Search Results

This chapter examines how children with learning disabilities can be eligible to receive special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It begins by reviewing the legal and psychological literature on what constitutes a learning disability and how such a disability should be diagnosed. It then considers the disagreement that continues to exist on whether there must be evidence of a psychological or neurological impairment, and whether the discrepancy model should be part of the diagnostic model. It also discusses the wide range of definitions of learning disability used by the various states despite the fact that the IDEA is a national statute, along with the implications of the learning disability classification for college admissions testing. The chapter concludes by suggesting how the learning disability mess may be solved.

Approximately 10–20% of students experience a mental health problem during their school-age years. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) assumes school-based mental health providers will serve these students in schools. The DSM-5 made five significant changes from previous editions. Enabling students with mental disorders to be eligible for school-based services requires familiarity with the assessment requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. School counseling can be provided using a multitiered system of supports ranging from universal prevention to intensive intervention. The best way to serve students is to collaborate with teachers, parents, community providers, and even school administrators. Finally, students’ progress toward general education goals should be monitored regularly so that they can graduate on time, become employed, and be engaged citizens.

This chapter discusses Congress's attempts to amend the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), which was later replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), after 1975. It begins with an overview of 1977 amendments, followed by amendments in 1983 and 1986 including those dealing with attorney fees and infants and toddlers with disabilities. It then examines amendments made during the 1990s as well as the concerns expressed by some special education advocates that the special education law (now renamed IDEA) was not serving the needs of poor and minority students. It also considers amendments relating to eligibility, individualized education programs, racial disproportionality in disability identification, private school education, and the ability of school districts to discipline children with disabilities. The chapter concludes with an assessment of 2004 amendments to the IDEA.

Since the mid-1980s, the employment and household income of working-age people with disabilities in the United States have steadily declined, while their reliance on public income and health support has grown much faster than can be explained by demographic and workforce participation factors alone. The central challenge for policymakers is to enact reforms that will empower people with disabilities to realize their full productivity, preserve basic supports for those who need them, and slow growth in public expenditures for their support during a time of fiscal austerity. This chapter describes the very limited progress toward meeting these reform objectives, considers why past policy initiatives have not been more successful, and presents a road map for greater success in the future.

Advances in technology have made it possible for students to do ordinary and sometimes extraordinary things with considerably more ease, efficiency, and independence. Educators strive to make learning possible for the widest range of students with the aim of independence within diverse pedagogical communities. Particular technologies in schools that are defined as assistive technology are relatively new to the field of special education. Only in recent US legislative history has there been a definition of assistive technology devices with assistive technology services codified into the 1990 federal mandate (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), thus sending a legal imperative to school districts across the United States. This chapter focuses on the nature of assistive technology devices and services, the wide range of technologies from simple to complex, and suggestions for their use in music classrooms.

This book presents a critical analysis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), originally enacted in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to improve educational equity by providing children with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public education. Drawing on the author's personal experience in which she embarked on a legal battle to persuade her son's school to accommodate his hearing impairment, the book argues that the IDEA contains flaws that limit its effectiveness for poor and minority children. It examines the skewed special education classification system as well as a system of services that seem to serve African Americans and other racial minorities so poorly. It also discusses Congress's attempts to amend the IDEA over the years and looks at some of the leading Supreme Court cases involving children whose parents filed suits on their behalf after the statute was broadly amended.

This chapter describes the story of Amy Rowley and her family to show how the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) has affected the lives of children with disabilities. It examines three themes that emerge from the Supreme Court case involving Amy, who is deaf. First, Amy's story reveals the enormous toll on the family as her parents persevered for years to help her obtain an interpreter in the classroom. Second, her story demonstrates that victories can often be shallow because of the ability of a school district to resist a court order. Third, her story exemplifies that justice delayed is justice denied, because a child can never truly recover lost education. The chapter also highlights the continued shortcomings of the EAHCA, which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that are apparent throughout Amy's story.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act’s (IDEA) free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements compel school-based teams to develop Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that meet the procedural and substantive requirements of the law. That is, IEP team members need a thorough understanding of the legal strictures that they must follow when developing a student’s IEP. This chapter examines how Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) can be used in developing, implementing, and monitoring students’ IEPs. It first considers the procedural and substantive aspects of IEP development. It then explains how CBM can be used when developing IEPs. It is argued that by using CBM as a basis to develop students’ IEPs, teachers and other members of the team can ensure that their IEPs are both educationally meaningful and legally sound. In fact, using CBM to develop students’ IEPs, monitor student progress, and react appropriately to the data, school-based teams will result in IEPs that are virtually legally unassailable.

This chapter describes the story of Michael Panico and his family to show how the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), which was later replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has affected the lives of children with disabilities. It narrates how Michael's parents had to fight for years with the assistance of pro bono legal counsel in order for him to win the right to attend a private school that could give him an adequate education. It examines the Supreme Court case involving Michael—the dispute in this case arose over the content of the individualized education program proposed by the school district on June 28, 1979, for the 1979–1980 school year (fourth grade)—and shows that his story reflects the sloppy way in which many school districts implemented the EAHCA in the early days of enforcement.

This chapter focuses on the story of Joseph Murphy, a child who foundered in school despite receiving special education services for about ten years before his parents decided to send him to a private school. The Murphys' case highlights the need for parents to have an educational consultant and a lay advocate assist them to help ensure that their children receive appropriate services. This chapter shows what Joseph's parents had to go through before they were able to secure, through the assistance of a pro bono educational advocate, an acceptable placement for him in a private school. It examines the Supreme Court's ruling that parents could not recover the costs of their expert witnesses—which are essential to winning a case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—even if they are the prevailing party. Joseph's story illustrates how the courts have interpreted the IDEA to make it nearly impossible for any but the richest parents to persuade school districts to pay for a private education for their children with disabilities.

This chapter focuses on hearing officer decisions in Florida involving parents who challenge individualized education programs (IEP) on behalf of their disabled children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It begins by telling the stories of two children with disabilities, Johnny (a pseudonym) and Derek Hughes, and goes on to summarize the overall results of hearing officer decisions. It shows that parents rarely win these cases and, when they do prevail, attain only very modest relief. Many of the successful cases were brought by public interest organizations. No parent virtually succeeded in arguing that an IEP was inadequate.

This chapter examines the results of hearing officer decisions in New Jersey involving parents who challenge individualized education programs (IEP) on behalf of their children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It begins by telling the story of a four-year-old boy named E.R., whose grandmother could not get the school district to provide transportation from his childcare center (rather than from her home) so that he could receive special education services at the local preschool. New Jersey is one of the few states to impose the burden of proof on the school district when a parent brings a due process complaint to challenge an IEP. Although the school district bears the burden of proof in regular petitions, parents rarely succeed in these petitions.

This chapter examines hearing officer decisions in California involving parents who challenge individualized education programs (IEP) on behalf of their children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It begins by telling the story of an eight-year-old boy, Pedro, whose grandmother failed in her request that the school district provide transportation from their house to his special educational program. It then considers other cases that reflect a hearing officer structure that is heavily biased in favor of school districts, even when the district bears the burden of proof. These cases also show that children whose parents require an interpreter to participate in the hearings have a particularly slim chance of winning.

This chapter focuses on the story of Brian Schaffer, who was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at the age of seven, to show how difficult it is for any child to prevail under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Brian's case was brought after Congress amended the IDEA in 1997, and again in 2004, in various ways that were supposed to benefit students with disabilities. Yet Brian's case reveals a cumbersome legal process that rarely produces success even for children with highly involved parents and qualified legal counsel. This chapter discusses two reasons why Brian's case is crucial for all parents challenging an individualized education program (IEP). First, the Supreme Court has held that the burden of proof should fall on parents when challenging the adequacy of their child's IEP. Second, the lower courts that handled this case interpreted the Rowley adequacy standard as creating a very low threshold for a school district despite the 2004 IDEA amendments.

This chapter discusses the results of hearing officer decisions in Ohio involving parents who challenge individualized education programs (IEP) on behalf of their children with disabilities. It begins with an overview of how the hearing process operates before turning to the case of Jacob Winkelman, whose parents filed at least five due process complaints with their school district and took their case to the Supreme Court on a procedural ground, before securing a victory. It then considers about a hundred cases decided under Ohio's cumbersome two-step hearing officer process under which parents and their children rarely prevail, especially if they are poor and cannot afford to hire a lawyer. It also emphasizes the difficulty of establishing that a child is eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

This chapter discusses the results of hearing officer decisions in the District of Columbia involving parents who challenge individualized education programs (IEP) on behalf of their children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). During the 1960s and 1970s, the District of Columbia was the site of the litigation that showed the relationship between race, poverty, and inadequate services for students with disabilities. Yet its educational system, including its assistance for students with disabilities, remains in complete disarray. The District of Columbia has a poor record of being out of compliance with the IDEA on both procedural and substantive grounds. This chapter begins by telling the story of Amanda, who was diagnosed with autism in 2005 and found eligible for special education on February 13, 2008, before entering a D.C. public school kindergarten. It then considers other cases that reveal a relatively high rate of success for low-income families using the private enforcement system.

This concluding chapter discusses the kinds of reforms that are necessary to ensure that all children can receive a free and appropriate public education regardless of their disability status. It first cites data showing that African Americans are still disproportionately tracked in the “mental retardation” and “emotional disturbance” categories while also subject to much higher rates of suspension from school. In contrast, the high-quality private schools for children with autism are more likely to be filled with white children whose parents have been able to take advantage of funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This chapter also provides suggestions to make the IDEA a more effective tool for children and their families and how it could transform the public schools into a site of excellent education for children with disabilities rather than a mechanism that diverts resources from public schools to private schools.

Students who meet criteria for disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders generally present with a wide range of challenging behaviors that impede their ability to function appropriately at school and at home. Understanding the differential diagnosis and comorbid manifestations of these disorders—particularly the two most common disruptive disorders (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder)—can assist school practitioners in addressing students’ behavior and socioemotional well-being in school. It is also important that school practitioners are knowledgeable about Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) categories for which students exhibiting the symptoms of these disorders are most likely to qualify for school-based services. This chapter provides resources to assist schools and school-based practitioners in implementing universal screening, progress monitoring, and rapid assessment of students, as well as evidence-based psychosocial interventions to meet the needs of students with disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders.