idea 2004 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
IDEA 2004 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
IDEA 2004

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 97

IDEA 2004 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 174 Views
  • Updated on

IDEA 2004. Presented by Howard W. Atlas, Ed.D., NCSP NLU School Psychology Intern Meeting October 30, 2007. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Enacted in 1975 Known as the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 Various revisions as “reauthorized”. IDEIA 2004.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

IDEA 2004


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. IDEA 2004 Presented by Howard W. Atlas, Ed.D., NCSP NLU School Psychology Intern Meeting October 30, 2007

    2. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Enacted in 1975 Known as the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 Various revisions as “reauthorized”

    3. IDEIA 2004 • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 • Signed by President Bush on December 3, 2004 • Majority of provisions went into effect on July 1, 2005 • Federal Regulations issued on 8/14/06, effective on 10/14/06 • ISBE Regs effective on 6/28/07

    4. IDEIA 2004 • Aligned with NCLB • “Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible.”

    5. Alignment with NCLB • Peer reviewed, research based instruction • Documentation of reading methodology employed • Highly Qualified Teacher • Alternate Assessments—state why child cannot participate in regular assessments, and districts need to justify why the regular assessment is not appropriate

    6. Alignment with NCLB: Essential Components of Reading • Explicit and systematic instruction in: Phonemic awareness; Phonics; Vocabulary development; Reading Fluency including oral reading skills; and Reading comprehension strategies

    7. Special Education Law—4 Step Process • Federal legislation provides the basic framework—from Congress. • Federal regulations provide additional details to fill in the gaps—from U. S. Dept. of Education. • States have option to add to, but not subtract from the federal foundations. • Case law, form published hearing/review officers and court decisions, interprets and applies federal and state laws.

    8. Definitions • Day--calendar day • School day--any day, including a partial day that children are in attendance • Business day--Monday through Friday, except for Federal and State holidays

    9. ISBE Regs--Changes in Disability Definitions • Mental Retardation changed to Cognitive Disability • Emotional Disturbance changed to Emotional Disability • Autism—the term includes, but is not limited to, any Autism Spectrum Disorder that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

    10. Changes Cont. • Developmental Delay may include children from three through nine years of age

    11. Disproportionality and Overrepresentation

    12. Disproportionality and Overrepresentation • Requires state to have policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment

    13. Disproportionality Cont. • States must collect and examine data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the state and the LEA with respect to:

    14. Disproportionality • The identification of children as children with disabilities, including the identification of children with disabilities in accordance with a particular impairment; • The placement in particular educational settings of such children; and • The incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions

    15. Early Intervening Services

    16. Early Intervening Services • An LEA can use up to 15% of IDEA Part B funds, during any fiscal year, to develop and implement coordinated early intervening services, in grades K-12, for students who are not special education but need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in general education

    17. Early Intervening Cont. • Required to reserve maximum (15%) in the case of significant disproportionality

    18. EVALUATIONS AND REEVALUATIONS

    19. Referrals for Evaluations • A referral for an evaluation may be made by a parent, employee of a State education agency, another State agency, a local education agency, or a community service agency.

    20. Time-Lines • Within 14 days after receipt of a request for an evaluation, the school district must determine whether an eval. Is warranted. If the dist. does not decide that an evaluation is warranted, it must provide written notice to the parents which conforms to the “prior written notice” requirements of the federal and State regs. within 10 calendar days after receiving the request.

    21. Evaluation Procedures Cont. • If the LEA decides that an eval. is warranted, it must convene a team of persons, including the parents, who have the knowledge and skills to administer and interpret eval. data. • The team must determine assessments (i.e., domains) necessary to complete the evaluation and prepare a “prior written notice” explanation statement for the parents.

    22. Evaluation Procedures Cont. • For each domain the notice must either describe the needed assessments or explain why none are needed.

    23. Evaluations • Change in the provision related to native language or other mode of communication • “assessments and other evaluation materials’ must be “provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is not feasible to so provide or administer.”

    24. Evaluation and Reevaluation • Informed parental consent required • Consent for eval. should not be construed as consent for initial sp.ed. placement • LEA’s may file for Due Process (DP) to override parent’s failure to consent to evaluation or, or a parent’s refusal to respond to request for evaluation

    25. Evaluation and Reevaluation Cont. If child is a ward of the state, and not residing with parents, the LEA is not required to obtain informed consent from the parents for an initial evaluation if-- • LEA can’t locate parents, but made reasonable efforts; rights of parents have been terminated; right of the parents to make educational decisions has been removed by judicial order, and someone has been appointed by the courts to represent the child

    26. Evaluation and Reevaluation Cont. • Prior to 2004, IDEA did not have a timeline for completion of the initial evaluation. • It was up to the state to decide. • ISBE decided upon 60 school days • IDEIA 2004 sets the timeline at 60 days fromreceipt of parent consent to determine eligibility and educational needs of the child, unless the State has already established such timeline.

    27. Time Line • ISBE has retained the 60 school-day timeline for completion of the evaluation, determination/review of eligibility, and, where appropriate, development/revision of the IEP.

    28. Exceptions to 60 Day Timeline • Parent delay—where the parent “repeatedly fails or refused to produce the student for the evaluation.” • The transfer exception—when a child transfers to another LEA the LEA must make “sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation” and come to an agreement with the parent on a specific time by which the evaluation will be completed.

    29. Reevaluations • Parents and LEA may override the requirement of a triennial reevaluation if they agree a reevaluation is not necessary. • Prohibits reevaluations more frequently than once a year, unless parent and LEA agree.

    30. Evaluation Tidbits As part of an initial evaluation (if appropriate) and as part of any reevaluation, the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, must— Review existing evaluation data on the child, including:

    31. Evaluations--Continued • (i) Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child; • (ii) Current classroom-based, local, or State assessments, and classroom-based observations; and • (iii) Observations by teachers and related services providers; and

    32. Evaluations Continued • (2) On the basis of that review, and input form the child’s parents, identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine— • Whether the child has a disability, and the educational needs of the child; • The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the child;

    33. Evaluations Continued • Whether the child needs special ed. and related services; or in the case of a reeval, whether the child needs to continue to need special ed. and related services; and • Whether any additions or modifications to special ed. and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the IEP of the child and to participate, as appropriate, in the general ed. curriculum.

    34. PARENT CONSENT

    35. When is Consent Mandated? • For initial evaluation. • For a reevaluation • For initial placement in special ed

    36. Parent Consent Cont. • If parent refused consent for initial or reevaluation, the district may exercise override provisions of IDEA—mediation and due process hearing.

    37. Consent for Initial Placement • Consent for evaluation does not imply consent for initial placement • Parents may refuse to consent to initial sped. services • LEA does not have the option of Due Process (DP) if parent refuses initial sped services

    38. Parent Denies Consent • Absolves LEA of subsequent repercussions from the parent’s choice • Absent consent for services the LEA “shall not be required to convene an IEP meeting, or develop an IEP.” • If parent rejects initial placement, the LEA no longer has a duty to provide a FAPE, an IEP meeting, and an IEP. These are waived by the parent’s refusal to consent for services.

    39. Parent Request to Withdraw Services—As per ISBE • Parent has the right to withdraw their child from special education services, and may give oral or written notice. If orally communicated, the district must commit the request to writing and give the parent a copy within 5 days. • Upon parent request to withdraw services, District has two options:

    40. Parent revokes consent-District Options • Immediately honor the request, or provide the parent with a written explanation of the timeline for the district's action and reasons for that timeline; or • Within 5 business days of revocation request, submit a request, in writing, to ISBE for a due process hearing. • Stay-Put

    41. LEARNING DISABILITIES:WHAT’S NEW?

    42. Background • Since late 1970’s, IDEA required states to use the discrepancy model as the primary, but not only criteria for SLD determination • IDEA 2004 provides significant changes in SLD determination

    43. Reform to the Discrepancy Model • Consensus of experts in the field is that the existing discrepancy model for LD classification is flawed, lacks scientific research, and leads to misidentification • Wait-to-fail model • LD experts, as well as the Commission on Excellence in Special Education, recommended shifting to an LD eligibility model that first provides sound interventions to struggling students

    44. LD and IDEIA • “a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability” • In making LD eligibility determination, schools “may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures”

    45. LD and IDEIA cont. • Therefore, states cannot require LEA’s to use the discrepancy model; LEA’s are free to design and implement an RTI eligibility model

    46. SLD REGULATIONS 300.7-300.311

    47. General A State must adopt criteria for determining whether a child has a SLD • Must not require the discrepancy model to determine if the child has a SLD; • Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and • May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.

    48. LD Eligibility Criteria (1) The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards:

    49. Criteria for LD • Oral expression • Listening comprehension • Written expression • Basic reading skills • Reading fluency skills--New • reading comprehension • Mathematics calculation • Mathematics problem solving

    50. LD Eligibility Cont. (2) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the criteria areas when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based interventions; or the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, or