A research project of Vident Partners

Who publishes this, and who pays for it →

The Standard of Care in SchoolsSpecial education, bullying, restraint, and student suicide — sourced to primary authority.

What the school was actually required to do.

The controlling case law, the federal data, and the recognized national standards — mapped plainly for parents, educators, and the attorneys who advise them. Every side held at once.

Read the standards Request a consultation

Published byVident Partners — expert witness referral, since 2005

Anchored byBarry N. Feldman, Ph.D., LICSW · Laura Wilk, M.Ed.

References41 primary sources, every URL checked

The Standard of Care in Schools is an independent reference on what American law and recognized national practice standards actually require of a school district before, during, and after harm to a child — bullying and harassment, special education, restraint and seclusion, and student suicide. It is written to be equally usable by a family's counsel and a district's counsel, because a standard only one side trusts is not a standard.

Where this stands

Rarely a villain-and-victim story. Always a narrow, answerable question.

Few arenas are more emotionally charged, or more legally precise, than harm to a child at school. A teacher's decision in a crisis. A special-education plan that quietly failed for four years. A pattern of bullying a district saw and did not stop. These are rarely villain-and-victim stories, and the law does not treat them as such — it asks narrow, answerable questions about notice, control, documentation, timing, and reasonableness, and it answers them differently depending on which statute you are standing under.

A large system under strain

It is also a very large system under strain. About 7.5 million students ages 3–21 were served under IDEA in 2022–23, roughly 15 percent of all public school students. In school year 2023–24, families filed 9,927 written state complaints — the most on record and 79.3 percent above the previous ten-year average — while the share of those complaints resolved inside the federal 60-day timeline fell to 81 percent, against a ten-year mean of 92 percent. Both halves of that matter. More families are contesting, and the systems built to answer them are answering more slowly than they used to.

Why this Center exists

This Center exists to map that terrain honestly, so that anyone standing in it — a grieving parent, a defending district, an attorney deciding whether there is a case at all — can find what the standard of care actually required, with a verifiable citation behind every sentence. It is anchored by two people who have done the work rather than only studied it: Barry N. Feldman, Ph.D., LICSW, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Director of Psychiatry Programs in Public Safety at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, an American Association of Suicidology approved trainer, psychological autopsy certified, and former Chairman of the Massachusetts Coalition for Suicide Prevention; and Laura Wilk, M.Ed., former State Section 504 Coordinator at the Texas Education Agency and author of its Technical Assistance: Section 504 Guide, former Administrative Supervisor of Critical Cases for Austin ISD, and now a Fractional Director of Special Education Operations. It is hard to be the administrator with finite resources. It is hard to be the teacher in the room. It is hardest of all to be the kid. A place that holds all three earns an authority no advertisement can buy.

The scale

What the record shows

Each figure below is reported with the source that produced it and the period it covers. Numbers describing a population are not findings about any individual case.

9,927

IDEA written state complaints filed nationally in school year 2023–24 — the most on record, a 21.9% rise over the prior year (8,154) and 79.3% above the previous ten-year average of 5,537. The share resolved inside the federal 60-day timeline fell to 81%, against a ten-year mean of 92%.^{[17, 18, 19]}

39,151

IDEA due process complaints filed in school year 2023–24 across the U.S. and outlying areas. New York alone accounted for 68.2%; excluding New York, filings still rose 5.4% to 12,443 — the third consecutive annual increase. 8,621 hearings were fully adjudicated.^{[17, 18]}

+89.6%

Growth in total IDEA dispute-resolution events nationally over the last decade, per CADRE's analysis of the Section 618 data OSEP released in August 2025. Mediation requests (12,914) also hit an all-time high in 2023–24.^{[17, 18]}

22,687

Complaints received by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in FY 2024 — the highest volume in the agency's history and 18% above the prior record of 19,201 in FY 2023. Complaints alleging disability discrimination made up 37% (8,457) of the total.^{[26, 27]}

105,700

Public school students physically restrained, mechanically restrained, and/or secluded in school year 2021–22 (released January 2025): about 68,800 physically restrained, 8,200 mechanically restrained, and 28,700 secluded. Students served under IDEA were 14% of enrollment but 76% of those physically restrained and 68% of those secluded.^{[20, 21]}

143,000+

Allegations of harassment or bullying reported to school employees in 2021–22 on the basis of sex (41%), race (29%), sexual orientation (16%), disability (11%), and religion (2%). Separately, more than 80,000 students reported being harassed or bullied on the basis of sex, race, or disability.^{[20, 21]}

The standards

What the law and the national standards actually require

Eight questions that decide these matters, answered from the controlling authority. Every assertion carries a numbered citation to the source underneath it.

The FAPE standard after Endrew F.

In 2017 a unanimous Supreme Court held that to meet its substantive obligation under IDEA, "a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." That displaced the Tenth Circuit's rule that an IEP sufficed if it conferred benefit "merely more than de minimis" — a test the Court called markedly less demanding. Where grade-level advancement is not a reasonable prospect, the program must still be "appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances," because "every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives." The Court was explicit that this describes a general standard, not a formula.^[1]

When a district is liable for peer harassment

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education permits Title IX damages against the funding recipient — the district, not the individual teacher — only where it was "deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which the recipient has actual knowledge," the harassment was "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit," and the district exercised "substantial control over both the harasser and the context." Davis cuts both ways: the Court cautioned that "courts should refrain from second guessing the disciplinary decisions made by school administrators," and that a single incident will rarely clear that bar.^{[2, 3, 41]}

The remaining 6 standards

When a district is liable for a staff member's misconduct
Section 504 and ADA Title II after A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
Restraint and seclusion: guidance, not prohibition
Child find, evaluation, and the IEP process
Youth suicide: prevention, intervention, and postvention
Title IX in K-12 is, right now, a moving target

Read the full standards →

It is hard to be the administrator. Hard to be the teacher. And hardest of all to be the kid.

Where it comes up

Matters that turn on these standards

IDEA due process hearings contesting FAPE sufficiency and IEP adequacy under Endrew F. — retained by families and by districts alike
Compensatory education claims and private-placement tuition reimbursement disputes
Child find failures, including a student who went unidentified for years while advancing from grade to grade
Section 504 and ADA Title II damages claims post-Osseo — denial of accommodation, program access, and disability-based exclusion from school activities
Peer bullying and harassment claims against districts under Title IX, Section 504, and §1983, including defense work testing actual knowledge, substantial control, and whether the district's response was clearly unreasonable
Staff-on-student sexual misconduct: hiring and background screening, supervision, mandatory reporting, notice to an official with authority, and the adequacy of the district's response
Wrongful death by suicide: risk identification and screening, safety planning, parental notification, means restriction, and re-entry protocol after an attempt
Postvention adequacy after a student death — crisis-team activation, safe messaging, memorialization decisions, and identification of other students at risk
Restraint and seclusion injury and civil-rights claims — and, on the district side, defense of crisis-response decisions against state law and the district's own written policy
Functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plan adequacy where a student's behavior escalated over time
Negligent supervision, staffing, and training claims arising on campus, on buses, at athletics, and at school-sponsored events
School-safety and behavioral threat-assessment matters — whether the district had a multidisciplinary team, a reporting mechanism, and a written protocol, and whether it followed them

The bar

What to require of an expert in these matters

The same standard applies to the experts who anchor this Center. It is published so counsel can hold anyone — including us — to it.

Director-level operating experience inside a school system — a special education director, campus or district administrator, or state agency coordinator who has actually signed the documents at issue, not only studied them
Demonstrated command of the controlling framework: Endrew F., Davis, Gebser, A.J.T. v. Osseo, IDEA Part B at 34 C.F.R. Part 300, and Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. Part 104 — and the discipline to say which one governs which claim
Clinical credentials where the disputed conduct is clinical: for suicide matters, a licensed clinician with formal suicidology training (for example, American Association of Suicidology recognition, psychological autopsy certification), not a generalist school-safety consultant
A record of engagements on both sides. An expert retained by districts and by families is materially harder to impeach on bias, and a Center built on neutrality should insist on it
A records-first methodology: IEPs and progress-monitoring data, FBAs and BIPs, discipline and nurse and counselor logs, communication records, personnel files, and the district's own written policies — before any opinion is formed
Working knowledge of the specific state's regulations and timelines, which frequently impose obligations stricter than the federal floor and often decide the case
The ability to separate a procedural violation from a substantive denial of FAPE — and to say plainly, in writing, when the record does not support the claim
Testimony experience in the correct forum. An IDEA due process hearing before an administrative law judge, a state complaint investigation, and a federal jury trial are three different persuasion tasks

Anchor experts

Two people who have done the work rather than only studied it.

Barry N. Feldman, Ph.D., LICSWAssistant Professor of Psychiatry, UMass Chan Medical School

Ph.D. · LICSW · AAS Master Trainer · Psychological Autopsy Certified

A nationally recognized suicidologist with 20+ years of clinical, teaching, and research experience. Director of Psychiatry Programs in Public Safety at UMass Chan Medical School, with 644+ research citations.

Suicide risk assessmentSafety planning interventionPsychological autopsyLaw enforcement mental healthFull profile, publications and testimony history →

Laura Wilk, M.Ed.Special Education Administrative Leader & IEP Compliance Systems Architect

M.Ed. Special Education · State-Certified Special Education Teacher (PK-12) · Former TEA State Section 504 Coordinator

A systems-level educational leader and regulatory compliance specialist with 16+ years in special education administration, policy governance, and standard-of-care implementation. Former State Coordinator at the Texas Education Agency and an established authority on FAPE provision and the engineering of legally defensible Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).

FAPE sufficiency evaluationsIEP defensibility analysisEndrew F. “appropriately ambitious” standard auditingIDEA compliance & procedural safeguardsFull profile, publications and testimony history →

Profiles, publication lists, and testimony histories are maintained on each expert’s Vident Partners page. Appearing here is not an endorsement of any opinion an expert may offer in a particular matter.

In the directory

Related expert witness specialties

These specialty pages live in the Vident Partners expert directory. This Center does not duplicate them.

Education & Social Services

Special Education

Expert directory →

Education & Social Services

School Safety

Expert directory →

Education & Social Services

Child Welfare

Expert directory →

Forensic & Criminal

Forensic Psychology

Expert directory →

Medical & Healthcare

Psychiatry

Expert directory →

Writing

Published, and in preparation

Already published in Vident Partners Insights.

Published

The Endrew F. Myth: Why Substantive FAPE Litigation Still Favors School Districts (and What Actually Influences Judges)

Laura Wilk, M.Ed. · June 16, 2026

Published

Youth Suicide Prevention and the Competent School Community.

Barry N. Feldman, PhD · September 12, 2023

Published

Suicide Intervention in Schools

Barry N. Feldman, PhD · November 14, 2023

Published

Suicide Postvention in Schools: Addressing the Aftermath

Barry N. Feldman, PhD · December 26, 2023

Planned for this Center. These are commissioned outlines, not published pages — there is nothing to read yet, and we would rather say so than link you somewhere that does not exist.

Not yet published

Explainer

The Endrew F. Standard, in Plain English

What "appropriate progress" actually requires of an IEP — and the specific evidence that shows whether the team met it.

Not yet published

After Osseo

What the Supreme Court Did Not Decide in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools

The 2025 ruling removed a school-specific barrier. Reading it as more than that is how good claims get overstated.

Not yet published

The Data

105,700 Students: Reading the Federal Restraint and Seclusion Numbers Honestly

What the civil-rights data proves about the system, and what it cannot tell you about any single classroom.

Not yet published

For Schools

Postvention: The First Seventy-Two Hours

The recognized protocol for the days after a student dies — crisis team, safe messaging, memorialization, and contagion risk.

Questions counsel ask

Answers, with the citation attached

Does Endrew F. mean the IEP had to actually work?

No. Endrew F. sets a standard of design, not of outcome. The question is whether the IEP was "reasonably calculated" when written to enable progress appropriate in light of that child's circumstances — judged on what the team knew then, not in hindsight. The expert's task is to reconstruct the information available to the team and assess whether the program was appropriately ambitious given it.^[1]

What did A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools actually change?

It removed a school-specific evidentiary barrier. Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims no longer must show "bad faith or gross misjudgment"; they are held to the same standards as other disability discrimination plaintiffs. The Court did not decide what that general standard is — it called that question outside the question presented. In most circuits, compensatory damages still require intentional discrimination, commonly satisfied by deliberate indifference.^[5]

Our district followed its policy and a student was still harmed. Is that a defense?

Often a strong one, and the case law says so directly. Davis holds that "courts should refrain from second guessing the disciplinary decisions made by school administrators," and that deliberate indifference does not require administrators to take any particular disciplinary action or give a victim particular remedies. The defensible posture is a documented, reasonable, actually-implemented response — which a records-based expert review either establishes or does not.^{[2, 3]}

Is restraint or seclusion illegal?

Not under any general federal statute. Federal guidance sets principles — reserve it for imminent danger of serious physical harm, never as punishment or convenience, never in a way that restricts breathing — but the enforceable rules come from state law and district policy and vary substantially. In a Section 504 or ADA case the operative question is usually whether continued use denied FAPE or was applied differently to a student with a disability.^{[22, 24, 25]}

When do we need a suicidologist rather than a school administration expert?

When the disputed conduct is clinical: risk identification and screening, safety planning, means restriction, parental notification, re-entry after an attempt, or postvention after a death. A school administration expert establishes what the district's own policy and IDEA or Section 504 required. A suicidologist establishes what the recognized clinical standard required and whether the response met it. Serious matters often need both, scoped so they do not overlap.^{[36, 38]}

Which Title IX framework applies to conduct that occurred in 2024?

You have to date it, not assume it. The 2024 Rule took effect August 1, 2024 and was vacated nationwide on January 9, 2025 — and courts had already blocked its enforcement across 26 states before that. OCR has since confirmed it enforces the 2020 Rule. Any competent opinion states which framework governed the conduct and which governed the district's response, and does not blur the two.^{[28, 29, 30, 31]}

References

Every figure in this Center, traced to its source

41 primary sources

Each URL was checked before publication and is rechecked whenever a page in The Standard of Care in Schools is revised. The numbered markers throughout this Center link straight to the entry they rest on.

View the full reference list →

Working a school matter?

Tell us the question at issue and we will identify qualified experts — for a family’s counsel and for a district’s counsel alike. The consultation is complimentary and carries no obligation. Requests made here are tagged to The Standard of Care in Schools.

Request a consultation Who publishes this