Education Federalism and Minority Disproportionate Representation Monitoring: Examining IDEA Provisions, Regulations, and Judicial Trends

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-147
Author(s):  
Natasha M. Strassfeld
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Disproportionate Representation ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Regulatory Guidance ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Federal Authority ◽  
Federal Case ◽  
Education Act

States have been granted increasingly greater agency both to determine standards for minority disproportionate representation (MDR) monitoring in special education placements and to set the relevant cutoffs and sanctions when significant disproportionality is found. State authority has been bolstered by an education federalism framework, case law, and updated legislative and regulatory guidance under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Using legislative and judicial analysis to both examine education federalism and its impact on state and federal authority and analyze the legislative history associated with MDR monitoring and recent judicial trends within federal case law regarding equal protection constitutional challenges brought by plaintiff parents and students with disabilities in MDR litigation, this article finds that states are increasingly granted greater authority from judicial opinions and policy to monitor states’ practices. Legal and policy implications for stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, school districts) are also discussed.

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.

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.

Meaningful Connections: Making Inclusion Work

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellary A. Draper
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Neighborhood Schools ◽  
Individuals With Disabilities ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Inclusive Schools ◽  
Restricted Environment ◽  
Least Restricted Environment ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Meaningful Connections

For many years, students with disabilities were educated in separate facilities on separate campuses from their same aged peers. With the original passing of what we now call the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, these students were, and still are, required to be educated in the least restricted environment. Students with disabilities who had previously been separated were brought into their neighborhood schools. As we continue to see more and more students with disabilities in inclusive schools and classrooms, it is important that we work together and collaborate with other teachers and therapists in our schools to provide the best education to these students.

Bullying and Harassment of Students With Disabilities in Schools

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Antonis Katsiyannis ◽  
Chad A. Rose ◽  
David E. Houchins
Keyword(s):  
School District ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Legal Risks ◽  
Peer Bullying ◽  
Education Act ◽  
State Educational

Bullying is a common occurrence in U.S.’s schools and is currently at the forefront of national attention. Unfortunately, students with disabilities are frequently the targets of peer-on-peer bullying. The purpose of this article is to examine the legal ramifications when students with disabilities are bullied in school settings. We address court cases, state educational agency decisions, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) guidance, and Office of Civil Rights (OCR) rulings that have held that bullying may violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. School personnel must address the bullying of students with disabilities in a quick and efficient manner. In fact, these decisions show that when bullying is not stopped, school district officials and personnel may be subjecting their school districts to legal risks. We end by proposing how school district officials can develop legally sound policies for identifying, investigating, and responding to incidences of bullying of students with disabilities.

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.

The Implementation of Results-Driven Accountability: A Systemic Approach to Large-Scale Initiatives

2020 ◽  
pp. 002205742094317
Author(s):  
Barbara J. Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Regular Education ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
Education Outcomes ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Science Framework

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has undergone revisions roughly every 5 years since inception. Despite these modifications, the academic and social outcomes for students with disabilities lag behind those of their regular education peers. Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) was initiated to improve special education outcomes and efficacy. This case study examined the implementation science framework used for RDA. The results surfaced successes and concerns with the implementation process and illuminated barriers unrelated to the RDA initiative but critical for implementation and scaling. The findings from this study may contribute to identifying best practices in large-scale systemic initiatives.

Conceptualizing and Utilizing Board Certified Behavior Analysts as Related Services Providers in Inclusion-Oriented Schools

2021 ◽  
pp. 074193252110636
Author(s):  
Michael F. Giangreco ◽  
Robert C. Pennington ◽  
Virginia L. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Behavior Analyst ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Behavior Analysts ◽  
Related Service ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Support Students

Although behavior analytic practices have been widely applied in schools to support students with disabilities, there remains limited guidance concerning utilization of these practices in inclusion-oriented schools and, more specifically, the role of the Board Certified Behavior Analyst in the provision of related services. The goal of this article is to encourage discussions among stakeholders hopefully leading to a clearer conceptualization and more effective utilization of behavior analytic practices in inclusion-oriented schools. In addition to discussing the conceptualization of behavior analytic services as a related service and the role of both Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts and Registered Behavior Technicians as paraprofessionals under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we provide a set of guidelines for related services decision-making practices useful within a collaborative teamwork framework, including behavior analysts, and offer areas for future research.

Applied Behavior Analysis, Students With Autism, and the Requirement to Provide a Free Appropriate Public Education

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 206-215
Author(s):  
Bradley S. Stevenson ◽  
Vivian I. Correa
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
Behavior Analysis ◽  
Applied Behavior Analysis ◽  
Individualized Education Program ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Students With Autism ◽  
Education Act

The prevalence of autism has been steadily rising over the previous decades. The diverse ways in which the disorder manifests in students and the free and appropriate public education (FAPE) mandate of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that a student’s individualized education program (IEP) team tailor interventions to meet the unique educational needs of that student. Deciding on the most appropriate evidence-based intervention programs for students with autism can be complex. In fact, a frequent source of litigation is when families and school personnel disagree on the particular programming to be provided to students with autism. Often this litigation involves disagreement over the extent to which services should be based on the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA). The purpose of this article is to review select case law to analyze how courts have ruled on whether schools must provide ABA services to meet FAPE requirement when families request those services, and to extrapolate implications for practice, including guidance to families and school personnel on how to work collaboratively to resolve conflicts surrounding ABA services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document