Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-214

Board to prepare special education program for children with disabilities

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The Board of Education shall prepare and supervise the implementation by each school division of a program of special education designed to educate and train children with disabilities between the ages defined in § 22.1-213 and may prepare and place in operation such program for such individuals of other ages. The program developed by the Board of Education shall be designed to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate education, including specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of such children. The program shall require (i) that the hearing of each disabled child be tested prior to placement in a special education program and (ii) that a complete audiological assessment, including tests that will assess inner and middle ear functioning, be performed on each child who is deaf or hard of hearing or who fails the test required in clause (i). The school boards of the several school divisions, the Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, the Department for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing, the Department of Health, and other state and local agencies that can or may be able to assist in providing educational and related services shall assist and cooperate with the Board of Education in the development of such program.

B. The Board of Education shall prescribe procedures to afford due process to children with disabilities and their parents or guardians and to school divisions in resolving disputes as to program placements, individualized education programs, tuition eligibility and other matters as defined in state or federal statutes or regulations. These procedures shall encourage the use of mediation as an informal means of resolving such disputes. Mediation shall not, however, be used to deny or delay the due process rights of parents or guardians. The procedures shall require that all testimony be given under oath or affirmation administered by the hearing officer.

C. The Board of Education may provide for final decisions to be made by a hearing officer. The parents and the school division shall have the right to be represented by legal counsel or other representative before such hearing officer without being in violation of the provisions of § 54.1-3904.

D. Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made pursuant to the procedures prescribed pursuant to subsections B and C may, within 180 days of such findings and decision, bring a civil action in the circuit court for the jurisdiction in which the school division is located. In any such action, the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines appropriate.

D1. In any action brought pursuant to subsection D, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorney fees as part of the costs (i) to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability; (ii) to a prevailing party who is the Board of Education or a local school division against the attorney of a parent who files a complaint or a subsequent cause of action that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of a parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation; or (iii) to a prevailing party who is the Board of Education or a local school division against the attorney of a parent, or against the parent, if the parent's complaint or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cause of litigation.

Attorney fees may not be awarded relating to any meeting of the individualized education program (IEP) team unless such meeting is convened as a result of an administrative proceeding or judicial action, or, at the discretion of the State, for a mediation described in subsection B.

E. Whenever the Board of Education, in its discretion, determines that a school division fails to establish and maintain programs of free and appropriate public education that comply with regulations established by the Board, the Board may withhold all special education moneys from the school division and may use the payments that would have been available to such school division to provide special education, directly or by contract, to eligible children with disabilities in such manner as the Board considers appropriate.

F. The Board of Education shall supervise educational programs for children with disabilities by other public agencies and shall ensure that the identification, evaluation, and placement of children with disabilities and youth in education programs by other public agencies, as appropriate, are consistent with the provisions of the Board of Education's special education regulations.

G. The Board of Education shall prescribe regulations to provide a range of assessment procedures for the evaluation of children with disabilities. These regulations shall include provision for parents to participate, if they so request, in the consideration of the assessment components to be used. However, such regulations shall not require any local school board to exceed the requirements of federal law or regulations for the identification and evaluation of children with disabilities.

Code 1950, § 22-10.4; 1974, c. 480; 1978, c. 386; 1980, cc. 559, 561; 1981, c. 7; 1982, c. 21; 1985, c. 207; 1990, c. 205; 1991, c. 518; 1994, c. 854; 1997, c. 54; 2007, cc. 33, 52; 2009, c. 468; 2010, c. 447; 2019, c. 288; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 451, 452.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: School Bd. of County of York v. Nicely
School Bd. of County of York v. Nicely (1991) vactapp · cites it 56× “While admitting that the review standard of the VAPA is inapplicable here, the Nicelys argue the remaining portion of the VAPA that does not conflict with Code § 22.1-214, including Code § 9-6.14:16 which provides for the thirty day statute of limitations, does apply to Code §…”
J v. a Minor, by her Mother and Next Best Friend, Anette H. Veldhuyzen v. Stafford County School Bd (2016) vactapp · cites it 30× “The Virginia Board of Education (the “agency”) developed a comprehensive and detailed regulatory program to ensure that children with disabilities within the Commonwealth have available to them a free and appropriate public education and to ensure that local school divisions…”
Jemie Sanchez v. Arlington County School Board (2023) ca4 · cites it 8× “Va. Code § 22.1-214(D). Finally, parties who prevail after either administrative or judicial review may recover reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Amelia County School Board v. Virginia Board of Education (1987) vaed · cites it 23× “The School Board, pursuant to Va.Code § 22.1-214 D, appealed the reviewing officer’s decision to the Circuit Court for the County of Amelia.”
Loudoun County School Board v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education (2005) vactapp · cites it 25× “Code § 22.1-214(0 authorizes the VBOE to “provide for final decisions to be made by a hearing officer.”
Martin v. School Bd. of Prince George County (1986) vactapp · cites it 12× “Code § 22.1-214. *200 Both the Act and the Virginia statute manifest an intention that local school divisions educate each handicapped child according to the child’s unique needs and capabilities.”
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Education v. Fairfax County School Board (2007) vactapp · cites it 6× “The School Board filed a motion for judgment in the circuit court under Code § 22.1-214(D), naming VDOE and the guardian as defendants and asking for “review and reversal” of the administrative decision issued by VDOE pursuant to 8 VAC 20-80-78.”
School Bd. of Campbell County v. Beasley (1989) va · cites it 7× “” § 22.1-214(A). “The program developed by the Board of Education shall be designed to ensure that all handicapped children have available to them a free and appropriate education, including special education designed to meet the reasonable educational needs of such children.”
Beasley v. School Bd. of Campbell County (1988) vactapp · cites it 12× “e circumstances in Schwartz , while the Campbell County School Board is a party in this case, the State Board of Education is responsible for compliance with the requirements for receipt of federal assistance for special edu *211 cation programs, and it has adopted regulations…”
Bales v. Clarke (1981) vaed · cites it 5× “Virginia Code § 22.1-214(A) requires the Board of Education to design a program insuring: that all handicapped children have available to them a free and appropriate educa *1370 tion, including special education designed to meet the reasonable educational needs of such children.”
Virginia Office of Protection & Advocacy v. Virginia, Department of Education (2003) vaed · cites it 3× “§ 1415 (f); Va. Code § 22.1-214(B). This hearing is more formal than is a CRP hearing and is more adversarial in nature.”
White v. School Bd. of Henrico County (2001) vactapp · cites it 9× “§ 1412 (a)(1)(A); Code §§ 22.1-214(A) and 22.1- 215. Local agencies provide an appropriate education to each disabled child by means of an “individualized educational program (IEP).”
— Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-214(A) — 8 cases
Bales v. Clarke (1981) vaed “Virginia Code § 22.1-214(A) requires the Board of Education to design a program insuring: that all handicapped children have available to them a free and appropriate educa *1370 tion, including special education designed to meet the reasonable educational needs of such children.”
Martin v. School Bd. of Prince George County (1986) vactapp “Code § 22.1-214. *200 Both the Act and the Virginia statute manifest an intention that local school divisions educate each handicapped child according to the child’s unique needs and capabilities.”
J v. a Minor, by her Mother and Next Best Friend, Anette H. Veldhuyzen v. Stafford County School Bd (2016) vactapp “The Virginia Board of Education (the “agency”) developed a comprehensive and detailed regulatory program to ensure that children with disabilities within the Commonwealth have available to them a free and appropriate public education and to ensure that local school divisions…”
Loudoun County School Board v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education (2005) vactapp “Code § 22.1-214(0 authorizes the VBOE to “provide for final decisions to be made by a hearing officer.”
School Bd. of Campbell County v. Beasley (1989) va “” § 22.1-214(A). “The program developed by the Board of Education shall be designed to ensure that all handicapped children have available to them a free and appropriate education, including special education designed to meet the reasonable educational needs of such children.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-214(B) — 11 cases
School Bd. of County of York v. Nicely (1991) vactapp “While admitting that the review standard of the VAPA is inapplicable here, the Nicelys argue the remaining portion of the VAPA that does not conflict with Code § 22.1-214, including Code § 9-6.14:16 which provides for the thirty day statute of limitations, does apply to Code §…”
Virginia Office of Protection & Advocacy v. Virginia, Department of Education (2003) vaed “§ 1415 (f); Va. Code § 22.1-214(B). This hearing is more formal than is a CRP hearing and is more adversarial in nature.”
Bales v. Clarke (1981) vaed “Virginia Code § 22.1-214(A) requires the Board of Education to design a program insuring: that all handicapped children have available to them a free and appropriate educa *1370 tion, including special education designed to meet the reasonable educational needs of such children.”
Loudoun County School Board v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education (2005) vactapp “Code § 22.1-214(0 authorizes the VBOE to “provide for final decisions to be made by a hearing officer.”
School Bd. of Campbell County v. Beasley (1989) va “” § 22.1-214(A). “The program developed by the Board of Education shall be designed to ensure that all handicapped children have available to them a free and appropriate education, including special education designed to meet the reasonable educational needs of such children.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-214(C) — 2 cases
Loudoun County School Board v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education (2005) vactapp “Code § 22.1-214(0 authorizes the VBOE to “provide for final decisions to be made by a hearing officer.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-214(D) — 23 cases
School Bd. of County of York v. Nicely (1991) vactapp “While admitting that the review standard of the VAPA is inapplicable here, the Nicelys argue the remaining portion of the VAPA that does not conflict with Code § 22.1-214, including Code § 9-6.14:16 which provides for the thirty day statute of limitations, does apply to Code §…”
J v. a Minor, by her Mother and Next Best Friend, Anette H. Veldhuyzen v. Stafford County School Bd (2016) vactapp “The Virginia Board of Education (the “agency”) developed a comprehensive and detailed regulatory program to ensure that children with disabilities within the Commonwealth have available to them a free and appropriate public education and to ensure that local school divisions…”
Jemie Sanchez v. Arlington County School Board (2023) ca4 “Va. Code § 22.1-214(D). Finally, parties who prevail after either administrative or judicial review may recover reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Education v. Fairfax County School Board (2007) vactapp “The School Board filed a motion for judgment in the circuit court under Code § 22.1-214(D), naming VDOE and the guardian as defendants and asking for “review and reversal” of the administrative decision issued by VDOE pursuant to 8 VAC 20-80-78.”
Loudoun County School Board v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education (2005) vactapp “Code § 22.1-214(0 authorizes the VBOE to “provide for final decisions to be made by a hearing officer.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-214(E) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.