Implications Of Section 504

The initial purpose of Section 504 was to provide access for students with disabilities to public schools. Some of that role is shared with IDEA. While IDEA now serves students with the most severe disabilities, Section 504 emphasizes an antidiscrimination statute and requires that the educational needs of students with disabilities be met as adequately as the needs of other students. This protection extends to students who are covered under IDEA as well as those students whose disabilities are not so severe that they would qualify under IDEA eligibility. Unlike IDEA, Section 504 does not list disabilities that would result in eligibility. Bettencourt (2002) emphasizes that a thorough understanding of Section 504 and IDEA and how they differ
Erk (1999) stated that the attention brought to Section 504 versus IDEA is primarily due to students with Attention Deficit Disorders. In many cases, these students found it difficult to gain access to special education and related services. The eligibility criteria under Section 504 are broader than the criteria for eligibility under IDEA. Quinn (1997) clarified much of the confusion between IDEA and Section 504 by pointing out that IDEA requires the child have a disability that requires special education services and must be classified as eligible for these services. Students are not eligible simply because they need services. They must fit into one of the categories of disabilities recognized under IDEA. Section 504 qualifies the child as eligible on the basis of an impairment that limits a major life function and includes a broader definition than the definition used for
Phillips (1994) described the Brookhart v. Illionis State Board of Education (1983) case, in which students claimed their due process rights had been violated. These students did not receive high school diplomas because, although they had completed IEP’s, they failed the minimum competency test required for graduation. The court ruled the educational agency may require students to pass a test to obtain the diploma, it stressed students with disabilities must have adequate time so the skills can be learned. However, their due process rights of the disabled students had been violated. This decision affirmed, stated by Phillips (1983) that under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act accommodations must be made for tests as needed for students with