Project IDEAL



Slide 1:

Laws Concerning Students with Disabilities

Slide 2: Personnel

DeAnn Lechtenberger — Principle Investigator

Nora Griffin-Shirley — Project Coordinator

Doug Hamman — Project Evaluator

Tonya Hettler—Grant 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 agency[s]. No official endorsement should be inferred.

Slide 3: The Evolution of Education

← Education in the United States has changed

– 1600’s:The 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

– 1800’s private schools and tutoring were used

– 1852 – 1918: states passed laws requiring children to attend elementary school.

Slide Notes:



Slide 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)

Slide Notes:



Slide 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.

Slide 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.

Slide 7: Development of Special Education

← A group that had been excluded from public education filed a court case in the early 1950’s 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…

Slide 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…”

Slide Notes:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 483), 1954.

Retrieved 8/12/09 from

“…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…”

Mr. Chief Justice Warren

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 483), 1954

Slide 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.

Slide Notes:

Legislators noticed the attempts of individuals with disabilities and their advocates to obtain access to education. The legislators began creating legislation to give those individuals civil rights that they deserved as citizens of the United States. These pieces of legislation are continually changing and evolving to create better laws for those individuals who have special needs.

Slide 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.

Slide Notes:

PARC case retrieved 8/15/08 from

Mills case retrieved 8/16/09 from

Slide 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.

Slide Notes:

Retrieved 8/15/08 from

Slide 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.

Slide Notes:

Retrieved 8/16/09 from

Slide 13: Key Points of Early 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…

Slide 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 child’s needs

← Parents informed of due process to challenge schools’ actions and decisions (Mills)

Slide 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)

Slide 16: Key Points of Early 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.

Slide 17: Key Points of Early 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.

Slide 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

Slide 19: 10 Key Points of IDEA 1997

← IEP teams were required to consider student’s 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.

Slide 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

Slide 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

Slide 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

Slide 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.

Slide Notes:

• At the postsecondary level, the recipient is required to provide students with appropriate academic adjustments and auxiliary aids and services that are necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in a school's program.

• Recipients are not required to make adjustments or provide aids or services that would result in a fundamental alteration of a recipient's program or impose an undue burden.

Slide 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.

Slide 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

Slide Notes:

• Elementary and secondary schools who receive federal funds are required to provide a free, appropriate public education to qualified students with disabilities.

• Such an education consists of regular or special education and related aids and services designed to meet the individual educational needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of students without disabilities are met.

Slide 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

Slide 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.

Slide Notes:

Re-evaluations are required for districts to continue giving modifications and accommodations to students that they consider substantially limited from one or more of life’s major activities.

Slide 28: Complaint Process

← Local Level

― Principal

― Superintendent

― School Board

← State Level

― Texas Education Agency

← Federal Level

― Office for Civil Rights



Slide Notes:

It is always best to handle problems at the lowest level possible. Because of that, Texas has a multi-level complaint process.

Slide 29: Resources

Texas Education Agency

▪

▪ TEA Parents Information Line: 1.800.252.9668

Divisions within the Special Programs, Monitoring and Interventions

▪ IDEA Coordination (Special Education Programs, Complaints, Deaf Services)



▪ NCLB Program Coordination



▪ Special Education Monitoring



Slide Notes:

Resources are described more thoroughly in the handouts on Section 504.

Slide 30: Resources (continued)

Other Divisions at TEA

← Student Assessment



Technical Assistance

← ESC Special Education Contacts



First point of contact for special education technical assistance

← State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC)

sbec.state.tx.us

First point of contact for teacher certification issues

Slide Notes:

Resources are described more thoroughly in the handouts on Section 504.

Slide 31: Resources (continued)

Resources on the Web

← State Guidance



First point of contact for guidance on state policy

← Parent Resource Network



← Texas Project First



Slide 32: Resources (continued)

← Notice of Procedural Safeguards



← Texas Special Education Rules and Regulations Side-by-Side



← Legal Framework for the Child-Centered Process



Slide 33: U.S. Dept. of Education Websites

■ Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

about/offices/list/osers/index.html

■ Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

about/offices/list/oese/index.html

■ Institute of Educational Sciences (IES)

about/offices/list/ies/index.html

Slide 34: U. S. Dept. of Education Websites

■ IDEA 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)



■ Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html

■ Section 504 Frequently Asked Questions

about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html

■ Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

parents/needs/speced/resources.html

DeAnn Lechtenberger, Ph.D.

Principle Investigator

deann.lechtenberger@ttu.edu

Tonya Hettler, Grant Manager

tonya.hettler@ttu.edu

Webpage:

Phone: (806) 742-1997, ext. 302

The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the funding agency[s]. No official endorsement should be inferred.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download