On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Special Education Law 2018 (Free)

Released on: Oct. 10, 2018
Running Time: 06:27:00
Over the last year, the Ninth Circuit has issued multiple decisions addressing the rights of students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other disability rights statutes. The California Special Education Law 2018 program will look at the current application of these decisions and of the 2017 Supreme Court decision, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, to evaluate the practical implications they have on the current state of the practice of special education law.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:27:00]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:06:13]
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Maggie Roberts
  • Independent Educational Evaluations in Special Education Cases [01:52:52]
    Dr. Christopher Arrillaga, Heather Zakson
  • Statute of Limitations for Filing Special Education Due Process Claims and Related Claims [01:14:15]
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Devon Rios
  • Filing Cases in Court Relating to Special Education Due Process Proceedings [01:30:55]
    David M. Grey, Jean Murrell Adams
  • Ninth Circuit Special Education Case Review [01:42:45]
    Deborah R. Jacobson, Roberta S. Savage

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Comprehensive Independent Educational Evaluation: Filling the Gaps of Understanding While Advocating for a Child’s Unique Needs (July 16, 2018)
    Christopher Arrillaga
  • Assessments Flowchart
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Benjamin G. v. Special Education Hearing Office and Long Beach Unified School District, 131 Cal. App. 4th 875 (2005)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • L.M. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 556 F.3d. 900 (9th Cir. 2009)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Student v. Capistrano Unified School District, OAH Case No. N2005070135 (2006)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Parent on behalf of Student v. Dixon Unified School District, OAH Case No. 2013090674 (2014)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Letter to Dr. Parker, United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, February 20, 2004
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Letter to Ms. Savit, United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, February 10, 2014
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Classroom Observation, Student v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, OAH Case No. 2018050012 (2018)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Compel Classroom Observation, Student v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, OAH Case No. 2018050012 (2018)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Petitioner’s Reply to Opposition, Student v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, OAH Case No. 2018050012 (2018)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Order Granting Motion to Compel Classroom Observation, Student v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, OAH Case No. 2018050012 (2018)
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 20 U.S.C. §1414, Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §300.15, Evaluation
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §300.300, Parental Consent
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §300.301, Initial Evaluations
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §§300.303–304, Reevaluations and Evaluation Procedures
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §300.305, Additional Requirements for Evaluations and Reevaluations
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §§300.310–311, Observation and Specific Documentation for the Eligibility Determination
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §300.502, Independent Educational Evaluation
    Heather S. Zakson
  • 34 C.F.R. §300.504, Procedural Safeguards Notice
    Heather S. Zakson
  • California Education Code §§56320–56330, Assessment
    Heather S. Zakson
  • Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 156, Rules and Regulations, August 14, 2006
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Devon Rios
  • Statute of Limitation Rules Cheat Sheet
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Devon Rios
  • Statute of Limitations and Request for Due Process
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Devon Rios
  • Filing Special Education Appeals, Fee Applications and Enforcement Proceedings in State or Federal Court
    Jean Murrell Adams, David M. Grey
  • Ninth Circuit Special Education Case Review—Published Opinions Fall 2016–2018
    Roberta S. Savage, Deborah R. Jacobson
  • Ninth Circuit Special Education Case Review—Unpublished Opinions Fall 2016–2018
    Roberta S. Savage, Deborah R. Jacobson
  • N. E. v. Seattle School District, Case No. C15-1659JLR, 2017 WL 2119317 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2017)
    Roberta S. Savage, Deborah R. Jacobson
  • Avila v. Spokane School District 81, 852 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2017)
    Deborah R. Jacobson, Roberta S. Savage
  • M.C. by and through M.N. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District, 858 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2017)
    Deborah R. Jacobson, Roberta S. Savage

Presentation Material

  • Navigating the IEE Process: A Legal and Psychological Perspective (PowerPoint slides)
    Dr. Christopher Arrillaga, Heather Zakson
  • Statute of Limitations (PowerPoint slides)
    Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Devon Rios
  • Special Education Appeals, Fee Applications and Enforcement (PowerPoint slides)
    Jean Murrell Adams, David M. Grey
  • Ninth Circuit Special Education Case Review (PowerPoint slides)
    Deborah R. Jacobson, Roberta S. Savage
Co-Chair(s)
Elizabeth F. Eubanks ~ Partner, REZ Law Group, APC
Maggie Roberts ~ Attorney, Maggie Roberts Law
Speaker(s)
Dr. Christopher Arrillaga ~ Clinical Psychologist,
David M. Grey ~ Partner, Grey & Grey
Deborah R. Jacobson ~ Attorney, Jacobson Education Law
Jean Murrell Adams ~ Senior Managing Attorney, ADAMS ESQ, A Professional Corporation
Devon Rios ~ Partner, REZ Law Group, APC
Roberta S. Savage ~ Attorney, Law Office of Roberta S. Savage
Heather Zakson ~ Partner, REZ Law Group, APC
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

California Special Education Law 2018 Margaret Roberts, Maggie Roberts Law
Elizabeth F. Eubanks, REZ Law Group, APC
 
California Special Education Law 2017 Margaret Roberts, Maggie Roberts Law
Elizabeth F. Eubanks, Disability Rights Legal Center at University of La Verne College of Law
 
Share
Email
“So appreciative that PLI offers programs like this for free to members of the community. Excellent program. Thank you so much."
- Maryam Mojgani, esq

“This seminar really shed light on issues that I had not encountered before.  Excellent! Thank you!”
- Martha Charlesworth


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.