| Full title | Individuals with Disabilities Education Act |
|---|---|
| Acronym | IDEA |
| Enacted by the | 101st United States Congress |
| Citations | |
| Public Law | Pub.L. 101-476 |
| Stat. | 104 Stat. 1142 |
| Codification | |
| Act(s) amended | Education for All Handicapped Children Act |
| Title(s) amended | 20 |
| U.S.C. sections substantially amended | 1400 et seq. |
|
|
| Major amendments | |
| Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446 | |
| Relevant Supreme Court cases | |
| Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516 (2007) Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 129 S.Ct. 2484 (2009) |
|
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities. It addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to age 18 or 21[1][2] in cases that involve 14 specified categories of disability.
The IDEA is "spending clause" legislation, meaning that it only applies to those States and their local educational agencies that accept federal funding under the IDEA. While States declining such funding are not subject to the IDEA, all States have accepted funding under this statute and are subject to it.
The IDEA and its predecessor statute, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, arose from federal case law holding the deprivation of free public education to disabled children constitutes a deprivation of due process. It has grown in scope and form over the years. IDEA has been reauthorized and amended a number of times, most recently in December 2004, which contained several significant amendments. Its terms are further defined by regulations of the United States Department of Education, which are found in Parts 300 and 301 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In defining the purpose of special education, IDEA 2004 clarifies Congress’ intended outcome for each child with a disability: students must be provided a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that prepares them for further education, employment and independent living.[3]
Under IDEA 2004:
Contents |
Before the statute (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act) was enacted in 1975, U.S. public schools educated only 1 out of 5 children with disabilities.[4] Until that time, many states had laws that explicitly excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school, including children who were blind, deaf, and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded."[5] At the time the EHA was enacted, more than 1 million children in the U.S. had no access to the public school system.[5] Many of these children lived at state institutions where they received limited or no educational or rehabilitation services.[6] Another 3.5 million children attended school but were “warehoused” in segregated facilities and received little or no effective instruction.[5]
As of 2006, more than 6 million children in the U.S. receive special education services through IDEA.[7]
In 1954, the established educational format in the United States of segregating black and white students into separate schools was deemed unconstitutional by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).[8] This caused a great deal of unrest in the political sphere and marks a gateway moment in the Civil Rights Movement. Although not highlighted extensively in US history classes, education was a large part of the Civil Rights controversy.
The years that led up to the formation of Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 were marked by strife in the United States. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 in Dallas, Texas (Assassination of John F. Kennedy), the Vietnam war was ongoing from 1955 until 1975. On top of those events, the Civil Rights Movement was in full force in the United States.[9] From schools being integrated to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, from Greensboro sit-ins to marches on Washington, equal rights for all was a prevalent ideal. President Kennedy showed interest in mental retardation studies and President Johnson used Federal funds to increase research on “at-risk” youth. Early intervention programs for children living in low socioeconomic situations, such as Head Start Head Start Program, began showing up around the country.[10] Education was soon at the forefront of many political agendas.
The first educational sector to argue for access to equal educational opportunities for all students was the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC), which sued Pennsylvania in 1972 for not providing equal access to educational opportunities to children with disabilities. Soon after this, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established that Federal programs could not discriminate on the basis of disabilities. However, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forced parents to take any cases to the court system. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act created a system for these cases to be received and resolved without involving the court system in an effort to decrease the litigation costs associated with filing a claim.
27 years later, in 1990, the EHA was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in order to place more focus on the individual, as opposed to a condition that individual may have.[11] The IDEA also had many improvements on the EHA, such as: Promotes research and technology Details on transition programs for students post-high school Programs that educate children in their neighborhood schools, as opposed to separate schools[12]
Details about the IDEA can be viewed in subsections below.
Having a disability does not automatically qualify a student for special education services under the IDEA. The disability must result in the student needing additional or different services to participate in school.
IDEA defines a "child with a disability" as a "child... with an intellectual disability, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance..., orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; AND, who... [because of the condition] needs special education and related services."[13]
Children with disabilities who qualify for special education are also automatically protected by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, all modifications that can be provided under Section 504 or the ADA can be provided under the IDEA if included in the student's IEP.
Students with disabilities who do not qualify for special education services under the IDEA may qualify for accommodations or modifications under Section 504 and under the ADA. Their rights are protected by due process procedure requirements.[14]
The zero reject rule was affirmed in Parks v. Pavkovic, 753 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir.1985) and Timothy W. v. Rochester School District 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989). The courts have ruled that even if the student is completely incapable of benefiting from educational services and all efforts are futile—even if the child is unconscious or in a coma—the school is still required to provide educational services to the child.
The act requires that public schools create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student who is found to be eligible under both the federal and state eligibility/disability standards. The IEP is the cornerstone of a student's educational program. It specifies the services to be provided and how often, describes the student's present levels of performance and how the student's disabilities affect academic performance, and specifies accommodations and modifications to be provided for the student.[15]
An IEP must be designed to meet the unique educational needs of that one child in the Least Restrictive Environment appropriate to the needs of that child. That is, the least restrictive environment in which the child learns. When a child qualifies for services, an IEP team is convened to design an education plan. In addition to the child’s parents, the IEP team must include at least one of the child’s regular education teachers (if applicable), a special education teacher, someone who can interpret the educational implications of the child’s evaluation, such as a school psychologist, any related service personnel deemed appropriate or necessary, and an administrator or CSE (Committee of Special Education) representative who has adequate knowledge of the availability of services in the district and the authority to commit those services on behalf of the child. Parents are considered to be equal members of the IEP team along with the school staff. And of course, parents have fundamental rights as parents. Based on the full educational evaluation results, this team collaborates to write an IEP for the individual child, one that will provide a free, appropriate public education. The required content of an IEP is described in Individualized Education Program.
The definition of related services in the IDEA includes, but is not limited to: transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes speech-language pathology and audiology services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, music therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and *mobility services, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes. The term also includes school health services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training.[16]
Guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), FAPE is defined as an educational program that is individualized to a specific child, designed to meet that child's unique needs, and from which the child receives educational benefit. To provide FAPE, schools must provide students with an “… education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.”[17]
Some of the criteria specified in various sections of the IDEA statute includes requirements that schools provide each disabled student an education that:
The U.S. Dept. Education, 2005a regulations implementing IDEA states: "...to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities including children in public or private institutions or care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily."
Simply put, the LRE is the environment most like that of typical children in which the child with a disability can succeed academically (as measured by the specific goals in the student's IEP). This refers to the two questions decided upon in Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2D 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).
This court, relying on Roncker, also developed a two-part test for determining if the LRE requirement is met. The test poses two questions:
Pursuant to IDEA, when disciplining a child with a disability, one must take that disability into consideration to determine the appropriateness of the disciplinary actions. For example, if a child with Autism is sensitive to loud noises, and she runs out of a room filled with loud noises due to sensory overload, appropriate disciplinary measure for that behavior (running out of the room)must take into account the child's disability; such as avoiding punishments that involve loud noises. Moreover, an assessment should be made as to whether appropriate accommodations were in place to meet the needs of the child.
According to the United States Department of Education, in cases of children with disabilities who have been suspended for 10 or more days for each school year (including partial days), the local education agency (LEA) must hold a manifestation determination hearing within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child resulting from of a violation of code of student conduct. The Stay Put law states that a child shall not be moved from his or her current placement or interim services into an alternative placement if the infraction was deemed to cause danger to other students. The LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the individualized education program (IEP) team (as determined by the parent and LEA) shall review all relevant information in the student's file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if the conduct in question was:
If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP team shall:
If it is determined that a student's behavior is a manifestation of his or her disability, then he or she may not be suspended or expelled. However, under IDEA 2004,if a student "brings a weapon to school or a school function; or knowingly possess, uses, or sells illegal drugs or controlled substances at school or a school function"; or causes "serious bodily injury upon another person," he or she my be placed in an interim alternate educational setting (IAES) for up to 45 school days.[21] This allows the student to continue receiving educational services while the IEP team has time to determine the appropriate placement and the appropriate course of action including reviewing the FBA and the BIP.
Public school districts are responsible for identifying all students with disabilities within their districts, regardless of whether they are attending public schools, since private institutions may not be funded for providing accommodations under IDEA.
IDEA includes a set of procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their families, and to ensure that children with disabilities receive a FAPE. The procedural safeguards include the opportunity for parents to review their child's full educational records; full parent participation in identification and IEP team meetings; parent involvement in placement decisions; Prior Written Notice; the right of parents to request independent educational evaluations at public expense; Notice of Procedural Safeguards; Resolution Process; and objective mediation funded by the state education agency and impartial Due Process Hearings.[22] IDEA guarantees the following rights to parents:
This booklet is to be provided in the following instances[23] * On the first complaint or request for an evaluation
The professional safeguard booklet titled, Whose Idea Is This? A Parent’s Guide to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 outlines the expectations and responsibilities of the parents as well as the expectations and legal responsibilities of the teachers, administration and school district.
The entire goal of this process is to make the evaluation and, if needed, implementation of an IEP a joint venture between the students guardians and the school, with the goal of providing the education services needed to aid instruction in a general classroom setting, or other setting if needed.[24] The booklet outlines a seven step process to determine a student’s educational needs and the services that they require:
The Education for all Handicapped children Act of 1975 started the course of action for early intervention programs. In this act, public schools that received federal funding were required to provide equal access to education for children with disabilities.[25]
On September 6, 2011, the US Department of Education updated the IDEA to include specific interventions for children of ages 2 and under that have disabilities. This section of the IDEA is entitled Part C and serves children with developmental delays or children that have conditions that may lead to developmental delays in the future. Part C is a $436 million initiative that will be administered at the state level.[26]
On September 28, 2011, the Department of Education published an article in the Federal Register detailing the updates that have been made to Part C of the IDEA.[27] The regulations are effective on October 28, 2011. Major changes in the regulations are detailed below:
More specific details on Early Intervention requirements are found below.
An Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is an early intervention program set up for children with disabilities between the child’s birth and the age of 3.[28][29] The IFSP stems from Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Part C of IDEA is the program that awards grants to every state in the United States to provide early intervention services to children from birth to age 3 who have disabilities and to their families.[28][30] Part C of IDEA also allows states to provide these services to the children who do not necessarily have disabilities, but developmental delays instead.[31] As long as the participating state provides early intervention that is available to every eligible child and the respective family, the state is expected to make their own definition of developmental delay.[31] Lastly, services from Part C are not necessarily free.[32] With these conditions laid out by Part C of IDEA, the Individualized Family Service Plan ensures these conditions.
The goal of an IFSP for a child is to provide services, aligned with the goal of the family, for a child with a disability between birth and the age of 3.[33] After the child and the child’s family have been identified to be potentially eligible to receive an IFSP, the child will undergo a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment.[32] If qualified, an IFSP is then created and written for the child and the child’s family.[32] An IFSP will outline the following:
In summary, a key to an effective IFSP is to include outcomes that “address the entire family’s well-being and not only outcomes designed to benefit the child’s development.”[32] For this reason, the IFSP will inherently have goals that are designed for the family as well as for the child.[35] The service provider of the IFSP should prioritize the family’s concerns from the family’s perspective and not from the child’s perspective. For example, a child might not have fully developed language skills by the age of 3. Although this is critical for the child, this may not be an immediate need for the family because the family might have more urgent family needs before the child needs to improve his/her language skills. Thus, the IFSP should address the family’s needs first before addressing the child’s need, as an example.
A service coordinator will be assigned to a family who qualifies for an IFSP.[36] The service coordinator helps the family throughout the whole process of the IFSP, whether it be the planning, the executing, or the evaluating of the plan. The service coordinator is to help the family receive the services as explained by the IFSP until the child turns three or until the child no longer needs any early intervention services.[36] The service coordinator is free to families. The responsibilities of a service coordinator should include:
It should be noted that when writing the IFSP for a child, the IFSP can (but not always) cover services that are not outlined by part C of the IDEA.[37] For example, a child may need special medical services that are in other parts of IDEA other than Part C. If this is the case, the IFSP will still cover those needed services along with how those services will be funded. The Individualized Family Service Plan is different compared to an Individual Education Plan in many key ways:
In addition to the Federal law, the U.S. Department of Education publishes regulations that clarifies what the law means. States may add more provisions to further regulate how schools provide services, but they cannot reverse any provision specifically included in the federal statute.
The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 revised the statute to align with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB allows financial incentives to states who improve their special education services and services for all students. States who do not improve must refund these incentives to the federal government, allow parents choice of schools for their children, and abide by other provisions. Some states are still reluctant to educate special education students and seek remedies through the courts. However, IDEA and NCLB are still the laws of the land to date.
In looking to align NCLB and the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA there are a few key areas of alignment: requirement highly qualified teachers, establishment of goals for students with special needs and assessment levels for these students.[39] The alignment of NCLB and IDEA requires that all special education teachers be highly qualified. While the standards for being highly qualified may different between state or school district the minimum requirements are that a teacher holds a bachelor’s degree from a four year college, is certified and licensed to teach by the state and has taken the necessary tests to indicate competency in ones subject area,[40] although special education teachers are often exempt from such testing. It should be noted that these requirements for highly qualified teachers do not always exist for private schools, elementary or secondary. Next, goals and assessments must be provided that align with students educational needs. A state is allowed to develop alternate or modified assessments for students in special education programs but benchmarks and progress must still be met on these tests that indicate adequate yearly progress (AYP). In addition, these goals and assessments must be aligned similarly to students enrolled in general education. Finally, in order to make AYP schools may additionally require that schools met state standards of student retention, in terms of dropout rates and graduate rates for their special education students.[41]
Teachers and administrators then often deal with anger from parents who do not understand or do not agree with the regulations by which the school must abide.
There is a disproportionate amount of African-Americans in special education juxtapose the general American in school system.[47] Socioeconomic status, geography, and culture play a role in this dis-proportionality among other factors.[48]
There is a strong correlation between socio-economic status and special education diagnosis.[49] Those living in poverty are less exposed to certain societal experiences, and a higher percentage of those living in poverty are African-Americans.[49] High intelligence quotient (IQ) is linked to exposure of mainstream culture among other indicators.[49] Because children living in poverty are less exposed to certain experiences, they are at greater risk for not performing well on exams such as IQ tests. This then makes these students more likely to be referred for special education, and once a referral has been made the placement or admittance into special education services soon follows at high numbers.[50]
There is also a widely-held belief that some exams that are administered to determine if a student has a disability are culturally biased and gender biased.[51] There is a body of research that supports this view, although there is also support that not all norm-referenced tests are in fact biased. There can also be a lack of cultural competency between the learning styles of African-American students and their educators & school systems.[50]
Every state is required under IDEIA to provide data to ensure that dis proportionality is not occurring.[52] The issue is that there is no guideline on how that data should be analyzed.[52] The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) met in 2003 and 2004 to use risk-ratio and determine its challenges, while also addressing them.[53] Insight on how data is being collected and analyzed can shed light on where and how the dis-proportionality is occurring and how to curtail them if they are.
IDEA 2004 also put in place indicators to prevent the over-diagnosis of students with disabilities[48] The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction created a Checklist to Address Disproportionality (CADSE) in order to increase awareness of over-diagnosis and put systems in place that prevent the continued cycles of over-identification.[54] An important component of this checklist is cultural competency. Efforts continue to be made on a local, state, and national level to prevent over-identification in special education.
There are resources available to safeguard and protect students and families with disabilities. Parents must be asked if they want their child evaluated for special needs testing.[55] If a parent feels that their child has been misdiagnosed or has been discriminated against for a particular reason including race or language,[56] they have the right to filed with the Office of Civil Rights. There are legal service providers in each state that can be accessed through the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. There are also resources to help parents in understanding their rights through the National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities.
1975 — The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) became law. It was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990.
1990— IDEA first came into being on October 30, 1990 when the "Education of All Handicapped Children Act" (itself having been introduced in 1975) was renamed "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." (Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142). IDEA received minor amendments in October 1991 (Pub. L. No. 102-119, 105 Stat. 587).
1997— IDEA received significant amendments. The definition of disabled children expanded to include developmentally delayed children between three and nine years of age. It also required parents to attempt to resolve disputes with schools and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) through mediation, and provided a process for doing so. The amendments authorized additional grants for technology, disabled infants and toddlers, parent training, and professional development. (Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37).
2004— On December 3, 2004, IDEA was amended by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, now known as IDEIA. Several provisions aligned IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed by President George W. Bush. It authorized fifteen states to implement 3-year IEPs on a trial basis when parents continually agree. Drawing on the report of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education,[57] the law revised the requirements for evaluating children with learning disabilities. More concrete provisions relating to discipline of special education students was also added. (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647).
2009— Following a campaign promise for "funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act",[58] President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on February 17, 2009, including $12.2 billion in additional funds.[59]
On November 14, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, that moving parties in a placement challenge hold the burden of persuasion. While this is an accord with the usual legal thinking, the moving party is almost always the parents of a child.
On June 26, 2006 the Supreme Court held in Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, that prevailing parents may not recover expert witness fees as part of the costs under 20 U.S.C.§ 1415(i)(3)(B).
On May 21, 2007 the Supreme Court held in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516, that parents have independent enforceable rights under the IDEA and may appear pro se on behalf of their children.
The case of Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 129 S.Ct. 2484, argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2009, addressed the issue of whether the parents of a student who has never received special education services from a public school district are potentially eligible for reimbursement of private school tuition for that student under the IDEA.[60] On June 22, 2009 the Supreme Court held that parents of disabled children can seek reimbursement for private education expenses regardless whether their child had previously received special-education services from a public school. By a vote of six to three, the Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement whenever a public school fails to make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to a disabled child.
RULE: Continuing nursing services is "related service" that district must provide under IDEA
School says no, thinking this isn't a legal obligation (to provide 1:1 nursing).
|title= specified when using {{Cite web}}". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955%E2%80%931968).