Chapter 2 - Policies, Practices, and Programs PDF

1 fc··, -,"-'"~:-:"· -~~--- ,,.,,r~tt °''fr ·:t"· ~ ;.,>:; ' ?:~·; -; ?f?ff.\}?~tll J'-~' :. /...

1 fc··, -,"-'"~:-:"· -~~--- ,,.,,r~tt °''fr ·:t"· ~ ;.,>:; ' ?:~·; -; ?f?ff.\}?~tll J'-~' :. / , J ~ i ·.,,, ~-- ~w4 \ ,. ~ o ~ ~ ~--? ,~:~:S tj '.,. '. , ,., - f~ a~··... -... ' ;. , _. ··· ,... -- -',. 1-: · -~·~}.T ,, : tr _- A::}'';Lt'f,1t;;;;;'., '., ' _ '/ ,., ·- /· ~ / :;i2\::!"'~''0 ,., _.- -.. · --.;.·~·: -~... - - ~~ ·,,: ·.,., ·~- ·\t 1 ll _-~ 1 -c.~.: i.:i-'!~~ rit ;_. ·;-:.· -t;.:,_ ·-· :: :-~ -·.,;Jf 1~liJf;ffll".-· ·'.'-';-"iltli. _,,__,:.. /·. - - ~ --.... ~ t"l"'..__ ; - ~t~ ' -·.:.: ,-· ~f ·, _:7;'·Jr)-:?fi· ,[r · ~ -.A.. --.< ,.~ ~ · ~ _.3.- /r., ·,:; ' ~·-- :. - ,1. _ 'i... · -:- ; /)~ ·~i. _ 1~f;t.'/.f , - ~---:·'. ·_....?.r:> -\~. , '/Jtl¥-,~r.-;:. '.'!j.t~---,;}'~ ,, ~ , ,"-·~:r.!.1.7" ,: _..__.(.;f;~._... :-0:·,Mm1;1nf :·... _c ____ · :· ___ : 1 ~~ n~)l~@ Hm~~~~ Oberti v. Board of 1992 Least restrictive Placement in a general education classroom with su lementar aids and · · · · J Education of the Borough of environment to considering more segregated placements. Pu il pp b ~ services must be o_ffered to a student with disabilities prior Clementon School District · -.. ~ ~annot e exc uded from a general education classroom solely because curriculum, ~er~1~es,_or other practices ~ould req~1re_~od1f1cat1on. Excluding a learner from the general education classroom necessitates JUst1f1cat1on and documentation. Clear Jud1c1al preference for educational integration established. Agostini v. Felton 1997 Provision of U.~. Supreme Court reversed a long-standing ruling banning the delivery of publicly funded educational services to students enrolled in services private schools. Interpreted to mean that special educators can now provide services to children in parochial schools. Cedar Rapids Community 1999 Related services U.S. ~upreme Court expand~d and clarified the concept of related services. Affirmed that intensive and continuous school health care School District v. Garret F. services necessary for a student to attend school, if not performed by a physician, qualify as related services. Schaffer v. Weast 2005 Burden of proof AU.~. Supreme ~ourt ruling addressing the issue of whether the parent Isl or school district bears the burden of proof in a due process hean~g.' Determ,~ed whether the parentlsl, acting on behalf of their child, must prove that their child's individualized education program llEPI 1s inappropriate or whether the school district must prove that the IEP is appropriate. Court ruled that the burden of proof is placed upon the party seeking relief. Arlington Central School 2006 Recovery of fees U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether or not parents are able to recover the professional fees of an educational consultant (lay advocate! District Board of Education who provided services during legal proceedings. Court ruled that parents are not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of experts because v. Murphy only attorney's fees are addressed in IDEA. 2007 Parental rights The Supreme Court, by unanimous vote, affirmed the rights of parents to represent their children in IDEA-related court cases. Seen as Winkelman v. Parma City an expansion of parental involvement and the definition of a free appropriate public education. Interpreted to mean that IDEA conveys School District enforceable rights to parents as well as their children. Parents sought tuition reimbursement from th.e school district after removing their child who had learning disabilities, attention defici.t Forest Grove School 2009 Tuition hyperactivity disorder, and depression. The child was never declared eligible for a special education and never received services. Parents District v. T.A. reimbursement unilaterally enrolled the child in a private school. The Supreme Court found that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special education services when a public school fails to provide a free appropriate education and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the student previously received special education services from the public school. A suit filed on behalf of a young girl with a severe form of cerebral palsy who used a service animal. ~ecause the school provided the Fryv. Napoleon Community 2017 IDEA exhaustion student with a personal aide in accordance with her individualized education program, the school district refused to allow her the use of Schools doctrine her service dog. The girl 's parents sought relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments \ADAA\ and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act rather than the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act \IDEAL which required the parents to exhaust all administrative remedies (e.g., due process hearing) prior to suing under the AOAA and 504. As this was a disability discrimination issue and the adequacy of the student's educational services were not in question, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision , found that because the parents were not seeking relief under the free appropriate public education clause of IDEA, the exhaustion requirement of IDEA was not applicable. A far-reaching Supreme Court decision involving an 8-year-old boy with autism spectrum disorder. The child's paren~s rem~ved him. EndrewF. v. Douglas 2017 Educational from public school and enrolled him in a private school due to an individualized education prog~~m IIE:l that they believed did not provide benefit th County School District sufficient academic and social progress. The school district refused the parents' request for tu1t1on r~imburs~ment. Alt~o_ ugh e lower 1 1 th courts agreed with the school district, the parents appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court fo~nd, in a ~nanimou~ ~ec ~. ~n ,_ at an IEP must provide more than de minimis or minimal educational benefit. It_ stated that an IEP ':1ust b_e a_ppropnately ambitious in lrght of a pupil's circumstances and every student must be given the opportunity to meet challenging objectives. Source: R. Gargiulo and J. Ki\go, An Introduct ion to Young Children with Special Needs, 5th ed. (Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage, 2020), pp. 30-32.  Chapter 2 Policies, Practices, and Programs 43 legislative enactments focusing on students with disabilities. Furthermore, many of today's accepted practices in special education, such as nondiscriminatory assessments and due process procedures, can trace their roots to various court decisions..Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: 1975-1997 Federal legislative intervention in the lives of persons with disabilities is of relatively recent origin. Before the late 1950s and early 1960s, little federal attention was paid to citizens with special needs. When legislation was enacted, it primarily assisted specific groups of individuals, such as those who were deaf or people with intellectual disability. The past forty years or so, however, have witnessed a flurry of legislative activity that has aided the growth of special education and provided educational benefits and other opportunities and rights to children and adults with disabilities. Given the multitude of public laws 1 affecting special education, we will focus our attention only on landmark legislation. Our initial review will examine PL 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, or, as it came to be known, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This change in legislative tides resulted from the enactment on October 30, 1990, of PL 101-476, which will be addressed later in this chapter. Public Law 94-142 IDEA is viewed as a "Bill of Rights" for children with exceptionalities and their families; it is the cul- mination of many years of dedicated effort by both parents and professionals. Like many other special educators, we consider this law to be one of the most important pieces, if not the most important piece, offederal legislation ever enacted on behalf of children with special needs. PL 94-142 may rightfully be thought of as the legislative heart of special education. The purpose of this bill, which was signed into law by President Gerald Ford on November 29, 1975, is to assure that all handicapped children have available to them... a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all handicapped children, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate handicapped children. [Section 601(c)] In pursuing these four purposes, this legislation incorporates six major components and guarantees that have forever changed the landscape of education across the United Scates. Despite legislative and court challenges over che past four decades, the following principles have endured to the present day: A free appropriate public education (FAPE). All children, regardless of the severity of their disability (a "zero reject" philosophy), must be provided with an education appropriate to their unique needs at no cost to the parent(s)/guardian(s). Included in this principle is the concept of related services, which requires that children receive, for example, occupational therapy as well as ocher services as necessary in order co benefit from special education. The least restrictive environment (LRE). Children with disabilities are to be educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with students without disabilities. Placements must be consistent with the pupil's educational needs. An individualized education program (IEP). This document, developed in conjunction with che parent(s)/guardian(s), is an individually tailored statement describing an educational plan for each learner with excepcionalicies. The IEP, which will be fully discussed later in this 1 National legislation, or public law (PL), is codified according to a standardized format. Legislation is thus designated by the number of the session of Congress that enacted the law followed by the number of the particular bill. PL 94-142, for example, was enacted by the 94th session of Congress and was the 142nd piece oflegislation passed. 44 Part 1 Foundations of Special Education. hievement and functional l els of academic ac f ti chapter, is required to address (1) the present ev resent levels o per ormance or l ersonnel as P d · I · performance (commonly referred to by schoo P. b" ctives; (3) e ucauona services.. crucnonal o Je. l d. PLOP); (2) annual goals and accompanying ms l rticipate m genera e ucat1on ·twill be ab e co pa to be provided; (4) the degree to which the pupi. delivery; and (6) an annual..... d l ngth of service b". programs; (5) plans for miuatmg services an e..f instructional o Jecuves are. · · to decermme i evaluation procedure specifying objecnve cntena h " s progress monitoring. · rs refer to t is a being mer. Many teachers and school ad mmiscrato.. d. ( ) several safeguards as it pertains Procedural due process. The act affords parenc(s)/guar ian ~. ht to confidentiality. c h'ld' to t heir 1 s ed ucauon... fl y, parent (s)/guardian(s) have t el ng. to receive written Bne. d endent eva uanon, o f records; to examine all records; to obtain an lil ep h. h"ld's educational d changes to t eir c i noti fication (in parents' native language) of propose d" nts arise. henever isagreeme classification or placement; and to an impartia 1h eanng w d , ( )/ h more the stu ent s parent s regarding educational plans for their son/daughter. Furr er ' guardian(s) have the right to representation by legal counsel... N ondi scr1m1natory. l h ·1d must be evaluated by a assessment. Pnor to p acement, a c i. ll l ll mu1u iscip inary team in all areas ofsuspecte isa i ity bYtes cs chat are not rac1a y, cu tura y, or ·d· · l d d" b·1·... l f ents administered by trained 1mgmst1cally biased. Students are to receive severa types o assessm ' personnel; a smg · Ie evaluauon· procedure is · not permitte· d rorc eit · h er planning or placement purposes. Parental participation. PL 94-142 mandates meaningful parent involvement. Sometimes referred to as the "Parents' Law," this legislation requires that parents participate fully in the decision-making process that affects their child's education. Congress indicated its desire by September 1, 1980, to provide a free appropriate public education for all eligible children ages 3 through 21. The law, however, did not require services be provided to preschool children with disabilities. Because many states were not providing preschool services to typi- cal children, an education for young children with special needs, in most instances, was not mandated. Although this legislation failed to require an education for younger children, it clearly focused attention on the preschool population and recognized the value of early education. ,........r'.......-'IU:.,U :~;t~~=x ~=~;l! h. ~Jf ;\tl. f 4.,1, 1.,. ,,::, - ~1:_.. , 1' >:t~r:1.·.({,-, ·~·~ d tY½-':-',;,,.i :filt~ : , ]~~~ ::,"I,,; :~J1r,J -~~~...;....,j~-""...;...~u.L:i.:. ;.; ~un~~W&:i.~j(~u;~ ,~- Legislation has greatly benefited individuals with disabilities and their families.  Chapter 2 Policies, Practices, and Programs 45 iid=i(fl o ~\#11 it;Wfjawm,,1nim,uf9EW i [ \'tl:.7/ I! ~ slkl'N j[ 1;t~y®:li:il]Xi]i1..-=:fu~ ] 1986 PL 99-457 Legislation viewed as a downward extension of PL 94-142 Mandated services for preschoolers with disabilities, ages 3-5 Permitted early intervention services for infants and toddlers, from birth through age 2, with developmental delays or disabilities Individualized family service plan (IFSPI established for infants and toddlers "Developmentally delayed" label created 1990 PL 101-476 Name of legislation changed to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act !IDEAi Autism and traumatic brain injury identified as discrete disability categories Rehabilitation counseling and social work considered related services Established the requirement of an individualized transition plan (ITPI by age 16 States· immunity from lawsuits for violating IDEA repealed 1997 PL 105-17 Students with disabilities required to participate in state- and districtwide assessments Transition planning commences at age 14 Orientation and mobility included as a related service Discretionary use of "developmentally delayed" label for pupils ages 3-9 General educators required to participate on individualized education program IIEP) team Students with disabilities are to be involved in and have access to general education curriculum Mediation offered as a means of resolving disputes Benchmarks and measurable annual goals emphasized. Pupils who violate student code of conduct may be removed from their current educational placement only after a due process hearing Assistive technology needs of each learner must be assessed Students expelled or suspended from school are still entitled to receive services in accordance with their IEP Greater variety of assessment tools and strategies are permissible for initial evaluations and reevaluations Source: U.S. Department of Education. PL 94-142 did contain some benefits for chil- dren under school age. It offered small financial grants (Preschool Incentive Grants) to the indi- vidual states as an incentive to serve young chil- dren with disabilities. It also carried a mandate for schools to identify and evaluate children from birth through age 21 suspected of evidencing a disability. Finally, PL 94-142 moved from a cen- sus count to a child count of the actual number of individuals with disabilities being served. The intent was to encourage the states to locate and serve children with disabilities. In the 1980s and 1990s, Congress reautho- rized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. As a result of this legislative activity, ser- vices for individuals with disabilities have Many young children with been expanded, student and parental rights clarified, and discipline procedures articulated along developmental delays or with several other key provisions. Table 2.2 presents a brief overview of some of these revisions to disabilities have benefited from early intervention. IDEA. 46 Part 1 Foundations of Special Education ED EDUCATION M· STANDARDS-BAS EDUCATIONAL REFOR. oward greater educational accou nt- rowing movement t. Iring in enhanced aca Over the past two decades, t here h as been a g trucrunng resu - ability, with accompanying calls for educauona · 1 re form or , res I 2 000: Educate A menca · A ct O f 19 94 ·d B'll Clincons Goa s d. d d demic excellence. (See, for example, Pres1 ent 1.. d h llenging aca em1c stan ar s and. s inmate c a. I.. [PL 103-227].) As a result of this trend, many state h'l everal profess1ona organizations.... fi h.r students, w 1 e s. I more stringent graduauon requ1rements or t ei h as mathemancs, anguage arts, and. published performance m. d'1cators m. various. content areas, sue. toward perrormance- c base d stan- f d cation are movmg science. Likewise, many state d epartments O e u. thus linking student success with /. fj tion requirements, h l dards when establishing teac er icensure cem ica c l db rious political, social, and eco- c f h' ment rue e yva teacher qualifications. The overall rocus o t is move ' d It is equally concerned with. of our stu ents. nomic forces, was a concern over the learnmg outcomes establishing educational equity among all learners. d hould know or be able " 1st of what stu ents s Educational standards, which are genera acements hi. 5) are important 2005 to do as a result of their public school education" (Nolet & McLaug in, d M ' P· h'l. ( ) ". ,, d' o Nolet an c1 aug m 2005 , to for a couple of reasons. First, "they are intended, accor mg t h h Id h d. what all teac ers s ou teac an... create equity across schools and classrooms in t h at t hey d e fme · II b h Id bl ,, [they] also define the content that will be assessed and for which schools WI e ed accoundta de (p. 5). Recent federal legislation embraces this. t h'm k'mg. The 1· mportance attache to scan ar s- driven reform is clearly evident in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 In 2001, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, popularly known as No Child Left Behind (PL 107-110). This legislation reflects President George W. Bush's commitment to educational reform and accountability. A brief synopsis of this ambitious law reveals that eventually all pupils, including those in special education, are expected to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics, reading, and science. Annual testing of children in Grades 3 through 8 is required, with students in Grades 10 through 12 assessed at least once. Schools were expected to show adequate yearly progress toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014. (A small percentage of students may be excused from participating in state- and districtwide achievement tests if their IEP provides for their exemp- tion.) Because this law is concerned with the achievement of all students, test scores must be disaggre- gated according to the pupil's disability, socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and English language ability. The anticipated benefit of this requirement is that assessment results will directly translate into instructional accommodations, further aligning special education and general education into a unified delivery system responsible for serving all learners (Salend, 2016). Schools that experience difficulty attaining the goal of adequate yearly progress will be provided with technical and financial assistance. If a school fails to demonstrate adequ t I c a e year y progress ror three consecutive years, the local school district is required to offer supplement I. I. , a mstrucnona services such as tutoring, after-school classes, and summer programs (Council for Ex l Ch'ld ).. ".. ,,.. cept1ona 1 ren, 2003. Parents of children m failmg schools will be given the opportunity to cran c h h'ld h srer t e1r c 1 ren to ot er schools, including private and parochial schools. In addition to stressing student educational accomplishment other f h'... ' aspects o t 1s law require that the public as well as parents be mformed of individual school perfo d h rmance an t e qualifications of teachers. All elementary and secondary school teachers were expect d b "h· e to e ighly qualified" b the end of the 2005-2006 school year according to state criteria. Rigo d y. rous stan ards are I b. imposed on teacher aides. a so emg What are the implications of this law for general as well as special ed ? ucators. How com l 'II students with special needs perform in this age of educational reform and d petent Y WI. d scan ards-based d. ~ Obviously, PL 107-110 emph as1zes aca emic achievement as meas d b e ucat1on. ure Y student f; standardized tests. The expectation seems to be that effective instru t' l per ormance on ,.... c 10na strategies c for a students d1sab1lity. The enactment of this law has ushered in f an compensate an era O wh. at is now commonly  Chapter 2 Policies , Practices, and Programs 47 referred to as "high-stakes resting" or "high-stakes assessment." Greater emphasis will most likely be placed on ensuring char pupils in special education are exposed co the general education curriculum. One can also anticipate char greater attention will be focused on aligning IEP goals with che content standards of the general education curriculum (Council for Exceptional Children, 2003). Finally, how colleges and universities prepare future teachers will also likely undergo significant change in an effort ro ensure char graduates are highly qualified professionals. The current focus on exposing individuals with special needs to the general education curriculum is clearly seen in an initiative known as the Common Core Seate Standards (CCSS) (Common Core Seate Standards Initiative, 2019a). Puc forth by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the CCSS redefine the general education curriculum while outlining a sec of grade-level expectations that describe what students should know in mathematics and English lan- guage arts in order to succeed in college and later careers. At the present time, forty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted these standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 20196). These standards apply to all students, including pupils receiving a special education. The work of aligning IEP goals to the CCSS will certainly challenge many special educators. How does one adapt instruction to meet the unique learning needs of a child with a disability while also addressing rigor- ous content standards? Teachers of students with disabilities will need to carefully consider how the students' disabilities impact their involvement with and progress in the general education curriculum (Constable, Grossi, Moniz, & Ryan, 2013). The reforming of the general education curriculum with its emphasis on academic achievement for all learners is certainly praiseworthy, yet we believe that it cannot-nor should it-replace an effective special education program that provides specialized, indi- vidually tailored, and intensive services to children with special needs (Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). See the accompanying First Person feature (page 51) for one educator's perspective on teaching in the current era of heightened accountability. Individuals With Disabilities I Education Improvement Act of 2004 I On November 19, 2004, Congress passed leg- I I islation reauthorizing the Individuals with I Disabilities Education Act. The new version of I this law is called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, commonly I I referred to as IDEA 2004. President George W. o' I Bush signed this bill (PL 108-446) into law on 3 ~ I December 3, 2004. Many of the provisions of this legislation became effective on July 1, 2005; some i C") 0 I I elements of the law became effective, however, on ~ the date the president signed the bill. It is safe to ~ I say that IDEA 2004 will significantly affect the i I professional lives of both general education teach- j ~ ers and special educators. Parents of children ~ with disabilities will also encounter new roles and The Every Student Succeeds Act maintains a focus on accountability, high standards, and responsibilities as a result of this law. student achievement. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) [has] increased the focus of special education from simply ensuring access to education co improving the educational performance of students with disabilities and aligning special education services with the larger national school improvement efforts chat include standards, assessments, and accountability [i.e., greater conformity with the No Child Left Behind Act]. (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2005, pp. 2-3) Some of the significant issues addressed in this historic document are portrayed in Table 2.3.  48 Part 1 Foundations of Special Education ] I(B:(mj O ffiiFQX--IB(!;YJD ~. · -.-... - -.. - - ;..... · · l t to use a pr ocess that determines. I.... hOols can now e ec esponse to intervention RTll Modified criteria for identifying students with specific learning d1sab1lltres. Sc -commonly caUed r....... ll b d interventions. whether the pupil responds to empirically validated, sc1ent1f1ca Y ase t evaluated via alternate. f (IEPsl except or studen s Eliminates use of short-term objectives in individualized education programs assessments that are aligned with alternate achievement standards. rf rmance; annual goals. t and functional pe o IEPs must include a statement of the student's present level of academic achievemen must be written in measurable terms Relaxes requirements for participation in IEP meetings Multiyear IEPs are permissible IEPs to incorporate research-based interventions Transition planning to begin with first IEP in effect once student reaches age 16.. to 45 school days for offenses Students with disabilities may be removed to an interim alternative educational setting for up involving weapons, drugs, or inflicting serious bodily injury.. d f ons or alternate assessments as All pupils are required to participate in all state- and districtwide assessments with accommo a 1 stipulated in their IEP Special educators must be "highly qualified" according to individual state standards Resolution session required prior to a due process hearing Statute of limitations imposed on parents for filing due process complaints Modifies provision of student's native language and preferred mode of communication Source: U.S. Department of Education. Every Student Succeeds Act One of the recent changes that will impact public education over the corning years occurred on December 10, 2015, when President Barack Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (PL 114-95) into law. This legislation is the seventh reauthorization of the historic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 89-10) initially passed in 1965 and,.until now, known as the No Child Left Behind Act (PL 107-110). The aim of the ESSA was to preserve the spirit and intent of No Child Left Behind while remediating some of the perceived flaws and deficiencies voiced by leg- islators, educators, policy makers, school administrators, and parents. Although this new legislation retains an emphasis on accountability, high standards, and student achievement, the mechanisms for accomplishing these aims is substantially changed. Some of the provisions of this act include the following: ESSA still requires the annual testing of students in third through eighth grade in math and reading and once in high school in addition to a science test across elementary, middle, and high school; however, the adequate yearly progress provision has been repealed and replaced by a statewide accountability system. Allows states to adopt the Common Core State Standards but does not r. h. equue t e1r adoption. Eliminates "highly qualified" teacher status. Maintains the requirement that achievement data be disaggregated acco d·..... r Ing to the student's disability, soc10econom1c status, race, ethntc1ty, and English language ability.  Chapter 2 Policies, Practices, and Programs 49 Identifies low-performing schools as t hose whose assessment scores are m · the bottom 5 percent, schools that have a high school graduation rate ofless than 67 percent, or schools where sub~roups of pupils consistently underperform. In these situations, state intervention is possible although specific remedies are not defined. For individuals with disabilities, the legislation ensures access to the general education curriculum, accommodations on assessments, and the use of universal design for learning principles, in addition to evidence-based interventions in schools where subgroups consistently underperform (Council for Exceptional Children, 2019). The coming years will be ones of exciting opportunities and challenges as the entire educational community responds to the mandates of PL 108-446 and PL 114-95. These laws, like PL 94-142 more than forty years ago, will dramatically change the educational landscape for both general and special education. Charter Schools and Students With Disabilities We need to briefly mention an educational phenomenon that is growing in popularity in some commu- nities across the United States-,-charter schools. According to the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools (2019), "the charter school concept emerged from a deep commitment to quality and equity; schools of choice operating autonomously from traditional districts would serve as incubators of innovation" (para. I). These schools are one example of school choice initiatives. In the 2017-2018 school year, charter schools numbered over 7,000 serving nearly 3.2 million students across 43 states and the District of Columbia (David & Hesla, 2018). Because charter schools are public schools, they are required to follow the mandates found in the IDEA legislation and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (see the following discussion on these laws). Despite their autonomy and the use, in some settings, of successful instructional models, charter schools have failed to benefit individuals with exceptional learning needs. Charter schools enroll fewer students with disabilities than typical public schools (Rhim, 2016), and it is believed by some that charter schools do not offer quality educational experiences to students with special needs, nor do they offer access to innovative educational experiences. The challenge confronting educators and other stake- holders is "to increase access and develop exemplary programs for students with disabilities" (National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools, 2019, para. 3). Hopefully, these efforts will be fruitful, and all students will benefit from creative thinking and powerful instructional programs. CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The pieces oflegislation that we just examined are representative special education laws (the exception being PL 107-110). PL 93-112, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, however, is a civil rights law. Section 504 of this enactment was the. first public law specifically aimed at protecting children and adults against discrimination due to a disability. It said that no individual can be excluded, solely because of his or her disability, from participating in or benefiting from any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, which includes schools (Council for Exceptional Children, 1997). Unlike IDEA, this act employs a functional rather than categorical model for determining a dis- ability. According to this law, individuals are eligible for services if they I. have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; 2. have a record of such an impairment; or 3. are regarded as having such an impairment by others.  50 Part 1 Foundations of Special Education le walking, seeing, hearing, work- ed and include, for exarnP , "Major life activities" are broadly de fin ing, and learning. ake "reasonable accommodations". 504 schools rouse rn.d d To fulfill the requirements of Secuon '. d ·onal programs provi e to other.. ate ID e ucau for pupils with disabilities so that they can parucip d fi tions of the general education pro-.. h include rno I ica "al d students. Reasonable accommodauons mtg t l che provision of spec1 scu y areas. agernent p an, or gram, the assignment of an aide, a be h avwr man l. e related services such as occupa- d ay a so rece1v (Smith, 2002; Smith & Patton, 2007). Stu ents m. l d cation through IDEA.. ·f ·ving a spec1a e u uonal or physical therapy even 1 they are not recei. d" ·d al who is ineligible for a spe-. l e so broad, an lil 1v1 u Because the protections afford ed bYt h is aw ar dations under Section 504 c · l ssiscance or accommo · cial education under IDEA may qu al ify ior specia a ·. S t" n 504 although· · r ·ble for services via ec 10 1t 1s A student with severe allergies, for example, wou.ld b e e igi der ID EA All scud encs w ho a re et·1g1"ble unlikely that he or she would be eligible to receive services un · f; d. d for a special education and related services under IDEA are also eligible or accommo anons un er Section 504; the converse, however, is not true. t. h. As with IDEA there is a mandate contained within Section 504 co educate pupi s wit special ·h · ' "bl In addition schools are required to nee d s wit their typical peers to the maximum extent posSl e. '. · l d eve lop an accommodauon plan (common y ca e a 11 d "504 l ") customized co meet the umque needs P an of the individual. This document should include a statement of the pupil's strengths and needs, a list of necessary accommodations, and the individual(s) responsible for ensuring implementation. The purpose of this plan is to enable che student to receive a free appropriate public education (Gargiulo & Metcalf, 2017). Finally, unlike IDEA, which offers protections for students only between the ages of 3 and 21, Section 504 covers the individual's life span. See Table 2.4 for a comparison of some of the key provi- sions ofIDEA and Section 504. · l@D o OO tiill§1lfh~!iwisi"Jlfuiim n¢0 I [ 1~:m01.1 JI 1~ ~"i9.'.!H©T11filt1 Purpose Provides a free appropriate public education to Prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person·s disability in all children and youth with specific disabilities. programs receiving federal funds. Ages Covered Individuals 3-21 years old. No age restriction. Definition of Twelve disabilities defined according to federal B~oader int:rpretation of a disability than found in IDEA-a person Disability regulations plus state/local definition of wit~ a ~hys1c~l_or mental impairment that substantially limits a developmentally delayed. ma1or life actIvIty, who has a record of such i.. regarded as hav·in h.. mpa1rment, or who 1s 9 sue ImpaIrment. Funding States receive some federal dollars for excess Because this is a civil rights law no add"t· ' 1 iona l funding... Is provided. cost of educating students with disabilities. Planning Individualized education program IIEPI. Accommodation plan (commonly ref d.. erre to as a 504 plan"l Documents Assessment A comprehensive, nondiscriminatory eligibility Eligibility determination requires n d". · on Iscnminat Provisions evaluation in all areas of suspected disability procedures; requires reevaluat·ion prior. to a... ory.f. assessment conducted by a multidisciplinary team; in placement. sign1 1cant change" reevaluations every three years unless waived. Due Process Extensive rights and protections afforded to Affords parents impartial hearing r ·1 ht. 9 to inspect student and parents. representation by counsel. Additional ro. rec_ords, and local school district. p tections at discretion of Coordination No provision. School district required to identify a 504. · coordinator. Enforcement U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Depart ment of Education. Education Programs.  Chapter 2 Policies, Practices, and Programs 51 Having taught for almost ten years, I can safely say there is a how well they can regurgitate facts in order to pass an iso- definite need for accountability in education, but teaching in lated test that represents only a small sample of what they the twenty-first century presents some unique challenges. have learned. Everyone is accountable to someone for something. Teachers, The school days are getting longer, lunchtimes are getting for example, are accountable for teaching curriculum in prepa- shorter, and weekends are often spent in a quiet classroom ration for high-stakes assessments, delivering data-driven in preparation for teaching in the coming week. It seems as instruction, using research-based strategies, and meeting though we are overly accountable to the point that we are los- the demands and deadlines imposed by administrators, while ing valuable instructional time and focus. With all that said, also communicating with parents. Students, on the other hand, accountability is important as long as we view it wisely. are accountable for passing the high-stakes assessments and General education teachers are now being required to responding to the data-based instruction and research-based prove that their students are being taught with research- instructional strategies, while making adequate progress at based tools and that student performance is documented. No increasingly higher levels of performance. Each year, it almost longer are student performance, methods of instruction, and seems as though we have to surpass what was accomplished teaching practices at the teacher's discretion. This new level the previous year. The accompanying paperwork to prove this of accountability for general education teachers is going to accountability doesn't get any less cumbersome either. require them to rely more and more on the expertise of spe- All this accountability comes from increasing concerns cial education teachers not only for the students who have about the quality of our education. Yet, even with all this individualized education programs but also for all strug- accountability, we see many students transfer with gaps in gling learners. At the same time, the special educator is also learning from not having been taught to the same high expec- held accountable for ensuring compliance with regulations, tations. There are disparities from school system to school timelines, and mounting paperwork with increasingly larger system that make it difficult to reach these ever increasing caseloads. It is a constant battle to find the proper balance- levels of accountability. This "achievement gap" affects what the demands of paperwork, the needs of individual students, we have to work with, yet we are still accountable for getting and communication with families and general education these pupils to the academic level they need to be at. If there teachers are all under the accountability microscope. This is one thing you can count.on in teaching, it is that change is balance is more difficult to find with each new law, mandate, constant. and policy. Although I feel it is a privilege to work as a teacher, Teaching is a balancing act, and educators have to be and more particularly as a special education teacher, working sure that they do not get lost in the "accountability jungle" or as an inclusive teacher in the age of accountability becomes forget that one of the reasons we teach is to help our students increasingly difficult each year. become discoverers of their own learning , not simply pass a high-stakes assessment. As educators, our accountability -Lisa Cranford goal should be how well our students apply and generalize Instructional Support Teacher the knowledge and information that we share with them, not Rocky Ridge Elementary, Hoover, Alabama Public Law 101-336 (Americans With Disabilities Act) Probably the most significant civil rights legis- lation affecting individuals with disabilities, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, who stated, "Today, America welcomes into the mainstream of life all people with disabilities. Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down." This far-reaching enactment, which parallels Section 504 of PL 93-112, forbids discrimination against persons with disabilities in both the pub- ~ lic and private sectors. Its purpose, according to ·/'- - --...,.,.......:;;.;....::.;:......__.........a::::...-----:.-------...... ------'----:-=--........i ~ Turnbull (1993), is to ·"provide clear, strong, con- The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that mass transit systems be accessible to sistent, and enforceable standards prohibiting citizens with disabilities. 52 Part 1 Foundations of Special Education t c r their age, na ure or extent speer io........ with disabilities without re discnmmauon agamst mdividuals · c. d d embraces, ror instance, peo- of disability" (p. 23). f ho is disable an d The ADA goes far beyond traditional thinking o w leced a substance abuse pro~ram,_ a~ persons pie with AIDS, individuals who have successfully c~mp ·m airment chat subscannally l~mlts a major with cosmetic disfigurements. In f:act, an YPerson with an i. P s and guarantees of civil nghcs in such I ds procecnon bl. d. life activity is covered by chis legislation. t exten. l communications, pu ic an privately I t transporcauon, ce e diverse arenas as private sector emp oymen ' d overnment. d h. O f local an state g owned accommodations, an t e services l de che following:. Ian d mark legislauon me u Examples of the impact of t h is bl accommodations» so that an k st make "reasona e d Employers of fifteen or more wor ers mu. d ". minated against. Accommo ations "d I. h disability is not iscn d otherwise qualified in d ivi ua wit a k h.s visually impaired or wi er. k b rd for a wor er w o i might include a Braille computer ey oa h l hair Furthermore, hiring, l who uses a w ee c · doorways co allow easy access for an emp oyee... st an applicant or employee termination, and promouon. pracuces. may no t discnmmate agam who has a disability.. b a s must be accessible to citizens with Mass transit systems, such as buses, crams, and su w Y ' disabilities.. ls, earlYch"ldhood Hotels fast-food restaurants, cheaters, hospita i centers, banks, dentists' h offices, ' retail scores,... and the like may not discnmmate. m agamst · d"ivi·duals with disabilities..T ese · means ror facilities muse be accessible, or aIternanve c provi"ding services must be available. Companies that provide telephone service must offer relay services to individuals with hearing or speech impairments.. Think what chis legislation means for the field of special education in general, and specifically for adolescents with disabilities as they prepare to leave high school and transition to the world of adult- hood as independent citizens able to participate fully in all aspects of community life. Thanks to this enactment, the future for millions of Americans with disabilities is definitely brighter and more secure. Public Law 110-325 (Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008) On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments. PL 110-325 became effective on January 1, 2009. Commonly called ADAA, this legislation revises the definition of a disability in favor of a broader interpretation, thereby extend- ing protections to greater numbers of individuals. In face, this law expressly overturned two Supreme Court decisions that had previously limited the meaning of the term disability. Additionally, ADAA expands the definition of "major life activities" by including two noninclusive lists, the first of which includes activities not expressly stipulated, such as reading, concentrating, and chinking. The second list includes major bodily functions-for example, functions of the immune system or neurological functioning (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). The act also states that the interpretation of "substantial limitation" must be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures like medication or medical equipment. (The only stated exceptt" l. on is eyeg asses or contact lenses.) · Changes incorporated in this legislation also apply to students eligible for prot t· d S. ec 10ns un er ectton 504 of PL 93-112. According to Zirkel (2009), "the overall effect is obviously t 0 d h b... ,, expan t e num er and range of students eligible under Secuon 504 (p. 69). A pupil however c b "........... ' ' annot e regarded as" having a disability if his or her disability is minor or tranmory (a duration of · h...... six monc s or less). It 1s anticipated that the new ADAA eligibility standards will have a significant i. "....... mpact on special educa- tion. IDEA ehg1b1hty teams will need to closely coordmate wtth Section 504 eli ibilit when determining ch at a scud enc is · 1·1gi"ble 1or · me · · · l services c mltla. under IDEA b g I Y teams not only student from an IEP" (Zirkel, 2009, p. 71). ut a so upon exiting the  Chapter 2 Policies, Practices, and Programs 53 We see the overall intent of this enactment as ensuring that individuals with disabilities receive the protections and services to which they are legally entitled. IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES One of the distinguishing characteristics of our field is the individuality and uniqueness of the stu- dents we serve. There is considerable wisdom in the maxim "No two children are alike." Experienced educators will quickly tell you that even though students may share a common disability label, such as learning disabled or visually impaired, that is where the similarity ends. These pupils are likely to be as different as day and night. Of course, the individuality of our students, both typical and atypical, has the potential for creating significant instructional and/or management concerns for the classroom teacher. Recall from Chapter I the types of youngsters enrolled in Mr. Thompson's fifth-grade class- room. Today's schools are serving an increasingly diverse student population. At the same time, there is greater cooperation and more shared responsibility between general and special educators as they collectively plan appropriate educational experiences for all learners. When teachers talk about the individuality of their students, they often refer to interindivid- interindividual differences ual differences. These differences are what distinguish each student from his or her classmates. Differences between two or more persons in a particular lnterindividual differences are differences between pupils. Examples might include distinctions based area. on height, reading ability, athletic prowess, or intellectual competency. Some interindividual differ- ences are more obvious and of greater educational significance than others. lnterindividual differences are frequently the reason for entry into special education programs. One child might be significantly above (or below) average in intellectual ability; another might exhibit - a significant degree of hearing loss. Categorization and placement decision making by school personnel revolve around interindividual differences. Stated another way, school authorities identify, label, and subsequently place a student in an instructional program on the basis of the student's interindividual differences. However, not all pupils in a given program are alike. Children also exhibit intraindividual intraindividual differences Differences within the differences-a unique pattern of strengths and needs. lntraindividual differences are difference·s individual; unique patterns of within the child. Instead of looking at how students compare with their peers, teachers focus on the strengths and needs. individual's abilities and limitations. We should point out that this is a characteristic of all pupils, not just those enrolled in special education programs. For example, Victoria, who is the best art- ist in her eighth-grade class, is equally well known for her inability to sing. One of her classmates, Melinda, has a learning disability. Her reading ability is almost three years below grade level, yet she consistently earns very high grades in math. Intraindividual differences are obviously of importance to teachers. A student's IEP reflects this concern. Assessment data, derived from a variety of sources, typically profile a pupil's strengths and needs. This information is then used in crafting a customized instructional plan tailored to meet the unique needs of the learner. REFERRAL AND ASSESSMENT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION "Evaluation [assessment] is the gateway to special education but referral charts the course to the eval- uation process" (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, & Soodak, 2006, p. 232). Litigation, IDEA require- ments, and today's best practices serve as our road map as we travel along the evaluation pathway to providing appropriate educational experiences for students with disabilities. This journey from referral to assessment to the development of an IEP and eventual placement in the most appropriate environment is a comprehensive process incorporating many different phases. Figure 2.2 illustrates this process. In the following sections, we examine several of the key elements involved in developing individualized program plans. 54 Part 1 Foundations of Special Education ~ @.-J--J§f..i#liil=li11~ ~~ - ~© ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · ~~~.:... ~.~ ~ ®~ (tl!lm~ ~ ~ ~rB§lu(i) fl ~ ~ 1. IDEA does not mandate parental consent for referral but does require consent for evaluation. 2. Eligibility determination must occur within sixty days of referral. 3. If parents re f use consen t fo r a special education , the school district is not responsible for providing a free appropriate public education. Pre referral Although evaluation may be the gateway to special education, a great deal of activity occurs prior to a student's ever taking the first test. Careful scrutiny of our model reveals an intervention strategy known prereferral intervention as prereferral intervention, which occurs prior to initiating a referral for possible special education. Instructional or behavioral services. The purpose of this strategy is to reduce unwarranted referrals while providing individualized strategies introduced by a general educator to assist assistance to the student without the benefit of a special education. Although not mandated by IDEA, students experiencing prereferral interventions have become increasingly common over the past two decades. In fact, IDEA difficulty; designed to minimize inappropriate 2004 permits the use of federal dollars to support these activities. Many states either require or recom- referrals for special mend the use of this tactic with individuals suspected of having a disability. education. Prereferral interventions are preemptive by design. They call for collaboration between general educa- tors and other professionals for the express purpose of developing creative, alternative instructional and/or management strategies designed to accommodate the particular needs of the learner. This process results in shared responsibility and joint decision making among general and special educators I d. , re ate service Providers administrators, and other school personnel, all of whom possess specifiic exp t" h., ,.... _ , er ise; t e pup1 1s Parents typically do not pamcipate m this early phase. The child s success or failure h l · l _. in sc oo no onger depends exclusively on the pedagogical skills of the general educator· rather it is n h ·b·t·. of the school-based mtervention. assistance. ' team (also commonly known as' a t ow h t e responsi. i uy. instructional support team, or child study team) (Buck, Polloway, Smith-Thoma & C k eac er-assistance team ' s, 00 ' 2003). -- ' Chapter 2 Policies, Practices, and Programs 55 ~ ~~.iltTh fOOt;~--@~1@ f;[i)(. [i.)jt' ·.·~ ' - ~ ~.. ~ ~