Perspectives on the Future of IDEA

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Hardman ◽  
John McDonnell ◽  
Marshall Welch
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Since its original passage in 1975 as Public Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been the cornerstone of practice in special education. This federal law has enabled all eligible students with disabilities to access a free and appropriate public education. During the past 2 years, the 104th Congress has debated vigorously some of the law's basic tenets (e.g., definition of disability, content of the individualized education plan [IEP], parental rights to attorneys, fees, discipline, and placement). The basic requirements of the law remain intact and continue to shape the scope and content of special education. This article addresses whether or not the assumptions upon which IDEA is based remain valid as we approach the 21st century. We critique these assumptions within the context of four requirements of IDEA: (a) eligibility and labeling, (b) free and appropriate public education, (c) the individualized education program (IEP), and (d) the least restrictive environment. Recommendations for changes in existing law relative to each of the above requirements are presented.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The U.S. Supreme Court and Special Education

2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. T. Prince ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Public Education ◽  
School District ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
The U.S

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. This case addressed the question how much educational benefit are public schools required to provide to students with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to confer a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The purpose of this legal update is to provide a brief overview of court developments regarding FAPE, summarize Endrew, and provide implications for practice.

Assistive Technology for Students With Disabilities

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Susan Larson Etscheidt
Keyword(s):  
Assistive Technology ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Legal Requirement ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act

Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams are required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to consider a student’s need for assistive technology (AT). Despite this legal requirement, AT supports are often not available to students with disabilities. Many students with disabilities and their families have addressed the failure to consider and provide AT supports through litigation. The purpose of this article is to examine the case law pertaining to the assessment, selection, and provision of AT learning supports for students with disabilities. A legal analysis was conducted to determine litigation themes. Based on these results, several recommendations for IEP teams are proposed.

Recent and Continuing Initiatives and Practices in Special Education

2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice-Ann Darrow ◽  
Mary S. Adamek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Music Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
The United States ◽  
Music Educators ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Basic Understanding ◽  
Education Act

A number of initiatives in special education have occurred in the United States over the years, some mandated by amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Having a working knowledge of these initiatives allows music educators to have informed discussions with colleagues and parents and participate more fully in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. Adopting special education practices that are appropriate to music education can also promote consistent and coordinated efforts on behalf of students with disabilities. This article includes summaries of current practices and initiatives in special education. For music educators who would like a basic understanding of their colleagues’ discipline, these summaries offer useful information that can facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: Improving the Quality and Compliance of ITPs

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 146-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Greene
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Transition Plan ◽  
Age Appropriate ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Assessment Results

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for students with disabilities, age 16 years and older, include age appropriate transition assessment results aligned with measurable postsecondary goals. This section of the IEP is typically known as an Individual Transition Plan (ITP). A recent investigation found a number of ITPs did not meet the requirements of the IDEA. To support special education teachers in writing IDEA-compliant ITPs, this article presents suggestions for developing quality ITPs with specific emphasis on transition assessment. Discussion includes potential explanations for the lack of quality in presenting transition assessment results, recommendations for conducting transition assessment, transition assessment resources, and examples of quality and IDEA-compliant ITPs.

Students with Disabilities and Technology

2011 ◽  
pp. 808-814
Author(s):  
Shellie Hipsky
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
School Psychologist ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
Section 504 ◽  
Individual Education Plan ◽  
Education Act ◽  
504 Plan ◽  
Restrictive Environment

America’s schools are required to meet all federal laws and regulations for special education including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires that students are included in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Each student who is identified with a disability that affects them academically has either an Individual Education Plan or a Section 504 Plan which is created by a collaborative team (e.g., the parents, child, regular and special education teachers, therapists, and the school psychologist). They determine the goals, objectives, and accommodations that need to be made in the classroom setting. IDEA requires that assistive technology, which includes products, tools, and devices that can make a particular function easier or possible to perform, needs to be considered for every student who has an individualized education program (IEP) (Blackhurst, 2005). Teachers of students with disabilities are utilizing techniques such as universal design to make adaptations to the regular education curriculum to help them garner access and understanding (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Rose & Meyer, 2000). Also teachers in inclusive environments are using differentiated instruction which takes into account every student’s interests, ability levels, and learning profiles regardless of disability (Dodge, 2006; Drapeau, 2004; Tomlinson, 2001). Often technology plays a vital role as special education teachers seek to individualize teaching methods to meet the needs of their students.

A Qualitative Policy Study of the Least Restrictive Environment Provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

1994 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 491-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Brody Hasazi ◽  
A. P. Johnston ◽  
Annette M. Liggett ◽  
Richard A. Schattman
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Policy Study ◽  
Individuals With Disabilities ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Restrictive Environment ◽  
Policy Systems

A multistate, qualitative policy study, conducted from 1989 to 1992, investigated how 6 states and 12 local school districts implemented the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Eight sites were relatively high users of separate facilities for educating students with disabilities, and 10 were low users. Six factors, including financing and the state-local context, influenced the implementation of LRE. Although the LRE policy has influenced the way that states and districts educate students with disabilities, the federal law and regulations have little control over how leaders view the policy, the structure and political realities present, and the recursive nature of policy systems at all levels.

scholarly journals Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Michael Rozalski ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Jacob Warner
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
State Education ◽  
Education Agency ◽  
Education Act

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE was defined in the federal law as special education and related services that: (a) are provided at public expense, (b) meet the standards of the state education agency, (c) include preschool, elementary, or secondary education, and (d) are provided in conformity with a student’s individualized education program (IEP). Thus, the IEP is the blueprint of an individual student’s FAPE. The importance of FAPE has been shown in the number of disputes that have arisen over the issue. In fact 85% to 90% of all special education litigation involves disagreements over the FAPE that students receive. FAPE issues boil down to the process and content of a student’s IEP. In this article, we differentiate procedural (process) and substantive (content) violations and provide specific guidance on how to avoid both process and content errors when drafting and implementing students’ IEPs.

scholarly journals Status of Inclusive Educational Placement for Students With Extensive and Pervasive Support Needs

Inclusion ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary E. Morningstar ◽  
Jennifer A. Kurth
Keyword(s):  
General Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
Educational Placement ◽  
General Education Curriculum ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Restrictive Environment

Abstract Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 established procedural mandates and accountability requirements ensuring all students with disabilities participate and progress in general education curriculum. Broadly speaking, improvements toward greater access have been found for many students with disabilities; however, the extent to which this holds true for students with extensive and pervasive support needs is not evident. Past research associated with least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with extensive and pervasive support needs was considered when replicating previous research using the cumulative placement rate to analyze LRE data for students with extensive and pervasive support needs (autism, intellectual disability, deaf blindness, and multiple disabilities). Results indicate that student with extensive and pervasive support needs have substantially less positive LRE placement trends over the past 15 years with most placed in separate classrooms and settings. Recommendations for transforming federal and state policies and procedures are shared.

The Foundation of Inclusion in Federal Legislation and Litigation

2017 ◽  
pp. 27-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Christine A. Christle
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Least Restrictive Environment ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Student Placement ◽  
Placement Decisions ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Federal Mandate ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Restrictive Environment ◽  
Historical Antecedents

The foundation of inclusion in special education law is the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This federal mandate requires that all students with disabilities receive their education with students without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Our purpose in this chapter is to examine the legal basis of inclusion. We first review the historical antecedents of inclusion. Second, we examine the LRE mandate and the student placement requirements of the IDEA. Third, we survey the most important case law rulings regarding LRE and the placement of students with disabilities. Fourth, we consider strategies that have been used to promote inclusive placements and briefly review the literature on these strategies. We end this chapter by offering principles to guide IEP team members in making educationally beneficial and legally correct placement decisions for students with disabilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document