From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act |
| Long title | Individuals with Disabilities Education Act |
|---|
| Acronyms (colloquial) | IDEA |
|---|
| Enacted by | the 101st United States Congress |
|---|
|
| Public law | Pub.L. 101-476 |
|---|
| Statutes at Large | 104 Stat. 1142 |
|---|
|
| Acts amended | Education for All Handicapped Children Act |
|---|
| Titles amended | 20 |
|---|
| U.S.C. sections amended | 1400 et seq. |
|---|
|
- Introduced in the Senate as S.1824 by Tom Harkin (D–IA) on October 31, 1989
- Committee consideration by Committee on Labor and Human Resources
- Passed the Senate on November 16, 1989 (voice vote)
- Passed the House on June 18, 1990 (without objection)
- Reported by the joint conference committee on October 1, 1990; agreed to by the Senate on October 2, 1990 (voice vote) and by the House on October 15, 1990 (voice vote)
- Signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on October 30, 1990
|
|
No Child Left Behind Act
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446 |
|
|
|
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation
that ensures students with a disability are provided with Free
Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual
needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA.
Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the
same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a
disability.
IDEA is composed of four parts, the main two being part A and part B.
Part A covers the general provisions of the law; Part B covers
assistance for education of all children with disabilities; Part C
covers infants and toddlers with disabilities, including children from
birth to age three; and Part D consists of the national support programs
administered at the federal level. Each part of the law has remained
largely the same since the original enactment in 1975.
In practice, IDEA is composed of six main elements that
illuminate its main points. These six elements are: Individualized
Education Program (IEP); Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE);
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Appropriate Evaluation; Parent and
Teacher Participation; and Procedural Safeguards. To go along with those
six main elements, there are also a few other important components that
tie into IDEA: Confidentiality of Information, Transition Services, and
Discipline. Throughout the years of IDEA's being reauthorized, these
components have become key concepts when learning about IDEA.
Background and historical context
Historical context
In
1954, the established educational format in the United States of
segregating black and white students into separate schools was declared
unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. This declaration caused a great deal of unrest in the political sphere and marked a gateway moment in the Civil Rights Movement. Education was an important aspect of the Civil Rights Movement.
The 1960s and early 1970s were marked by strife in the United
States, from the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 to the Vietnam
war ongoing from 1955 until 1975. On top of those events, the Civil
Rights Movement was in full force in the United States. 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 John F. Kennedy showed interest in cognitive impairment
studies
and President Lyndon Johnson used Federal funds to increase research on
"at-risk" youth. Early intervention programs for children living in low
socioeconomic situations, such as the Head Start Program, began showing
up around the country. Education was soon at the forefront of many political agendas.
As of the early 1970s, U.S. public schools accommodated 1 out of 5 children with disabilities.
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."
At the time, 3.5 million disabled children attended school but were
"warehoused" in segregated facilities and received little or no
effective instruction. More than 1 million children had no access to the public school system, with many of them living at state institutions where they received limited or no educational or rehabilitation services. About 75% of deaf or blind children attended state institutions.
Education for Handicapped Children (1975)
The first legislation to provide relief was the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Congress then enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act in 1975 to alleviate the financial burden created by litigation
pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. Public schools were required to
evaluate handicapped children and create an educational plan with parent
input so as to emulate as closely as possible the educational
experience of non-disabled students. Students should be placed in the
least restrictive environment, one that allows the maximum possible
opportunity to interact with non-impaired students. Separate schooling
may occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such
that instructional goals cannot be achieved in the regular classroom.
Finally, the law contains a due-process clause that guarantees an
impartial hearing to resolve conflicts between the parents of disabled
children and the school system.
The act also required that school districts provide
administrative procedures so that parents of disabled children could
dispute decisions made about their children's education. Once the
administrative efforts were exhausted, parents were then authorized to
seek judicial review of the administration's decision.
IDEA (1990)
In
1990, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act replaced the EHA
in order to place more focus on the individual, as opposed to a
condition that individual may have.
The IDEA also had many improvements on the EHA, such as promoting
research and technology development, details on transition programs for
students post-high school and programs that educate children in their
neighborhood schools, as opposed to separate schools.
By 2003 only 25% of deaf or blind children were educated at state institutions.
As of 2006, more than 6 million children in the U.S. receive special education services through IDEA.
Six pillars of IDEA
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
The IDEA 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 describes
the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional
performance, and how the student's disabilities affect or would affect
the child's involvement in the general education curriculum.
The IEP also specifies the services to be provided and how often, and
it specifies accommodations and modifications to be provided for the
student.
The U.S. Supreme Court has described the IEP as "the centerpiece
of the statute's education delivery system for disabled children". Honig v. Doe,
484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988)
The IEP is the "basis for the handicapped child's entitlement to an
individualized and appropriate education" and the school system must
design the IEP "to meet the unique needs of each child with a
disability." Phillip C. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 701 F. 3d 691, 694 (11th Cir. 2012), citing Doe v. Ala. State Dep't of Educ., 915 F.2d 651, 654 (11th Cir. 1990) and Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.,
550 U.S. 516, 524 (2007). An IEP must be designed to meet the unique
educational needs of that child in the Least Restrictive Environment
appropriate to the needs of that child.
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. Based on the full educational evaluation results,
this team collaborates to write for the individual child an IEP that
will provide a free, appropriate public education.
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Guaranteed by the IDEA, Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is defined as "special education and related services that:
- A) are provided at the public's expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;
- B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;
- C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved; and
- D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program under section 614(d). (Pub. L. No. 94-142, § 602(9))"
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."
The IDEA includes requirements that schools provide each disabled student an education that:
- is designed to meet the unique needs of that one student;
- provides "access to the general curriculum to meet the challenging
expectations established for all children" (that is, it meets the
approximate grade-level standards of the state educational agency.)
- is provided in accordance with the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) as defined in 1414(d)(3).
- results in educational benefit to the child.
Least restrictive environment (LRE)
The U.S. Department of Education, 2005a regulations implementing IDEA
requires that "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."
The regulations further state that "special classes, separate schooling
or other removals 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." In
other words, the Least Restrictive Environment (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).
The court in Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, relying on Roncker, developed a two-part test for determining whether the LRE requirement is met:
- Can an appropriate education in the general education classroom
with the use of supplementary aids and services be achieved
satisfactorily?
- If a student is placed in a more restrictive setting, is the student
"integrated" to the "maximum extent appropriate"? (Standard in AL, DE,
GA, FL, LA, MS, NJ, PA, TX).
Appropriate evaluation
Children
become eligible to receive special education and related services
through an evaluation process. If the evaluation is not appropriately
conducted or does not monitor the information that is needed to
determine placement, it is not appropriate. The goal of IDEA's
regulations for evaluation is to help minimize the number of
misidentifications; to provide a variety of assessment tools and
strategies; to prohibit the use of any single evaluation as the sole
criterion of whether a student is placed in special education services;
and to provide protections against evaluation measures that are racially
or culturally discriminatory. Overall, the goal of appropriate
evaluation is for students who need help to receive appropriate
assistance and to help them reach the goals set by their respective IEP
teams.
Parent and teacher participation
A
good family-professional partnership is key for a student to receive
the education necessary for success. Parents and teachers need to be
willing to communicate and work together to determine the best ways of
working with and providing information for a student. Both the family
and the teacher work together on the IEP team to determine goals, the
LRE, and to discuss other important considerations for each individual
student. Throughout the whole IEP and special education process, parents
and families should be updated and kept informed of any decisions made
about their specific student. Parents should also be able to provide
valuable input about their child to determine placement and other
educational goals.
Procedural safeguard
Parents, as well as teachers, are able to challenge any decisions that they feel are inappropriate for the student.
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.
IDEA guarantees to parents the following access to information:
- Access to their child's educational records;
- Parent participation in all IEP team meetings regarding identification, placement, and educational decisions;
- Prior written notice (Anytime anything will be changed in a student's IEP, their parents must be notified first.);
- Procedural safeguards written notice;
- Understandable language (Translators must be provided when needed.);
- Informed consent (Before any evaluations or services are provided,
the student's parents must be informed and agree in writing before the
school can move forward.); and
- Right to request independent educational evaluations at public expense,
For parents who disagree with the school's decisions, IDEA outlines the following dispute resolution guidelines:
- "Stay Put" rights (If parents disagree with the school's
decision, the student can stay put while the parents and school go
through dispute resolution.)
- Mediation (This is an alternative to due-process hearings.)
- Due process hearings (If a parent has a dispute with the school
about their student's special education placement or teaching, a process
called due process is used to resolve issues; both parties are then
able to tell their sides of the story in a court-like setting.)
- Civil litigation (If due-process results are not to the liking of the parent or the school, a civil lawsuit can be filed)
Other important issues
Litigation and costs
Several
U.S. Supreme Court cases have outlined how litigation works under the
IDEA. Parents have independent enforceable rights under the IDEA and may
appear pro se on behalf of their children. Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516. Under the IDEA, the party that requests a hearing has the burden of proof in such an action. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49. Prevailing parents may not recover expert witness fees as part of the costs under 20 U.S.C.§ 1415(i)(3)(B). Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291.
Confidentiality of information
Throughout
the entire IEP process, the school must protect the confidentiality of
the student. Some schools may think that providing a teacher with the
IEP is a violation of the student's confidentiality, but the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act States that "if the disclosure is to
other school officials, including teachers, within the educational
institution or local education agency who have been determined by the
agency or institution to have legitimate educational interests", the
school does not need written consent from a parent. For more information about confidentiality, see the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
Transition services
At
the age of 16, students are required to be invited to IEP meetings to
discuss transition services with the IEP team. Transition services can
be started earlier if the IEP team deems it necessary, but the student
must be invited to the meeting or appropriate measures must be taken to
account for student preference.
Transition services coordinate the transition between school and
post-school activities, such as secondary education, vocational
training, employment, independent living, etc. These transitional
decisions should be based on the student's strengths/weaknesses,
preferences, and the skills possessed by the individual. Once a decision
has been made on the transition service, a plan should be formed to
allow the student to be able to fully reach this goal. In order for this
to happen, objectives, instruction needed, and other skills should be
assessed and taken into account to prepare the individual for this
transition.
Discipline of a child with a disability
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 a violation of code of student conduct. The Stay Put law states
that a child shall not be moved from their 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 whether the conduct in question was:
- caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child's disability; or
- the direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the IEP.
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:
- conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a
behavioral intervention plan for such child, provided that the LEA had
not conducted such assessment prior to such determination before the
behavior that resulted in a change in placement described in Section
615(k)(1)(C) or (G);
- in the situation where a behavioral intervention plan has been
developed, review the behavioral intervention plan if the child already
has such a behavioral intervention plan, and modify it, as necessary, to
address the behavior; and
- except as provided in Section 615(k)(1)(G), return the child to the
placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the
LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the
behavior intervention plan.
If it is determined that a student's behavior is a manifestation of
their 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 may be placed in
an interim alternate educational setting (IAES) for up to 45 school
days.
This placement 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.
Prohibition on mandatory medication
Due to allegations that school officials coerced parents into administering medication such as Ritalin
to their child, an amendment to the IDEA was added called prohibition
on mandatory medication. Schools may not require parents to obtain a
controlled substance as a condition of:
- attending school
- receiving an evaluation or reevaluation
- receiving special education services
Alignment with No Child Left Behind
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 students who are eligible for
services under IDEA 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 of highly qualified
teachers; an establishment of goals for students with disabilities; and
assessment levels for these students.
The alignment of NCLB and IDEA requires that all special education
teachers be highly qualified. While the standards for being highly
qualified may differ between state or school district, the minimum
requirements are that a teacher hold a bachelor's degree from a
four-year college, be certified and licensed to teach by the state and
have taken the necessary tests to indicate competency in one's subject
area,
although special education teachers are often exempt from such testing.
These requirements for highly qualified teachers do not always exist for
private schools, elementary or secondary. Next, goals and assessments
must be provided to 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 meet state standards of
student retention in terms of dropout rates and graduate rates for their
special education students.
Early intervention
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. Services for infants and toddlers were not included in the Act until the reauthorization in 1986.
On September 6, 2011, the US Department of Education updated the
IDEA to include specific interventions for children of ages 2 and under
who have disabilities. This section of the IDEA is entitled Part C and
serves children with developmental delays or children who have
conditions that may lead to future developmental delays. Part C is a
$436-million initiative that will be administered at the state level.
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. The regulations are effective on October 28, 2011. Major changes in the regulations are detailed below:
- The definition of multidisciplinary has been revised to respect
aspects of an updated individualized family service plan (IFSP) team.
- Native language is the language normally used by the parents of the
child for any child who is deemed limited English proficient.
- A state's application must include how the State plans to follow the payor-of-last-resort requirements in Section 303.511
- A state's application must distinguish between pre-referral,
referral, and post-referral IFSP activities such as screening,
evaluations, assessments, IFSP development, etc.
- Such an application must specify that early identification
information be provided in the native languages of various population
groups in the State.
- A state must report to the public the performance of each Early
Intervention System program in relation to the State's Annual
Performance Report.
More specific details on Early Intervention requirements are found below.
Part C of IDEA
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
An
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is a strengths-based plan of
care for the infant/toddler having a developmental delay or disability.
The plan is based on a child and family assessment of strengths and
needs as well as the results of multidisciplinary evaluations
administered by qualified professionals meeting their state's
certification guidelines. The IFSP is similar to an IEP in that it
addresses specific services; who will provide them and when/where, how
often, etc.; is monitored and updated frequently. Unlike an IEP,
however, the IFSP addresses the needs of not only the child but also the
family to meet their family goals and specified outcomes as relates to
assisting in their child's development. All infants and toddlers
receiving early intervention services under Part C of IDEA are required
to have an IFSP in order to receive services.
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.
Part C of IDEA also allows states to define "developmental delay"
(either as a standard deviation or a percent delay in chronological
months) for eligibility. States provide early intervention services to
the children who have medically diagnosed disabilities as well as
children who exhibit developmental delays. Some states opt to expand
services to "at risk" infants and toddlers and define in state statutes
what constitutes a child at risk for developmental delay.
In order to receive funding, participating states must provide early
intervention to every eligible child and the respective family,
regardless of pay source.
Lastly, services from Part C are not necessarily free – early
intervention programs, as the payor of last resort, make use of public
and private insurance, community resources, and some states implement a
"sliding scale" of fees for services not covered by public or private
insurance.
Goals for an IFSP
The
goal of an IFSP is to assist the family in meeting their child's
developmental needs in order for the infant or toddler (birth to age
three) to increase functional abilities, gain independence and mobility,
and be an active participant in his/her family and community. Another
goal of early intervention in general is to improve a child's functional
abilities, particularly in the domains of communication, cognitive
ability, and social/emotional well-being in preparation for preschool
and later kindergarten so that extensive special education services will
not be necessary for the child's academic success.
Once an infant/toddler is determined eligible (each state setting its
own eligibility requirements), the family identifies whom they would
like to participate as part of the IFSP team. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C requires that the IFSP team
consist of the family and at least two early intervention professionals
from different disciplines (one being the service coordinator) –
consistent with CFR §303.343(a)(1)(iv). However, the family may choose
to include other members on the team such as the child's pediatrician,
an early- intervention service provider who may be working with the
child, a parent advocate or trusted friend/family member.
The IFSP team works with the family to create a "service plan" to
address the deficits of the infant or toddler and to assist the family
in meeting their goals for their child's (and family's) development.
The team uses information that the family provides as well as the
results of at least two evaluations, all available medical records, and
the informed clinical opinion of the professionals serving on the IFSP
team. An initial IFSP is then created with the family. An IFSP will outline the following:
- the child's current levels of physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional, and adaptive development;
- the family's resources, priorities, and concerns to help in their child's development;
- the desired end result for the child and for the family
(goals/outcomes), as well as the steps needed to achieve said end result
(objectives). The plan will be monitored and evaluated quarterly to
gauge progress. If the family chooses to revise the goals or the plan,
they include updates as revised additions to the plan.
- the early intervention services for the child and the family,
including how often and the method of how the child and the family will
receive the services, the different environments in which the services
will be provided and justification for services not provided in the
"natural environment" as defined by IDEA (the location where a child
without a disability would spend most of his/her time). For example, the
family might have requested to receive services for the child at a
day-care center or in their home.
- the date the services will begin and their anticipated duration.
- the identification of the service coordinator from the profession
most immediately relevant to the infant's or toddler's family's needs,
the person who will be responsible for the implementation and
coordination of the plan with the other agencies and persons.
- For toddlers approaching the third birthday, the IFSP will include a
transition plan outlining the steps, activities, and services needed to
support the transition of the toddler with a disability to preschool or
other appropriate services.
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." For this reason, the IFSP will inherently have goals that are designed for the family as well as for the child.
The service coordinator will help the early-intervention team of
service providers write objectives that meet the family's priorities and
concerns.
Differences between IFSP and IEP
When
writing the IFSP for a child, the IFSP can (but will not always)
outline services that are not one of the seventeen mandated
early-intervention services under Part C of the IDEA.
For example, a parent may need counseling services to overcome
debilitating depression in order to better care for the infant or
toddler, and these services will be written into the family's plan. The
IEP (Individualized Education Plan) cannot include services to meet
"family goals" but must focus solely on what the child needs to achieve
academic success in an educational setting (whether the class or
activity is academic or extra-curricular in nature).
The Individualized Family Service Plan is different compared to an Individual Education Plan in other key ways:
- Eligibility for early intervention (birth to three) under Part C
of IDEA is set by each state individually and is often different from
eligibility for special education (3–21) under Part B of IDEA.
- The IFSP will have goals and outcomes for the family and for the infant's/toddler's development.
- Goals on the IFSP may be in non-academic areas of development such as mobility, self-care, and social/emotional well-being.
The IEP has goals and outcomes for the child only and related entirely
to his/her ability to adapt to and progress in an educational setting.
- The IFSP includes services to help a family in natural environment
settings (not just in daycare/preschool) but at home, in the community,
etc. Services and activities on the IFSP could be tailored to include
"nap time," "infant swimming lessons at the YMCA," "church outings,"
etc.
The IEP provides services solely on what happens in a pre-school or
K-5 school environment or school-sponsored field trip/activity
- The IFSP team involves a service coordinator who assists the family in developing and implementing the IFSP.
The IEP team also involves the family, but the school district
generally does not provide a professional who represents them and
provides case management/service coordination. The family will have to
communicate with the special education department's designee.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
The
Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36) amended
CAPTA by requiring that cases of abused and neglected children, or those
pre- or post-natally exposed to illegal substances, be referred to
early intervention services using IDEA Part C funds.
This provision is also reflected in the 2004 revision of IDEA.
Specifically, states can apply for grant money from IDEA for specific
identification and referral programs.
Abused and neglected children are included under IDEA part C due
to the growing body of evidence showing increased risk of developmental
delay among children in the child welfare system. In 2013, there were an estimated 679,000 victims of child abuse and neglect. Nearly half (47%) were five years or younger.
The results of the 2008 National Survey of Child and Adolescent
Well-Being (NSCAW) reported that children in Child Welfare had below
average cognitive, behavioral, daily living, language, social-emotional
and social skills compared to their peers. Slightly less than half of
children five and under showed developmental delay.
A social and emotional assessment given to caretakers of these children
showed 34.1% had a possible problem, and 27.0% had a possible
social/emotional deficit or delay compared to 25% and 15%, respectively,
in a standardized population.
Neurodevelopmentally, children in the child welfare system have risks
similar to those of premature and low-birth-weight infants.
Children in this population scored nearly one standard deviation below
the mean of the early-cognitive-development tool used for assessment.
Language skills fell almost one standard deviation below the norm as
well. Overall, 42.6% of children aged one to five years showed a need
for developmental support, making them potentially eligible for early
intervention services.
In order to track the adherence to the law, the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320)
required that eligible children and those actually referred to EI be
reported by each state beginning in 2014.
A 2008 survey of 30 participating states by the IDEA Infant and Toddler
Coordinators Association showed that 65% of children under three who
are abused or neglected are being routinely screened for developmental
delays. Fifty percent of respondents did not know whether their
referrals for Part C had increased or decreased in the prior year.
As noted by many respondents to this survey, the referral system needs
more funding and better communication among child welfare personnel.
Relationship between IDEA and Section 504
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is another law which assures certain protections to certain students with disabilities. §504 states that:
"No otherwise
qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely
by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .". 29 U.S.C. 794(a).
Recipients of this Federal financial assistance include public
school districts, institutions of higher education, and other state and local
education agencies. The regulations implementing Section 504 in the context of
educational institutions appear at 34 C.F.R. Part 104 D.
§504 applies to all programs or activities, including schools, that
receive federal financial assistance. See 29 U.S.C. 794(b)(2)(B)
(defining "program or activity" to include the operations of "local
educational agenc[ies]").
Eligibility under §504 is different from that under IDEA. While
IDEA recognizes thirteen categories of disability, §504 defines
individuals with disabilities to include any individual with a physical
or mental condition which substantially limits at least one major life
activity. 29 U.S.C. 705(20). It also includes persons with a history of
such a disability and those who are perceived to have a disability.
Most, if not all, children eligible under IDEA are also entitled to
§504's protections. Regulations promulgated by the Department of
Education offer additional guidance regarding the statute's prohibitions
in the context of this case. See 34 C.F.R. 104 et seq.
Like IDEA, §504's regulations include "child find" provisions.
Thus, public school districts have an affirmative duty to identify and
evaluate every qualified handicapped child residing in the recipient's
jurisdiction who is not receiving a public education and take
appropriate steps to notify handicapped persons and their parents or
guardians of the recipient's duties under §504. 34 C.F.R. 104.32.
The Section 504 regulations require a school district to provide a "free
appropriate public education" (FAPE) to each qualified student with a disability
who is in the school district's jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity
of the disability. Under Section 504, FAPE consists of the provision of regular
or special education and related aids and services designed to meet the student's
individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students
are met.
Legislative history
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— 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,
the law revised the requirements for evaluating children with learning
disabilities. More concrete provisions relating to discipline of special
education students were also added. (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat.
2647).
2008— Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act was signed into law in September.
2009— Following a campaign promise for "funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act", President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), including $12.2 billion in additional funds.
2009— Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act became effective on January 1, 2009
Selected U.S. Supreme Court decisions
Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. 526 U.S. 66 (1999) was a Supreme Court case in which the Court, relying heavily on Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro,
468 U. S. 883 (1984), ruled that the related IDEA services provision
required public school districts to fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing
care for disabled children" such as the ventilator-dependent child in
this case, despite arguments from the school district concerning the
costs of the services."
There is no undue burden exemption. Under the Court's reading of the
IDEA's relevant provisions, medical treatments such as suctioning,
ventilator checks, catheterization, and others which can be administered
by non-physician personnel come within the parameters of the special
education law's related services. Disability advocates considered the Court decision to be a "substantial victory for families of children with disabilities." Amendments were made in the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 to increase IDEA funding as a result of the case.
Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
The case of Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 129 S.Ct. 2484 (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.
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 IDEA
authorizes reimbursement whenever a public school fails to make a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) available to a disabled child.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District is a Supreme Court
case about "the level of educational benefit school districts must
provide students with disabilities as defined by IDEA. The case is described by advocates as "the most significant special-education issue to reach the high court in three decades."
On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of students
with disabilities saying that meaningful, "appropriately ambitious"
progress goes further than what the lower courts had held.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard the "potentially groundbreaking
case" brought by a "Douglas County couple who claim that their autistic
son was not provided an adequate education in the public school system
as required by federal law." Access to public education through IDEA was affirmed in 1982 in Board of Education v. Rowley, but the quality of guaranteed education for students with disabilities under IDEA had not been addressed.
This Supreme Court case has the potential to "affect the education of
6.7 million children with disabilities" as the Court "struggles "to
decide whether it should require public schools to do more under a
federal law that calls for them to provide a free education that
addresses the children's needs. There are others who contend that the
Endrew case may be applicable to all of the 76 million students enrolled
in U.S. public schools due to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection
Clause. The right to an equal educational opportunity is one of the
most valuable rights you have, says ACLU.org.
In 2010, Endrew, who was in public school in Douglas County School District RE-1,
began to exhibit "severe behavioral issues." The parents removed their
child from the public school and enrolled him in a private specialized
school for children with autism with an annual tuition of $70,000. The family requested reimbursement for the tuition claiming the Douglas County School District had not fulfilled the requirements of IDEA. They lost their case before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and before the Appeals Court. Their argument was that "the federal statute only requires that schools provide students with "some educational benefit.""
Supreme Court Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Anthony M. Kennedy
expressed concerns about the implications of implementing IDEA with
changes in quality of education standards. Breyer cautioned about
potential rising costs of litigation, for example, extraneous lawsuits.
Kennedy questioned the financial cost to districts with severely
disabled students; Alito considered the burden on poorer school
districts.
Only two of the circuit courts had set "meaningful educational benefit" standard. The Supreme Court will decide whether a uniform standard should apply nationally.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S.
176 (1982) in which the Court held that public schools were "not
required by law to provide sign language interpreters to deaf students
who are otherwise receiving an equal and adequate education."
The parents claimed that schools should provide "substantially
equal educational opportunities" and that "[IDEA] does not permit cost
to trump what the act otherwise requires. Schools should provide "a
level of educational services designed to allow the child to progress
from grade to grade in the general curriculum."
.svg)
