On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Special Education Law 2013

Released on: Oct. 23, 2013
Running Time: 06:15:20

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:06:40] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Jean Murrell Adams ~ Senior Managing Attorney, ADAMS ESQ, A Professional Corporation
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:58:45] Interplay Between IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA Eliza Jadwiga McArthur ~ Partner, McArthur & Levin, LLP
David M Grey ~ Partner, Grey & Grey
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:04:50] Understanding School Discipline for Special Education Students Elizabeth A. Estes ~ Dannis Woliver Kelley
Linda D. Kilb ~ Director, California Legal Services Trust Fund Support Center Program, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Laura Faer ~ Education Rights Director, Public Counsel Law Center
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:05] Due Process Procedures Deborah Ungar Ettinger ~ Lozano Smith
Carly J Munson ~ Bingham McCutchen Clinical Supervising Attorney and Lecturer in Law, Youth and Education Law Project, Mills Legal Clinic, Stanford Law School
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:35] Trends in Enforcement and Attorneys' Fees Roberta S Savage ~ Attorney at Law, Law Office of Roberta S. Savage
Deborah Ungar Ettinger ~ Lozano Smith
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:40] Hot Topics Margaret Roberts ~ Associate Managing Attorney, Disability Rights California
On-Demand MP3 MP4
Currently, approximately 686,000 students with disabilities receive special education services in California, comprising about 10 percent of the state’s public school enrollment. The California Special Education Law Program will provide you with an overview of the basics of Special Education Law, as well as an opportunity to hear from experts in the field on the trends and cutting edge issues affecting the practice today.

Lecture Topics 
[Total time 06:15:20]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:04:45]
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [01:06:40]
    Jean Murrell Adams
  • Interplay Between IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA [00:58:45]
    Eliza Jadwiga McArthur, David M. Grey
  • Understanding School Discipline for Special Education Students [01:04:50]
    Laura Faer, Linda D. Kilb, Elizabeth A. Estes
  • Due Process Procedures [01:00:05]
    Deborah Ungar Ettinger, Carly J. Munson
  • Trends in Enforcement and Attorneys' Fees [00:59:35]
    Deborah Ungar Ettinger, Roberta S. Savage
  • Hot Topics [01:00:40]
    Margaret Roberts

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA): Ensuring FAPE for Children with Special Education Needs Outline
    Jean Murrell Adams
  • Windy Payne v. Peninsula School District, 653 F.3d 863, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (2011)
    Eliza Jadwiga McArthur, Elizabeth F. Eubanks
  • Dear Colleague Letter, United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary, January 19, 2012
    Eliza Jadwiga McArthur, Elizabeth F. Eubanks
  • Protecting Students with Disabilities, Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities
    Eliza Jadwiga McArthur, Elizabeth F. Eubanks
  • Free Appropriate Public Education for Students with Disabilities: Requirements Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, August 2010
    Eliza Jadwiga McArthur, Elizabeth F. Eubanks
  • A Comparison of ADA, IDEA, and Section 504
    Eliza Jadwiga McArthur, Elizabeth F. Eubanks
  • Understanding School Discipline for Special Education Students Outline
    Elizabeth A. Estes, Laura Faer, Linda D. Kilb
  • Due Process Procedures Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and California Law Outline
    Carly J. Munson, Deborah Ungar Ettinger
  • Attorneys’ Fees
    Roberta S. Savage
  • M.M. & E.M. v. Lafayette School District, 2012 Wl 3257662 (N.D. Cal.), United States District Court (2012)
    Roberta S. Savage
  • Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, G.R. V. Brentwood Union School District, United States District Court, Northern District of California (2013)
    Roberta S Savage
  • Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Laintiffs-Appellants and Reversal of the Fee Award, C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School District, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2013)
    Michelle Uzeta
  • Trends in Enforcement and Attorneys’ Fees (PowerPoint Slides)
    Deborah Ungar Ettinger, Roberta S. Savage
  • Equal Access to Extracurricular Activities: An Overview
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Margaret Roberts
  • Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Disclosure of Student Information Related to Emergencies and Disasters, June 2010
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Margaret Roberts
  • Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying, United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, October 26, 2010
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Margaret Roberts
  • Prohibited Disability Harassment, Reminder of Responsibilities Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, United States Department of Education, July 25, 2000
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Margaret Roberts
  • Dear Colleague Letter, United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary, January 25, 2013
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Margaret Roberts

Presentation Material

  • Interplay Between IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA: Interplay Between IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA PowerPoint Slides
    Eliza Jadwiga McArthur, David M. Grey
  • How IDEA, §504 and the ADA Differ: Key Citations
    David M. Grey
  • Understanding School Discipline for Special Education Students: Understanding School Discipline for Special Education Students PowerPoint Slides
    Laura Faer, Linda D. Kilb, Elizabeth A. Estes
  • Due Process Procedures: Due Process Hearings PowerPoint Slides
    Deborah Ungar Ettinger, Carly J. Munson
  • Trends in Enforcement and Attorneys’ Fees: Trends in Enforcement and Attorneys’ Fees PowerPoint Slides
    Deborah Ungar Ettinger, Roberta S. Savage
  • Hot Topics: Equal Access to Extracurricular Activities PowerPoint Slides
    Margaret Roberts
  • Hot Topics: Hostile Education Environment PowerPoint Slides
    Margaret Roberts
Chairperson(s)
Elizabeth F. Eubanks ~ Inland Empire Regional Director, Disability Rights Legal Center at University of La Verne College of Law
Co-Chair(s)
Michelle Uzeta ~ Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Michelle Uzeta
Speaker(s)
Jean Murrell Adams ~ Senior Managing Attorney, ADAMS ESQ, A Professional Corporation
Elizabeth A. Estes ~ Dannis Woliver Kelley
Deborah Ungar Ettinger ~ Lozano Smith
Laura Faer ~ Education Rights Director, Public Counsel Law Center
David M Grey ~ Partner, Grey & Grey
Linda D. Kilb ~ Director, California Legal Services Trust Fund Support Center Program, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Eliza Jadwiga McArthur ~ Partner, McArthur & Levin, LLP
Carly J Munson ~ Bingham McCutchen Clinical Supervising Attorney and Lecturer in Law, Youth and Education Law Project, Mills Legal Clinic, Stanford Law School
Margaret Roberts ~ Associate Managing Attorney, Disability Rights California
Roberta S Savage ~ Attorney at Law, Law Office of Roberta S. Savage

PLI makes every effort to accredit its On-Demand Web Programs and Segments.  Please check the Credit Information box to the right of each product description for credit information specific to your state.


On-Demand Web Programs and Segments
 are approved in:

Alabama1, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho*, Illinois , Iowa2*, Kansas, Kentucky*, Louisiana, Maine*, Mississippi, Missouri3, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire4, New Jersey, New Mexico5, New York6,  North Carolina7, North Dakota, Ohio8, Oklahoma9, Oregon*, Pennsylvania10, Rhode Island11, South Carolina, Tennessee12, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia13, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin14 and Wyoming*.

Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin DO NOT approve Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs.


Please Note: The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. PLI programs may qualify for credit based on the requirements outlined in the MCLE Regulations and Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. Rule 45.

*PLI will apply for credit upon request. Louisiana and New Hampshire: PLI will apply for credit upon request for audio-only on-demand web programs.


1Alabama: Approval of all web based programs is limited to a maximum of 6.0 credits.

 

2Iowa:  The approval is for one year from recorded date. Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.

3Missouri:  On-demand web programs are restricted to six hours of self-study credit per year.  Self-study may not be used to satisfy the ethics requirements.  Self-study can not be used for carryover credit.

 

4New Hamphsire:  The approval is for three years from recorded date.

5New Mexico:  On-Demand web programs are restricted to 4.0 self-study credits per year. 


6New York:  Newly admitted attorneys may not take non-traditional course formats such as on-demand Web Programs or live Webcasts for CLE credit. Newly admitted attorneys not practicing law in the United States, however, may earn 12 transitional credits in non-traditional formats. 

7North Carolina:  A maximum of 4 credits per reporting period may be earned by participating in on-demand web programs. 


8Ohio:  To confirm that the web program has been approved, please refer to the list of Ohio’s Approved Self Study Activities at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us.  Online programs are considered self-study.  Ohio attorneys have a 6 credit self-study limit per compliance period.  The Ohio CLE Board states that attorneys must have a 100% success rate in clicking on timestamps to receive ANY CLE credit for an online program.

9Oklahoma:  Up to 6 credits may be earned each year through computer-based or technology-based legal education programs.


10Pennsylvania:  PA attorneys may only receive a maximum of four (4) hours of distance learning credit per compliance period. All distance learning programs must be a minimum of 1 full hour.
 

11Rhode Island:  Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs are not approved for credit.  On-Demand Web Programs must have an audio and video component.

12Tennessee:  The approval is for the calendar year in which the live program was presented.

13Virginia: All distance learning courses are to be done in an educational setting, free from distractions.

14Wisconsin: Ethics credit is not allowed.  The ethics portion of the program will be approved for general credit.  There is a 10 credit limit for on-demand web programs during every 2-year reporting period.  Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.


Running time and CLE credit hours are not necessarily the same. Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon and keynote speakers.


If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.


Note that some states limit the number of credit hours attorneys may claim for online CLE activities, and state rules vary with regard to whether online CLE activities qualify for participatory or self-study credits. For more information, call Customer Service (800) 260-4PLI (4754) or e-mail info@pli.edu.

 
Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

California Special Education Law 2014  
California Special Education Law 2013 Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Disability Rights Legal Center at University of La Verne College of Law
 
Print Share Email