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 standardsRequest 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.

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.

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]

When a district is liable for a staff member's misconduct

Staff-on-student cases run on a different test. Under Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, a district is liable in damages only where "an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the recipient's behalf has actual knowledge of discrimination and fails adequately to respond," and that failure amounts to "deliberate indifference to discrimination." The Court expressly rejected respondeat superior and constructive notice. The litigated question is therefore seldom whether the conduct occurred — it is who knew, when, with what authority, and what they did in the hours and days after.[4]

Section 504 and ADA Title II after A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools

On June 12, 2025 a unanimous Court held that "schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," retiring the Eighth Circuit's 1982 Monahan rule as irreconcilable with 20 U.S.C. §1415(l). Read it precisely. The Court removed a school-specific barrier; it expressly declined to decide what the general intent standard should be, calling the district's alternative argument "outside the question presented." Most circuits still require intentional discrimination for damages, commonly satisfied by deliberate indifference.[5, 6, 7, 8, 15]

Restraint and seclusion: guidance, not prohibition

No general federal statute bars physical restraint or seclusion in public schools. Federal guidance sets fifteen principles — restraint or seclusion "should never be used except in situations where a child's behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others," never as punishment, coercion, or convenience, and never in a manner restricting a child's breathing. The enforceable rules come from state law and district policy, and vary widely. OCR has advised that continued use may itself deny FAPE under Section 504. In 2021–22, roughly 105,700 students were restrained or secluded; students served under IDEA were 14 percent of enrollment but 76 percent of those physically restrained.[20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]

Child find, evaluation, and the IEP process

IDEA's child find duty requires that all children with disabilities residing in the State "are identified, located, and evaluated" — expressly including children "suspected of being a child with a disability … even though they are advancing from grade to grade," homeless children, wards of the State, and "highly mobile children, including migrant children." Either a parent or the agency may request an initial evaluation, which "must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent" unless the State sets its own timeframe. The IEP team must review the program at least annually, and reevaluate at least every three years. Passing grades do not discharge the duty.[9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 40]

Youth suicide: prevention, intervention, and postvention

In CDC's 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 39.7 percent of high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, 20.4 percent seriously considered attempting suicide, and 9.5 percent attempted. Suicide was the second leading cause of death for both ages 10–14 and 15–24 in 2023. High levels of school connectedness were associated with lower prevalence of every mental health and suicide risk indicator measured. Schools have a defined role across three phases, and the recognized reference documents name them: the Model School District Policy on Suicide Prevention (AFSP, ASCA, NASP, The Trevor Project), and "After a Suicide: A Toolkit for Schools" (AFSP and SPRC) for postvention.[32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]

Title IX in K-12 is, right now, a moving target

This one must be dated, not assumed. The 2024 Title IX Rule took effect August 1, 2024 and was vacated nationwide by the Eastern District of Kentucky on January 9, 2025; before that, courts elsewhere had already barred its enforcement across 26 states. On February 4, 2025 OCR issued a Dear Colleague Letter stating it "will enforce Title IX under the provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, rather than the 2024 Title IX Rule," and directing that investigations opened under the 2024 Rule "be immediately reevaluated." The Department's guidance states the 2024 regulations "are not effective in any jurisdiction."[28, 29, 30, 31]

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.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Working knowledge of the specific state's regulations and timelines, which frequently impose obligations stricter than the federal floor and often decide the case
  7. 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
  8. 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., LICSWBarry 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.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 on this page, traced to its source

41 primary sources. Each URL was checked before publication and is rechecked whenever this page is revised.

  1. 1.Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), slip opinion (No. 15-827). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdfSupreme Court of the United States
  2. 2.Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) — syllabus. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-843.ZS.htmlCornell Legal Information Institute
  3. 3.Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) — opinion of the Court. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-843.ZO.htmlCornell Legal Information Institute
  4. 4.Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998) — syllabus. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1866.ZS.htmlCornell Legal Information Institute
  5. 5.A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), slip opinion (No. 24-249, decided June 12, 2025). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-249_a86c.pdfSupreme Court of the United States
  6. 6.29 U.S.C. § 794 — Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/794Cornell Legal Information Institute
  7. 7.42 U.S.C. § 12132 — Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12132Cornell Legal Information Institute
  8. 8.34 C.F.R. § 104.33 — Free appropriate public education under Section 504. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/104.33Cornell Legal Information Institute
  9. 9.34 C.F.R. § 300.111 — Child find. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.111Cornell Legal Information Institute
  10. 10.34 C.F.R. § 300.301 — Initial evaluations (60-day timeframe). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.301Cornell Legal Information Institute
  11. 11.34 C.F.R. § 300.320 — Definition of individualized education program. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.320Cornell Legal Information Institute
  12. 12.34 C.F.R. § 300.324 — Development, review, and revision of IEP. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.324Cornell Legal Information Institute
  13. 13.34 C.F.R. § 300.303 — Reevaluations. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.303Cornell Legal Information Institute
  14. 14.20 U.S.C. § 1412 — IDEA State eligibility (FAPE, child find, least restrictive environment). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1412Cornell Legal Information Institute
  15. 15.20 U.S.C. § 1415 — IDEA procedural safeguards, including § 1415(l). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1415Cornell Legal Information Institute
  16. 16.About IDEA — Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/U.S. Department of Education
  17. 17.IDEA Dispute Resolution Data Summary for U.S. and Outlying Areas: 2013-14 to 2023-24 (August 2025). https://cadreworks.org/files/2025-national-idea-dispute-resolution-data-summary-final-accessible0pdfCADRE — Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (OSEP-funded), from Section 618 data
  18. 18.Trends in Dispute Resolution (DR) under the IDEA, 2023-24 (August 2025). https://cadreworks.org/files/2025-trends-dr-data-2023-24CADRE — Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education
  19. 19.National & State Dispute Resolution Data Dashboard (2004 to present). https://cadreworks.org/national-state-dr-data-dashboardCADRE — Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education
  20. 20.2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection — A First Look (released January 2025). https://www.ed.gov/media/document/2021-22-crdc-first-look-report-109194.pdfU.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
  21. 21.Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) data portal. https://civilrightsdata.ed.gov/U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
  22. 22.Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document (fifteen principles). https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/policy/seclusion/restraints-and-seclusion-resources.pdfU.S. Department of Education
  23. 23.Seclusions and Restraint Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Guidance (by State). https://www.ed.gov/teaching-and-administration/safe-learning-environments/school-safety-and-security/school-climate-and-student-discipline/seclusions-and-restraint-statutes-regulations-policies-and-guidanceU.S. Department of Education
  24. 24.Dear Colleague Letter: Restraint and Seclusion of Students with Disabilities (December 2016). https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201612-504-restraint-seclusion-ps.pdfU.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
  25. 25.Supporting Students with Disabilities and Avoiding the Discriminatory Use of Student Discipline (Section 504 guidance). https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/504-discipline-guidance.pdfU.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
  26. 26.Report to the President and Secretary of Education, Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ocr-report-president-and-secretary-of-education-2024-109012.pdfU.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
  27. 27.Office for Civil Rights Annual Reports (index). https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/office-civil-rights/office-civil-rights-annual-reportsU.S. Department of Education
  28. 28.Dear Colleague Letter on Title IX enforcement, February 4, 2025 (supersedes January 31, 2025 letter). https://www.ed.gov/media/document/title-ix-enforcement-directive-dcl-109477.pdfU.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
  29. 29.Sex Discrimination: Overview of the Law (page reviewed January 31, 2025). https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/title-ix-and-sex-discrimination/sex-discrimination-overview-of-lawU.S. Department of Education
  30. 30.2020 Title IX Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 30026 (May 19, 2020). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/19/2020-10512/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federalFederal Register / Office of the Federal Register
  31. 31.2024 Title IX Final Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (April 29, 2024) — vacated nationwide January 9, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/29/2024-07915/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federalFederal Register / Office of the Federal Register
  32. 32.Verlenden JV, Fodeman A, Wilkins N, et al. Mental Health and Suicide Risk Among High School Students and Protective Factors — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR Suppl 2024;73(4):79–86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11559681/CDC / MMWR Supplements (via PubMed Central)
  33. 33.Young E, McCain JL, Mercado MC, et al. Frequent Social Media Use and Experiences with Bullying Victimization, Persistent Feelings of Sadness or Hopelessness, and Suicide Risk Among High School Students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR Suppl 2024;73(4):23–30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11559676/CDC / MMWR Supplements (via PubMed Central)
  34. 34.Suicide — statistics, including leading-cause-of-death rankings by age group (2023 data). https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicideNational Institute of Mental Health (NIH)
  35. 35.WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Visualization Tool. https://wisqars.cdc.gov/lcd/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  36. 36.Model School District Policy on Suicide Prevention (with the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and The Trevor Project). https://afsp.org/model-school-policy-on-suicide-prevention/American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
  37. 37.Model School District Suicide Prevention Policy. https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-safety-and-crisis/mental-health-resources/preventing-youth-suicide/model-school-district-suicide-prevention-policyNational Association of School Psychologists
  38. 38.After a Suicide: A Toolkit for Schools, Second Edition. https://sprc.org/resources/after-suicide-toolkit-schoolsSuicide Prevention Resource Center and American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
  39. 39.After a Suicide: A Toolkit for Schools, Second Edition (full PDF). https://sprc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/AfteraSuicideToolkitforSchools-3.pdfSuicide Prevention Resource Center and American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
  40. 40.Condition of Education — Students With Disabilities (7.5 million served under IDEA in 2022–23, 15% of public school enrollment). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilitiesNational Center for Education Statistics
  41. 41.Condition of Education — Student Bullying (School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2022). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a10/bullying-electronic-bullyingNational Center for Education Statistics

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 consultationWho publishes this