Several federal laws address the services and protections received by students with disabilities. The application of these laws may change depending upon the student's situation, and most common ly at times of transition—whether the student moves to a new school district or state, or between preschool and kindergarten, elementary school and junior high, junior high and high school, or high school and postsecondary education. Often the biggest transition for students with disabilities and their families is from the supports and services provided in the preschool-12th grade (P-12) public education system to a college or university. At the P-12 level, three main federal laws impact students with disabilities: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For students receiving special education under the IDEA or receiving accommodations and services under Section 504, transitioning from the P-12 public education system to an institution of higher education (IHE) may affect how the school assesses their disability, their eligibility for receiving accommodations or services, and the supports, services, and accommodations available to them. This report examines those laws' impact on students with disabilities in three key respects: how they define disability; how they determine eligibility for services and protections; and how they ensure students with disabilities receive the accommodations and services they need to participate in all levels of education. In 1973, following two major federal district court decisions concluding that children with disabilities have the same right of access to public education as other children, Congress enacted the first of a series of civil rights statutes protecting individuals with disabilities: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provided a statutory basis for the Rehabilitation Services Administration and funding for projects and studies supporting the employment of people with disabilities. Section 504 was the last section of the Act and the only section concerned with the civil rights of people with disabilities. That provision accordingly provides broad antidiscrimination protections for the disabled, prohibiting any "program or activity" that receives federal financial assistance from excluding "otherwise qualified individual[s] with a disability" from participating in, or benefiting from, those programs. Given the reach of federal funding, Section 504's guarantee of nondiscrimination stretches quite far, covering not just the P-12 public schools but also postsecondary education, employment, and access to public facilities as well. And because of that breadth, the act remains a key legal protection for students with disabilities today. Students who receive accommodations under Section 504 in high school may have an easier time transitioning to a postsecondary educational environment because the basic protections under Section 504 remain the same regardless of the age or education level of the person with a disability. As explained later in this report, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has developed separate Section 504 regulations covering these different levels of education, including Preschool, Elementary, and Secondary Education (Subpart D) and Postsecondary Education (Subpart E). ED's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has a primary role in enforcing Section 504 in the education context, affecting a significant number of students. In the 2013-2014 school year (SY), OCR reported that nearly 1 million public school students received some sort of service under Section 504. And at the postsecondary level, where students with disabilities receive protection under both Section 504 and the ADA, in SY 2015-2016, approximately 19.5% of undergraduates and 12.0% of post-baccalaureate students reported having a disability. Two years after enactment of the Rehabilitation Act, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, later renamed the IDEA, which focused directly on children with disabilities' access to education. At the time of the IDEA's adoption, Congress found that more than half of all children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services and that 1 million children with disabilities were excluded entirely from the public school system. Congress determined, in addition, that many children participating in public school programs had undiagnosed disabilities that harmed their educational progress. To address these findings, Congress laid down a clear mandate to any state seeking funds under the act: in order to receive those funds, the state must "identify and evaluate" all children with disabilities residing "within [their] borders" to ensure those children receive a free appropriate public education. The IDEA has been comprehensively reauthorized five times since its original enactment in 1975, most recently in 2004. ED's Office of Special Education Programs in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services administers the act, and it remains the main federal statute governing special education for children from birth through age 21. The IDEA does so by supplementing state and local funding to pay for some of the additional or excess costs of educating children with disabilities. Of particular importance is Part B of the act, which protects the right of individuals with disabilities, from age 3 through 21, to a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE). In SY2017-2018, approximately 7 million children ages 3 through 21 received special education and related services under Part B of the IDEA . Students served under Part B of the IDEA represent about 13.6% of all P-12 public school students. The ADA, as amended, has been described as "the most sweeping anti-discrimination measure since the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Its purpose, as explained in the act itself, is "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." The ADA therefore provides broad nondiscrimination protection for individuals with disabilities, applicable across many settings. Title II of the act, in particular, prohibits any "public entity," such as a public school, from discriminating based on disability, while Title III similarly forbids discrimination by "public accommodations," including nonparochial private schools. The ADA Amendments Act adopted in 2008 and made effective January 1, 2009, broadened the scope of the ADA's definition of disabilities, and, through conforming amendments, Section 504's definition as well. The ADA Amendments Act extends the ADA and Section 504 coverage to more clearly encompass all public, and some private, P-12 schools and nearly all postsecondary IHEs. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 12.7% of the civilian noninstitutionalized population were reported to have a disability in 2017 (about 40.7 million people), including 4.2% of all children under age 18 (roughly 3.1 million) and 6.4% of all adults ages 18 to 34 (about 4.7 million). These individuals are covered by the broad protections of the ADA when accessing most services and facilities, including secondary and postsecondary educational institutions. The IDEA incorporates a categorical definition of "disability," identifying a covered "child with a disability" as any "child" having at least one of 13 conditions specifically categorized in the act. Thus, to qualify for services under the IDEA a student of qualifying age must satisfy two requirements. First, the student must have a documented disability that falls in one of the categories enumerated in the IDEA, as further specified by ED's implementing regulation. And second, as a result of that disability the student must require "special education and related services" in order to benefit from public education. Only if the student meets both criteria will he or she be eligible to receive the principal benefit of the act: specially designed instruction or special education in which the content or the delivery of the instruction is adapted to the child's individual needs, detailed in a plan known as an individualized education program (IEP). Consequently, a child who has a disability not recognized under the act, or has a disability that may require related services but not special education, has no right under the IDEA to the special education and related services provided through an IEP. Each IDEA disability category is broadly defined in ED's regulations implementing the act. And that breadth has given states some room to adopt more specific requirements for these categories, so long as those further requirements do not exclude children otherwise eligible for services under the act. Thus, for example, while the IDEA expressly covers a child suffering from some "other health impairments" (OHI), the act itself does not specify the sort of disorders that might count as such. In its IDEA regulations, ED has provided a complex definition of that statutory OHI category, listing a series of examples of disorders that may qualify under it. And some states, in their own implementing regulations, have further elaborated on ED's definition, particularly its condition that, to qualify under the IDEA, an OHI must "adversely affect[] a child's educational performance." Delaware, for instance, lists five broad requirements under "Eligibility Criteria for Other Health Impairment," one of which specifically outlines criteria for determining whether children with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have an OHI. When a child's eligibility under the IDEA is due to ADD or ADHD, Delaware's regulation requires evaluators to examine the child according to an additional six factors, and within those six factors 18 symptoms, to determine whether the child's ADD or ADHD qualifies as an OHI. Other states, meanwhile, impose no criteria beyond those found in ED's IDEA regulations for assessing whether a child has an OHI. Sections 504 and the ADA draw on a common definition of "disability," one that is substantially broader than the categorical definition found in the IDEA. 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." This definition, unlike the IDEA's, is not restricted to the educational context. And also unlike the definition used in IDEA, the definition found in Section 504 and the ADA is broadly functional, protecting individuals with any "impairment" affecting a bodily or intellectual function—like seeing, hearing, walking, or thinking. The conditions covered by Section 504 and the ADA are therefore not confined to a particular list of "disability" categories—"autism," for example, or "specific learning disability"—as they are under the IDEA. As a result, an impairment qualifying as a "disability" under the IDEA will generally also be covered by Section 504 and the ADA, though not the reverse. Although the ADA Amendments Act maintains essentially the same statutory language as the original ADA, the subsequent act introduced several new "rules of construction" clarifying Congress's intent for the ADA's crucial term—"disability" —to be construed broadly. These rules of construction regarding the definition of disability—applicable to both the ADA and Section 504—provide that: the definition of disability shall be construed in favor of broad coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the act; the term "substantially limits" shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the Amendments Act; an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities to be considered a disability; an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would have substantially limited a major life activity when active; and the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, except that the ameliorative effects of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered. The ADA Amendments Act also included a conforming amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, applying these more generous rules of construction to Section 504. ED's OCR consequently enforces the regulations implementing both Section 504 and Title II of the ADA consistently with the ADA Amendments Act. The IDEA covers all children with disabilities residing in states that receive financial assistance under the act. It does not extend, however, to students with disabilities in college or other postsecondary education and training programs. But Section 504 does, and ED has issued separate regulations specifically elaborating that provision's application to preschool, elementary, and secondary education, as well as to postsecondary education. The ADA also does not directly address the provisions of educational services; it instead prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities across many contexts, including by a "public entity" like a public school. The following sections of this report identify key provisions in the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA, explain how they apply in particular situations, and analyze how they differ between students in P-12 and postsecondary education settings when more than one law applies. Table 1 also summarizes and compares key characteristics of the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. The IDEA requires each state that receives funds under the act to have in place policies and procedures to identify, locate, and evaluate all children residing in the state who may have a disability requiring special education and related services. These policies and procedures—known as "Child Find" —have broad application, covering all children ages 3 to 21 through their time in high school, including those who are homeless or wards of the state, attend private schools, or, according to IDEA's regulations, are highly mobile, like migrant children. The regulations implementing Section 504 contain similar provisions requiring recipients of federal money operating public elementary and secondary schools "to identify and locate every qualified handicapped person residing in the recipient's jurisdiction who is not receiving a public education." Section 504's regulations also require LEAs to evaluate students individually before classifying them as having a disability or providing them with accommodations, special education, or related services. But these responsibilities apply only to students in public elementary or secondary schools. Students protected by Section 504 in colleges and universities are responsible for providing their IHEs with documentation of their disabilities and for working with the IHE's disability support services personnel to arrange any accommodations they may need. And the same is true under the ADA. A child who has been identified as having (or possibly having) a disability must be evaluated by his or her LEA before receiving special education and related services under the IDEA or Section 504. The ADA, by contrast, contains no such requirement. Under the IDEA, individuals may qualify for an IEP only if they have been determined to have a qualifying disability for which they need special education and/or related services to benefit from public education. But a child who has a disability that does not adversely affect his or her educational performance—as required to be eligible for an IEP under several IDEA disability categories —may still qualify for a plan under Section 504. Under the IDEA, either a child's parent or the LEA may request an initial evaluation. In general, the LEA must obtain informed consent from a child's parent before conducting an initial evaluation. That consent, however, does not transfer—parental consent to an evaluation, that is, does not imply consent to special education and related services. In addition, the initial evaluation must take place within 60 days of receiving parental consent or within an alternative time frame established by the state. Section 504, unlike the IDEA, does not explicitly call either for parental consent to an evaluation or for an evaluation to take place within a specific period after being requested. ED's OCR has nevertheless interpreted Section 504 to require LEAs to obtain parental consent to an initial evaluation. But under Section 504, like under the IDEA, a parent's refusal of an evaluation may not be the final word. OCR has construed Section 504 to allow an LEA, whenever it "suspects a student needs or is believed to need special instruction and parental consent is withheld," to "use due process hearing procedures to seek to override the parents' denial of consent for an initial evaluation." In conducting an initial evaluation of a child suspected of having a disability, both the IDEA and Section 504 regulations require LEAs to use valid and reliable assessment tools tailored to assess a child's specific areas of educational need. The IDEA emphasizes the importance of using multiple measures of assessing whether children are eligible for services under the statute, requiring LEAs to "use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent." The IDEA also requires that LEAs use multiple measures or assessments to determine whether a child is "a child with a disability" under the act, as well as to determine whether an educational program is appropriate. The Section 504 regulations, for their part, also require LEAs "to draw upon information from a variety of sources" when interpreting evaluation data, "including aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, and adaptive behavior." And the Section 504 regulations likewise "establish procedures to ensure that information obtained from all relevant sources is documented and carefully considered." Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under the IDEA must be selected and administered to avoid discriminating on a racial or cultural basis. They must also be provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information about what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally. Section 504's regulations do not address children's native language or the possibility of racially or culturally discriminatory evaluation materials. However, they do include "social or cultural background" information as one of several sources LEAs should draw upon in interpreting evaluation data and in making placement decisions. After completing an evaluation for an IEP under the IDEA, the LEA must determine whether the child is a "child with a disability" under the act, and, if so, what his or her educational needs are, including the participation of qualified professionals and the child's parents. Section 504, by contrast, does not expressly require that a child's parents participate in placement decisions. Section 504 regulations instead provide 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." ED's regulations under Section 504 do mandate, however, that LEAs have in place "a system of procedural safeguards that includes notice, an opportunity for the parents or guardian of the person to examine relevant records, an impartial hearing with opportunity for participation by the person's parents or guardian and representation by counsel, and a review procedure." Under IDEA regulation, reevaluations are required if a child's teacher or parent makes a request or if the LEA determines that a child's educational and service needs, or functional performance warrant reevaluation. For example, a reevaluation might be warranted if a child's performance in school significantly improves, suggesting that the child no longer requires special education and related services, or if a child is not making progress toward the goals in his or her IEP, suggesting that changes are needed in the special education or related services the LEA is providing. A reevaluation may not be done more than once a year unless the parents and LEA agree, and must be done at least once every three years unless the parent and the LEA agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. In general, the child's parent(s) must consent to a reevaluation, as well as to the initial evaluation. Before any such reevaluation, an LEA may not change a child's eligibility for educational services under the IDEA, unless the child graduates from high school with a regular diploma or reaches the age at which state law no longer provides a FAPE. The briefer Section 504 regulations simply require LEAs to establish procedures for "the periodic reevaluation of students who have been provided special education and related services." Reevaluation procedures consistent with the IDEA also satisfy this regulatory requirement. As noted, at the postsecondary level educational institutions have no responsibility for evaluating students for a disability. However, if a student requests modifications, accommodations, or auxiliary aids or services because of a disability, IHEs are allowed, though not required, to request that the student provide "reasonable" documentation of his or her disability and need for the requested accommodations or services. Before the ADA Amendments Act in 2008, which clarified Congress's intent that "disability" under the ADA and Section 504 be construed broadly, there had been significant confusion among IHEs about what a student could be required to use to document a disability. Different IHEs developed their own requirements for the evaluation/reevaluation materials students needed to submit to establish a disability warranting accommodations and services. Some universities required students to produce "recent" documentation of an evaluation or reevaluation for a disability, while other schools, looking to the IDEA as a guide, instead required comprehensive evaluations that were no more than three years old. Requirements for "recent" documentation may apply to returning postsecondary students; students who had been served under Section 504 in high school; students who attended private schools that did not require or provide evaluations to determine students' disability status; and any postsecondary student with a disability whose disability had last been comprehensively evaluated in the ninth grade or earlier. Such students would need to be reevaluated at their own expense to prove that they were still a student with a disability, if they wanted to receive accommodations or supports at the postsecondary level. Prior to the passage of the ADA Amendments Act, several courts struck down triennial evaluation requirements used by colleges and universities, as well as requirements that students be regularly reevaluated for the presence of a disability even when they were permanently disabled and had sufficient (but not recent) proof of their disability status. And the ADA Amendments Act only reinforced the breadth of the ADA's and Section 504's protection, with its implementing regulations explaining that: The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act's purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of "disability" in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of "disability." The question of whether an individual meets the definition of "disability" under this part should not demand extensive analysis. Also since the passage of the ADA Amendments Act, 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 request for accommodations. Current guidance for IHEs tends to support the use of postsecondary students' past evaluations for special education services or accommodations under Section 504, or other information from external or third parties, as potentially useful supporting documentation but not necessarily required for determining a disability. Determining an appropriate public school placement for a child with a disability calls for similar considerations under both the IDEA and Section 504. However, as with many other aspects of P-12 education for children with disabilities discussed in this report, there are more specific provisions on placement decisions in the IDEA than in Section 504. For example, the IDEA requires 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 who are knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options, including the child's parents. In comparison, Section 504 does not require placement decisions to be determined at any particular time interval. Nor does it require those decisions to be based on a child's educational plan under Section 504 or include specific persons as a part of the deliberations—parents included. In other aspects of their placement provisions, the IDEA and Section 504 are more alike. For example, like the IDEA, Section 504 regulation requires that a child with a disability be placed in the regular educational environment to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the child. Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations, when determining a child's placement, states must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that LEAs are providing a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (LRE)—that children with disabilities, in other words, receive their education alongside children who do not have disabilities, to the maximum extent appropriate. Section 504's regulations do not use the same terminology as the IDEA—there is no express mention of an LRE, for instance—but both require, in academic and nonacademic settings (e.g., lunch, recess), that children with disabilities be educated with their nondisabled peers "to the maximum extent appropriate to [their] needs." Under the IDEA, LEAs "must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements [are] available to meet children's needs for special education and related services." This includes "instruction in regular classes," with the provision of supplementary services when appropriate, as well as "special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions." In contrast to IDEA's focus on a continuum of services to enable an appropriate placement for each child with a disability, Section 504's main concern, as a civil-rights law, is to ensure that children with disabilities are not discriminated against in their placements, so that children with disabilities can participate whenever possible in academic and nonacademic activities alongside their peers without disabilities. In cases where a child with a disability does need to attend a facility specifically for children with disabilities, the LEA must ensure that the facility and the services and activities it provides are "comparable to the LEA's other facilities, services, and activities." Unlike the IDEA, the Section 504 regulations do not mandate the use of an IEP, though an IEP that satisfies the IDEA will also satisfy Section 504. And the regulations implementing Section 504, unlike those under the IDEA, do not detail how a student's educational plan developed under Section 504—often called a "504 plan"—must be created. Thus, for example, while the IDEA specifies the members who must be invited to participate in a child's IEP team including the child's parents, no similar requirement appears in Section 504 or its regulations. In addition, any accommodations, special education, and related services described in a student's IEP or 504 plan must be implemented in all of the student's classes, whether they are special education classes, regular education classes, or accelerated classes. For example, ED has determined that denying students with disabilities access to accelerated programs such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes violates Section 504 regulations as well as the regulations implementing the IDEA. Even though schools may have eligibility requirements for such courses, ED has concluded that both sets of regulations make it "unlawful to deny a student with a disability admission to an accelerated class or program solely because of that student's need for special education or related aids and services." Because the IDEA is designed to improve the education of all children with qualifying disabilities, the act also provides benefits and services to eligible children enrolled by their parents in private school. As a result, the IDEA as well as ED's implementing regulations each have extensive provisions addressing children with disabilities who attend private schools. Those provisions range from funding conditions to LEAs' and State Education Agencies' (SEAs') responsibilities under Child Find to the procedural safeguards protecting families of children with disabilities in private schools. Most of the IDEA's provisions on private school placements, however, fall into two broad categories: those related to children placed in or referred to private schools by public agencies, and those related to children enrolled in private schools by their parents. Together, these provisions outline the various procedural, financial, and educational responsibilities of SEAs, LEAs, private schools, and parents of children with disabilities in private schools, depending on who decided to place the child in private school. In contrast, the Section 504 regulations addressing students with disabilities in private schools do not address SEAs, LEAs, or parents of children with disabilities. They instead outline general responsibilities toward students with disabilities that are incumbent on any private educational institution receiving federal financial assistance. Thus, under Section 504 regulations, a private elementary or secondary school that receives federal funds "may not exclude a student with a disability if the student can, with minor adjustments, be provided an appropriate education within that institution's program or activity." Nor may a recipient of federal funds charge more to educate students with disabilities than those without disabilities, according to ED's Section 504 regulations, "except to the extent that any additional charge is justified by a substantial increase in cost to the federal funding recipient." The IDEA requires IEP teams to include postsecondary transition goals and services in each student's IEP beginning no later than when students are 16 years old. Transition goals and services are individualized. For a student planning to pursue postsecondary education, transition services could include helping the student select colleges to apply to or complete applications; obtain accommodations, such as extended time on standardized college placement tests; practice self-advocacy skills; or any other services that the IEP team agrees would help the student prepare for postsecondary education. However, no matter what transition services students with disabilities receive in high school, those transition services will end once they exit the P-12 public school system and enter an IHE. At the postsecondary level, Section 504 and the ADA require IHEs to provide broad nondiscrimination protection to students who have a disability or who are regarded as having one. However, Section 504 and the ADA do not require IHEs to seek out students with disabilities to provide them with these protections, to evaluate students who are suspected of having a disability, or to arrange proactively for accommodations for students who had been evaluated and found eligible for services under IDEA, Section 504, or the ADA. At the postsecondary level, students must self-identify as having a disability, provide appropriate documentation of their disability, and arrange with campus disability support services for any accommodations and services to which they may be entitled. Section 504 and the ADA protect students applying for postsecondary education from discrimination in two basic ways: (1) in the eligibility requirements and admissions policies and procedures adopted by those institutions, and (2) following admission, in any activities, programs, aid, benefits, or services offered to students. ADA regulations also prohibit public accommodations, including IHEs, from imposing or applying eligibility criteria that screen out individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations they offer. Section 504 regulations likewise prohibit discrimination in admissions policies, including admissions testing. And the ADA regulations extend those prohibitions to private entities that "offer[] examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade purposes," requiring them to provide those examinations or courses "in a place and manner accessible to persons with disabilities or offer alternative accessible arrangements." At the P-12 level, the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA all guarantee students with disabilities a free appropriate public education. Those provisions, while similar, are not identical. Their differences largely have to do with details, but they generally can be traced to a more 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." The IDEA's provisions addressing a FAPE are consequently much more detailed than their counterparts in Section 504, the same that apply, according to ED, under Title II of the ADA. These differences among the three statutory schemes have also led to some judicial disagreement about how to relate their violations: specifically, whether denying an eligible child the IDEA's procedural or substantive guarantees also amounts to disability discrimination, in violation of Section 504 (and, by extension, Title II of the ADA). At least some of the lower courts have found these violations to overlap, so that a valid claim under the IDEA will "almost always" support one under Section 504. Other courts, however, have taken the opposite view: for them, "something more than a mere failure to provide the 'free appropriate education' required by [IDEA] must be shown" before those courts will draw the discriminatory inference required for a violation of Section 504. What that something is also appears to vary somewhat by court, but several have insisted on a showing of at least "bad faith or gross misjudgment . . . before a [Section] 504 violation [will] be made out" in this context. Whatever its differences with Section 504, Part B of the IDEA nevertheless mandates that every recipient state provide a FAPE to all disabled children between the ages of 3 and 21 residing "within its borders." "An eligible child [therefore] acquires a 'substantive right' to such an education once a State accepts the IDEA's financial assistance," and the state's denial of that education therefore entitles eligible students to legal relief, whether in the form of an injunction for the improperly denied services or money damages. What a FAPE entails, and what demands it puts on a school district, will therefore vary from student to student. At a minimum, however, a FAPE consists of "special education and related services"—"specially designed instruction," in other words, that "meets the unique needs of a child with a disability. And for that instruction to qualify as a FAPE, it must also be "provided at public expense, under public supervision, and without charge; meet[] the standards of the [SEA];" encompass preschool through secondary school; and conform to the student's IEP. A child's IEP accordingly "serves as the 'primary vehicle' for providing [him or her] with the promised FAPE," by specifying the particular special education and related services that the LEA will provide to meet the child's needs. Apart from these procedural minimums, the substantive guarantee of a FAPE remains highly general. And that generality has provoked one of the most commonly litigated questions under the act: What does an "appropriate" public education require of an IEP? In an early decision under the act— Board of Education v. Rowley —the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to set the bar fairly low. There the Court concluded that a school district could satisfy its responsibility of providing a FAPE so long as it had met two basic conditions. The school district had to have observed all of the IDEA's procedural rules, and it had to have provided an IEP "reasonably calculated" to "confer some educational benefit" on the child. But that latter condition—requiring an IEP that conferred "some educational benefit"—did little to resolve the basic ambiguity in the IDEA's guarantee of a FAPE: How much benefit would make an IEP "appropriate"? The lower federal courts were therefore left to fashion for themselves a more concrete standard for deciding whether an IEP had provided an eligible child with enough of a benefit to satisfy Rowley . On this point some courts took a minimalist view, requiring an IEP to provide at least some educational benefit —a benefit, in other words, that is "barely more than de minimis ." Other courts, however, read Rowley as calling for much more, demanding evidence that an IEP had provided "meaningful benefit to the child." Faced with this circuit split, in 2017, the Supreme Court took the opportunity in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District to clarify just how much of a benefit an eligible child must receive through an IEP. The Court did so by returning to its Rowley standard: to provide an eligible child a FAPE under the IDEA, the Court explained, a school must "offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstance."  Thus, "for a child fully integrated in the regular classroom, an IEP typically should . . . be 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.'" The Court cautioned, however, that an appropriate measure of "progress" would depend on the child's circumstances—and especially on the child's integration into the regular classroom. For children with disabilities not integrated into the regular classroom, an "appropriate" IEP therefore "need not aim for grade-level advancement." Endrew F. clearly rejected, then, the more minimalist view of a FAPE. "[T]he IDEA demands more" from an IEP than the "barely more than de minimis progress" that the lower court upheld there. A child's IEP must instead be "appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances," so that that child, like every other, "ha[s] the chance to meet challenging objectives" despite his differing goals. Although the Court did not explicitly compare its refined standard in Endrew F. with the view from the other side of the circuit split—that an appropriate IEP needed to confer a meaningful benefit on a child—several lower courts have taken Endrew F. to vindicate that meaningful-benefit standard nonetheless. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained, Endrew F. appears to call for an IEP of exactly the same quality that that circuit had expected all along under Rowley . Thus, "[a]t a bare minimum," that standard demands an IEP that includes "the child's present level of educational attainment, the short-and long-term goals for his or her education, objective criteria with which to measure progress toward these goals, and the specific services to be offered." Whether the other circuits will also agree on that "bare minimum" remains to be seen. The right of students with disabilities to a FAPE under the IDEA has a still more definite limit: it does not extend to students in colleges, universities, or any other postsecondary education or training programs. Instead, the IDEA requires only that LEAs provide qualifying students with disabilities a FAPE until they exit high school—whether by graduating, dropping out—or until they surpass the maximum age for IDEA services, 21 years old. Section 504 and the ADA, on the other hand, have no such limit. They instead protect students of all ages from discrimination based on their disability, both during the admissions process and while enrolled as a student. Like the IDEA, however, Section 504's regulations ensure a FAPE only to students in P-12 public schools, a guarantee that ED has read to be "incorporated in the general nondiscrimination provisions of the Title II regulation" under the ADA as well. To receive services under the IDEA, a child must be evaluated and found eligible for an IEP under one of the IDEA disability categories and must because of that disability require special education and related services to benefit from public education. In the IDEA, "special education" means instruction designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, provided at no cost to the child's parents. It may include instruction conducted in both academic and nonacademic settings, including in the classroom, in the home, and in hospitals and institutions, as well as instruction in physical education. In comparison, "related services" are intended to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education—such as nursing services during the school day for a student who relies on a ventilator. Among the related services provided by the IDEA are speech-language pathology and audiology services; interpreting services, psychological services; physical and occupational therapy; recreation, including therapeutic recreation; social work services; counseling services; and, certain medical and school nurse services. Besides special education and related services, under the IDEA and implementing regulations children with disabilities may receive supplementary aids and services and other supports in regular education classes, and in extracurricular and nonacademic settings, to enable them to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. The combination of special education, related services, and other supplementary aids and services a child receives is determined by the child's IEP team, taking into consideration the child's academic, developmental, and functional needs. As discussed, the IDEA defines a FAPE as special education and related services that are provided at public expense, meet the standards of the SEA, and conform to the student's IEP. As part of their right to a FAPE, each child receiving services under the IDEA must have an IEP stating the specific special education and related services the LEA will provide to meet his or her needs. Unlike the IDEA, an "appropriate education" under Section 504 regulation is defined as the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services designed to meet individual educational needs of children with disabilities as adequately as the needs of children without disabilities are met and that comply with procedural requirements. Note, however, that the IDEA specifically requires the provision of special education and related services, while Section 504 requires the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services. Thus, a child with a Section 504 plan may be served by a "regular" education with related aids and services, while under the IDEA a qualifying child must be provided "special education." To receive accommodations or services under the ADA or Section 504 at the postsecondary level, students with disabilities must seek out the person or office at their IHEs responsible for arranging accommodations for students with disabilities, request the accommodations they need, and provide the documentation and/or personal history necessary to support their request. ED's regulations implementing Title II of the ADA include specific requirements to guide disability and accommodation services personnel at IHEs when considering such requests. Thus, for example, the regulations instruct IHEs, [w]hen considering requests for modifications, accommodations, or auxiliary aids or services, [to] give[] considerable weight to documentation of past modifications, accommodations, or auxiliary aids or services received in similar testing situations, as well as such modifications, accommodations, or related aids and services provided in response to an [IEP] provided under the [IDEA] or a . . . Section 504 Plan. Once students have provided adequate documentation of their disabilities to the appropriate person or office, Section 504 and Title II of the ADA protect them from discrimination based on their disabilities. Section 504's regulations on postsecondary education programs and activities elaborate on IHEs' responsibilities for adopting and maintaining nondiscriminatory practices toward students with disabilities, including through accommodations, modifications, or adaptations across many contexts, from course examinations to housing and counseling services to financial and employment assistance.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) each play a significant part in federal efforts to support the education of individuals with disabilities. These statutory frameworks, while overlapping, differ in scope and in their application to students with disabilities. As a result, when students with disabilities transition between levels of schooling, the accommodations and services they must be provided under federal law may change. For example, while the IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 potentially apply to children with disabilities from preschool through 12th grade (P-12), only the ADA and Section 504 apply to students in an institution of higher education. More generally, application of the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA to students with disabilities is determined by (1) the definition of "disability" employed by each framework; (2) the mechanisms employed under each law to determine whether a student has a qualifying disability; and (3) the adaptations, accommodations, and services that must be provided to students with disabilities under each law. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The IDEA, as amended, authorizes federal grants to states to support the education of children with disabilities. The act requires that states, as a condition for receiving funds, provide students with disabilities a range of substantive and procedural protections. For example, states and local education agencies (LEAs) must (1) identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the state, regardless of the severity of their disability, 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 individual 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) provide procedural safeguards to children with disabilities and their parents, including a right to an administrative hearing to challenge determinations and placements, with the ability to appeal the ruling to federal district court. Of the three legal frameworks discussed in this report, only the IDEA is focused squarely on educational matters, and its statutory provisions and implementing regulations specifically detail the rights of children with disabilities and their families in U.S. public schools. Of the three laws examined here, the IDEA is also the only one that fixes an age limit, with its substantive and procedural guarantees applying to persons with disabilities from birth until they reach 21 years or exit high school, if earlier. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 is an antidiscrimination provision within 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, including elementary and secondary schools, as well as many colleges and universities. While Section 504 is terse in describing covered entities' obligations, the statute's implementing regulations, including those promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) applicable in the educational context, are extensive. For example, Section 504 and its implementing regulations require all schools receiving federal funds to make their application forms and course materials accessible to people with disabilities. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Enacted in 1990, the ADA provides broad nondiscrimination protection for individuals with disabilities across a range of institutional contexts, both public and private, including employment, public services, transportation, telecommunications, public accommodations, and services operated by private entities. In an educational context, the ADA and implementing regulations effectively require both public schools and many P-12 private schools to ensure that students with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of their disability, unless the school can demonstrate that taking those steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the school's program or cause an undue financial burden. The ADA's statutory provisions and implementing regulations outline the types of modifications that must be made for individuals with disabilities, including the removal of barriers, alterations to new and existing buildings, accessible seating in assembly areas, and accessible examinations and course materials.