History of the Law; FAPE; and IEPs Leslie Yoder, Shawn Bromeland, Randy Comfort, Randy Althoff, Stacey Dahlby
The History of Special Education Law Chapter Four
“It is doubtful that any child may succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right that must be made available to all on equal terms.” Chief Justice Earl Warren Brown v. Board of Education (1954, p.493)
Role of the school • In the United States, education is viewed as: • a birthright • fundamental to the creation of citizens • crucial to the democratic process
Case History Scenarios • Watson v. City of Cambridge (1893) • Disabled students may be expelled • Beattie v. Board of Education (1919) • Disabled students may be excluded • Department of Public Welfare v. Haas (1958) • State not required to provide free public education for the “feeble minded” or “mentally deficient.”
Change Begins • Parental Advocacy • Turn of the 20th century • 1910- 1st White House Conference on Children • Intended to establish remedial programs for children with disabilities ot special needs. • Inspired trend of education rather than institutionalization. • 1910-1930 significant increase in segregated classes and support services in public schools
Social & Economic Factors • The Great Depression (1929-32) • Increasingly heterogeneous student populations increase social tension • Growth of Advocacy Group • 1933 Cuyahoga County Ohio Society for the Retarded Child • 1922 Council for Exceptional Children • 1950 National Association for Retarded Citizens • 1974 Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps
Impact of the Civil Rights Movement • Under it’s Constitution, the US provides citizens with individual rights • These rights were not provided to all citizens on an equal basis • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • The high court reasoned that because of the importance of education in our society, the effects and consequences of racial segregation essentially denied the students affected of equal educational opportunities.
Subsequent Equal Opportunity Cases • Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) • Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972)
Federal Legislation • Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act of 1958 • Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959 • 1965- Elementary and Secondary Education Act • Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970 • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) • Education Amendments of 1974
Federal Legislation cont. • Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 • Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 • Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Act of 1986 • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990
Recent Federal Involvement • IDEA Amendments of 1997 • No Child Left Behind Act (2002) • President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education • Individuals With Disabilities Act of 2004
Free Appropriate Public EducationFAPE Chapter 9
(E)ducaiton for (A)ll (H)andicapped (C)hildren (A)ct (now IDEA) 1975 • Pre 1975: Exclusion and Needs not met • EAHCA provided Federal Financial Aid to states for Special Education • EAHCA defined that all students have a right to Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) • States had to submit plans for to provide that all students with disabilities had a FAPE right. • Goal was/is Equal Opportunity not Outcome (does not guarantee success of student)
FAPE Mandate of IDEA • 4 parts define FAPE • 1. Provided at Public expense • 2. Must Meet State Standards • 3. State must provide an appropriate preschool through secondary education • 4. Provided in conformity with an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP)
The Free and Appropriate • Free • Must provide services related to education free of cost. • You are not allowed to NOT provide services because of cost. • However you can consider cost in determing services • Free only applies to parents, not to other providers • Challenges to FAPE are primarily on the “appropriate” component • Scenario 2 • If its not the best, is it still reasonable?
School Personnel Procedural Requirements School Personnel must follow procedural mechanisms: a) Notice to parents when plan discussed b) Invitation to parents to participate c) Parental consent prior to evaluation d) Parental examination of records e) Allow for independent evaluation at public expense (+ mediation) if parents disagree with school evaluation.
Components of an IEP • The IEP meeting needs to have: • Representative of the public agency (school district); Student’s teacher; Student’s parents • Required to have six components: 1. Statement of student’s present educational level 2. Measurable annual goals 3. Statement of special education and related services 4. Statement of transition services 5. Date special education services begin and anticipated duration of the services 6. Appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures.
Scenario 3 • Complex health issues requiring physician’s care do not qualify • Who has to pay? Are schools required to provide for medical issues? • Irving ISD v. Tatro (1984)
“Bright Line” Test + FAPE • 3 part test for related services (Irving ISD v. Tatro 1984) • 1. Must be IDEA eligible, • 2. Service must be necessary to assist the child in Special Education, • 3. Must be performed by a nurse or other qualified person. Some challenges to this, but medical things “mostly” qualify as related service requirement.
FAPE • “Rowley” two part test: • 1. Has the school complied with the procedures of the Act? (Procedural) • 2. Is the IEP reasonably calculated for student success? (Substantive) Students do not have a right to the “best possible” education, Technical/procedural errors do not equate to FAPE violation Measurable harm must be done to as a result of mistakes
Scenario • Is this substantive or procedural in nature?
On the 25th Anniversary of the IDEA “…we know that education is the key to our children’s future…. IDEA…insures that all children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education.” President Bill Clinton November 29, 2000
The Individualized Education Program Purposes, IEP Mandate, IEP Development, Substantive Requirements, Litigation
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) • “The importance of the IEP [should not] be understated…[it is] the fundamental prerequisite of any FAPE.”Justice Huntley, Thorndock v. Boise I.S.D. (1988, p. 1246) • The IEP: keystone of IDEA (Honig v. Doe, 1988) • All aspects of special education program directed & monitored throughout IEP process • Goals, placement, services, evaluation & measurement • The IEP process develops & formalizes the FAPE for a student with disabilities • Both procedural & substantive requirements
Procedural Requirements • Provide notice to parents • Adhere to state mandated timelines • Involve parents in education. decision making • Conduct complete & individual. Evaluations • Ensure necessary members attend • Include all appropriate content • Ensure IEP implemented as written
Substantive Requirements “Meaningful educational benefit” • Thoroughly assess academic & functional needs • Base goals on those needs • Write goals: complete, appropriate, measurable • Provide services: effective, research-based • Monitor progress & update as needed
Purposes • Communication • Management • Accountability • Compliance and Monitoring • Evaluation The IEP Mandate School personnel & parents work together to develop a program that will result in meaningful educational benefit. It must be individualized & in effect before provision of services. Both a process and a written document.
IEP Development • The IEP Planning Process • Referral, consent, assessment, IEP team appointed, IEP developed, placement • The IEP Team-Required Participants • Student’s parents, special education teacher, general education teacher, one who can interpret evaluation results, child when appropriate, representative of educational agency • A. supervise provision of special education • B. knowledgeable about general curriculum • C. knowledgeable about availability of resources
IEP Development • The IEP Team-Discretionary Participants • Related service providers, one with expertise in assistive technology, representative of agency of transition services, others who have knowledge of a student or disability, Part C provider if eligible for Part C
Eight Components Required in the IEP 1. Present Level of Performance • Describes learner’s functioning • Measurable Goals and Benchmarks/Short-Term Objectives • Goals address skill/behavior to change, direction, & outcome • Example: Tommy will improve his understanding of problem-solving strategies from emerging to an adult prompted level. • Objectives are the steps leading to attainment of the goal • Example: When given a probe sheet with 50 two-digit addition facts, Tommy will write the answers with 95% accuracy in 2 of 3 trials.
Components Continued 3. Special Education and Related Services and Supplementary Aids and Services • Special education & related services records the type of services delivered including location, amount, and frequency • Supplemental aids & services are defined as supports provided in reg education classes • Ex; specialized equipment, assistive technology devices, specialized transportation, modifications to discipline policies, extended time, etc.
Components Continued 4. Extent to Which Students Will Not Participate in the General Education Classroom • Describes student’s ability or inability to participate in general education program and justifies teams decision 5. Student’s Participation in State- or District-Wide Assessment • Why assessment is not appropriate along with alternative assessment 6. Projected Date of Initiation and Anticipated Duration
Components Continued 7. Transition Services Needed • In MN must address by age 14 or grade 9 • Focus on Post-Secondary Activities • Address employment, post-secondary education & training, community participation, recreation leisure, home living/daily living 8. How Student’s Progress Toward Goals Will Be Measured • Parents must be informed about student’s progress as often as parents of children without disabilities. • Progress Reports
IEP Special Considerations • Positive Behavior Support Plans • Student with Limited English Proficiency • Blind or Visual Impairment Needs • Student with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Needs • Assistive Technology Needs • Placement Decision
Parental Participation • 1997 Amendments of IDEA strengthened role • School must provide adequate notice • If parents are unwilling to respond or participate school should collect documentation
Reviewing & Communicating the Requirements of an IEP • Reviews Must Be Conducted if: • Lack of progress • Re-evaluation need to be considered • Parents provide additional information • Needs are anticipated to change • Requirements must be communicated with teachers working with a student on a IEP