Laws Concerning Students with Disabilities

1
Laws Concerning Students with Disabilities
Connecting Research to Practice for Teacher
Educators
2
Personnel

• DeAnn Lechtenberger Principle Investigator
• Nora Griffin-Shirley Project Coordinator
• Doug Hamman Project Evaluator
• Tonya HettlerGrant Manager
• Financial Support for Project IDEAL is provided
  by the Texas Council for Developmental
  Disabilities, with Federal funds made available
  by the United States Department of Health and
  Human Services, Administration on Developmental
  Disabilities. 599,247 (74) DD funds 218,725
  (26) non-federal resources.
• The views contained herein do not necessarily
  reflect the position or policy of the funding
  agencys. No official endorsement should be
  inferred.

3
The Evolution of Education

• Education in the United States has changed
• 1600sThe earliest schools focused on religious
  teachings by Pilgrims and Congregationalists
• With immigration of people from different
  countries, cultures, and religions, this type of
  education became less common
• 1800s private schools and tutoring were used
• 1852 1918 states passed laws requiring
  children to attend elementary school.

4
The Evolution of Education

• Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. president, wrote of
  public education
• I have indeed two great measures at heart,
  without which no republic can maintain itself in
  strength 1. That of general education, to
  enable every man to judge for himself what will
  secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide
  every county into hundreds, of such size that all
  the children of each will be within reach of a
  central school in it.
• (in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler,
  1810)

5
The Evolution of Education

• Each state has authority over public education
  laws, finance, personnel, curricula.
• Local property taxes and state funds were used
  for school expenses with some federal funding.
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
  addressed educational needs of poor children
  (with programs such as Head Start) and improving
  instruction in math, science and foreign
  languages assisted with federal funding.

6
Development of Special Education

• The need for special education became evident as
• attendance in public schools became compulsory
• policies of public schools were created and
  enforced to exclude groups of children, based on
  race, gender, and disability.

7
Development of Special Education

• A group that had been excluded from public
  education filed a court case in the early 1950s
  and was heard by the United States Supreme Court.
  
• In Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka,
  racial discrimination was specifically addressed
  and ruled unlawful.
• In the decision made by that court, Mr. Chief
  Justice Warren stated

8
Development of Special Education

• Today, education is perhaps the most important
  function of state and local governments.
  Compulsory school attendance laws and the great
  expenditures for education both demonstrate our
  recognition of the importance of education to our
  democratic society. It is required in the
  performance of our most basic public
  responsibilities, even service in the armed
  forces. It is the very foundation of good
  citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument
  in awakening the child to cultural values, in
  preparing him for later professional training,
  and in helping him to adjust normally to his
  environment. In these days, it is doubtful that
  any child may reasonably be expected to succeed
  in life if he is denied the opportunity of an
  education. Such an opportunity, where the state
  has undertaken to provide it, is a right which
  must be made available to all on equal terms

9
Development of Special Education

• With this court decision, parents and advocates
  of two organizations, the Council for Exceptional
  Children and the National Association for
  Retarded Citizens, began challenging the school
  policies that prevented children with
  disabilities from attending those public schools.
• When school officials continued to refuse to
  admit children with disabilities to schools, the
  parents and advocates filed court cases to
  challenge and change the school policies that
  excluded children with disabilities.

10
Development of Special Education

• Two court cases brought recognition of the need
  for educating all children. These cases brought
  forth ideas that are upheld in current laws and
  regulations
• 1971 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
  Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• 1972 Mills v. Board of Education, District of
  Columbia.

11
Key Points of Early Legislation

• PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971)
  determined
• all persons considered to be mentally retarded
  could benefit from education and training
• schools should provide free, public programs to
  educate and train that are appropriate to the
  child's capacity.
• a regular public school class was more
  beneficial to a child than a special public
  school class a special class in a public school
  was more beneficial than any other type of
  educational or training program.
• If children were assigned to any class other than
  the regular public school class, they were to
  be evaluated every two years.

12
Key Points of Early Legislation

• Mills v. Board of Education of the District of
  Columbia (1972) found
• children who had disabilities were not to be
  denied admission, suspended, expelled, reassigned
  or transferred from regular public school classes
  without due process of law.
• A census of all children in the District of
  Columbia was to be completed to discover any
  children who were not attending public school.
• Each child was to have a periodic educational
  review.

13
Key Points ofEarly Legislation

• The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
  (Public Law 94-142) became law in 1975.
• This law became known as the Bill of Rights for
  students identified with disabilities and their
  families.
• PL 94-142 required states that received federal
  funds to provide to their students with
  disabilities

14
Influence of Early Law on PL 94-142

• A free appropriate public education (PARC)
• In the least restrictive environment (PARC)
• For children from 3 to 21 years
• Written permission from parent required prior to
  evaluation (Mills)
• An extensive evaluation before placement (Mills)
• Periodic reevaluation (PARC, Mills)
• Individualized Education Program (IEP) written to
  meet childs needs
• Parents informed of due process to challenge
  schools actions and decisions (Mills)

15
Influence of Early Law on PL 94-142

• Each IEP was to include
• statement of present level of educational
  performance
• annual goals and short term instructional
  objectives
• specific special education and related services
  to be provided for the child
• extent to which child will participate in regular
  education program
• projected dates for initiation of services and
  anticipated duration of services
• schedule for determining on at least an annual
  basis whether the short term instructional
  objectives are met (Mills)

16
Key Points ofEarly Legislation

• 1990 Amendments to PL 94-142 changed name to
  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
  (IDEA)
• Required students have a transition plan by the
  age of 16 years with activities and interagency
  linkages for living arrangements, vocational
  training, and/or additional education.
• Added social work and rehabilitation counseling
  as related services.
• Added autism and traumatic brain injury as
  disability categories.

17
Key Points ofEarly Legislation

• The 1997 Amendment to Individuals with
  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) added ten
  changes to the previous law regarding discipline,
  participation in the general education curriculum
  and state assessments, transition planning,
  assistive technology, related services and
  structure of the IEP.

18
10 Key Points of IDEA 1997

• Schools allowed to discipline students with
  disabilities in similar ways as students without
  disabilities if the misbehavior was not a
  manifestation of the students disabilities
• Statements in the Individualized Education
  Program (IEP) describing how students with
  disabilities will be involved with and progress
  in the general education curriculum
• Documented transition planning that was to begin
  when the students were 14 years of age
• General educators became part of the IEP team
• Emphasis placed on annual goals, benchmarks

19
10 Key Points of IDEA 1997

• IEP teams were required to consider students
  needs for assistive technology
• Orientation and mobility services for children
  with visual impairments and blindness were added
  as a related service.
• States were required to offer mediation services
  to help resolve disputes between schools and
  families of students with disabilities.
• A variety of assessment tools and strategies were
  to be used to collect functional and
  developmental information on students who might
  need special education.
• Students with disabilities were to be included in
  statewide assessment programs or given
  alternative assessments that met unique needs.

20
IDEA 2004

• Individuals with Disabilities Education
  Improvement Act of 2004 was to bring IDEA of 1997
  into alignment with No Child Left Behind Act

21
IEPs in IDEA 2004

• Individualized Education Programs were to base
  services on more scientific findings
• IDEA created a pilot program for 15 states to
  develop three-year IEPs
• Benchmarks/short-term objectives were no longer
  required in the IEP except for students who take
  alternative state assessments

22
Six Principles of IDEA 2004

• Zero reject/No exclusion
• Protection in evaluation
• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
• Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
• Procedural Safeguards
• Parental Participation

23
Zero reject/No exclusion

• Children who might have disabilities should be
  located and identified as soon as possible.
• Educational services must be extended to all
  children who are evaluated and found to be
  eligible for and in need of special education and
  related services.

24
Protection in Evaluation

• Children are evaluated fairly and equitably
• In their own language
• With a variety of strategies and tools
• With more than one assessment
• Without racial or cultural discrimination
• With assessments that are valid and reliable
• In all areas of suspected disability
• With the intent of gathering information that is
  relevant and that will assist in determining the
  educational needs of the child.

25
Free and Appropriate Public Education

• Free appropriate public education is referred to
  as FAPE.
• It is provided at no cost to the parents of the
  student with a disability
• It is appropriately designed education to meet
  the identified needs of the student

26
Least Restrictive Environment

• The least restrictive environment is the
  education of students with disabilities with
  students who do not have disabilities as much as
  appropriate. Students with disabilities may be
  educated in
• regular education classrooms
• regular education classes with supplementary
  services
• special education classes
• special education facilities

27
Re-evaluation

• Periodic re-evaluation is required.
• It may be conducted in accordance with the IDEA
  regulation, which requires re-evaluation at
  three-year intervals or more frequently if
  conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or
  teacher requests a re-evaluation.
• Requires a school district to conduct a
  re-evaluation prior to a significant change of
  placement.

28
Complaint Process

• Local Level
• Principal
• Superintendent
• School Board
• State Level
• Texas Education Agency
• Federal Level
• Office for Civil Rights
• http//www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howt
  o.html?srcrt

29
Resources

• Texas Education Agency
• http//ritter.tea.state.tx.us
• TEA Parents Information Line 1.800.252.9668
• Divisions within the Special Programs, Monitoring
  and Interventions
• IDEA Coordination (Special Education Programs,
  Complaints, Deaf Services)http//ritter.tea.state
  .tx.us/special.ed
• NCLB Program Coordinationhttp//ritter.tea.state.
  tx.us/nclb
• Special Education Monitoringhttp//ritter.tea.sta
  te.tx.us/pmi/spedmon

30
Resources (continued)

• Other Divisions at TEA
• Student Assessmenthttp//ritter.tea.state.tx.us/s
  tudent.assessment
• Technical Assistance
• ESC Special Education Contactshttp//ritter.tea.s
  tate.tx.us/special.ed/escinfo/contact.html First
  point of contact for special education technical
  assistance
• State Board for Educator Certification
  (SBEC)www.sbec.state.tx.usFirst point of
  contact for teacher certification issues

31
Resources (continued)

• Resources on the Web
• State Guidancehttp//ritter.tea.state.tx.us/speci
  al.ed/guidanceFirst point of contact for
  guidance on state policy
• Parent Resource Networkwww.partnerstx.org
• Texas Project Firstwww.texasprojectfirst.org

32
Resources (continued)

• Notice of Procedural Safeguardshttp//fw.esc18.ne
  t/frameworkdisplayportlet/Documents/Procedural20S
  afeguards202-20-09.pdf
• Texas Special Education Rules and Regulations
  Side-by-Sidehttp//framework.esc18.net/SBS_April_
  2008.pdf
• Legal Framework for the Child-Centered Process
  http//framework.esc18.net

33
U. S. Dept. of Education Websites

• Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
  Serviceswww.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index
  .html
• Office of Elementary and Secondary
  Educationwww.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index
  .html
• Institute of Educational Sciences
  (IES)www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html

34
U. S. Dept. of Education Websites

• IDEA 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities
  Education Act)http//idea.ed.gov
• Special Education and Rehabilitative
  Serviceswww.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea20
  04.html
• Section 504 Frequently Asked Questionswww.ed.gov/
  about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html
• Office of Special Education Programs
  (OSEP)www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/resources.h
  tml

35
Contact Information

• DeAnn Lechtenberger, Ph.D.
• Principle Investigator
• deann.lechtenberger_at_ttu.edu
• Tonya Hettler, Grant Manager
• tonya.hettler_at_ttu.edu
• Webpage www.projectidealonline.org
• Phone [phone], ext. 302
• The views contained herein do not necessarily
  reflect the position or policy of the funding
  agencys. No official endorsement should be
  inferred.