some questions

timer Asked: Jul 2nd, 2018
account_balance_wallet $10

Question description

you should read the materials two field attached and open the link below

then answer the question in (key principles practice )filed attached .

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act e We must recognize our responsibility to provide education for all children [with disabilities] which meets their unique needs. The denial oft/ic right to education and to equal opportunits’ siithin this nation for handicapped children—whether it be outright exclusion from school, the failure to provide an education ‘o’hich meets the needs qf a single handicapped child, or the refusal to recognize the handicapped child’s right to grow— is a travesty ofjustice and a denial of equal protection under the law SENStoR HARRIsoN Wit LIAMS. PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THE EDUCAIJ0N FOR Ar.t. HANDICAPPEI CHILDREN ACT. Co•vGRFssIo,v1L RFc0RD (1974. p. 15.272) LEARNER OBJECTIVES At the erd of the chapter, students wf I ne able to 1, Describe toe historical development of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from early court rulings and Iegislaton to the enactment of the IDEA 2 Describe the four parts of the IDEA. Parts A, B, C, and D 3 Describe the purpose of the IDEA. 4. Describe the reauthor.zations of the IDEA 5. Describe the major principles o the IDEA. 6. Describe the mechanisms for funding the IDEA. 7, Describe the monitoring and enforcement provisions of the IDEA On November 29, 1975, while traveling to China on Air Force One, President Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). The EAHCA. often referred to as EL. 94-142. was enacted to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities. The law was actually an amendment to the Education of the Handicapped Act and became Part B of that law. Part B offered federal funding to states in exchange for the states offering educational services to specified categories of students with disabilities. Moreover, the educational services states offered had to be provided in conformity with the requirements of the EAHCA. Amendments to the EAHCA enacted in 1990, P.L. 101-476. changed the name of the act to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Amendments to the IDEA To view an excellent ccc issued added in 1997 and 2004 further clarified, restructured, and extended the law. In ‘. by the U.S. Department of Education this chapter 1 will provide an overview of the IDEA. First. I review the histori celebrating the 35th anniversary of the cal developments that led to the passage of the IDEA. Second, I examine the IDEA, go to the following link: purpose, goals, and structure of the law. Third, I consider the major principles of the IDEA and how they affect the education of students with disabilities. 51 52 Chapter 4 The Individuals with Disabitties Education Act Finally, I will examine the changes in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improxement Act (IDEIA) of 2004. The genesis of the iDEA can be tound in the d) advocac\ ot iirlou’, coalitions for children with disabilities, (b) litigation in he fLderal courts, and (c) federal and state legislation during the 1950s and 1960s (see Chapter 3). Many of the principles that were eventually incorporated into the IDEA can be traced to these court decisions and this legislation. As we have seen, advocacy groups played a major role in securing the principle of an equal educational opportunity for stu dents with disabilities. The advocac of these eroups was aided through the support of national figures such as President John F. Kenned’s and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. Until the 1960s, the cost of educating students with disabilities was borne by state and local governments. During this period. ver\ few teachers were being trained to work with students with disabilities, and extremel small amounts of funds were as ailahie to universities to support research Lesine & \\e\ier. 1981i. With the passage of the in 1965. and amendments to the ESL-\ in i966 and 1968, the federal gosern funding to states to assist efforts to educate students with disabilities provide to ment began programs. through xarious grant In 1970. the Education of the Handicapped Act EHA) was signed into law. The ERA (a) consolidated the eai her grant programs under one lass. h provided additional federal money to fund pilot projects in the states. tel funded institutions of higher education to des chop teacher training programs in specIal education, and (dl funded regional resource centers to provide tech nical assistance to state and local school districts, The two seminal court cases in 1972 Puzns’itania As.sociarion for Retarded Citizens (PARC) r’ Penncslvania and iWtll v Board of Edo ‘ation Dicrrict of Columbia, resulted in re quirements that the Penns lvania and D C. pubhiL schools pros ide access to public education for students ssitfl disabilities. Moreoser. these cases resulted in basic procedural rights being granted to students with disabilities. These cases influenced the federal gosernmentto amend the ERA in 1974. The Education Amendments to the ERA required each state that received federal funding to provide (a) lull educational opportunities. (b) procedural safeguards, and Ic) education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. Nonetheless, advocacy groups believed that the law was not sufficiL tIy enfor eable and neither parents nor advocacy groups would be able to ensure that local school districts and states were meeting their obligations under the law. Additionall, by the early 1970s. inam states had their own statutes and regulations regarding the education of students with disabilities. [nfortunately. the efforts across states were uneven, and many beliesed that a more entbrceable federal standard was ngdd. in fate 1975 Congress reported that during this period approximately I .75 million students with disabilities were excluded from public schools and 2.2 million were educated in programs that did not meet their needs. In response to these problems. four bills weie introduced in the Senate regarding the education of students si ith disabilities: 5.896. introduced b Senator Jennings Randolph. to extend the life of the Education of the Handicapped Act for 3 years: S,33, introduced by Senator Ernest Hollings. to fund research on the problems of children with autism: S.808. introduced h Senator Mike Gravel, to pros ide federal funds for screening preschool children for the presence of learning disabilities; and S.6, introduced by Senator Harrison Vi illiams a comprehensise bill for the education of students with disabilities based on the Mills and PARC cases. The purpose of Williams’s bill was to mandate that a free appropriate public education he available to all students with disabilities by 1976. These four bills ivere the subject of Senate hearings held in 1973. Eventually, conference committees agreed on a bill that would be known as the Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1974. P.L. 93-380. The 93rd Congress. howeser. failed to act on this bill before adjournment. - Because bills pending at the erd of a Enal session of Congress die. Senator Williams had to reintroduce his bill. S 6. the EuuatI-n (cr All Handicapped Children AL IEAHCAI. in the next Chapter 4 • The Individuals with Disabilihes Education Act session, In April 1973 the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped held hearings on thi’ bill in Newark, New Jersey; Boston, Massachusetts, Harri, burg. Pen isylvania, St Paul, Minnesota: and Columbia, South Carolina. Even though the yLais since the passage of fitle VI of the ESEA in 1966 had seen progress in the education of. tudcnts vith disabilities, the fcarings in Senator Williams’s bill indicated that significant problems remained. The Senate passed S.6. and the House pa’.sed a similar bill. H.7217. When hills are passed in both houses of Congress. a conference committee is appointed to ‘s rite a fimil bill by combin ing the two bills and ironing out any differences between them. In this situation, the conference committee resolved differences in the House and Senate bills and sent one bill, the EAHCA, to both houses of Congress. The Senate and the House appro ed the bill and sent it to the president for signing. On November 29. 1975, President Gerald Ford signed the 42nd hill passed by the 94th Congress. the EAHCA. into lass. Federal regulations implementing the law took effect on August 23. 1977. Present Ford had serious reservation’ about the EAHCA: boy eser. he signed the bill into law, perhaps because the bill had veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate, President Ford believed that the law promised more than the federal government could dehver and that it gave the federal government too much eomrol over state and local matters. Concerning the sign ing of EAHCA, Ford stated: Unfortunatelx’, this bill promises more than the Federal Government can deliver, and its good intentions could be thwarted by the many unwise provisions it contains, Fvery one can agree with the objective stated in the title of this bill -educating all handicappcd children in our Nation, The key question i. whether the bill will really accomplish that objective. Despite my strong support for full educational oppor unities I oi our handicapped children, the funding levels proposed in this bill will simplr riot he possible if Federal expenditures are to be brought under control and balanced budget achieved over the next few sears. There are other features in the btll which I believe to he objectionable and which should he changed It contains a vast array oi detailed, complex. and costi administrative require ments which would unnecessarily assert Fedeial c )ntmol mver tradita nd State and local government functions, It establishes con p1ev tequirements u ide which tax dollars would be used to support administrative paperwork and art educational piograms. PR!- sIDE xl Gi-ti vi r F an. Decnvttsi a 2. 1975 The EAHCA provided federal funding to states to assist them in educating students with disabilities. States wanting to receive federal funding were required to submit a state plan to the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped fhe purpose of the pla i was to describe the state’s policies and procedures to educate students with disabilities in accordance with the procedures contained in the EAHCA. If the bureau approved the plan. the state was obligated to guarantee a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities in return for the federal funding it would receive. The federal funding that states received would be based on an annual count of all children and youth served under the lass. The EAHC,\ made the federal government a partnei with the states in educating students with dtsahilities who were ens ered by the law. All but one state, New Mexico submitted a plan for federal funding under P.L. 94-142. Ness Mexico decided not to implement the EAHCA nor to accept the federal funds. An advocacm group for citizens with disabilities in New Mexico. the Ness Mexico Association for Retarded Citizens. sued the state for failing to provide an appropriate education for students with di abilities in the case New Mexico Association Jth’ Retarded Ciri:en ‘c.\ew Mexico ( 1982t. The association sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prevents entities that receive federal funds from discriminating against persons with disabilities The associatn n maintained that the state discriminated against students with disabilities by denying them an ap propriate education. (For elaborations on Section 504. see Chapter 5.; The association prey ailed. The decision indicated that even though a state did not accept federal funding and th require ments attached to the funds adhe ence n’ P1 I 42e it w ;ivdd tli has e to comply with Section 504, a civil rights law that contained no tunding provisions Ness Mexico, therefore, was required to provide a free appropriate public education to students wi h disc uI tie e en though the state received no federal funding under thc IDEA. New Mxc-i suhse4iien ly submitted a state piac 53 54 Chapter ‘ I e ndlv duas wIth Dlsabfitles Educatlor Act the Bure u of F du ‘a to ft th. Handicapped optin t. irplew r t the law and accept the federal fundin F olk wing tI tction all 50 states serc pa ic pants in lederal funding through the EAHC , The IDEA wa enacted t assist tatcs in meeting the educ ti wal needs of students with disabili ties via federal funding of sttte etTorts, ccording to the F S. Supreme Court, hoever, Congress did not content itself with passage of a simple funding statute. Rather the [IDEA] confers up m disabled students an enforceable substanuve right to public education and conditions federal financial assistance upon states’ compliance with substantise and procedural goals of the \ct. . (Hmig D 1988 p 597i In 1975 Congress stated that Disability s a n’ tural part of the human expriene and in no way diminishes the right of indisiduals to participate in oi contribute h. our soeieta. Improving educa tional results for children with disabilities is an essential clement of our national policy of ensur’n equality of opportunity. full participation, independent living, and economiL self suit ic enc for individuals with dis ibilities (20 t 80 § 1,0 c 1 Nonetheless, C v gr ‘s also found that prior to th enactment of the FAHC in 1975. the ducational needs nf mill ems nf hildren ‘ith disabihtLs we’c not beind met because many a) children with disahiliti were ext luded from publ c sch ol (b) children with disabilities ho did attend puhh’ school often did not receise an education that stas appropriate for their needs ic) children ssith di afi ide v crc not diagnosed. hich p c,cnted them fiom receising ‘t successful educatio ta e oei icnce’ and (d) states and local school districts lacked adequate resources which lorce I frtilie to find services ou side tie public scho ft system TFe purpose of tfe IDEA is tc , ensure that all child cn witf disabilities hare available to them a free appropriate public educati ir that emphasizes special edue’ition and related services designed to meet their ur ique net, s and prepare them tor further edu ‘ation, employment and in &pendci i its i g. t ensure tna’ me rights of chi’uren witn disaoilities and parents of such ehildici arc ototected rO issist states k cal’ties, educational sets ice agencies. aid Federal acencies o proside for the edue tion of a I ch Idren ith disabilities. Rathci that s ab ‘shing substantise educat onal standards to ensure that the goal of the IDEA isas fulfilled C( ogres created an elaborate set of procedur ml safeguards. The purpose of these safeguards wa t allow p trental inptit into a sehor 1 s dcci i ns and to maximwe the likeli hood that children with a d ahil ty would recese a free appiopriate public education Studei t meeting the IDEAs detiniti n of a student with disabilities receive theroced iral prote ‘tions of the Ia. Students with disabilities, determined tobe eligible in accordance with the pr s ns o(the IDEA, arc entitled to receise special education and related services. The deteimi tat on of ehg bility is wane on an mdiv dual basis by the multidisciplinary team in accordance with guidelines set torth in the la The IDEA uses a categorical approach to define students with disab lities by setting forth categories f disabilities. N,f,all students with disabilities are protected only those students with disabil iy inc uded in the IDEA, and only In 19)0 C mg es ct r, t CT ren,ajnde TI hi c ci iF c t tI E Si-IC a ne Ia as t o Ic I _ IDF A sd 2 uls s ci ne Ed lcau(r Act (IDEA), For the Chapter FiGURe 4. Categories of DisabHities 4 The irdviduas wOn Dsabilities Educahon Act Autism DeaEblindness Deafness Hearing impairment intellectual disability Multiple disabilities Orthopedic impairments Other health impairment Emotional disturbance Specific learning disability Speech or language impairment Traumatic brain inlury Visual impairment, including blindness it those disabilities hase an adserse impa r on thc r education, arc eligible to receise a special education. The IDEA categories arc eshaustise. -; ArCCRES CF Ca The IDEA disahiliti categories ee Figure 4. 1 and regulations defining them can be found at 20 LSX f l4Olça) and 1 C FR. 300 7a)(l) (b)(13) The solicitd public comments egarding the possible addition of a categol for dttention deficit hyperlcti\ its disorder (ADHDI in the 1990 amendments to the IDEA. ADHD is as not made a separate eategois hoss e\ er. OSEP did issae a policy memo stating that tudeuts is ith ADHD could he eligible for special education under the categories of specific learning Jisabilits serious einotion:il distui hartc, or other heal h impairment (Joint Policy Mcmi randun 199!) Students with ADHD may also he eligible hi services under Section 504 ot thc Rehab litation Act. In the IDEA Amendments f 99 the tcrminologs ‘serious c notional disturbance” was changed to “emotional disturbance:’ The reason for this change sias to eliminate the pejorative connotation of the term serums. The change is as not intended to hai e uhstan nyc or legal significance tSeuate Report. 1997c To iew an excellent on this In October 2010 Presider t Ob ma igned Rosa’ 1a, which requiied th law and or the successfu campaign to federal uovernment to replace the te ‘Ia iiieiital retardation ssitli the tci r ii ci eIirincte toe word ‘retarded,” go to lecwal disahility” in the IDEA and all other federal health. education, and laix r the fflQflg ‘vebsite: laii s. The law is named br Rosa \larcello, a child is oh Doss u si udrome. States are required to pros de sen ices to students is ho meet the criterIa in the IDEA. This does not mean that states must adopt a’ cry categCry eaact x 1 as specified in the IDFA, State m sy -‘orthine categories (e g. u ar states combine deafness and hearing impairment) dii ide c tegories (e.g., many statcs divide the category ci intellec tLlal disabilities in two or more categories. ‘Lich as mild. moderai and severe, use ditierent terminology (e.g.. serious enlotionO! i,tur6ame goes hs a nuniber of different terms, such as emotionally and behnrThral6 thurdeiid or emoronai1v d’v;/dcifi. or evpand the 0etinition (e.g.. Minnesota doec not exclude studens identified as so..ialls ma 1 idjustcd in its defn,ition of emotional or behas ioral disorders as d es tie federal definition) At a minimum, ho as er. all students with disabilities who mcet the apropniate criteria as defined in the IDEA categories must receise sen ices. , ‘ : cu:’gs The IDEA requires that a proglam of special education and related services be prosided to all e1iihlc students with disabilities hetcen the ages of 3 and 21. States are required to idcnt fy and saluate childien from bath to age even if the sta does not provide educational services to students with disabilities ni te toS and 1840-21 age groups (IDEA Regulations. 3-f C.F.R. f 300.300. comment 3c The dut to proside special education to qualified students is Oh dsahlities is absolute hetis ecu the ages of 6 and l. 55 56 Chapter 4 The Individuals with Disablihes Education Act ‘ If slates do not require an education ter student’. sx ithout disabilities between ages 3 to 5 and thex ar fbi requucd to educ-ire tudents in those age groups (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. S through § 1412[2][B1L II a special educ’ition tudent graduates x ith a diploma uccessfuli\ completes an appro leading to r duation, or voluntarily drops out priate ( (kf ik r. We tIleld, 1986). If the graduation oflschool. the school’s ob1igauiazthudant is merely used to terminate a school dist’ict’s obligatton. howexer the district can be required to supply compensatory education, such as educational sers ices beyond the age of 21 (Helrn.s Independent School istrict #3. 1985). . An amendment to the IDEA. passed in the Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1986 P.L. 9-457>. was the infants and toddlers program. This 1a xx as codified in the IDEA. This amendment was originally added to the then EAHCA as Part H. Part H. which became Part C in the IDEA Amendments of 1997. provided incentixe grants to states that prox ide special education and related ser’. Ices to children with disabilities from birth through age 2. \t age 3. a child xx ith a disahilit\ is entitled to receixe serx ices under Part B. When a child xx ho receives early intervention serx ices turns 3 years of age. the state is required to ‘aconvene a tiansition meeting with the Part C lead agency. the and the parents to ensure that a smooth transition take’. place. The purpose ol the law was to a) enhance the development of infants and toddlers with dis abilities and to minimi! their potential for delay, (b) reduce educational costs by minimizing the need for special education and related services after infants and toddlers with disabilities reach school age. (ci imnimi/e the likelihood of institutionalization of individuals xx ith disabilities. and (dl enhance the capacit of families to meet the special needs of infants and toddlers. This amendment is codified at 20 1_S.C. §f l541—i585. Regulations Implementing this section of the IDEA are codified at 34 C.F.R. fil 03. I 303.653. Part C requires that participating states de velop a statewide s stem of muitidisciplinarr interagency programs to provide early inters ention serx ices. The populations targeted for this program arc infants and toddlers who: in one or more of the following 1. Are es.penencing dcx elopmental delay areas: fi) Cognitixc development. iii Physical development. Including vision and hearing. (iii) Communicati n dcx elopment (ix) Social or emotional dcx elopment. xl Adaptive development, or 2. Haxe a diagnosed phsical r mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in drveiopmental delay a) Ihe term ina\ also include, at a state’s discretton, children from birth at risk of has ing suhtantiai developmental de through age iwo xxtio lay-s if carE intervention scrx ices are not pros ided. . lOt A Reguan.. . . Ci.R i3. 6 infants and toddlers may he designated as deselopmentailr delayed and receive special education services. It is not required that the children fit into a c4tfgpry of disabilities inclpd#d in the IDEA to receive serx ices. fafes have an option of suhmittinp plans toparticipate in Part C funding. To determine if a state has submitted a plan and is obligated under Part C, consult state statutes and regulations. The IDEA is codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1400—1485 Originally the law was divided into eight subchapters (Pails A through Hi. In the IDE \ Amendments of 1997, the law xx as restructured into foui suhchapters The structure of the IDEA is depicted. in Table 4.1. Title l consists of four parts. Of these four parts. Part B contains the school personnel must he most concerned xx ith xx hen developing programs for that requirements I next rex iexx the tour parts of 3 itle I. education. in special students Chapter 4 F Part Purpose Parr C General pov sons Part B Assistance for educat on of all children with disabilities Part C Infants and toddlers w th disabilities Part 0 National act vities to improve educaton of children with disabilities • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Contents nart A conrans of fact eqardng te educatim or toenrs 0 sabsit es tht existed nen tne iDE ms passed Ths secton also ontains deheit o ts of terms that are used througnout the IDEA. Part B contains the nformation regard ng the state grant program in which states submit ians that detail now the state wi ensure a free aporoprate oublic education to al ojaiifed cbldmn and 5 ’outn with dsaoilities who live in the state Part C provides categorca grants to states contingent on states adhering to the provisions of la v, which requires participating states to develop and implement statewide interagency programs 0 early intervention se’vces fo irfaAs and toddlers with disabiltes and thea Tanlies. Part D con ems support o d suetonary programs U at suppwt the nan ementation of the IDEA and assist states n mprovng the education of students a th oisaoiites SLoporring researcn, personnel prepaaton, and Orofessona de’elooment are especiaiiy important goals of Part D Part A of the IDEA Part A is the section of the lass in which Conaressjustifies the iDEA (Yell. Drasgow. Bradley. Justesen. 2004). It contains findings of fact regarding the education of students with disabilities that existed sshen the IDEA tras passed. This section also contains definitions of terms that are used throughout the IDE A. These definitions are crucial For example. the requirements necessary to be a highly qualified special education teacher are listed in Part A The goals of the IDEA are also included in this part. Part B of the IDEA Part B addresses educational requirements for students ages 3 through 21 and thus is the section with ssliich special education teadhers and administrators should be most familiar. Part B contains the information regarding the state grant program in which states itplans that detail how they will ensure a free appropriate public education to all qualified children and youth with disabilities wh ) five in the state. If the plan is approved, the state receives federal financial assistance. Part B also contains the procedural safeguards designed to protect the interests of children and youth ss ith disabilities. The IDEA was originally enacted to address the failure of states to meet the educational needs of students with disahilitie. The method choNen to accomplish this goal is federal funding for states submitting special education plans that meet the IDEA’s requirements. After the plan is approved, the state assumes the responsibility for meeting the provisions of the law. In addi non to setting the formulas by which states can receive funds, the IDEA contains pros isions to ensure that all qualifying studen yithdjabjlities receive a free qppropriate education and that procedural protections are granted to students and theirparents. These provisions are as folloss s: (a) zero reject, (bi idenUfication and evaluation, free appropriate public education. (di least restrictive environment, (e) procedural safeguards, (f technolog -related assistance. (g) person nel development, and (h) parental participation. Readers should note that even though some scholars have dis ided Part B into major princi ples for discussion purposes (e.g.. Katsiyannis. Yell. & Bradley. 2001: Turnbuli. Turnbull. Erwin. Soodak. & Shogren. 2010: Turnhull. Turnbuli, & Wehrneyer 2009c neither the IDEA’s statutory language nor OSEP recognizes the division of the law into these principles (Yell et al 2004). It is, however, a useful tool for facilitating a thorough understanding of the law , Zero Reject According to the 7cm-reject principle, all students with disabilities eligible for services under the IDEA are entitled to a free appropriate public education. This principle applies regardless of the seserits of the disabilits. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 57 58 Chapter 4 • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act public education is to be provided to all students with educational disabilities, unconditionally and without exception (Timothy W i Rochester New Hampshire. School District. I 989). The state must assure that all students with disabilities, from birth to age 21. residing in the state who are in need of special education and related sers ices or are suspected of having dis abilities and needing special education are identified, located, and esaluated (IDEA Regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.220). These requirements include children with disabilities attending private schools. This requirement is called the child find system. States are free to develop their own child find systems (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414[alI 1 1[A]). The state plan must identify the agency that will coordinate the child find tasks, the actis ities it wilt use, and the resources needed to ac complish the child find. School districts are usually responsible for conducting child find activi ties within their jurisdiction. The child find applies to all children and youth in the specified age range. regardless of the severity of the disability. Furthermore, the child find requirement is an affirmative duty, because parents do not have to request that a school district identify and evalu ate a student with disabilities. In fact. parents’ failure to notify a school district will not relieve a school district of its obligations tNorlin, 2014). It is up to the school district to find these stu dents. When students are identified in the child find, the school district is required to determine whether they have a disability under the IDEA. A school district’s child find system can take many forms. One method is the general public notice. School districts are obligated to notify the public as a means of locating children with disabilities. Additional methods that may be used to locate and identify children ssith disabilities include referrals, public meetings. door-to-door visits, home and community visits, brochures. speakers, contacting pediatricians, contacting day-care providers, kindergarten screening, and public awareness efforts. If a school district becomes aware of or suspects that a student may need special education, an evaluation is required. Identification and Evaluation In hearings on the original EAHCA. Congress heard testimony indicating that many schools were using tests inappropriate1 and therefore were making improper placement decisions (Turnhull et al.. 2010). Sometimes schools placed students in special education based on a single test, administered and placed students using tests that were not reliable or valid, or used tests that were discriminatory. To remedy these problems, the IDEA includes Lrotection in evaluationprocedures (PEPs). A fair and accurate evaluation is extremely important to ensure proper placement an& t&reTore, an appropriate education. The PEPs were incorporated into the IDEA to address abuses in the assessment process (Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt, 2013). The IDEJA made a rew changes in the initial evaluation process. The statutor language makesjs1earat a child’s parents. the state educational agency (SEA), or LEA mayieue an initial esaluation. Moreover, when an LEA decides to evaluate a child for special education services andeekconsent from the child’s parents. it must determine eligibility within 60 days of receising consent or sithin the timeline that the state allows, if it is less than 60 days. The timeline does not apply, however, if the parents repeatedly fail to produce the child for the evalu ation. (For elaborations on the identification of students with disabilities, see Chapter 9.) Free Appropriate Public Education The IDEA requires that states have policies assuring The all students with disabilities the right to a FAPE requirement has both procedural and substantive components (YeH. Katsiyannis, Ennis. & Losinskv. 2013,. The procedural components are the extensive procedural protections afforded to students and their parents. These protections epsure the parents’ right to meaningful participation in all decisions affecting their child’s education. The substantive right to a FAPE consists of . special education and related services which (A) have been provided at public expense. under public supervision and direction, and sithout charge, (B) meet stan dards of the state educational agency (SEA), (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the state involved, and (D) are pros ided in conformity with the Individualized Education Program. (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1401[181[C], Special education is defined in the statutory language as ‘specialiy designed instruction. at no charge to the parents or guardians. to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability” (IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § l404[a][l6fl. Related services are any developmental, corrective, or support ise services that students need to benefit from special education (IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § l-104[al[l71). Chapter 4 • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Public schools must provide s,pecial education and related services to eligible students at no cost. If a student is placed out of the school district hs a school district, the home district retains financial responsibilit. This includes tuition fees and related service charges. The only fees that schools may collect from parents of children with disabilities are those fees that are also imposed on the parents of children without disabilities te.g.. physical education fees, lunch fees>. The IDEA also acknowledges the rights of states to set standards for a FAPE. The IDEA requires that local school districts meet states’ special education standards. These standards may excnathheminimum level of educajinuL rviepwvided1Qr lathe WEA. For example. Massachusetts requires that schools provide a FAPE that will assure a student’s maximum possible development (Massachusetts General Laws Annotated. 1978>. a standard greater than that contained in the IDEA. State standards may not, however, set lower educational benefits than those contained in the IDEA, (See Chapter 8 for an extensise discussion of the FAPE mandate.) One of the most crucial aspects of the substantive component is that the special education and related services must he prosided in conformity with the IEP. An IEP must be developed for all students in special education (See Chapter 10 for elaborations of IEP requirements.) The school district is responsible for providing the student’s education as described in the IEP. The IEP must be in effect at the beginning of the school year and be reviewed at least annually (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1414[a][5}). Least Restrictive Environment The IDEA mandates that students with disabilities are educated with their peers without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[bl[lj). Students in special education can only be removed to separate classes or schools when the nature or severily of their disabilities is such that they cannot receive an appropriate education in a general education classroom with supplementary akis and services (rDEA Regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.5501b1[21). When students are placed in segregated settings. schools must pros ide them with opportunities to interact with their peers without disabilities where appropriate (e.g., art class, physical education). To ensure that students are educated in the least restrictive ens ironment (LRE) that is ap propriate for their needs, school districts must ensure that a complete continuum of alterna tive placements is as ailable. This continuum consists of reEular classes, resource rooms, special classes, special schools, homebound instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions (IDEA Regulations. 34 CFR. 3OCSSfl. rFbr a discussion of LRE, see Chapter I I.) Procedural Safeguards A central part of the IDEA is the procedural safeguards designed to protect the interests of students ssith disabilities. The IDEA uses an extensive system of procedural safeguards to ensure that parents are equal participants in the special education process (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq.). These safeguards consist of four components: eneral safepards, the independent educational evaluation, the appointment of surrogate parents, and dispute resoljiii e., meaTaffon and tTe due process heaiTng3. The general safeguards for parents and students consist of notice and consent requirements. Specifically, notice must be given to parents a reasonable amount of time prior to the school’s initiating or changing or refusing to initiate or change the student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.504[a] et seq.). Parental consent must be obtained prior to conducting a preplacement evaluation and again prior to initial place ment in a special education program (IDEA Regulations .34 C.F.R. § 300.504[bl et seq.). When the parents of a child with disabilities disagree with the educational evaluation of the school. the’ have a right to obtain an indpendnt evaluation at&ublic exse (IDEA Regula tions. 34 C.F.R. § 300.503). The school has to supply the parents, on request. with information about where the independent educational cx aluation may be obtained. When the parents decide to have the evaluation done independenth. the district must pay for the cost of the evaluation or see that it is provided at no cost to the parents. If. however, the school belies-es its evaluation was appropriate, the school may initiate a due process hearing. If the result of the hearing is that the school’s evaluation was appropriate, the parents do not have the right to receive the evaluation at public expense. Parent-initiatdj d,pggvaluations. when done at the parents’ oss n expense. must be considered b’ the school. Results may also he presented as eviff at a due process hearing. nally, a hearing officer can request an independent evaluation as part of a hearing; in this case the cost must be borne by the school. 59 60 Ct ao The lndmduais wth D ab it es Educabon Act When d s narents cannot be located or the child i 5 a v. ard of the state, the agency is responsible tot appolntinp surrogate parents to protect the rights of the child. Employees of the school or persons .ith conflicts of interest cannot sere as surrogate parents. The method of clecEing a surroga parent must he in accordance ssith state law. The actual selection and ap poinintent meth’ds. therefore. are not determined bx the IDE. The IDEA does require that the surrogate parent must represent the child in all matters relating to the pros ision of special educa iton to the htid 5 1DEA Regulations. $4 CER. § 300.5 14cr seq.). When pat-cnn. and the school disagree about identification. esaluation. placement. or an matters pertaininu to the FAPE.eithetpart\ may request a due process hearing. For example. if the parents refuse consent for es aluation or initial placement. the school may use the due process hear ing to conduct an esaluation orplace the child 1DEA Regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.504[b113]). The IDEA mendments of 1997 require that states offer parents the option of resoivin their disputes through the mediation process prior to going to a due process hearing. The mediationprocess is oluntars and must not bc used to deny or Jelay parents’ right to a due process hearinp. A trained med ator who is knowledgeable about the laws and regulations regarding the provision of special education and related serrices conducts the mediation A mediator has no decision-making powers as do impartial due process hearing officers. Rather, the mediator attempts to facilitate an agree ment between he parents and school orncriils regarding the matter in dfspute If attempts to mediate and reach agroement are not successful, either party may request an impartial due process hearing. Either the SEA oi the LEA that is responsible for the education of the student must conduct the due process hearing A due process hearing is a forum in which both sides present their arguments to art impartial third party. the clue process hearing officer. Duripg the hearing, the student giust re man in the program or placement in effect when the hearing was requested. A school district cannot unilaterally Lhange placement or program during the pendenc of the due process hearing or judicial action The IDEA provision that mandates the student’s placement or program must not be changed ss tthout he agrecrnent of both parties is referred to as the hay-put provision (IDEA Regulations. 34 C.F.R 3t30.5 3. The sta -put pros ision may be abrogated in situations where a student with dis abilities brings a ss capon to school, uses or sells illegal drugs. or presents a danger to other students or to stall. Sec Chapter 13 for elaborations on the stay-put provision and students with disabilities.) Ans part rti tile hearing has the rjgllt to be represented b\ counsel, present evidence. corn 1 pcI the attcnchince of s itnesses. examine and cross-examine witnesses, prohibit the introduction of evidence not introuuced 5 days prior to the hearing, obtain a written or electronic serbatim record of the hearin, and he pros idcd with the written findings of fact by the hearing officer. Additionall, the parent ma\ have the child present and mms open the hearing to the public. Fol lowing the hcarrng the hearing officer announces the decision. This decision is bindipg on both parties. Eith r party however may appeal the decision. In most states, the appeal is to the SEA. bc deiioi m t°e agenLy can then be appealed to the state or federal court. (For elaboration on prc ccdural safeguards, see Chapter 12.) Technolog3 Related Assistance The pervasive impact of technology on the lives of persoin. with disabilities was recognized in a report issued by the Federal Office of Technology Assessment in 1982 (Gibbons. I 982. The report identified a lack of comprehensive, responsive. and coordinated mechanisms to deliser and fund technology to improve the lives of persons with disabilities. In 1988, Congress passed the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities -t 29 LSC. 3001—3007). The purpose of the law. which was reauthorized i I i94, wa to etabiish a program of federal grants to states to promote technolog -related asststance to tndis idoal ss ith disahilitiesAssistive technology, as defined in the lass. includes both technolc>gica[ des ices and services. Congress further recognized tile importance of technology in the lises of children and youth with dEabilities b incorporating the definitions of assistive technolog\ devices and services from tile Technology Act into the IDEA: Tile term “assistive technology des-ice” means any item. piece of equipment. or prod uct cs stem. Sc hether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized. that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of [children] cv ith disabili icy. The term “assistis e technology service” means any sers ice that directly assists a [chi d} vith a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technol ogy device uch •erm includes- Chapter 4 . W C. D. E. F. • The indwidua!s with Disabilities Educanon Act the csaluation of th ‘eeds )t a [child] with a disability including i funct nal evaluation of tie [child] in he [chi d sJ customr ry ens iror ment purchasing. leasing. r otherwise providing for the acquisition of assisti’,c technolog dcv ices h [children] v th disahlities: selecting. designing. fitting. eustanil/ing. adapting. applinv. retaining, repair— ing. or repiaLinc Cf assistive technology devices: coordinating and usina other therapies. interventions or sers ices with assistivc technology devic es, training or technical assistance for a [childi with disabilities or, where appro— pnate. the famil of a [child] v ith disabilities: and training or technical assistance for professionals. (IDFA.20t S.C. § 1401.25 ‘Ci These definitions were included in the IDEA. however, nothing in the law mandated that participating stales provide assistive technolog\ des ices or sers ices to students. Julnes and Brown 1993) noted that this was because assistive technology devices and services were iinphc iti\ required by the EAHCA prior to the inclusion of the asistive technolog detinitions in 1990. Regulations implementing these definitions support this contention, The regulations provide that: Each public agency shal ensuie that assistive technology or assistive technology scrv ices, or both are made available to a child with a disability if required as part of the child’s——— A. Special education under 300.17: B. Related serv ices unde § 300,16, or C. Supplementary aids and services under § 300 550(b)(2’i IDE.5 Regulations, 34 C.F.R § 3(1(1.308) The regulations indicate that assistive technoiog devices and services should he included in the TEP if necessar\ toprovTJe a FAPF as a special education service or a related sers ice or to maintain children and youth with disab[lTtTes in the LRE through the provi’sTon of supplementary aids and services, The IDEA Amendments of 1997 added a requirement regarding technology and special education to the IEP. JEP teams are now required to consider whether tudents with disabilities, cgardiess of categor. need assistic technology des ices and services. In the [DEJA. however, Congress added a section on related services that specifically stated that schools did not have to provide or maintain surgicall implanted devices (e.g eochlear implants). Because such a device 5 medical in nature, it canrot be consido cd an assistive technology device. i In 2004, President Bush siened the Assistive Technolog\ Act of 2004. The purposc of the law was to evpand access to technology for individuals with disabilities. The law assisted students with disabilities in ses eral vvar s. First, it required that schools use assistis e technology resources when they are necessary to improve transitions for students vs ith disabilities. Second, it ensured that students with disabil’ties have better information and support when they apply for loans for assistive devices, Third, it helped to raise public awareness about the importance of as— sistive technology devices. Personnel Development States are required to submit a plan to the LS. Department of Education that describes the kind and number of personnel needed in the state to meet the goals of the IDEA. To receive funding from the state, school districts must also provide a aescription of the personnel they will need to ensure a FAPE to all students with disabilities. The original EAHCA required states to develop and implement a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development plan that ensured that an adequate supply of special education and related services personnel was available and that these persons received adequate and appropriate prepara— tion. The IDEIA eliminated the language requiring a comprehensive ‘stem of,personnel develop— ment in each state Instead it substitutedThe tenT .state personnel dei ekpment grant and required that states ensure that special education teachers and related services personnel meet state—approved or state—recognized certilicationilicensure requirements. Additional[y, districts had to use lO(Y4 of their funding under these grants for personnel preparation and professional des elopment activities. The 61 62 Chapter 4 The individuals with Disabilities Education Act purpose of the professional deselopment actis ities, according to the IDEIA, ssas to enable teachers to deliver scientifically based academic instruction and behavioral interventions to their students. States had to ensure that by the end of the 2005—2006 school year, all special education teachers would meet the highly qualified requircments of No Child Left Behind, once again known as the Elementary and Secondar Education Act (see Chapter 7 on the ESEA). Further more. emergency. temporary. or pros i%ional certification or licenses could not he issued in lieu of full state certification/licensing requirements: and state certification requirements could not be waived. Additionall. states had to base a polic that required school districts to have measurable goals to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified personnel. To ensure that these requirements were met, states had to delineate current and projected needs for special education and related sers ices personnel, and coordinate efforts among school districts, colleges, and universities to see that personnel needs were met and that professional development activities were offered. Grants are also made available to colleges and universities to train special education teachers (IDEA Regulations. 34 (‘FR. § 381). The states also needed procedures Iir adopting promising practices. materials, and tech nologv (IDEA Regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 3821. Furthermore, states had to disseminate knowledge derived from research and demonstration projects to special educators. Finally, school districts needed to provide a description of special education personnel to the state to receise special education funding. Parent Participation Since the early days of special education litigation, the parents of students with disabilities have played an important role in helping schools to meet the educational needs of their children. Ke\ pros Isions of the IDEA that require parental participation are scattered throughout the iasv.trcnt must be involved in es aluation. IEP meetings. and placement decisions. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 also required that schools give progress reports to the parents of \tudents ith disabilities as frequently as they gise reports to the parents of students without disabilities. The goal of this principle is to have parents play a meaningful role in the education of their children and to maintain a partnership between schools and families, Parental involvement is crucial to successful results for students, Indeed, this provision has been one of the cornerstones of the IDEA. Part C of the IDEA Congress recognized the importance of earls intervention for young children ss hen it passed the Education of the Handicapped Amendments in 1 986. P.L. 99-457 (IDEA. 20 U.S.C. §f 1471—1485), This law. sshich became subchapter H of the IDEA, made categorical grants to states contingent on states adhering to the provisions of the law, which required participating states to develop and implement statewide interagency programs of earh intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. With the consolidation of the IDEA in the amendments of 1997. Part H became Part C. Part C is a discretionary or support program. In addition to extending Part B protections to infants and toddlers ss ith disabilities and strengthening incentives for states to provide services to infants and toddlers (birth to age S. this section also created a variet of national activities to im prove the education of children with disabilities through investments in areas including research, training, and technical assistance (Yell et al,. 2004). The IDEA defines infants and toddlers as children from birth through age 2 who need early intervention services because they are experiencing developmental delays or have a diagnosed physical or mental condition that puts them at risk of developing developmental delays. States may include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays if they do not receive early intersention services. Early intervention services can he any developmental services, which are provided at public expense and under public super ision. that are designed to meet the physical. cognitive. communication. social or emotional, and adaptive needs of the child. Earlx’ inters ention services may include family training. counseling, home visits. speech pathology. occupational therapy. phy sical therapF psychological set’s ices, case management ser vices, medical services (for diagnostic or esaluation purposes only). health services, social work services, vision services, assistive technology devices and services, transportation, and related costs. To the maximum extent appiopriate. these services must be provided in natural environ ments (e.g.. home and community settings) in which children without disabilities participate. The infants and toddlers program does not require that the SEA assume overall responsi bility for the early intervention programs. The agency that assumes responsibility is refeiTed to Chapter 4 The Individuals with DisabUities Education Act as the tead agency. The lead agcnc nia’s Ce the sr k. rue state welfare department. the health department. or an other unit of state go’s ernmenr. Man\ suLre pros ide Parr C sers ices through multiple state agencies. In these cases. an mteragene coordinating council is the priniars plan ning both that ‘s’sorks out the ag”cements het\\een the agenete regarding jurisdiction and funding. Part D of the IDEA Part D N also a diserattonar or support program. This section or the law contains pros isions that are ‘talh rnrporlart to c aes elupment Ut special educritiori in the United States, The acti’s dies funded b Part 1) ha’s. ci’s i had a great effect on students in regular education and on the lives of ci persons with disabilities The purpose of Part I) is to fund activities that improse the education of children and youth with dtsahilities, Figure 4,2 hsts some of the congressional findings and goals regarding the Part D programs. 1) The federal government has an ongoing obligation to support activities that contribute to positive results for children and youth with disabilities, thus enabling those children to lead productive and independent lives. 2) Systematic change that benefits all students, including students with disabilities, will require the involvement of states, local education agencies, parents. individuals with disabilities and their fami lies, teachers, and other service providers so that they may develop and implement strategies that improve educational results for children and youth with disabilities. 3) An effective educational system serving students with disabilities should— a) maintain high academic achievement standards and clear performance goals for students with disabilities. Moreover, these standards and goals should be consistent with the standards and expectations for all students in the educational system and provide for appropriate and effective strategies and methods to ensure that all children and youth with disabilities have the opportunity to achieve those standards and goals: b) clearly define, in objective, measurable terms, the school and post-school results that children and youth with disabilities are expected to achieve: and c) promote transition services and coordinate interagency services so that they effectively address the full range of student needs. This is particularly important for children and youth with disabili ties who need significant levels of support to participate and learn in school and the community. 4) The availability of an adequate number of qualified personnel is critical— a) to serve effectively children with disabilities: b) to assume leadership positions in administration and direct services; c) to provide teacher training; and d) to conduct high-quality research to improve special education. 5) High-quality, comprehensive professional development programs are essential to ensure that the persons responsible for the education or transition of children with disabilities possess the skills and knowledge necessary to address the unique needs of those children. 6) Models of professional development should be scientifically based and reflect successful practices, including strategies for recruiting, preparing, and retaIning personnel. 7) Continued support is essential for the development and maintenance of a coordinated and highquality program of research to inform successful teaching practices and model curricula for educat ing children with disabilities. 8) Training, technical assistance, support. and dissemination activities delivered in a timely manner are necessary to ensure that Parts Band C are fully implemented and achieve high-quality early interven tion, educational, and transitional results for children with disabilities and their families. 9) Parent training and information activities are of particular importance in— a> playing a vital role in creating and preserving constructive relationships between parents and schools: b) ensuring the involvement of parents in planning and decision making; and c) assisting parents in the development of skills that allow them to participate effectively in the child’s education. ‘10) Support is needed to improve technological resources and integrate technology, including univer sally designed technologies, into the lives of children and youth with disabilities and their parents. FIGURE 4.2 Congressional Findings on Part D of the IDEA 63 64 Chapter 4 The IndIvIduals with Disabtht es Education Act s o i >jan s c ount to ccordnb to OSEP (JOt)) Put D rt eP x gram fur ded expenditure on progrims to educate studerts w 0 d sahi ti i scn in lung by Part D have played a crucial roic in ident tvmg, implmer t rig saluati ig r information about effcctivc pract ccs i edu atin ride u -i d s ‘ilits E c it us Part D d i ste uden v u sabil ties programs support the otfcr 99 c oft ic federal expenditure r P rt D program ut i zed (OSEP, 2000). In th IDEIA, th cc i ‘ Subpart 1 .....State Personnel Deelopnient Grants Be a is oe oar el de clopncnt cad professional development are nccessarv to improve results for hildi en and you tI with disab lities this subpart pros ides federal support for assisting state education a ncies to reform and ii iprose their personnel preparation and professional deselopment systems, This subpart authorizes unds for competitive grants to statcs to develop and implement persunnel prcpa ation and pr fessional development. Personnel preparation and professional des elopment are espece lly impart mt goals ot Part D. In fact, one of the primary purposes of the IDEA. listed in Part \, is Supporting highquality, intensive presers icc preparation and professional des lop ment for all personnel who work with children with disahiliti s in order to ensu ‘e that such personnel nave the skills and knowledge necessary to impn e the rcademic achiesement and functional performance of Lhildrei with disahih ies including the use of scientifically based instrurtional practices CDLA, 2t) SC f 1401 [c][5llF I) This subpart also authorizes formula giants that am given to tates that apply and meet the ablis partnersh o with requirements of the subpart To apply for these grants, state i ust school districts and institutions of higher education The pets innel reparatu i and Professional development actisities that arc supportcd by these grants uris (a) ii 1pm se tIc knowledge of special and regular education teachers of the academic arid functional needs f students with disabilities: (b) improse the knowledge of spccial and regulas edu at’on teachers of effectise instructional strategies and methods: and tc) pros dc tra ning in hc methods f pa itis’e behas ioral interventions and suppor s, scientifically based mcading ‘nstruct o I l iclud ig emily lite cc), instruction effectise instruction f)r chi dren with low-incide ice di a uliries, md classroor based procedures to assist struggling children prior to referral to special cdueation; and d) provide train ing to special education personr el and regulai education persor nd n p anni s, de ch p se and implemcnting effectise and appropriate lEPs Additionalls, them grants can be a ed for develop Ing and implementing programs to cci art and retain highl qualified special edu at o s Lachers Subpart 2.Personnel Preparation, Technical Assistance, Model Demonstration hpart provides federal suppoit for Projects, and Dissemination of Information Th s work witl with uisauili’ies us’ng sc eli ically based (a) training peisonnel mu studerir providing statc one local duca on agencies’ instructional practices: (b technical a sistcn e to niotc the use of scientifically (c) des eloping and implementing model demonstration pr jeets to pr instructional research educatior a p o ra us tom practices, (d) conducting to impros’e based pmorams fcr students with students with disabilities, (e) condtLeting esaluations o xensplais dissemination disabilities (f) funding national programs that provide for te I neal assistaner. and implementation of scientifically based research’ and g) investigating and implementing interim alternatise educational settings, presenting problem beha orby using positise behavioral interventions and supports. and employing systematic schoolwide approaches and interventions . Subpart 3—Supports to Improve Results for Children nith Disabilities This subpart proxides federal support for (a) establishing parent training and infrmation centers, (b) establishing community parent resource centers. (c) prosiding technical support t parent training and information centers and (d) deseloping. demonstrating and utilizing drtices and strategies to make technology accessible and usable for students with disabilities. Part D programs are often referred to as suppoirp o5mm’ because the prir ary purpose of these programs is to support the implementation of the IDEA and to ‘issist states in rnprovine the education of students with disahilitie The Part D proorims esen thorn h the cons itut a small amount of the total federal expenditure for the IDEA he p t) nsure that the B Id of special ing the education will continue to move forw mmd by transliting research ti practice ard iffif futures of students v ith dis ibili s (Yell et al 20041 , . Chanter 4 fe Ind viduals whh D sa ii cc In 1976 the Department of He Ith Educa ion, and Welfare pro u gat reulations imple menting the IDEA. With everr amendme t to the Ias these eeu1anons ha e cen claritied. added hh3it)754. Regnia to. or changed. The extensive regulation’. ace he found at 34 C ER. lions implementing the original Part C—ear1 tnters ention proerams 3 tofant’. cud aeldlers with disabiiities—can he found at 34 C.F.R 3u3 1 303.h7t). TITLE It OF THE lDE When the iDEA va’. reattthrized iiid amended in 21J04. Congress added Title II. which established the National Center on Special Education Rasearch. The center is located v ithin the Institute of Education Sciences tIES) in the ES. Departmnt of Education. The center’s mission is to sponsor research that a expands the knowledge ba’e in special education. b) improves services under the IDEA, and c evaluates the implememanon and eftecii eness of the IDEA. A commissioner selected by the director of the 1ES heads the center. The commissioner of the center, along with the assistant secretary of the develops a research plan This plan is to be submitted to the 1E direc tor. This research plan is to serve as a blueprint for all of the center s research acti ides A central goal of the center is to identify scientifically based educational practices that support learning and improve academic achieement, functional (utcomes. md educational results for students with disabilities Additionally the center seeks to sponsor research that will improe the preparation of special education personnel. Finally he center s nhesiies and disseminates research findings through the National Center fot Educati mel Evaluation and Regional Assistance. THE IDEA AND THE REAUTHOR F-C When Congress passes statutes that appropriate money, it mar fund the statutes on either a per manent or a limited basis. If a la\ is funded on a permanent hasd. the funding v ill continue as long as the law remains unchanged—that ts. unless the iam i’. amended to remese runding or is repealed. Part B. the section of the IDEA that creates the entitlement to a FAPE and prom ides federal funding to the states, is permanentis. authorized. Congress mar also appropriate funds for a statute on a limited basis. In this Lase. the funding period mm ill he designated in the sttjtute. When this period of time expires. Congtes has to reauthorize (unding or else let funding espire. The discretionary or support programs of the 1DFA --Part’ C and I)— are authorized on a limited basis. In the past, funding for these programs has been authorized br periods of 4 ot 5 years. Approximately every 3 or 5 years. therefore Congiess has had to reauthorize the IDEA, with the exception of Parts A and B. Since the passage of the original EARCA in 1975. there base been numerous ch nges to the law Some of these changes have been minor for example P.L. 100-630 in 1988 altered some of the statute’s language, and P,L. 102-119 in 1991 modifIed parts of the ictants and toddlers program. Some of the amendments, however. hare m’ de Important changes to the law. These changes have expanded the procedural and substantive rights of student’. with disabilities protected under the IDEA. Four acts that made significant change’. to the then EAHC were the Handicapped Chil dren’s Protection Act (P.L. 99-372. the infants and Toddlers ms ith Disabilities -ct iP.L. 99-457. the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 EL. lOl--1 6i. the indimiduals smith 7 Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 P.E. 11)5-17). and the Indisiduals with Dis abilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (EL. 108-446i .A, amendments, the changes smere incorporated into the act and are not codified as separate lass s. The last two reauthorizations were perhaps the most significant changes to the lass sInce its oriinal passage in 1975. The follosm ing sections briefly review these two reauthorizations. The IDEA Amendments of 1 997 (hereafter IDEA 199 D added several significan provisions to the law. Additionally, the IDEA was restructured by consolidating the law from eight parts to four, and significant additions were made in the I 1h ss tng areas a) trcr gther ng he role )f Li cation Act 65 66 Chapter 4 • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act parents. ensuring access to the general education curriculum, (b) emphasizing student progress toward meaningful educational goals through changes in the IEP process: (c) encouraging par ents and educators to resolve differences h using nonadversarial mediation: and (d) allowing school officials greater leeway in disciplining students with disabilities h altering aspects of the IDEA’s procedural safeguards.Additionall\. these amendments required states to develop perfor mance goals and indicators, such as dropout and graduation rates. Congress believed that the iDEA had been extremel successful in improsing students access to public schools, and the critical issue in 1997 was to improve the performance and educational achieement of students with disabilities in both the special education and general education curricula. To this end. Congress mandated a number of changes to the JEP and the inclusion of students with disabilities in state- and district-wide assessments. Regarding the IEP. changes include the requirement that a statement of measurable annual goals. including benchmarks or short-term objectives, that would enable parents and educators to accurately determine a student’s progress be included in the IEP, The primary difference in the statement of goals from that of the original IDEA is the emphasis on accurately measuring and reporting a student’s progress toward the annual goals. The core IEP team was expanded to include both a special education teacher and a general education teacher. The original IDEA mandated that the child’s teacher be a member of the IEP team but did not specify if the teacher should be in special or general education. The 1997 amendments required that students with disabilities be included in state- and district-wide assessments of stunt progress. The amendments also required that the IEP team be the forum to determine if modifications or accommodations were needed to allow a student to participate in these assessments. The IEP. therefore, requires a statement regarding a student’s partTcipation in tTiese assessments and what, if am. modifications to the assessment are needed to allow participation. THE INDtViDUALIZED EDUCATN PROGRAM DISCIPUNtNG STUDENTS tN SPECiAL EDiCATt Another significant addition of IDEA 1997 was a section addressing the discipline of students with disabilities. In hearings prior to the reauthorization. Congress heard testimony regarding the lack of parit school officials faced when making decisions about disciplining students with and without disabilities who violated the same school rules (Senate Report. 1997). To address these concerns, Congress added a section to the IDEA in an attempt to balance school officials’ obligation to ensure that schools were safe and orderly en ironments conduci\e to learning and the school’s obligation to ensure that students with disabilities received a FAPE. To deal with behavioral problems in a proactive manner, IDEA 1997 required that if a stu dent with disabilities had behavior problems. regardless of the student’s disability category, the IEP team should consider strategies—includinjpositive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports—to address these problems. In such situations a proactive behavior management plan, based on functional behavioral assessment, was to be included in the student’s IEP. Furthermore, if a student’s placement was changed following a behavioral incident and the IEP did not contain a behavioral intervention plan, a functional behavioral assessment and a behavioral plan had to be completed no later than 10 days after changing the placement. School officials were allowed to discipline a student with disabilities in the same manner as they disciplined students without disabilities, with a few notable exceptions. It necessary, school officials could unilaterally change the placement of a student for disciplinars purposes to an ap propriate interim setting. move the student to another setting. or suspend the student to the extent that these disciplinary methods were used with students without disabilities. The primary differ ence is that with students who had disabilities, the suspension or placement change could not exceed 10 school days. School officials could unilaterally place a student with disabilities in an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) for up to 45 days if the student brought a weapon to school or a school function or knowingly possessed. used, or sold illegal drugs or controlled substances at school or a school function. The interim alternative educational setting had to be determined by the IEP team. Additionally, a hearing offiLer could order a 35-day change in place ment if school officials had evidence indicating that maintaining the student with disabilities in the current placement was substantially likely to result in injury to the student or others and that school officials had made reasonable efforts to minimize this risk of harm. Chapter 4 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act iNE v FSTAT1ON DcIEaAN If school officials sought a chtnge of placement. suspension. or expulsion in excess of l() school days. a review of the relationship hetw een a student’s disability and his ni her misconduct had to be conducted within 10 days. This review, called a manifrstation clerermiization. must he conducted by a student”, IEP team and other qualified personnel. If a deterniination was made that no relationship existed between the misconduct and disabihty. the same disciplinary proedures as wouTd be useJ wiTh students without disabilities could be useJ on a stuJent with disahilitie. Educational ser\ ice’, however, had to be continued. The parents of the student could request an expedited due process heating if they disagreed with the results of the manifestation determination, The student’s placement during the hearing would be in the IAES. (For elaborations on the manifestation determination and the IAES, see Chapter 13.) DtSPU L ES LUTION Congress also attempted to alleviate what was believed to be the overly adversarial nature of special education by encouraging parents and educators to resol e differences by using nonadversarial methods. Specifically. IDEA 1997 required states to offer mediation as a voluntary option toparents and educators as an initial process for dispute resoTutron. The mediator had to be trained or qualified to conduct mediation sessions and knowledgeable regarding special education law. Furthermore, the mediator could not be an employee of the LEA or SEA and could not have an personal or profesional conflict of interest. The results of mediation sessions had to he put in writing and were confidential. If mediation was not successful, either party could request an impartial due process hearing. ATTOF’NE S F ES The 1997 amendments also limited the conditions under which attorneys could collect fees under the iDEA. Attorneys rees for participation in IEP meetings were eliminated unless the meeting was convened because of an administrative or judicial order, Similarly, attorney’s fees were not available for mediation sessions prior to a party tiling for a due process hearing. Attorney’s fees could also he reduced if the parents’ attorney did not provide the appropriate information to the school district regarding the possible action. Finally, parents had to notify school district offLials of the problem and proposed solutions prior to filing for a due process hearing if they intended to seek attorney’s fees. SPECtAL EDUCATION AND ADULT i ATLS The l997 amendments also allowed states to opt not to provide special education serv ices to persons with disabilities in adult prisons if they were not identified as IDEA-eligible ,prior to their incarceration. If these persons had been identified and received special education services when attending school, however, states had to continue their special education while they were in prison. CHRT S HOO The 1997 amendments also required school districts to serve students with disabilities who attended charter schools Just as they would serve students attending the district’s schools. Charter schools may not he required to apply br IDEA funds jointly with LEAs. Finally, school districts had to pros ide IDEA funds to charter schools in the same manner as they’ provided funds to other schools. On December 3. 2004. President Bush signed the IDEJA into law. The bill had almost unani mously passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Figure 4,3 depicts the process that resulted in passage of the new law. Appendix .A contains a table that depicts the major changes of the 1DEIA. An important congressional goal in passing the IDEIA was to align the IDEA with the Elementa and Secondary Education Act (ESEA: formerTy relelTerito as o Child Left Behind [NCLBD, thereby increasing accountaT,ility for improving student performance. Thus, the TDEJA included measures to increase academic results for students with disabilities, such as requiring the use of scientifically based practices. The law also defines highly qualified special education teachers in line with the definition in NCLB. Additionally, Congress sought to reduce the paper work burden on teachers, expand options for parents, and reduce litigation. Congress stated that the IDEA had successfully ensured access to educational services for millions of children and youth with disabilities. Nevertheless, implementation of the IDEA had been 67 s WLf A E Senate — - ro nj Educatior af Peso ts St ns tI)ab’iis) I I EAAct Introduced in a u ccl r, a se I Ma hdOOJ Passed House 3 ‘f j June2003 F ( ccl Senate t200J Conference Committee Passed botf’ Houses Congress November19 2004 — Sent to President Signed Dece OOJ 2 inped lb lv pro en Ia iii th . xrr. i diii th Ic hod i El t I d eului u ILt e OC ass J p a e Ii e t f( u )i ‘pp 1 i scie itifically based research on 1 th s ith sabil es Specifically, Congress stated that c t t d al tie md eisui ngtheiraccesstothegeneral educa t I e cg ued c lead produc ixe id independent uses, Moreover, I y t iv p eser I c preparation and professional deveIop vi si the 1DEIA als ought to encourage schools ( r 5 1 uu. i’ nec I t ihel ildren as disabled and to provide 1 1 ne I the ma r purposes of the IDEIA was’ ci ‘Ii 0 ii ne d to Iti( hel di e1 r 1 1 1011 e e em teh res o t[e ass. S mm of the areas affected p ie. J dii II v, all ney s fees, highly qualified” and I m hr The S Dc artinent of Education regula I I e n 2 )0( i I I C 1 i rw ion .UCJf:(1 r e P D C anger rd a mini i d5d tii p(uIs I )f in t )i. ct F rii a tl 1 an tei i ci ,. ‘1 0 Wa I ei sc ntit ally based early reading r and upports nd sen ices to reduce the dci t dress Ic learning and behavioral ml C nyre s mitered the IEP process to (a) ease a ieetings and (e increase accountability. I dEIA equiied that the IEP team must, at ir nts (hI the sp c ml education teacher; Cc) a general m ely genrl education teachers); (d) a i e sc o 1) hr an provide or supervise the c r mdi idua ssl’o e in explain the instructional i I c tners at tie discr tion of the student’s parents or a i rrbe of the EFP team sshose attendance was not ir or elated seisices was not being modified or I r tending th IEP rr ecting or other meetings if the d v s n A necessary To be excused or n. u ri a ‘uest in writind to the parents and the IEP ree s iti excusir e the team member This purpose of 0 £ Chapter 4 • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Changes in the IEP Document The federal lass no longer required that benchmarks or short-term objectives be included in the IEP. except for students with severe disabilities who take alternate assessments. Rather, the 1DEL-\ emphasized the importance of writing measurable annual goals and then measuring progress tow ard each goal during the course of the year Teachers were required to inform students’ parents of their progress tow ard each annual goal at least cxci) 9 weeks. If students were not making uf0cient progress to enable them to reach their goals by the end of the ear, instructional changes were to he made to their instructional program Changes in the IEP Modification Process According to the IDEJA, when changes are proposed to a student’s program after the annual IEP meeting has been held, the JEP team and a student’s parents could agree to make the changes in a xx ritten document rather than reconvening the IEP team to make the changes. These modifications would then become part of the IEP. This was a significant change because prex iouslv an IEP team had to be reconx ened to revise a student’s special education program. Congress believed this would allow teachers to spend less time having to schedule, prepare for, and attend IEP meetings. Three-Year IEPs The IDEEA allowed up to 15 states to develop and implement 3-year IEPs. If the states applied to the U.S. Department of Education and were accepted for the pilot program. they could offer parents the option of developing a comprehensive 3-year TEP designed to coincide with natural transition points in their child’s education (e.g., preschool to kindergarten. elementary school to middle school, middle school to high school). Parents had to agree to this opt ion. States that did not apply for this pilot program are still required to develop and implement I-year IEPs IEPs for Transfer Students When a special education student transfers fiom an in-state or out-of-state school district to a new school district, the accepting school is required to continue to provide the student with a FAPE. In other words, the new school must continue toprovide services comparable to those described in the student’s previous IER Moreover, the accepting school’ s required to consult with the student’s parents regarding the serx ices. if the student is from out of state, the new school is required to conduct an evaluation and, if appropriate. dcx elop a new JEP. i)ISCiPLIMNG STdt)EtiS N SPEC)41 ED(ATiON Congress made changes in the IDE1A designed to provide schools with greater flexibility to maintain safe educational environments while protecting the disciplinary safeguards that were extended to students with disabilities in the IDEA Amendments of 1997. The Manifestation Determination The IDEIA keeps the manifestation determination maidate that required LEAs to determine if a student s misbehavior leading to a suspension was related to the student’s disability whenever schools suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 school days. This provision simplified and strengthened the manifestation determination standard because a behavior could be determined to be a manifestation of a student’s disability only if the conduct in question was “caused by” or has a “direct and substantial i’elationshp” to the student’s disability. Additionally, if a school failed to implement a student’s IEP. a direct relationship would also exist. Mans educators believed the new standard made it easier for IEP teams to find that there was no relationship between a student’s misbehavior and disability. thus subjecting a student with disabilities to the regular scoo1 disciplinary policies regarding suspensions and expulsions. Additionally. when a student with disabilities was suspended in excess of 10 school days or expelled, the law required that he or she must continue to receive educational services. Behaviors That Can Lead to a 45-Day Disciplinary Removal The IDEA Amendments of 1997 listed behaviors that could result in a student with disabilities being removed to an IAES for up to 45 calendar days, even in situations where the behavior is a manifestation of a student’s disability. The IDEIA adds the offense of committing serious bodily iiuy upon another,erson to drugs and xveapons offenses that wereprevrousl’y included as behaviors allowing a 45-day removal. Additionally, the law changes the time that a student could be in an IAES from 45 calendar days to 45 school days. If a student with disabilities, therefore, engages in hehaxior that causes serious bodily in jury to another person while at school, on school grounds. or at a school function, the school can - 69 70 Chap or 4 The Individuals w t D sabfities Educahon A p1 ce the stud nt ii an interi ii alt rn sttse ti g lot u to 15 s f. o1 d w her t’le mi behas itt is telated t s or her disahil’ty. 5 its can be d ne scr StayPut Provison Under the presious IDFA when a s rden wa d scplined and his or her parcnts filed for doe p’ocess tic student had to stay put in his or her resious educ tional hat the stay put pI icement setting during the hearir g. Fl e IDEI \ c a igcd the requiremet is the IAFS. Congrcss bcIis this change would is no longrr the picvious settin: rath remos e the temptatTon for parenic fo Thrgate or file for due proess. which was created by the old stavput pros ision because it allowed students to remain in the prsdiscipline placement during the hearing except in situations ins oh ing drugs or weapons 1 Congress attempted to reduce litigation in special education in two S uest 9 major ways when it enacted the IDLIA First, the law limj the time that parents can re gg.s from the date tJ g,J due process hearings £Uuld have known about the issues tat led to the due process reqpest, and it imposed a 90-day limit for filing appeals Second, the law created a resolution session that school districts are required to hold in an attempt to settle the complaint that led the parents to request a due process hearing. This session must he held within 15 days of the request for the due process hearing A representatiss. )i the school district is required to be at the meeting. school district cannot scnd an attorney to the sLssion unless the parents also have an attorney. If the school district and parents decide to go to mediation and bypass the esolution session, they must agree to this in writing. If the school dish ict and parents decide to go ahead with the process and reach an agreement reardir a the ssue, both parties most sign a binding settlement agrecment. s I The IDFI \ altered thc attorney ‘s fees pr vs ision, included in the IDEA in 1986, bs not allowing attorneys to be reimbursed for any actions or proceedi gs performed before a written settlement is made by the school district. Attoiney s also a a not ailoweu to receise reimbursement for attending lFP meetings, unless a hearing officer ordcrs the mceting I he law also allows courts to award attorney s fees to school districts, wien parents’ att rneys (a) file a compliant tha is frisolous, umeasonable or without foundation (b) cort nue Ii igatc alter the case is shown to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation oi Ic) bring a complaint oi action to harass cause delay oi i crease the costs to the school district The IDEJA included three new requirements rega d ng e igibility for special seraices First a tudent’s parents. the SEA, other state agency ( the I F could education F’urtherm re cli bility deterrr inatk ns had to be made within evaluation initial request an evaluation i if the state has a t incirame toi ealuaticn sthn that consent foi of 60 days team could not determinc that a student had l’s multidisciplinary schm Second, a timeframe. roblen iesulted from the lack of if the student’s fundamental IDEA under the a disahili th esse tial components ol reading in ir rading, including instruction based (a) sc entifically reading fluency, at d deselopment. awarcnes phonics, vocabulary (e phonemic instruction g math or (e) limited English at teaching lack of appropr (h) strategies), reading comprehension the ,pro amming that a that IEP tea This requirement meafl proficiency .br1. I ujpc was not the cause of that,oorproeramming education ensure to re,gcised ineneral student had specifl’clearn7ng disai1ity s child had a determining whether problems, Third, when the student’s r ula br determining requirc use a discrepanc f districts school longer that the SEA could no whether a studant has a learning dhhility (IDEA Regulations 34 C ER, lflO.’107[aj[lj) The regulations that implemerDd IDFA 1997 which were published in 1999, requi ed that states use a discrepancy formula to determine if a student has a learnme d sability Although there are a few different ways to determine a discrepancy. the formula most frequently used involved (a) assessing a student’s ability, most often sith an intelligence te t’ (b met uring a tudent’s level of achievement, usually by administering a standardi;ed achies c stent test; and (c) comparing the difference between the scores using a diserepa ey formula. State wet p hiD ed from ow r require i di erepancy Drinula ‘nstead state a uld requ’nrg tha scim i dist e s u c’ent f e researcD ndcd t resp whether student determined a hat scho Is use process t tat which became knov n as based interventions. This procedu e Chapter 4 The lndivtduais wIt Dtsabtlities Education Act w as adopud lw mum stites a 2 chool dtricts Fr Ci rtion’, on RTI. sec Chapter 14. V< hen chools de elop RTI ste Us the’ must include the following components: tat procedures to detetmin that students were pros ided with aporopriate scie title—research—based instructior ii general education iDEA Regulations. 34 C.F.R. 0u RihFb[ 1 Ji—ii I and IDEA Regulations. 34 CER. $003D-ilhii 1 : offer professlonal des elop mentactivit es to teachers and other school staff to ervble them to deliver scientifically based academic and heEds ioral iritersemions. Thus to provide hiSs. school district personnel must he able to screen all general eduLation students within a school to determine which student’. are at risk tar developing significant academic or behavior problems School personnel must also implement scientificalir based academic and hehas ioral programs and have a method to determine which students are failing to respond to the research—based interventions. If students are failing io progress. school-hased personnel mti’.t pros ide additional, and more intense. research-based Ititers canons ti these students. AdditionalE school dis rid ofhcta]s who use IDEA finds for EISs must describe the ser vices that they are providing to general educadon st idents in a report to the respective SEAs, Furtherm ire, the district offmcicls must report on the i umber of students who are served in their EISs and the number of students in he services who were eventually found eligible for special education services The advantages of an early intervening model include (a) identifying students eatly in icn c iool careers using a risk rather than deficit model,
Key Principles Practice What are the key principles? Using the key principles, identify which one the examples below violate. Also, explain WHY. Steven is a student who struggles with behavior and has an IEP for emotional disturbance and difficulties in math. His parents were told his IEP would only include academic goals because that was all that really mattered and his classroom teachers would not work with him on his behavior. Martha’s teacher put her desk in the hallway for Marth to complete her seatwork because Martha’s talking really distracted the other students. Jon’s teacher got busy at the beginning of the year and forgot to read his IEP. As a result, he has not been getting the accommodations (like front of the room seating and reduced writing requirements) that are written in his IEP. As a result of her anxiety, Lara’s 504 plan states that she can take breaks when she gets anxious. However, her teacher likes to keep class moving and asks Lara if it is really necessary when she asks to go to the nurse’s office (her designated break location). According to his IEP, Ken’s math PLAAFP is first grade level. However, his fifth grade teacher insists that it doesn’t matter and makes him do fifth grade worksheets. The result is that nearly every day, Ken ends the day in tears because he cannot do it. He is also starting to act out. Nora’s teacher will not allow the reading specialist to come in the room to provide reading intervention services. Even though all students are working on specific skills during reading time, her teacher insists that any “special education” services be provided in the “special education room” and not in her classroom. Jackson’s 504 plan states that he can have time-and-a-half for math exams as a result of his dyscalculia. However, his math teacher doesn’t think this is fair and does not allow him access to this accommodation.

Tutor Answer

School: Duke University


Running Head: Key Principles Practice


Key Principles Practice
Student’s name:
Course title:
Instructor’s name:
Date of submission:

Key Principles Practice


What are the fundamental principles?
The key principles are one; zero reject states that all students with disabilities eligible for
services under IDEA deserve a free appropriate public education. The students shall not be
excluded from education due to their disabilities. The second principle is on identification and
evaluation of students with disabilities. IDEA requires schools to ensure the identification and
placement process is correct by using appropriate and non-discriminatory tests. IDEA included
Protection in Evaluation Procedures (PEPs) to provide fair and accurate evaluations for proper
placement (Yell, 1998).
Third, Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), under this principle IDEA requires
every state to establish measures to ensure all students with disabilities get their right to FAPE at
no cost. The states can set special education standards to ensure the school districts provide the
services in conformity with the Individualized Education Program (IEP) requirements (Yell,
Katsiyannis, Ennis, & Losinski, 2013). Fourth, the principle of Least Restrictive Environment
requires that all students with disabilities be placed in environments most suitable for their
learning. The students with disabilities should be educated with their n...

flag Report DMCA

Outstanding Job!!!!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors