An Idea for Improving English Language Learners' Access to Education

Getting Ready for IDEA

Many adults have learning problems that interfere with success in educational or vocational endeavors. Learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) share features and may occur together in some individuals. Difficulty in differentiating these disorders may be exacerbated in adulthood, when developmental history is more remote. Basic knowledge of the characteristics of LD, ADHD and TBI can help adult educators to recognize symptoms, make appropriate referrals and individualize instruction and accommodations. Frameworks for Identification Operational definitions of LD and TBI are provided in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which applies to individuals only from birth through age 22. Children identified under IDEA as having a handicapping condition are eligible for special education services if need is established. ADHD is not specifically identified as an eligibility category under IDEA; however, children with ADHD may be eligible for special education services under the category of Other Health Impaired (OHI). While IDEA does not apply to adult learners who have graduated from high school, if services were obtained during school-age years, documentation of a disability may exist in school records. The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) is an international organization supporting full participation in higher education for persons with disabilities. AHEAD has published guidelines for adult LD evaluation (Brinckerhoff et al., 1997). Guidelines for ADHD and TBI have not been published. The LD guidelines address qualifications of evaluators, recency of documentation, appropriate clinical documentation of LD, and evidence to establish the rationale to support recommended accommodations. While quite detailed, they do not provide diagnostic criteria. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000) provides a clinical framework for the diagnosis of developmental disorders, including LD and ADHD. In the DSM-IV-TR framework, TBI is not a distinct mental disorder, although psychological problems resulting from or associated with brain injury may be diagnosed and the associated brain injury reported. In the DSM-IV-TR, learning disabilities are referred to as disorders, for example, Reading Disorder or Disorder of Written Expression. Both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) protect the civil rights of individuals who have disabilities. A disability is described in Section 504 as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Persons with disabilities who have appropriate documentation are eligible for accommodations, modifications, or auxiliary aids, which will enable them to participate and benefit from all postsecondary educational programs and activities. While diagnostic criteria for LD, ADHD, and TBI are not provided in these laws, these disorders clearly fall under the umbrella of disability as described in Section 504 and ADA. While assessment and diagnosis might come from a variety of professionals using different terminology, it is clear that both ADA and Section 504 apply to adults with LD, ADHD or TBI. Descriptive Features The nature and definition of learning disabilities have long been debated (Lyon, 1994). However, most discussions refer to a lack of expected achievement in one or more academic areas in the face of apparently normal intelligence, sensory function, educational and cultural opportunity and motivation. LD is a developmental disorder, with features present from early childhood, although diagnosis may occur much later. IDEA and the DSM-IV-TR refer to determination of a significant discrepancy between general intelligence and achievement in one or more academic areas as a criterion; however, the methodology for determining significant discrepancy is not specified and in practice varies across settings (Lyon, 1994). …

After a long history of neglecting children with special needs, Congress enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to grant every child with a qualifying disability the right to a free and appropriate public education. To ensure local compliance, the IDEA created a private right of action through which parents may sue their school district for failing to offer an adequate education for their child. If successful, these parents, may then send their child to a private school at the expense of their local government. Private enforcement of the IDEA has helped equalize educational opportunities for wealthy children whose parents can afford to commit to the financial, emotional, and physical costs of suing the government, but children of less affluent families who cannot afford to make similar commitments are often left behind when a school district fails to adhere to the IDEA’s mandate. As a result, large special educational disparities exist in segregated school districts between wealthy, predominantly white families and less affluent, predominantly non-white families. State and local governments have mostly limited their efforts to fully achieve the IDEA’s goal by implementing voucher programs, which allow only a handful of low-income children to enjoy the educational opportunities afforded to their wealthier peers. Under Mayor Bill De Blasio, New York City took a different approach and began settling most IDEA claims to effectively lower the procedural barrier for parents. Much like vouchers, however, De Blasio’s policy fails to address the underlying issue: The IDEA’s reliance on private enforcement will continue to fail those who historically have been deliberately excluded from the full social and economic benefits of white citizenship. State and local governments must go beyond tinkering with the accessibility of the private enforcement mechanism and instead invest financial resources to equalize educational opportunity through public enforcement of the IDEA. This Note assesses potential state and local policy reforms to secure expanded special education opportunity and discusses how New York City can begin to effectively lead in IDEA public enforcement.

The fiftieth anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision has spurred a lively debate about the merits of integration. This article brings that debate to a new context - the under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA has contained an integration presumption for more than thirty years under which school districts should presumptively educate disabled children with children who are not disabled in a fully inclusive educational environment. This article traces the history of this and argues that it was borrowed from the racial civil rights movement without any empirical justification. In addition, the article demonstrates that Congress created this to mandate the closing of inhumane, disability-only educational institutions but not to require fully inclusive education for all children with disabilities. This article examines the available empirical data and concludes that such evidence cannot justify a for a fully inclusive educational environment for children with mental retardation, emotional or mental health impairments, or learning disabilities. While this article recognizes that structural remedies, such as an presumption, can play an important role in achieving substantive equality, such remedies also need periodic re-examination. Modification of the can help it better serve the substantive goal of according an adequate and appropriate education to the full range of children who have disabilities while still protecting disabled children from inhumane, disability-only educational warehouses.

Particular racial/ethnic and class groups remain underrepresented within gifted and talented education (GATE). However, students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) or gifted and disabled are also underrepresented but are often excluded from analysis. A cross-sectional design was to evaluate gifted enrollment data gathered by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Proportional representation in GATE enrollment assessed students’ race/ethnicity, English Language Learner (ELL) status, and disability status under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A one-sample z test of proportions rendered statistically significant disproportionality across all groups evaluated. Results indicate the issue driving disproportionality lies within the theory of intelligence used to measure giftedness in Western school systems and calls for correctly diagnosing the GATE systems’ underlying inequities.

My First Year as a School-Based Clinician

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the ways in which school districts provide educational services to all students, especially students with disabilities. Eligible U.S. students with disabilities have a right to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and students with disabilities who are not eligible under the IDEA may also have a right to receive a FAPE under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. School personnel need to attend to both of these important federal laws when providing educational services. Shortly after the pandemic began, the U.S. Department of Education, through the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, issued guidance to school districts making it clear that despite school closures, school district personnel had to continue providing FAPE under the IDEA and Section 504. Following the return to school, the Office of Civil Rights investigated the Los Angeles Unified School District in California and the Fairfax County Schools for discriminating against students with disabilities by failing to provide educational services during the pandemic. In this article, we briefly review the guidance from the U.S. Department of Education and discuss important implications for teachers of students with disabilities.

* Given the central role of law special education, exemplified by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is fitting that the literature is replete with refereed journal articles specific to the legal dimension of various key issues of professional practice. However, the issue is the quality, added to the quantity, of these legal articles special education journals.To examine the extent and nature of this quality dimension, this brief critique examines an illustrative legal article Behavioral Disorders, diagnosing common symptoms and underlying problems. This critique is intended as a constructive salutary diagnosis, although such rigorous assessments are typically less than welcome. The framework consists of these primary legal sources: (a) the U.S. Constitution, (b) federal legislation and regulations, and (c) the court decisions that apply the preceding sources and fill gaps with contract and common law. In addition, due to the administrative structure of the IDEA, hearing and review officer decisions, the state education agency complaint resolution process reports, and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) policy interpretations serve as tangential supplementary sources. The forums for legal dispute resolution extend to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) due to the overlapping scope of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and its sister statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act. For a roadmap of these alternate avenues under the IDEA and Section 504, see Zirkel and McGuire (2010).The next section of this critique examines an article discussing selected legal issues specific to students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) as a relatively representative example. The subsequent sections briefly identify (a) prevailing symptoms of the special education literature's treatment of legal issues illustrated by the critiqued article, (b) systemic factors that contribute to these prevailing symptoms, and (c) initial suggestions for moving the field forward.Illustrative ArticleSmith, Katsiyannis, and Ryan (2011) described their article as an in discussion of current law involving students with E/BD the areas of (a) response to intervention (RTI) and Child Find procedures, (b) required mental health services, and (c) the controversial uses of restraint to manage aggressive behaviors (p. 185). Careful examination with a legal lens reveals that the treatment is not in-depth and that the selection of these areas as is questionable. For the sake of economy of space, the lens is zoomed on the first area-RTI-and less magnified for the other two-mental health services and restraints.Response to InterventionFirst, RTI is not legally critical for students with EB/D because the IDEA (2012, 11414(b)(6)) provides recognition of RTI only with regard to the identification of students with specific learning disability (SLD), not any other classification, including emotional disturbance (ED) or other health impairment (OHI). The Office of Special Education Programs, which administers the IDEA, has made clear that the use of RTI with other suspected disability classifications is a matter of state law (Letter to Brekken, 2010). Thus far, only a handful of state laws have extended RTI beyond SLD, and Louisiana is the only one to extend to ED and/or OHI (Zirkel, 2011b). Even within SLD, the component of RTI these state laws is notably limited, contrast with nonbinding state guidelines (Zirkel, 2011b). For the IDEA, OSEP has clarified that it would be inappropriate to assume that an adopted RTI process must be based on and/or that this [RTI] process extends to other classifications more closely connected to behavior (Letter to Zirkel, 2011).Second, rather than in depth and case law, Smith et al. (2011) provided an undifferentiated mix of court decisions, hearing officer decisions, state complaint resolution reports, OSEP policy interpretations, and OCR letters of findings that, as a representative sample, is both overand under-inclusive with regard to RTI. …

In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), and it has been revised and modified several times. At the time of this writing, this law was most recently amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, December 3, 2004), which took effect on July 1, 2005. Colloquially the law is still referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children with hearing loss or auditory processing disorder (APD) may qualify for services under IDEA. However, a review of the literature found no review of case law for such children. This article provides a comprehensive review of case law involving the IDEA and children with hearing loss or APD from the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. courts of appeals. We conducted a systematic review of case law. A LexisNexis search for cases involving IDEA and children with hearing loss or APDs was conducted. For the purpose of the present case review, all appellate decisions (cases accepted by the U.S. courts of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court) were included if they found that the child had hearing loss or APD, regardless of the reason for the appeal under IDEA. In the instance of multiple cases that involved the same two parties, these cases are summarized together to provide the legal context. Brief explanations of IDEA and the federal judicial process as it pertains to IDEA disputes are presented. Following these explanations, a chronological review of IDEA appellate cases concerning students with hearing loss or APD is provided. The IDEA cases reviewed focus on three main issues: placement of the child, methodology of teaching, and the provision of services. This case law review provides a helpful summary of higher court cases for educational audiologists and parents of children with hearing loss or APDs, as well as educators, individualized education program team members, school administrators, and legal representatives involved in IDEA cases.

This chapter seeks to examine the impact of two federal policies, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), on educators in the USA during the past decade of reform. NCLB was signed into law in 2002 and is having a profound effect on the education of all students, including students considered at risk for academic failure, such as students with disabilities, students from diverse racial and ethnic minority groups, students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds, and students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP), better known as English Language Learners (ELLs). NCLB “moved the federal government’s role in education from being primarily a source of funding—now about 9% of every public school dollar—to being a major factor in shaping the substance of P-12 curriculum and instruction” (Lieberman, 2008: 1). The most central requirements of NCLB relate to accountability and raising academic expectations. This law mandates that all students (including those from the aforementioned groups) must make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The overall goal is that all students should be achieving reading and math at grade level by the end of the 2013–2014 school year. NCLB establishes that all students must be taught core academic content by teachers who are highly qualified. A 2007 report by the US Department of Education (USDOE) states NCLB requires states to set standards for all teachers to be considered highly qualified and districts to notify parents of students … if their child’s teacher does not meet these ­standards. The requirements apply to all teachers of core academic subjects: English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography and the requirements also apply to teachers who provide instruction in these subjects to students with limited English proficiency (LEP) and students with disabilities. (USDOE/www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb/execsum.html)

Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBS) is the federal law's preferred strategy for dealing with challenging behavior by students with disabilities. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that PBS be considered in all cases of students whose behavior impedes their learning or the learning of others, reflecting IDEA's preference for use of state-of-the-art technology in special education. We believe that when schools take disciplinary actions against students with disabilities, PBS requirements will nearly always be at issue. This article describes the ramifications of IDEA's PBS requirements in the context of disciplinary situations, including the interplay of PBS issues with functional behavioral assessment and behavioral intervention plans.

Inclusion, the philosophy of placing all children with disabilities in regular education settings, is easily the most discussed and controversial education reform issue since the 1975 passage of PL 94-142, Education of Handicapped Children Act (EHA). However, inclusion is never mentioned in the original EHA or the updated PL 101-476, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (e.g., Sherrill, 1994; Stein, 1994). What is discussed in IDEA as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is the “continuum of least restrictive environments” (LRE). The purpose of this paper is to (a) review United States federal laws regarding inclusion and LRE, most notably IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (b) review recent U.S. court cases regarding inclusion and LRE including three landmark cases: Roncker v. Walter (Ohio) (1983), Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (Texas) (1989), and Sacramento Unified School District, Board of Education v. Rachel H. (California) (1994); and (c) apply these federal laws and court decisions to physical education placement.

The purpose of the current study was to determine the probability that a student with a disability not being served by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would be expelled. Expulsion data were obtained from the Civil Rights Data Collection produced by the U.S. Office of Civil Rights. The latest data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia for the 2017 to 2018 school year were analyzed. Bayes’ Theorem was used to determine this probability based upon existing probabilities and conditional probabilities. Analyses were also conducted by state and ethnicity. Results indicated that 1 in 14 of expelled students is likely to have an unserved disability under IDEA but variability according to race/ethnicity nationwide and by state was observed. Students who were White were the least likely to be an unserved student with a disability under IDEA among those expelled. The findings encourage investigation into the intersection of variables, especially the importance of including disability status and ethnicity when explaining disparate and punitive discipline. Practitioners, especially school psychologists, work at this intersection and can influence both special education identification and discipline practices.

Legal Rights: The Guide for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People [5h Edition] By The National Association of the Deaf Gallaudet University Press Washington, D.C. 6/2000 ISBN: 1-56368-091-2 Legal Rights: The Guide for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People f5th Edition] is must reading for deaf and hard of hearing adults, parents of deaf and hard of hearing children, deaf community leaders, teachers of deaf and hard of hearing children, health practitioners, employers, and legal advocates. It is a user-friendly document that clearly charts the sometimes complicated course of legal rights and remedies deaf and hard of hearing people must exercise in education, work, communication access, health care, and public services. This book is important because the rights and remedies described in the book are meaningless unless they are understood and used. Legal Rights shows us what the law is doing for deaf and hard of hearing people. But the book also points us in the direction of what is still to be done to assure full citizenship and opportunity to deaf and hard of hearing people. Legal Rights was written by a remarkable group of deaf and hearing attorneys who have devoted their careers to the service of deaf and hard of hearing people. Kelby Brick, Marc Charmatz, Sarah Geer, Karen Peltz Strauss, and Mary Vargas are seasoned, front line legal samurai who have the uncommon ability to communicate clearly with nonlawyers. The quality of the writing is superb. As an evolving document, these authors appropriately acknowledge the gifted coauthors of earlier editions of the book: Sy DuBow, Larry Goldberg, Elaine Gardner, Andrew Penn, and Sheila Conlon Mentkowski. Taken together, you could not have a better civil rights law team. The book is organized very logically. Chapter One begins with a thorough overview of the communication access options currently available to deaf and hard of hearing people. Chapter Two takes the reader through each title [private employment, state and local government services, public accommodations, and of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This chapter includes information about relevant, up-to-date U.S. Supreme Court ADA rulings. For example, the reader gets a preview of what may be the implications of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on ADA coverage for people with cochlear implants. The chapter links the reader to agencies where deaf and hard of hearing people can file ADA complaints. Chapter Three is a tour of Sections 504 and 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, still the keys to opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing people in federal agencies and in organizations [e.g., hospitals, colleges] receiving federal financial assistance. Chapter Four focuses on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It begins, appropriately, with the four major purposes of IDEA. After all, the IDEA rules and procedures described are just so much paperwork unless IDEA moves deaf and hard of hearing children to ADA rights, higher education opportunities, employment compatible with ability, and independent living. …

Research consistently demonstrates that males – beginning when they are just young boys – externalize oppositional behavior to a markedly higher degree than females. In a school setting, this typically translates to male students being disciplined for even marginally unacceptable behavior more frequently, including frequent loss of educational days due to out-of-school suspensions. Yet it is likely that many of these same male students have identified disabilities under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with Individualized Education Programs that can be personalized with sound, peer-reviewed behavioral services that can make a real difference. Behavior – and its impact on educational outcomes and eventually society – remains the forgotten child in efforts to meet the needs of these most emotionally vulnerable students. A lack of specifics in the behavior provisions of IDEA create an unhealthy tension, too limited either to serve our students or to inform educational practice. While states could remedy this problem, most do not. In an era when the federal government is moving to deregulate many industries – education among them – it is critical for state legislatures to clarify and expand their own requirements. This paper examines current law and proposes constructive change to deal with inequities for students with behavior challenges. Part I examines the IDEA provisions. Part II of this paper reviews the behavior provisions in IDEA. Part III focuses on state statutes and rules, identifying which states have taken the lead and including a determination of where the fifty states and the District of Columbia fall. Part IV analyzes similarities and differences in appellate court decisions of the eleven federal circuits from 2011 through 2016, when a major issue included a factual or legal determination of the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and Behavior Intervention Program (BIP) requirements. Finally, Part V, Rethinking IDEA, summarizes the impact on these forgotten children of IDEA, and recommends an approach for a model provision for Congress to adopt when IDEA is reauthorized.