Abstract
COVID-19 has engendered serious challenges with the provision of special education services for youth and young adults incarcerated in U.S. adult correctional facilities. This article describes the recent lawsuit, Charles H. et al. v. District of Columbia et al., which focused on the lack of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) at the Inspiring Youth Program (IYP) school in the Washington DC jail during the pandemic. Following a brief review of relevant components of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2006) regulations, we describe the three areas in which there were violations to the provision of IDEA and FAPE, as well as the harm incurred. Specifically, we discuss the lack of: (a) instruction and monitoring of youth academic progress; (b) related services (i.e., behavioral interventions and supports, counseling); and (c) DC public schools Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) supervision and oversight. Finally, we provide a discussion of the need for compensatory education to remediate harm.
Highlights
Litigation related to compliance with federal regulations has served as a significant force in ensuring incarcerated youth and young adults with disabilities are provided special education services while in the juvenile and adult correctional systems [1]
The District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) were required to “provide Plaintiffs, and all other members of the provisionally certified class with the full hours of special education and related services mandated by their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) through direct, teacher-orcounselor-led group classes and/or one-on-one sessions, delivered via live videoconference calls and/or in-person interactions” [2] (p. 1)
There are other specific aspects of special education services that do not apply to youth convicted as adults serving time in adult prisons: (a) youth need not participate in general assessments; (b) requirements related to transition planning and services do not apply if a youth will exit the facility after the age at which their special education services end; (c) modifications can be made to a youth’s IEP if “the State has demonstrated a bona fide security or compelling penological interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated” (IDEA, 2006, § 300.324(d)(2)); and (d) the requirements concerning the provision of service in the least restrictive environment are not applicable
Summary
Litigation related to compliance with federal regulations has served as a significant force in ensuring incarcerated youth and young adults (the term “youth” is used throughout this paper to indicate youth and young adults eligible for special education services up to the age of 22) with disabilities are provided special education services while in the juvenile and adult correctional systems [1]. Plaintiffs held that the most basic attributes of special educations services and a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) were denied youth incarcerated in the Inspiring Youth Program (IYP) school at the Washington DC jail in the District of Columbia (DC) since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. The District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) were required to “provide Plaintiffs, and all other members of the provisionally certified class (i.e., every student enrolled in the Inspiring Youth Program) with the full hours of special education and related services mandated by their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) through direct, teacher-orcounselor-led group classes and/or one-on-one sessions, delivered via live videoconference calls and/or in-person interactions” [2] There is a focus on named plaintiffs, Charles H., Israel F., and Malik Z. (pseudonyms)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
