 17, 2025) [hereinafter Disability Discrimination FAQs], https://www.ed.gov/laws-andpolicy/civil-rights-laws/disability-discrimination/frequently-asked-questions-disability-discrimination [https://perma.cc/A52B-VG3J]. 31 Disability Discrimination FAQs, supra note 30 (“All public colleges and universities are covered by Section 504 and Title II. Virtually all private colleges and universities are also covered by Section 504 because they receive federal financial assistance by participating in federal student aid programs.”). As Section 504 coverage follows federal funding, regardless of the type of program being funded, it can also apply to vocational education programs and education programs housed in non-educational settings (such as prisons or hospitals). See, e.g., Bennett v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 86 F.4th 314, 324 (6th Cir. 2023) (applying Section 504 to nursing student’s claims against hospital); Powers v. MJB Acquisition Corp., 184 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 1999) (applying Section 504 to vocational school); Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1522 & n.14 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that Section 504 applies to prisoner claims related to access to educational programming). 32 See infra “Disparate Treatment.” 33 See Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985); infra “Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services.” 34 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) (cross-referencing the remedies available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), which includes procedures for revoking federal funding from entities engaging in racial discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1). 35 C.R. Data Collection, Off. for C.R., 2017–18 State and National Tables, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (June 18, 2025), https://civilrightsdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018 [https://perma.cc/RSZ6-ALSR] (click on “Tables for Enrollment,” then click “Section 504 Enrollment” to access table entitled, “Number and Percentage of Public School Students with Disabilities Served Solely Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Overall and by Race/Ethnicity, and Those Who Are English Language Learners, by State: School Year 2017–18”). 36 U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT., 2015–16 NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY: STUDENT FINANCIAL AID ESTIMATES FOR 2015–16, at 18 (2018) [hereinafter NPSAS:16], https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/ 2018466.pdf [https://perma.cc/3V3K-E3T3]; see also DATALAB, NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT., https://nces.ed.gov/ datalab/index.aspx [https://perma.cc/K4PK-XJF3] (last visited Aug. 20, 2025). Estimate obtained by CRS through the National Center for Education Statistics DATALAB based on student self-reporting on surveys administered through the NPSAS. NPSAS:16 changed the wording of disability-related questions from prior NPSAS administrations, resulting in an increase in reported disabilities. In NPSAS:16, students were instructed to indicate if they had a longlasting condition such as serious difficulty hearing; blindness or serious difficulty seeing; serious difficulty walking or climbing; or difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions (examples of these conditions were added to the interview and students were instructed to include, for example, attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, or a serious learning disability). Congressional Research Service 5 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has a primary role in enforcing Section 504 in the education context.37 ED has developed extensive Section 504 regulations, some of which apply generally and some specific to different levels of education or public versus private schools.38 As discussed further below, these regulations reflect the influence of the IDEA and give significant detail to Section 504’s short, general statutory language prohibiting disability discrimination. Where this report discusses Section 504 requirements, those requirements are often found in ED’s regulations rather than in the text of the act itself. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) The ADA39 has been described as “the most sweeping anti-discrimination measure since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”40 Its purpose is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”41 “To effectuate its sweeping purpose, the ADA forbids discrimination against individuals with disabilities in major areas of public life.”42 Most relevant to the education context, Title II of the ADA prohibits any “public entity,” including public schools and universities, from discriminating on the basis of disability.43 Title III forbids disability discrimination by “public accommodations,”44 a category that includes private schools and universities45 but exempts religious organizations.46 As many private primary and secondary schools are religious,47 the ADA often does not apply to P–12 private school students. 37 As part of the March 11, 2025, RIF, ED eliminated seven of OCR’s twelve regional offices and laid off more than half of OCR’s employees. Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1:25-CV-25-11042-MJJ, 2025 WL 1704311, at *5 (D. Mass. June 18, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-1787 (1st Cir. Aug. 14, 2025). Lawsuits challenging the layoffs at OCR have reached different preliminary results and are ongoing. Contrast Victim Rts. L. Ctr., 2025 WL 1704311, at *20 (preliminarily enjoining the RIF with regard to OCR employees), with Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1:25-CV-744-PLF, 2025 WL 1453562, at *14 (D.D.C. May 21, 2025) (denying request to preliminarily enjoin the OCR RIF). 38 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.1–104.23 (2023) (general regulations); id. §§ 104.31–104.38 (covering public preschool, elementary, and secondary education); id. § 104.39 (covering private preschool, elementary, and secondary education); id. §§ 104.41–104.47 (covering postsecondary education). 39 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213. 40 Opinion, A Law for Every American, N.Y. TIMES, July 27, 1990, at A26. 41 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). 42 PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675 (2001). 43 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12132; Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 159 (2017). 44 42 U.S.C. § 12182. 45 Id. § 12181(7)(J) (listing among covered “public accommodation[s]” a “nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education”). As it applies to a “place of education,” id., the ADA also generally applies to vocational education programs and education programs housed in non-educational settings. 46 Id. § 12187 (exempting “religious organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship”); see, e.g., Marshall v. Sisters of Holy Family of Nazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 605–06 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (holding that the ADA does not apply to a Catholic school). 47 Private School Universe Survey: Table 2. Number and Percentage Distribution of Private Schools, Students, and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Teachers, by Religious or Nonsectarian Orientation of School: United States, 2019–20, NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT., https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/TABLE02fl1920.asp [https://perma.cc/3DYCEP8R] (last visited Aug. 20, 2025). Congressional Research Service 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA Congress modeled Title II after Section 504.48 Courts usually interpret the substantive requirements of Title II and Title III similarly49 and the requirements of Section 504 and the ADA similarly.50 Like Section 504, the ADA is not a grant program and does not fund services for people with disabilities. ED’s OCR shares enforcement authority with the Department of Justice (DOJ) over Title II of the ADA in the public education context.51 Only DOJ enforces Title III.52 Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities: Key Takeaways • The IDEA is a grant program that funds services for students with disabilities and entitles them to a FAPE. • Section 504 and the ADA are general nondiscrimination laws protecting people from disability-based discrimination and requiring reasonable accommodations. Section 504 and the ADA are usually interpreted congruently. • The IDEA applies to all public P–12 schools. Section 504 applies to all schools that take federal funding (including federal student aid), which includes all public schools (P–12 and postsecondary) and many private schools (including most private postsecondary schools). The ADA applies to all public schools (Title II) and all nonparochial private schools (P–12 and postsecondary) (Title III). Defining “Disability” The IDEA’s Categorical, Education-Centered Definition of “Disability” The IDEA’s definition of disability has two components. First, the IDEA definition of disability is categorical. It identifies a covered “child with a disability” as any “child”53 having at least one condition falling into one or more of 13 enumerated categories.54 ED’s implementing regulations 48 E.g., Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2000); Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999). 49 E.g., K.N. v. Gloucester City Bd. of Educ., 379 F. Supp. 3d 334, 353 n.17 (D.N.J. 2019). 50 Courts have generally construed “the rights and remedies under both [Section 504 and the ADA to be] the same,” so that “case law interpreting one statute can be applied to the other.” Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 287– 88 (5th Cir. 2005); accord, e.g., Durand v. Fairview Health Servs., 902 F.3d 836, 841 (8th Cir. 2018); Lacy v. Cook Cnty., 897 F.3d 847, 852 n.1 (7th Cir. 2018) (stating that “because Title II was modeled after section 504, the elements of claims under the two provisions are nearly identical” (citation omitted)); Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195, 201 (6th Cir. 2010). 51 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(2) (2023); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 40. 52 28 C.F.R. § 36.502. For more information on the ADA, see CRS In Focus IF12227, The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Brief Overview, by Abigail A. Graber (2022). 53 Even though the IDEA refers to all covered individuals as “children,” the act applies to some legal adults. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A) (requiring recipient states to provide a FAPE to “all children with disabilities residing [there] between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive”). In keeping with the statutory terminology, this report at times refers to covered individuals as “children.” 54 E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 758 F.3d 1162, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A ‘child with a disability’ may seek to qualify for special education benefits under more than one of the categories listed in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i).”); Pohorecki v. Anthony Wayne Loc. Sch. Dist., 637 F. Supp. 2d 547, 557 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (“Only children with certain qualifying disabilities are eligible for IDEA’s benefits.”). The statute lists 10 categories of covered disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i) (defining a “child with a disability” as one who has “intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance . . . , orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities”). The implementing regulations break the category of (continued...) Congressional Research Service 7 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA broadly define each IDEA disability category.55 States have adopted their own clarifying definitions, although these definitions cannot exclude children otherwise eligible for services under the IDEA.56 One category that encompasses a particularly diverse array of conditions is “other health impairments,”57 which the statute does not define. ED defines this term in its regulations58 and lists a number of disorders that may qualify under it.59 States take different approaches to implementing this disability category. Delaware, for instance, outlines detailed criteria for determining whether children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have an “other health impairment.”60 Other states impose no criteria beyond those found in ED’s IDEA regulations.61 The regulatory definition of each disability category (except for specific learning disabilities, which includes, e.g., dyslexia) includes the requirement that the disability “adversely affects a child’s educational performance.”62 Disabilities that do not interfere with a student’s education do not qualify the student for IDEA services. The IDEA does not set a clear threshold for how significantly a student’s disability must interfere with his or her education. Several states have elaborated on the adverse effect requirement.63 Additionally, to be eligible under the IDEA, a student must “need[] special education and related services” because of his or her disability.64 When regular classroom instruction or interventions “hearing impairments” into three separate categories (deafness, deaf-blindness, and hearing impairment) and add a category for “multiple disabilities,” bringing the total number to 13. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(1)–(13) (2023). At their discretion, state and local educational agencies may also define “child with a disability” to include children ages 3 through 9 experiencing certain developmental delays. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(B). 55 See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(1)–(13). 56 See Letter from Patricia Guard, Acting Dir., U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. of Spec. Educ. & Rehab. Serv., on Eligibility Document Requirements Under IDEA Part B 1 (Jan. 7, 2002), https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/idea/policy/speced/guid/ idea/letters/2002-1/redact010702eligibility.pdf [https://perma.cc/XM2N-NWCM] (acknowledging that states may adopt their own definitions of IDEA terms but may not “implement” those definitions to exclude eligible children). Policy letters are not legally binding. 20 U.S.C. § 1406(e). At least one commentator argues that states should not have the power to define terms in federal law and claims that states have adopted certain definitions of disability that are more restrictive than the IDEA allows. Mark C. Weber, The IDEA Eligibility Mess, 57 BUFF. L. REV. 83, 117 (2009). But see Robert A. Garda, Jr., Who Is Eligible Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act?, 35 J.L. & EDUC. 291, 299–301 (2006) (supporting reference to state standards to determine meaning of certain undefined terms in the IDEA). 57 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). 58 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(9) (defining an “other health impairment” as a condition of “limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that . . . is due to chronic or acute health problems . . . and adversely affects a child’s educational performance”). 59 Id. (listing as examples such conditions “as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome”). 60 14 DEL. ADMIN. CODE §§ 925.6.14.1–925.6.14.5 (2024). 61 See, e.g., 8 VA. ADMIN. CODE § 20-81-80(S) (2010) (providing that “a child has an other health impairment” if the alleged impairment satisfies ED’s definition and “there is an adverse effect on the child’s educational performance due to one or more documented characteristics of the other health impairment”). 62 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c). One commentator states that the adverse effect requirement is “implied” for specific learning disabilities. Weber, supra note 56, at 103. 63 See, e.g., 707 Ky. Admin. Regs. § 1:002(2) (Mar. 2023); 05-071-101; ME. CODE R. § II(3) (LexisNexis 2023); 22006 VT. CODE R. § 2362(d) (2024); see also J.D. ex rel. J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Neither the IDEA nor the federal regulations define the terms ‘need special education’ or ‘adverse effect on educational performance,’ leaving it to each State to give substance to these terms.”). 64 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a)(1); see, e.g., Miller v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs. Bd. of Educ., (continued...) Congressional Research Service 8 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA other than special education can adequately overcome the adverse effects of a child’s disability, courts may find the child ineligible for IDEA services.65 There is no definition of when a student “needs” services.66 School districts must make that determination by “draw[ing] upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information about the child’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior.”67 Some decisionmakers appear less likely to find eligibility when children already perform well in school, while others focus more on whether a child could benefit from special education regardless of his or her current academic performance.68 Only if students meet both the categorical and educational criteria will they be eligible to receive special education services. Section 504 and the ADA’s Cross-Contextual Definition of “Disability” Section 504 and the ADA draw on a common definition of “disability.”69 Under both laws, an “individual with a disability” includes “any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.”70 In some ways, this definition is broader than the definition of disability under the IDEA.71 As the ADA and Section 504 are designed to prohibit discrimination and improve accessibility in society generally, their definition No. 320CV00493MOCDCK, 2021 WL 3561226, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2021) (“Under the IDEA, the phrase ‘child with a disability’ is a misnomer because the IDEA defines a ‘child with a disability’ as a child who has been diagnosed with a qualifying disability and requires special education and related services as a result of the disability. Thus, the diagnosed disability by itself is not sufficient for a child to be a ‘child with a disability’ under the IDEA.” (citations omitted)). 65 See, e.g., L.J. by & through Hudson v. Pittsburg Unified Sch. Dist., 850 F.3d 996, 1003–06 (9th Cir. 2017); Alvin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. A.D. ex rel. Patricia F., 503 F.3d 378, 384 (5th Cir. 2007); T.W. by K.J. v. Leander Indep. Sch. Dist., No. AU-17-CA-00627-SS, 2019 WL 1102380, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2019); Molly L. v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 194 F. Supp. 2d 422, 427 n.3 (E.D. Pa. 2002). One commentator criticizes courts for “presuming that a disability that adversely affects educational performance requires remediation through special education,” when many such disabilities require accommodations other than “special education.” Robert A. Garda, Jr., Untangling Eligibility Requirements Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 69 MO. L. REV. 441, 489 (2004); see, e.g., McIntyre v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 976 F.3d 902, 914 (9th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing between special education, which must be “specially designed instruction,” and other accommodations, such as “provid[ing] an alternative, quiet location to take exams,” and “provid[ing] extra time to complete exams” (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29)). Another commentator observes that general education and special education “increasingly overlap[],” contributing to the development of “unprincipled and unpredictable” IDEA eligibility standards in litigation. Perry A. Zirkel, Through a Glass Darkly: Eligibility Under the IDEA—The Blurry Boundary of the Special Education Need Prong, 49 J.L. & EDUC. 149, 166–67 (2020). 66 B.C. v. Mount Vernon Sch. Dist., 837 F.3d 152, 159 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2016) (comparing the IDEA to the ADA and Section 504, which require a disability to be “substantially limiting”); Weber, supra note 56, at 120; Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note 65, at 491–92. 67 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(c)(1)(i); see Alvin, 503 F.3d at 383. 68 See Zirkel, supra note 65, at 165–66; Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note 65, at 493–507. Under ED’s regulations, a student may be IDEA-eligible even if he or she “has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.101(c)(1). 69 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (ADA definition of disability); 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), (20)(B) (incorporating the ADA’s definition in Section 504). 70 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). 71 See CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2014). Congressional Research Service 9 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA of disability, unlike the IDEA’s, is not restricted to conditions that impact educational progress.72 An “impairment” that affects any “major life activity” can qualify, and major life activities are broadly defined.73 For example, basic activities like seeing, hearing, walking, bending, communicating, and thinking; and the function of body systems, such as the immune system, endocrine system, or neurological function, are “major life activities.”74 The conditions covered by Section 504 and the ADA are also not confined to those fitting within particular categories as they are under the IDEA. The ADA and Section 504 protect people from discrimination when they have a history of disability or are assumed to be disabled, even when they have no present impairment.75 Thus, for example, the ADA and Section 504 may require a school to accommodate a child’s absences to attend medical appointments following up on a disabling condition that is cured or in remission.76 A school can also violate the ADA and Section 504 by discriminating against a student on the basis of a perceived disability.77 For example, a school might offer a student inferior academic opportunities because it erroneously perceived the student to have an intellectual disability.78 The IDEA does not cover students who do not, in fact, have any present disability.79 Many courts assume that Section 504 and the ADA cover any child who is eligible for IDEA services.80 On the other hand, some courts view the ADA and Section 504 as narrower than the IDEA in at least one respect: the requirement that a disability be “substantially limiting.”81 Congress clarified through the ADA Amendments Act that courts hearing Section 504 and ADA claims should construe “disability” as broadly as possible and that it did not intend for the “substantially limiting” requirement to significantly raise the bar.82 Nevertheless, some courts 72 See, e.g., M.D. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 539 F. Supp. 3d 380, 396 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (observing that Section 504’s “protections are broader than those under the IDEA with the intent of rooting out disability-based discrimination against people of all ages, not just students”); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 5 (“School staff should note, in particular, that a student may have a disability and be eligible for Section 504 services even if his or her disability does not limit the major life activity of learning.”); Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note 65, at 487 (“Section 504’s coverage is broader than IDEA’s because it does not consider the child’s need for special education.”). 73 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). 74 Id. 75 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(B); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 7–8. Covered entities need not offer reasonable modifications to people who are only “regarded as” disabled, when they do not, in fact, have a disability. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(ii) (2023) (ADA Title II regulation); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(g) (ADA Title III regulation). 76 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. C §§ 35.108(e), 36.105(e). 77 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C). 78 See Ga. State Conf. of Branches of NAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1427 (11th Cir. 1985) (acknowledging that Section 504 allows students to bring claims that they have been misclassified as intellectually disabled). 79 See Muller v. Comm. on Special Educ. of E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 100 n.2 (2d Cir. 1998); Ga. State Conf. of Branches of NAACP, 775 F.2d at 1427 n.39. 80 E.g., Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Sch., 936 F.3d 16, 25 n.12 (1st Cir. 2019); D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Balt. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir. 2013); Kimble v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181 (D. Colo. 2013); K.M. ex rel. D.G. v. Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 381 F. Supp. 2d 343, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). ED also appears to take this position. OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 9, 42. 81 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). 82 Id. § 12102(4)(A); see id. § 12102(4)(B) (“The term ‘substantially limits’ shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.”). The findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 expressed Congress’s view that the Supreme Court had adopted too narrow an interpretation of “substantially limits” and “narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA.” ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, § 2(a)(5), (7), 122 Stat. 3553. Under the current DOJ ADA regulations, “[a]n impairment is a disability . . . if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major (continued...) Congressional Research Service 10 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA continue to emphasize that individuals may qualify for coverage under the IDEA without qualifying under the ADA and Section 504, because IDEA-eligible students need not have a “‘substantially limiting’ impairment.”83 Even the courts that interpret the ADA and Section 504 to define disability more narrowly than the IDEA does tend to expect that most students who qualify for services under the IDEA will also be covered by the ADA and Section 504.84 The reverse is not always true: children who are protected under the ADA and Section 504 may not qualify for IDEA services.85 Defining Disability: Key Takeaways • The IDEA applies to students who fall within at least one of 13 disability categories and who need special education services as a result of their disabilities. • Section 504 and the ADA apply to students with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, regardless of whether the disability affects educational progress. • Section 504 and the ADA protect students with a history of disability or who are perceived to be disabled. The IDEA does not protect students with no disability. • Students protected by the IDEA are likely to be covered by Section 504 and the ADA. The reverse is less likely to be true. The Rights of Students with Disabilities States that accept IDEA funding—which is all of them—must make FAPE available to all eligible children with disabilities throughout their preschool, elementary, and secondary schooling.86 Children in private schools do not have all of the same IDEA rights as children in public schools, although they are still eligible for some IDEA services and protections.87 The IDEA does not extend to students with disabilities in college or other postsecondary education and training programs.88 life activity as compared to most people in the general population. An impairment does not need to prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(d)(1)(v) (ADA Title II regulation); accord 28 C.F.R. § 36.105(d)(1)(v) (ADA Title III regulation). 83 Ellenberg v. N.M. Mil. Inst., 572 F.3d 815, 821 (10th Cir. 2009) (alterations omitted); accord B.C. v. Mount Vernon Sch. Dist., 837 F.3d 152, 159 (2d Cir. 2016); Mann v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 535 F. App’x 405, 411 (5th Cir. 2013); A.W. ex rel. H.W. v. Middletown Area Sch. Dist., No. 1:13-CV-2379, 2015 WL 390864, at *15 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015). In practice, many decisionmakers appear to interpret the IDEA to require impairments to substantially limit students’ learning: “There is general agreement among decision-makers that failing children need special education and children performing average to above average do not . . . . Many courts and hearing officers . . . require a child to fail in regular education before a need for special education exists.” Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note 65, at 504. But see, e.g., Corchado v. Bd. of Educ. Rochester City Sch. Dist., 86 F. Supp. 2d 168, 176 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding that a child with an average school performance can still be eligible for IDEA services); supra note 68 and accompanying text. 84 B.C., 837 F.3d at 159; Mann, 535 F. App’x at 411; Ellenberg, 572 F.3d at 821, 823. 85 See Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Sch., 936 F.3d 16, 25 n.12 (1st Cir. 2019); Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 991 (5th Cir. 2014). Among the most common disabilities experienced by students receiving services exclusively under Section 504 are attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, asthma, and dyslexia. Rachel A. Holler & Perry A. Zirkel, Section 504 and Public Schools: A National Survey Concerning ‘Section 504Only’ Students, 92 NASSP BULL. 19, 28 (Mar. 2008). 86 See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1). 87 See infra “FAPE in Private Schools.” 88 See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9) (limiting a FAPE to “an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education”). Congressional Research Service 11 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA Section 504 applies to any educational program that receives federal funding, and the ADA applies to all public and nonparochial private schools.89 As under the IDEA, some of Section 504 and the ADA’s rules are different for public versus private schools.90 Section 504 and the ADA do protect students in many, if not most, higher education programs.91 The following sections of this report identify key provisions regarding how educators determine eligibility for services under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA, and what services and rights each law guarantees in different educational environments. Identification and Evaluation of Children with Disabilities Preschool, Elementary, and Secondary Education Identification Each state receiving IDEA funds must implement policies and procedures to identify, locate, and evaluate all children residing in the state who may have a qualifying disability.92 ED’s regulations require LEAs to identify and evaluate children attending private schools within their jurisdictions even if those children live outside the state.93 These policies and procedures—known as “Child Find”94—cover all children ages 3 through 21 until they graduate high school, including, for example, children who are homeless, wards of the state, or highly mobile (such as migrant children).95 The IDEA’s Child Find obligations apply to children attending both public and private schools, including parochial schools.96 As a practical matter, LEAs have the most direct role in the administration of the IDEA at the school level and generally ensure states’ (and their own) Child Find duties are met.97 An LEA’s duty to provide an IDEA evaluation is triggered when school officials have reason to suspect that a child has a disability requiring special education services.98 The regulations implementing Section 504 in public elementary and secondary schools impose similar duties. They require covered school districts “to identify and locate every qualified handicapped person residing in the recipient’s jurisdiction who is not receiving a public education.”99 Courts generally interpret this provision to impose on schools an “affirmative duty to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities in order to ensure that they receive a 89 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” 90 See infra “Identification” and “FAPE in Private Schools.” 91 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” and note 31. 92 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 (2023); see, e.g., J.M. v. Summit City Bd. of Educ., 39 F.4th 126, 137– 38 (3d Cir. 2022) (describing school districts’ identification and evaluation responsibilities). 93 34 C.F.R. § 300.131(f). 94 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3). 95 Id. § 1412(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111. 96 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.131. 97 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b) (instructing LEAs on how to evaluate students for IDEA eligibility). 98 E.g., D.T. by & through Yasiris T. v. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No. 5, 55 F.4th 1268, 1274 (10th Cir. 2022); Leigh Ann H. v. Riesel Indep. Sch. Dist., 18 F.4th 788, 796 n.6 (5th Cir. 2021); see, e.g., Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified Sch. Dist., 822 F.3d 1105, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The IDEA requires that, if a school district has notice that a child has displayed symptoms of a covered disability, it must assess that child in all areas of that disability using the thorough and reliable procedures specified in the Act.”). 99 34 C.F.R. § 104.32(a). Congressional Research Service 12 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA FAPE.”100 As under the IDEA, a school should initiate a Section 504 evaluation when it has reason to believe a child may be eligible for Section 504 services.101 The Section 504 regulations do not require private elementary and secondary schools to proactively identify and evaluate students with disabilities,102 nor does the ADA contain such a requirement for any covered entity, private or public. Outside of cases applying Section 504 to P– 12 public schools, courts ordinarily require a person with a disability (or a child’s parent) to make a request for an accommodation to trigger a covered entity’s Section 504 or ADA obligations.103 However, under both the ADA and Section 504, all covered entities must provide accommodations when a person’s need for an accommodation is “obvious,” even absent a request.104 Accommodations are discussed in further detail below. Evaluations An LEA must evaluate a child it suspects has a disability before providing special education and related services under the IDEA or Section 504.105 The IDEA and Section 504 evaluation requirements are similar, but not identical. ED indicates that schools may comply with Section 504 by following the IDEA’s evaluation protocols.106 The ADA does not require schools to conduct disability evaluations. Under the IDEA, either a child’s parent or an LEA, SEA, or other state agency may request an initial evaluation.107 In general, the LEA must first obtain informed consent from a child’s parent.108 (Parental consent to an evaluation does not imply consent to special education and 100 Kimble v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181 (D. Colo. 2013); see, e.g., Culley v. Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist., 758 F. App’x 301, 305–06 (3d Cir. 2018); B.H. v. Portage Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:08-CV-293, 2009 WL 277051, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2009). 101 W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 500–01 (3d Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sch., 486 F.3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 12, 18. 102 See 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(a) (limiting the Child Find requirement to “a recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity”); id. § 104.39 (Section 504 regulation governing private schools). 103 E.g., J.V. v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 813 F.3d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 2016); Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. 2012); Forbes v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2010); see P.P. v. Compton Unified Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 3d 1098, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (collecting cases requiring notice but observing that “the Ninth Circuit has yet to mandate this notice requirement in the context of ADA lawsuits against education institutions”). 104 E.g., J.V., 813 F.3d at 1299; Doe v. Tex. A&M Univ., No. CV H-21-3728, 2022 WL 5250294, at *10 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2022). 105 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.35(a), 300.301(a). 106 Frequently Asked Questions: Section 504 Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (June 30, 2025) [hereinafter Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504], https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civilrights-laws/disability-discrimination/frequently-asked-questions-section-504-free-appropriate-public-education-fape [https://perma.cc/65RK-JGQ9] (specifically questions 18 and 19). 107 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(b). The IDEA defines a parent to include a legal guardian (other than the state) and “an individual acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent (including a grandparent, stepparent, or other relative) with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child’s welfare.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(23). Where this report refers to “parents,” it adopts the IDEA’s definition. The LEA may refuse the parent’s request for an initial evaluation if it does not suspect that the child has a disability. The parent may challenge such a refusal through an administrative hearing. See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1415; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507– 300.508. 108 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(i)(I). As defined in ED’s regulations, “consent” means, in part, that “the parent has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in his or her native language, or other mode of communication.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.9. For further requirements regarding parental consent, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.300. Congressional Research Service 13 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA related services—parents must consent separately to services.)109 Schools must seek parental consent “within a reasonable time” after their Child Find obligations are triggered, i.e., after the school has reason to believe the child has a disability.110 The initial evaluation must take place within 60 days of parental consent or within an alternative time frame established by the state.111 In addition, at the time of the referral or parental request for evaluation, the LEA must provide the parent with a “Procedural Safeguards Notice,” which is a comprehensive written explanation of the IDEA’s legal rights and protections for children with disabilities and their parents.112 ED’s Section 504 regulations also require public schools to undertake an evaluation before determining a child with a disability’s placement in regular or special education, although schools may be able to provide other kinds of accommodations prior to an evaluation.113 Private schools receiving federal funds that choose to provide special education services must also follow Section 504’s evaluation procedures.114 Neither Section 504 nor the implementing regulations explicitly call for parental consent to an evaluation or for an evaluation to take place within a specific period of time. ED’s OCR nevertheless interprets Section 504 to require LEAs to obtain parental consent to an initial evaluation.115 A school district can violate Section 504 by unreasonably delaying an evaluation and accommodations.116 Under both Section 504 and the IDEA, a parent’s refusal to consent to an evaluation may not be the final word. An LEA may initiate a due process hearing to seek permission to evaluate a child in the face of parental opposition, unless state law provides otherwise.117 109 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (ii)(II). 110 Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W. by Hannah W., 961 F.3d 781, 791 (5th Cir. 2020); accord D.T. by & through Yasiris T. v. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No. 5, 55 F.4th 1268, 1274 (10th Cir. 2022); J.M. v. Summit City Bd. of Educ., 39 F.4th 126, 137 (3d Cir. 2022). 111 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(C)(i)(I). 112 See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d). 113 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(a); see Spring Branch, 961 F.3d at 794 (“Though compliance with § 504 does not absolve a school district of its duty to comply with the IDEA, we do recognize that there may be cases where intermediate measures are reasonably implemented before resorting to evaluation.”); Zamora v. Hays Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 1:19-CV-1087-SH, 2021 WL 2531011, at *10 (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2021) (recognizing that schools may “pursue[] § 504 accommodations before pursuing a special education evaluation”); Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, at Q.30 (indicating that “school districts may always use regular education intervention strategies to assist students with difficulties in school” but that schools must refer students for an evaluation for special education or “modification to regular education”). Distinguishing between special education and other kinds of accommodations may be difficult. See supra note 65. 114 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c). 115 Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, at Qs.26, 42. 116 See B.M. ex rel. Miller v. S. Callaway R-II Sch. Dist., 732 F.3d 882, 888 (8th Cir. 2013); S.L.-M. ex rel. Liedtke v. Dieringer Sch. Dist. No. 343, 614 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1161 (W.D. Wash. 2008); cf., e.g., Keith-Foust v. N.C. Cent. Univ., No. 1:15CV470, 2016 WL 4256952, at *10 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2016) (delaying accommodations can violate Section 504 in the university context); Guckenberger v. Bos. Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106, 115, 153–54 (D. Mass. 1997) (same). Under Section 504, “OCR generally looks to the IDEA timeline, or if applicable, to State requirements or local district policy to assess the reasonableness of the time it takes the school to evaluate the student once parental consent has been obtained.” OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 17. 117 Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, at Q.26; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(a)(3)(i) (allowing a public school district to “utiliz[e] the procedural safeguards” of the IDEA regulations to “pursue the initial evaluation of a child” “enrolled in public school or seeking to be enrolled in public school” absent parental consent). Schools may not seek to override parental refusals to conduct an evaluation when the parents refuse IDEA services and seek to privately educate their children at the parents’ expense. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(d)(4); Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III Sch. Dist., 439 F.3d 773, 776–77 (8th Cir. 2006); Durkee v. Livonia Cent. Sch. Dist., 487 F. Supp. 2d 313, 317 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). Congressional Research Service 14 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA In conducting an initial evaluation under the IDEA or Section 504, LEAs must use valid and reliable assessment tools tailored to assess a child’s “specific areas of educational need.”118 The IDEA emphasizes that schools should assess a child “in all areas of suspected disability.”119 Both laws emphasize the importance of considering a variety of assessments and sources of information.120 Schools must ensure that their evaluations validly measure a child’s abilities and needs and that the evaluations are culturally sensitive.121 Both Section 504 and the IDEA require school officials to administer evaluations in a way that measures what the tests purport to measure, not a student’s disability (e.g., the student’s impaired sight, hearing, or speech).122 After completing an evaluation under the IDEA, the LEA should consult qualified professionals and the child’s parents to determine whether the child is a “child with a disability” under the act and, if so, what his or her educational needs are.123 Section 504, by contrast, does not expressly require that a child’s parents participate in decisions about placement and services, although OCR “urges schools” to involve parents in such decisions.124 Section 504 instead provides only that placement decisions be made “by a group of persons, including those knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options.”125 ED does mandate that LEAs give notice to parents and an opportunity for them to contest their child’s Section 504 eligibility determination and services plan.126 Reevaluations Under the IDEA, an LEA must conduct a reevaluation if a child’s teacher or parent makes a request or if the LEA determines that a child warrants reevaluation.127 For example, a reevaluation might be warranted if a child’s performance in school significantly improves, suggesting that he or she no longer requires special education and related services, or if a child is not making appropriate progress, suggesting that he or she needs different services. Reevaluations may take place no more than once per year and no less than once every three years unless the parents and LEA agree otherwise.128 In general, parents must consent to reevaluations.129 Before any such reevaluation, an LEA may not change a child’s eligibility for IDEA services, unless the child graduates from high school with a regular diploma or ages out of IDEA coverage.130 118 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(2); accord id. § 104.35(b)(2); see generally 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)–(c) (evaluation requirements under the IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)–(c) (evaluation requirements under Section 504). 119 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B). 120 Id. § 1414(b)(2)(A); see id. § 1414(c) (requiring school officials conducting an initial IDEA evaluation to also “review existing evaluation data on the child” from multiple sources “if appropriate”); 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c)(1)–(2). 121 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(i)–(v) (IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)(1), (c) (Section 504). 122 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)(3) (Section 504); accord id. § 300.304(c)(3) (IDEA). 123 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(A). 124 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 19. 125 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c). 126 Id. § 104.36. 127 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a). 128 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b). 129 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c). 130 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.305(e). Congressional Research Service 15 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA The briefer Section 504 regulations require LEAs to establish procedures consistent with their evaluation procedures for “periodic” reevaluations of students receiving Section 504 services.131 Reevaluation procedures consistent with the IDEA satisfy this obligation.132 Postsecondary Education: Identification and Evaluations The IDEA does not apply after high school,133 and neither Section 504 nor the ADA require postsecondary institutions to affirmatively identify or evaluate students with disabilities.134 As indicated above, in most contexts outside of P–12 public schools, a person’s request for an accommodation ordinarily triggers a covered entity’s ADA and Section 504 obligations.135 Regulations say little about how IHEs may confirm eligibility.136 Few courts have addressed the subject. The existing case law suggests that if a student requests modifications, accommodations, or auxiliary aids or services (addressed in more detail below),137 IHEs may (but do not have to) request that the student provide “reasonable” documentation of his or her disability and need for the requested accommodations or services.138 IHEs set their own documentation requirements, and some commentators observe that students may have trouble securing the necessary paperwork.139 For example, IHEs may request that students with dyslexia or other learning disabilities provide psychoeducational testing that is no more than three years old establishing their disability. A full psychoeducational battery of tests can take weeks to administer and cost thousands of dollars. Students have successfully challenged triennial evaluation requirements in 131 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(d). 132 Id. 133 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5)(B)(i) (indicating that graduation from high school terminates a child’s IDEA eligibility). 134 Pierre v. Univ. of Dayton, 143 F. Supp. 3d 703, 709 (S.D. Ohio 2015); see Shaikh v. Lincoln Mem’l Univ., 608 F. App’x 349, 353 (6th Cir. 2015); OFF. OF SPEC. EDUC. & REHAB. SERVS., U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., A TRANSITION GUIDE TO POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES 25 (Aug. 2020) [hereinafter TRANSITION GUIDE], https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/postsecondary-transition-guide-august-2020.pdf [https://perma.cc/7H4T-XRVP]; Students with Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Aug. 20, 2025) [hereinafter Preparing for Postsecondary Education], https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ocr/transition.html [https://perma.cc/5FMA-7JTS]. 135 See supra “Identification.” 136 See 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(4) (Section 504 regulation allowing IHEs to make post-admission, confidential inquiries as to a person’s need for a disability accommodation); 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(iv) (2023) (ADA Title III regulation allowing “reasonable” documentation requests for accommodations for exams). The ADA regulations restrict the documentation that schools can request when people with disabilities seek to use service dogs, wheelchairs, or powerdriven mobility devices. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.136(f), 35.137(c), 36.302(c)(6), 36.311(c). 137 Auxiliary aids and services allow a person with a disability to communicate effectively. They can include everything from screen reading software or braille materials for blind people to interpreters or real-time computer-aided transcriptions for Deaf people, or any other technology or service that facilitates effective communication. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d) (ED Section 504 regulation); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (ADA Title II regulation); id. § 36.303(b) (ADA Title III regulation). 138 Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A public agency may require reasonable evidence of a disability before providing accommodations. . . . A public agency may not, however, insist on data supporting a claim of disability beyond that which would satisfy a reasonable expert in the field.”); Guckenberger v. Bos. Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106, 135 (D. Mass. 1997) (“The ADA permits a university to require a student requesting a reasonable accommodation to provide current documentation from a qualified professional concerning his learning disability. . . . Nevertheless, a university cannot impose upon such individuals documentation criteria that unnecessarily screen out or tend to screen out the truly disabled.”); TRANSITION GUIDE, supra note 134, at 25–26; Preparing for Postsecondary Education, supra note 134. 139 Debi Gartland & Roberta Strosnider, Considerations for Transition from High School to Postsecondary Education, 46 LEARNING DISABILITY Q. 230, 234–35 (2023). Congressional Research Service 16 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA court, as well as requirements that they be regularly reevaluated even when their disabilities are permanent and they have sufficient (but not recent) proof of their disability status.140 IHEs and professional organizations have prepared their own informal guidance for disability support services staff, professors, and anyone else responsible for confirming a student’s disability and need for accommodations.141 Guidance for IHEs from the Association on Higher Education and Disability emphasizes that documentation requirements should be “nonburdensome,” that a variety of forms of documentation (including self-reports and past Section 504 or IDEA evaluations) may reliably support a student’s eligibility, and that, when required, “[d]isability documentation should be current and relevant but not necessarily ‘recent.’”142 Identification and Evaluation of Children with Disabilities: Key Takeaways • State and local educational agencies must timely identify and evaluate all children with disabilities residing or attending private schools in their jurisdictions for IDEA eligibility and services. • Section 504 regulations impose similar “Child Find” obligations on P–12 public schools. • The ADA does not require schools to proactively identify and evaluate children with disabilities. • Private and postsecondary schools do not have an affirmative obligation to identify and evaluate children with disabilities under any law. Section 504 and the ADA require them to respond to requests for accommodations and to offer accommodations when a student’s need is obvious. Placement P–12 Education Public School P–12 Placement The IDEA and Section 504 set forth similar considerations for determining an appropriate placement for a child with a disability. Placement refers to both the school the child attends (e.g., public or private) and the classrooms, programs, or educational environments the child is in within that school. Perhaps most significantly, both the IDEA and Section 504 require that schools educate children with disabilities in the regular educational environment to the maximum extent appropriate to students’ needs.143 In other words, schools are to educate students with disabilities alongside children without disabilities, and schools are not to place them in separate schools or classes or remove them from the regular classroom unless “education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”144 In IDEA 140 See Guckenberger, 974 F. Supp. at 135–36 (concluding that a private university’s “requirement mandating retesting for students with learning disabilities [every three years] screened out or tended to screen out the learning disabled within the meaning of the federal law,” violating the ADA). 141 See Supporting Accommodation Requests: Guidance on Documentation Practices, ASS’N ON HIGHER EDUC. & DISABILITY (Oct. 2012), https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/accommodations/documentation [https://perma.cc/NKC6-A2NR]. 142 Id. 143 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5) (IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.34 (2023) (Section 504). 144 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); accord 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.34(a), 300.114(a), 300.116(a)(2), (e); see, e.g., T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 161 (2d Cir. 2014); U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, at 6 (2007) [hereinafter FAPE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504], https://www.ed.gov/media/document/factsheet-supporting-students-disabilities-and-avoiding-discriminatory-use-of-student-discipline-under-section-504-ofrehabilitation-act-of-1973-2007-21267 [https://perma.cc/2R8T-ZAQB] (“It is illegal to base individual placement (continued...) Congressional Research Service 17 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA terminology, schools must provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE).145 Both Section 504 and the IDEA also require schools to avoid unnecessarily separating children with disabilities from their peers in nonacademic settings, such as lunch, recess, and extracurricular activities.146 Section 504’s rules requiring the integration of students with disabilities apply to covered public and private schools alike.147 Related to the LRE requirement, schools must implement a student’s accommodations, special education, and/or related services in all of the student’s classes as appropriate, whether they are special education classes, regular education classes, or accelerated classes.148 Schools cannot refuse to provide needed services and modifications in the general education environment.149 For example, denying students with disabilities access to accelerated programs such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes solely because of students’ need for special education or related aids and services violates Section 504 and the IDEA.150 Schools must also provide “supplementary aids and services” and “reasonable accommodations” to ensure that children with disabilities can participate in nonacademic activities with their peers who do not have disabilities.151 The IDEA and Section 504 contemplate that some children with disabilities may not receive all of their education in the regular classroom. Under the IDEA, LEAs must maintain “a continuum of alternative placements.”152 This range includes regular classroom instruction, with the provision of supplementary services when appropriate, as well as “special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.”153 A school district is to educate an decisions on presumptions and stereotypes regarding persons with disabilities or on classes of such persons. For example, it would be a violation of the law for a recipient to adopt a policy that every student who is hearing impaired, regardless of the severity of the child’s disability, must be placed in a state school for the deaf.”). 145 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114, 300.116. Section 504 does not use the term LRE, but the requirements are similar. 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(a). 146 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.34(b), 300.117; see also id. § 104.37(a)(1), (c) (Section 504 regulation requiring that students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities, including integrated athletics); see generally Dear Colleague Letter from Seth M. Galanter, Acting Assistant Sec. for C.R., Students with Disabilities in Extracurricular Activities, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Jan. 25, 2013) [hereinafter DCL re Extracurriculars], https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201301-504.pdf [https://perma.cc/KE79-Q4AJ] (reviewing schools’ Section 504 obligations regarding extracurricular activities). 147 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c) (requiring covered private schools to comply with 34 C.F.R. § 104.34). 148 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A) (contemplating that schools will provide “supplementary aids and services” in “regular classes”); 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.34(a), 300.114(a)(2)(ii) (same). 149 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(e) (“Public agenc[ies] must ensure that . . . a child with a disability is not removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum.”); see, e.g., T.M., 752 F.3d at 161–62. 150 Dear Colleague Letter from Stephanie J. Monroe, Assistant Sec. for C.R., Access by Students with Disabilities to Accelerated Programs, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Dec. 26, 2007) [hereinafter DCL re Accelerated Programs], http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20071226.html [https://perma.cc/G6BP-KPNF]. 151 34 C.F.R. § 300.117; see id. § 104.37(a) (requiring schools covered by Section 504 to “provide non-academic and extracurricular services and activities in such manner as is necessary to afford handicapped students an equal opportunity for participation in such services and activities”); infra “Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services.” 152 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(a). 153 Id. § 300.115(b). A school district need not operate the full “continuum” of placements itself; it can meet its obligations by providing for “free public placements at educational programs operated by other entities, including other public agencies or private schools.” T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 1615–66 (2d Cir. 2014); see infra “Private School P–12 Placement” (discussing placements in private schools). Congressional Research Service 18 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA IDEA-eligible child in the placement along this “continuum” that is the LRE “that is consonant with his or her needs.”154 In contrast to the IDEA’s focus on ensuring an appropriate placement for each child with a disability, Section 504’s main concern is to ensure that schools do not discriminate against children with disabilities when making placement decisions.155 Section 504 does not require that schools maintain a continuum of placement options. It requires instead that, when a child with a disability does need to attend a facility specifically for children with disabilities, the LEA ensures that the facility and the services and activities it provides are “comparable to the LEA’s other facilities, services, and activities.”156 The IDEA is somewhat more specific than Section 504 as to how LEAs should make placement decisions. For example, the IDEA regulations require that a placement decision for a child with a disability be determined at least annually; be based on the child’s IEP; and be made by a group of people, including the child’s parents, who are knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options.157 In comparison, Section 504 does not require placement decisions to be determined at any particular interval, nor does it require those decisions be based on a written plan like an IEP. ED’s Section 504 regulation has a requirement similar to the IDEA’s outlining who should make placement decisions, but it omits that the parents must be involved.158 The ADA’s requirements align with Section 504’s, although they are less specific.159 While neither the ADA nor its regulations speak specifically to educational placement decisions, the ADA forbids the unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities from their peers: schools should serve people with disabilities “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the[ir] needs”160 and may not provide separate services unless necessary.161 154 T.M., 752 F.3d at 161; see, e.g., Falmouth Sch. Dep’t v. Doe ex rel. Doe, 44 F.4th 23, 29 (1st Cir. 2022) (stating that schools must “strike[] an appropriate balance between the restrictiveness of the placement and educational progress” (citation omitted)). 155 See, e.g., Durbrow v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 887 F.3d 1182, 1190 (11th Cir. 2018); Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 990 (5th Cir. 2014); CG v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 734 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2013); Ellenberg v. N.M. Mil. Inst., 572 F.3d 815, 821–22 (10th Cir. 2009). 156 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(c). 157 Id. § 300.116(a)–(b). 158 ED’s Section 504 regulations speak in more general terms about how a school should determine the placement of an eligible child with a disability. 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c) (requiring a recipient to “(1) draw upon information from a variety of sources, . . . (2) establish procedures to ensure that information obtained from all such sources is documented and carefully considered, (3) ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options, and (4) ensure that the placement decision” allows the child, “to the maximum extent appropriate,” to receive his or her education alongside children without disabilities). 159 See, e.g., DCL re Accelerated Programs, supra note 150 (“Title II provides no lesser protections than does Section 504.”); DCL re Extracurriculars, supra note 146, at 2 n.3 (“Violations of Section 504 that result from school districts’ failure to meet the obligations identified in this letter also constitute violations of Title II.”). 160 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(B); accord 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(d), 36.203(a) (2023). 161 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(iv), 36.202(c). Congressional Research Service 19 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA Private School P–12 Placement An LEA can place a child in private school, at the LEA’s expense (and with parental consent162), in order to meet its IDEA obligations.163 Parents may enroll their children in private schools at an LEA’s expense, even without the LEA’s consent, if an LEA does not provide a FAPE to an eligible child in a public school setting.164 Parents must meet certain procedural requirements before enrolling their children in private schools if they seek full reimbursement from LEAs.165 Courts have wide leeway to determine appropriate reimbursement levels.166 For example, a court may reduce reimbursement if it determines that parents chose an unreasonably expensive placement in light of the available options,167 or if a parent seeks reimbursement for elements of a private education (such as residential boarding or expensive extracurricular activities) that are unnecessary in light of the student’s educational needs.168 Parents who unilaterally enroll their students in private schools are not entitled to reimbursement if their LEA made a FAPE available in a public school setting.169 Whether parents can demand private placements at public expense under Section 504 or the ADA is unsettled. The Section 504 regulations and ED guidance strongly suggest that they can if school districts cannot meet an eligible child’s needs.170 Courts, on the other hand, have reached different conclusions. Some courts rely on the Section 504 regulations and their similarity to the IDEA to conclude that Section 504, and sometimes the ADA, can mandate private school placement or tuition reimbursement in certain circumstances.171 Other courts disagree, holding that private 162 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b). 163 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(B); see, e.g., Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.W., 21 F.4th 1125, 1138 n.5 (9th Cir. 2021). 164 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c); Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 241–43, 247 (2009); Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985). Parents are entitled to reimbursement only if the private placement is “appropriate.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c); see, e.g., Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter By & Through Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 15 (1993); T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir. 2014); Mr. I. ex rel. L.I. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 23–25 (1st Cir. 2007). 165 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)–(iv); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d)–(e). 166 Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 16 (quoting Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369). 167 Id. (“Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable.”); accord, e.g., Doe v. Newton Pub. Sch., 48 F.4th 42, 59 (1st Cir. 2022); Leggett v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 59, 63, 66–67, 70, 73 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 168 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 (stating that the IDEA may require a residential placement at public expense only when a “residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability”); see, e.g., Leggett, 793 F.3d at 71 (“The school system may, on remand, seek to demonstrate that specific components of the placement, such as extracurricular activities or the horseback riding to which DCPS so vociferously objects, were not primarily oriented toward educating K.E. and were therefore not necessary under the Act.” (citations omitted)); Ashland Sch. Dist. v. Parents of Student R.J., 588 F.3d 1004, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying reimbursement for residential placement when the placement was “a response to medical, social, or emotional problems quite apart from the learning process” (citation and alteration omitted)). 169 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(a); Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374. 170 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(c)(2)–(4); FAPE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504, supra note 144, at 10 (“If a student is placed in a private school because a school district cannot provide an appropriate program, the financial obligations for this placement are the responsibility of the school district.”). 171 E.g., Hannah L. v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., No. CIV.A. 12-4595, 2014 WL 3709980, at *7 n.5 (E.D. Pa. July 25, 2014), aff’d sub nom. H.L. v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., 624 F. App’x 64 (3d Cir. 2015); Lauren G. ex rel. Scott G. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., 906 F. Supp. 2d 375, 390–91 (E.D. Pa. 2012); Molly L. ex rel. B.L. v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 194 F. Supp. 2d 422, 429 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 2002); Borough of Palmyra, Bd. of Educ. v. F.C. Through R.C., 2 F. Supp. 2d 637, 642–43 (D.N.J. 1998); see also Freeman v. Cavazos, 939 F.2d 1527, 1532 (11th Cir. 1991) (declining to hold that Section 504 can never require a school district to fund a residential placement but determining that whether such a placement was required in the case before it depended on undeveloped facts). Congressional Research Service 20 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA school placement is a fundamental alteration of a school district’s services, or that it unduly burdens school district finances, and is therefore beyond what Section 504 and the ADA require.172 More information on the fundamental alteration and undue burden limitations on school districts’ Section 504 and ADA obligations is provided below. Postsecondary Education: Transition and Admissions The IDEA requires IEPs to include postsecondary transition goals and services beginning no later than when students are 16 years old.173 Transition goals and services must be individualized and may differ depending on a student’s goals, whether they be continuing education, employment, independent living, or something else.174 For a student planning to pursue postsecondary education, transition services could include helping the student select colleges to apply to; complete applications; obtain accommodations, such as extended time on standardized college placement tests; practice self-advocacy skills; or any other services that would help the student prepare for postsecondary life, education, or employment.175 No matter what IDEA transition services students with disabilities receive in high school, those services will end once they exit the P–12 public school system. Section 504 and the ADA do not require transition services.176 Rather, they protect students applying to postsecondary institutions from discrimination in recruitment and admissions policies and procedures, including with regard to specific academic programs or courses of study.177 IHEs must grant students with disabilities reasonable accommodations, including potential waivers from certain admissions requirements; however, they are not required to waive the “essential eligibility requirements” for their programs, including the academic standards.178 172 Colin K. by John K. v. Schmidt, 715 F.2d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1983); Ibata v. Bd. of Educ. of Edwardsville Cmty. Sch. Dist. #7, No. CV 06-173-GPM, 2008 WL 11508975, at *5 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2008); see also Janet G. v. Haw., Dep’t of Educ., 410 F. Supp. 2d 958, 967 (D. Haw. 2005) (interpreting the Section 504 regulations to not require private school placement). 173 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(b). Many states require transition planning to start earlier. Mariya T. Davis & Yewon Lee, Journey into Adulthood: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Transition Planning, 96 CLEARING HOUSE 137, 139 (2023). 174 See 34 C.F.R. § 300.43(a)(2) (requiring transition services to be “based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account” various personal factors). 175 See, e.g., Gartland & Strosnider, supra note 139, at 233, 236; Davis & Lee, supra note 173, at 140–41; TRANSITION GUIDE, supra note 134, at 23–26. 176 While Section 504 does not entitle students with disabilities to transition services (unless schools provide those services to all students), other parts of the Rehabilitation Act governing programs administered by state vocational rehabilitation agencies authorize and fund transition services. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 723(a)(15), (b)(7), 730(d), 733; TRANSITION GUIDE, supra note 134, at 12–16. Vocational rehabilitation services are beyond the scope of this report. For more information on this subject, see CRS Report R43855, Rehabilitation Act: Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, by Benjamin Collins (2014). 177 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.42, 104.43(c); see, e.g., Power v. Univ. of N.D. Sch. of L., 954 F.3d 1047, 1052 (8th Cir. 2020) (analyzing ADA claims regarding law school admissions); Sjostrand v. Ohio State Univ., 750 F.3d 596, 599, 602 (6th Cir. 2014) (analyzing ADA and Section 504 claims regarding graduate program admissions). 178 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (2023) (defining “qualified individual with a disability” as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices . . . meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity”); id. §§ 35.130(b)(7)(i), 36.302(a) (requiring reasonable modifications so long as they do not fundamentally alter program requirements); 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(a) (similar); id. pt. 104 app. A (explaining that individuals are “qualified” for postsecondary programs when they meet both the academic program standards and “all nonacademic admissions criteria that are essential to participation in the program in question”); Se. Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 412–13 & n.12 (1979); Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 462 & n.3, 464 (4th Cir. 2012). Congressional Research Service 21 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA IHEs may have to modify their admissions policies to avoid disparate impacts on people with disabilities, although the law in this area has become unsettled. The current ADA and Section 504 regulations prohibit IHEs from adopting admissions policies or criteria, including tests, that “screen out or tend to screen out,” or “ha[ve] a disproportionate, adverse effect on,” applicants with disabilities, unless such policies are necessary to achieve the IHE’s goals and no option with a lesser adverse impact is available.179 Whether ED has properly interpreted Section 504 to allow for disparate impact liability is a subject of debate in the courts, discussed further below.180 The ADA also requires private entities offering educational, professional, or trade examinations or courses to provide accessible services.181 These rules apply to entities like the College Board, ACT, Inc., and others that offer tests used in undergraduate and graduate admissions.182 Testing providers must provide reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids and services.183 Admissions and other tests must be designed so that they measure the skills the tests purport to measure, not students’ disabilities.184 Placement: Key Takeaways • The IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA all require P–12 schools to serve students with disabilities in integrated environments to the maximum extent appropriate to students’ needs. • The IDEA requires LEAs to maintain a continuum of placement options to ensure they can provide a FAPE to students with a variety of disability-related needs. Section 504 and the ADA require only that placement decisions be nondiscriminatory. • The IDEA may require LEAs to pay for private placements. Whether Section 504 or the ADA impose similar obligations is unsettled. • Only the IDEA requires schools to engage in transition planning for students with disabilities. Only Section 504 and the ADA require nondiscriminatory admissions programs to postsecondary schools. Services for Students with Disabilities Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) The IDEA’s “core guarantee” is that public schools will provide eligible students with a FAPE.185 ED interprets Section 504 to also require federally funded P–12 public schools to provide a FAPE.186 The ADA’s statutory and regulatory provisions are largely not education specific,187 and none mention the concept of a FAPE. Nevertheless, reflecting the general rule that the ADA and 179 See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(8), 36.301(a); 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(2); see 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(4)(i) (prohibiting entities covered by Section 504 from “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3) (similar ADA Title II regulation); id. § 36.204 (similar ADA Title III regulation). ED specifically requires that IHEs covered by Section 504 use only admissions tests and criteria that have “been validated as a predictor of success in the education program or activity in question.” 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(2)(i). 180 See infra “Disparate Impact.” 181 42 U.S.C. § 12189; 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(a). 182 See, e.g., Valles v. ACT, Inc., No. 4:22-CV-00568, 2022 WL 2789900, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2022); Rumbin v. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colleges, 803 F. Supp. 2d 83, 92 (D. Conn. 2011). 183 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b). 184 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(1)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(3)(i). 185 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 158 (2017). 186 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a). 187 The exceptions are 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7)(J), 12189, and 12201(f); and 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.151(f), 36.309, and 36.406(e). Congressional Research Service 22 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA Section 504 should be interpreted congruently,188 some (but not all) courts have held, and ED agrees, that the ADA requires schools to meet the same FAPE requirements as Section 504.189 None of these laws extend the right to a FAPE to postsecondary education programs.190 While in practice these three laws may entitle students to similar services,191 the concept of a FAPE under the IDEA is different from that under Section 504 and the ADA. The distinctions reflect a basic difference in statutory design: “the IDEA guarantees individually tailored educational services, while Title II [of the ADA] and [Section] 504 promise nondiscriminatory access to public institutions.”192 The following sections review the differences between the IDEA and Section 504 and ADA FAPE requirements. FAPE Requirements Under the IDEA Part B of the IDEA requires every state receiving IDEA funds to offer a FAPE to each child with a disability living in the state.193 The IEP, a written document specifying the particular services that an LEA will provide, is the “primary vehicle” for making sure children with disabilities receive a FAPE.194 The IDEA details with considerable specificity the persons who must be involved when developing an IEP (the IEP team), the process the IEP team should follow, and the information an IEP must include.195 At a basic level, an IEP details the child’s present academic and functional performance, establishes goals for the child and how educators will measure progress, and describes the child’s placement and services.196 Parents must be included on the IEP 188 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.103(a) (providing that Title II of the ADA “shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under” Section 504); supra note 50 and accompanying text. 189 A. ex rel. A. v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 976 F. Supp. 2d 164, 190, 194 (D. Conn. 2013); see ARC of Iowa v. Reynolds, 559 F. Supp. 3d 861, 875 (S.D. Iowa 2021); J.M. by & Through Mata v. Tenn. Dep’t of Educ., 358 F. Supp. 3d 736, 750 (M.D. Tenn. 2018); Sch. Dist. of Phila. v. Post, 262 F. Supp. 3d 178, 199 (E.D. Pa. 2017); FAPE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504, supra note 144, at 1 n.2 (“The requirements regarding the provisions of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically described in the Section 504 regulations, are incorporated in the general non-discrimination provisions of the Title II regulation.”). But see K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088, 1099 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Title II does not impose any FAPE requirement.”). 190 See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9) (2023) (limiting a FAPE to “an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education”); 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 (requiring a FAPE only from a “recipient that operates a public elementary school or secondary education program or activity”); Preparing for Postsecondary Education, supra note 134. Under the IDEA, states must provide a FAPE to children ages 3 through 5 and 18 through 21, unless providing FAPE to children in those age ranges is inconsistent with State law or practice. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B). According to information provided to CRS by the U.S. Department of Education Budget Service, in 2024, 20 states provided children with disabilities a FAPE until the age of 21. The remaining states ended their provision of a FAPE once students reached either 18, 19, or 20 years old. 191 See, e.g., Durbrow v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 887 F.3d 1182, 1190 (11th Cir. 2018) (“The same misconduct committed by a school district may warrant relief under the IDEA, § 504, or the ADA.”); Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 253 (3d Cir. 1999) (“We have held that there are few differences, if any, between IDEA’s affirmative duty and § 504’s negative prohibition . . . .”). 192 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 170–71 (2017). 193 Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 200, 181 (1982); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414. The IDEA does provide some agerelated exceptions to its otherwise blanket requirement that schools provide a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.102. 194 Fry, 580 U.S. at 158 (quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988)); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). 195 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d), (f); see, e.g., Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 391 (2017) (summarizing requirements). 196 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); see, e.g., Fry, 580 U.S. at 158–59; J.N. next friend of M.N. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 12 F.4th 1355, 1362 (11th Cir. 2021). Congressional Research Service 23 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA team and must consent to IDEA services.197 Unlike with evaluations, LEAs may not seek to override parental refusals to consent to the initial provision of IDEA services.198 What a FAPE entails, and what it demands of a school district, varies from student to student. Fundamentally, a FAPE consists of “special education and related services.”199 “Special education” is “specially designed instruction” that “meets the unique needs of a child with a disability.”200 It may include instruction conducted in both academic and nonacademic settings, including in the classroom, in the home, or in hospitals or institutions, as well as instruction in physical education.201 “Related services” are “supportive services . . . required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.”202 Nursing services during the school day for a student who relies on a ventilator, for example, may be a related service.203 Related services can include transportation, speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, social work services, counseling services, and school nurse services, among other things.204 Schools must provide related services only when a child also requires special education.205 A child who needs disabilityrelated services but no specialized instruction may be eligible for a Section 504 plan, discussed below, but not an IEP. A school district successfully provides a FAPE only when it satisfies the IDEA’s “checklist” of requirements: that special education and related services are “provided at public expense and under public supervision, meet the State’s educational standards, approximate the grade levels used in the State’s regular education, and comport with the child’s IEP.”206 Beyond that, the IDEA does not define the quality of education owed to students with disabilities.207 That ambiguity has 197 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (ii)(II)–(III), (d)(1)(B)(i). 198 Id. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II)–(III); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(3); Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, at Q.44. Whether an LEA can seek to override parental refusals to consent to changes in IDEA services is unclear. ED’s regulations prohibit an LEA from initiating a due process hearing if a parent revokes consent for IDEA services in writing. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(4)(ii); see also Durkee v. Livonia Cent. Sch. Dist., 487 F. Supp. 2d 313, 316 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (“The Act explicitly recognizes that a parent or guardian is free to refuse any publicly-funded special education services offered by the district.”). However, without citing this regulation, at least one court has interpreted the IDEA to prohibit LEAs only from challenging parental refusals to consent to the initial provision of IDEA services and to allow LEAs to initiate due process hearings to challenge parental refusals to consent to specific services. I.R. ex rel. E.N. v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 805 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015). The court relied in part on a provision of the IDEA requiring LEAs and SEAs to maintain procedures that allow “any party” to file a due process complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the . . . educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A). 199 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). 200 Id. § 1401(29). 201 Id. For more information on special education and related services, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2019). 202 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A). 203 See Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) (holding that nursing services for a ventilatordependent student during school hours were a “related service”). 204 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26). 205 Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 894 (1984); see Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Elizabeth E. ex rel. Roxanne B., 702 F.3d 1227, 1236 (10th Cir. 2012). 206 Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189 (1982); see 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17. 207 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189 (“Noticeably absent from the language of the statute is any substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded handicapped children.”); T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 4 F.4th 179, 183 (3d Cir. 2021); see DEREK W. BLACK, EDUCATION LAW: EQUALITY, FAIRNESS, AND REFORM 467 (3d ed. 2021) (describing the term “appropriate” as among the “most ambiguous” in the IDEA). Congressional Research Service 24 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA provoked one of the most commonly litigated questions under the act: What is an “appropriate” public education?208 In two decisions, Board of Education v. Rowley209 and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District,210 the Supreme Court rejected arguments both that the FAPE requirement was “merely aspirational,” imposing no enforceable substantive standards,211 and that the IDEA required schools to “achieve strict equality of opportunity or services” between children with and without disabilities.212 Instead, it charted a middle course: to provide a FAPE, a school must “offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”213 Children must receive more than minimal educational benefits, but the precise contours of a FAPE depend on the child’s individual circumstances.214 The Court expects that for most children in regular classrooms, IDEA services designed to enable the children to pass their classes and advance from grade to grade provide a FAPE.215 When regular advancement through the curriculum is not possible, an IEP must still be “appropriately ambitious” and allow the child “the chance to meet challenging objectives.”216 Courts judge an IEP by its design, not by its effect—the fact that a child has not met grade-level expectations, for example, does not automatically mean a school district has failed to provide a FAPE.217 The Supreme Court also expects judges to give at least some deference to the expertise of school authorities.218 The standard “is whether the IEP is reasonable, not whether the court regards it as ideal.”219 FAPE Requirements Under Section 504 and the ADA As discussed, there are no specific ADA statutory or regulatory provisions regarding a FAPE; ED and courts (to the extent they hold the ADA requires a FAPE) apply ED’s Section 504 regulations.220 This section therefore refers to the Section 504 standards without separate discussion of the ADA. ED’s Section 504 regulations do not tell schools how to develop a plan for providing Section 504 services, or even require such information to be written down. As a practical matter, many schools do develop such documents, known colloquially as Section 504 plans.221 While the IDEA specifies the members who must be invited to participate in a child’s IEP team, including the 208 BLACK, supra note 207, at 467 (stating that this question continues to be “heavily litigated”). 209 458 U.S. 176 (1982). 210 580 U.S. 386 (2017). 211 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 393. 212 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 187–88, 198–99. 213 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 399. 214 Id. at 397–99, 402–04. 215 Id. at 401 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203–04). The Court cautioned that this is not an “inflexible rule,” even for children integrated into regular classrooms: it “declined to . . . hold . . . that ‘every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE].’” Id. at 402 n.2 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203 n.25). 216 Id. at 402. 217 See Crofts v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 22 F.4th 1048, 1057 (9th Cir. 2022); see also, e.g., D.O. By & Through Walker v. Escondido Union Sch. Dist., 59 F.4th 394, 416 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that the quality of an IEP is not judged in hindsight); Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990) (same). 218 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404. 219 Id. at 399; see, e.g., Crofts, 22 F.4th at 1056–57; Leigh Ann H. v. Riesel Indep. Sch. Dist., 18 F.4th 788, 799 (5th Cir. 2021). 220 See supra note 189 and accompanying text. 221 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 10. Congressional Research Service 25 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA child’s parents,222 no similar requirement appears in Section 504 or its regulations.223 While the IDEA specifies that an IEP must contain certain information, including but not limited to information about the child’s academic level, goals, and how his or her progress will be measured,224 neither Section 504 nor the regulations require any specific content in a Section 504 plan.225 As under the IDEA, Section 504 requires schools to provide a FAPE free of cost (except for the same fees imposed on students without disabilities), although schools can use private and public funds.226 Rather than institute a substantive standard for a FAPE under Section 504, ED defines an “appropriate education” comparatively: an “appropriate education” is “the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met.”227 Section 504 services are not intrinsically connected to a student’s need for “special education”—a Section 504 FAPE can be accomplished with “regular” education.228 In addition, to provide a FAPE under Section 504, a school district must follow Section 504’s requirements regarding integrated placements and evaluation procedures, discussed above, and its due process procedures, discussed below.229 A number of courts have held that a school district that provides a student with a FAPE in accordance with the IDEA also satisfies Section 504’s FAPE requirement,230 while a Section 504 FAPE may not always satisfy the IDEA’s demands.231 However, courts do not agree on whether the denial of a FAPE under the IDEA also necessarily violates Section 504. Some courts hold that a valid claim under the IDEA will “almost always” support one under Section 504.232 Even in 222 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). 223 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c) (2023). Section 504 requires “that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options,” but does not require that certain people (e.g., parents or the classroom teacher) always be included in that group. Id. § 104.35(c)(3). 224 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320. 225 See generally 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.32–104.39. 226 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(c)(1). 227 Id. § 104.33(b)(1); see, e.g., Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[U]nlike FAPE under the IDEA, FAPE under § 504 is defined to require a comparison between the manner in which the needs of disabled and non-disabled children are met.”); Kimble v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181–82 (D. Colo. 2013) (same); Torrence v. District of Columbia, 669 F. Supp. 2d 68, 71–72 (D.D.C. 2009) (same); FAPE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504, supra note 144, at 4 (“The quality of education services provided to students with disabilities must equal the quality of services provided to nondisabled students.”). 228 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(1); Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, at Q.4; see FAPE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504, supra note 144, at 3 (defining an “appropriate education”). 229 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(1)(ii). 230 Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 992–93 (5th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases). 231 Muller on Behalf of Muller v. Comm. on Special Educ. of E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 105 & n.9 (2d Cir. 1998); Kimble, 925 F. Supp. 2d at 1182. 232 See, e.g., Andrew M. v. Del. Cnty. Off. of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 490 F.3d 337, 350 (3d Cir. 2007) (reasoning that “when a state fails to provide a disabled child with a free appropriate public education” in violation of the IDEA, “it also violates [Section 504] because it is denying a disabled child a guaranteed education merely because of the child’s disability”); M.D. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 539 F. Supp. 3d 380, 397–98 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (“In most circumstances, establishing a denial of a F [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR48068. Public record. Not legal advice.