Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Research Articles

Employment First: A Beginning Not an End

Employment is the first question we ask about most adults in society. In part, every adult is defined by their contributions, their work. Even as employment for people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities has gained attention, there has been a growing awareness that the labor force participation rate for this population has remained flat (Butterworth et al., 2011). Although there is variability across states, there is an absence of a clear message at state and national levels regarding employment of persons with disabilities. This has resulted in inconsistencies in employment policies, practices, and procedures. There are, however, an increasing number of states that are taking notice of this and seeking to develop a clear message that employment for persons with disabilities must be a priority (Hoff, 2011). Some state developmental disabilities agencies have embraced a presumption of employability or the option of employment for all persons with disabilities. This is clearly seen in the efforts of the State Employment Leadership Network (SELN), a network of 23 state developmental disability agencies sponsored by the Institute for Community Inclusion and the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disability Services (http://www. communityinclusion.info). These state efforts have often been framed under the umbrella of Employment First. Employment First, reflecting a series of policies, practices, and procedures based upon a collection of guiding principles, is leading states and providers to the adoption of service delivery strategies for persons with disabilities, including those with the most significant disabilities, that lead to systemic change and competitive integrated employment. The main point about Employment First is that employment should be the very first option offered to any adult with a disability, before any kind of nonemployment option. There are currently over 25 states that are focused at some level on the concept of Employment First (Hoff, 2011). In some cases, the focus is specifically on individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities, while in other cases this effort is cross-disability. Some of these efforts have been spearheaded by public systems, and in other cases have been grassroots in nature, with advocates pushing for changes in policies and practices that prioritize community employment. Central to Employment First are the establishment of clear public policies (e.g., legislation, policy directives that prioritize community employment. To date, approximately 10 states have such policies in place. As in all major systemic change efforts, there are a set of guiding principles that help shape these change efforts. For Employment First these guiding principles are being discussed by a wide array of people in policymaking, self-advocacy, and practitioner roles. Although there is not always consensus, these principles include:

Complacency With Access and the Aggregate? Affirming an Individual Determination of Educational Benefit Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

Although some legal scholars argue that the progression of Congressional intent in laws for children with disabilities reflects a mission to raise the educational standards and their achievement levels, other insist that many students are not realizing equal educational opportunity and not receiving educational benefit. This article proposes that the alignment of the Individuals with disabilities Education Act (IDEA) with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act may implicate a student’s right to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and cautions against complacency with mere access to the general curriculum and a satisfaction with aggregate accountability of outcome. An analysis of litigation from circuit courts is presented to confirm individual benefit as the legal standard of appropriateness, and the duties of IEP teams to monitoring individual progress on IEP goals are defined. Two recommendations for the reauthorization of both the NCLB Act and the IDEA are proposed.

Federal Policy on Disproportionality in Special Education

Monitoring requirements in the 1997 amendments to and 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) acknowledged the existence and extent of racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education, especially when, in 2004, Congress designated this concern among the top three priority areas for monitoring and enforcement of the law. However, federal interpretations of the 2004 requirements have created confusion at the State (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) levels. This article analyzes data from state Annual Performance Reports to assess the progress made in identifying disproportionality. Though high levels of disproportionality remain, an increasing number of states are finding no LEAs with disproportionality when it must be shown that the disproportionality was caused by inappropriate identification. The analyses provided suggest that federal interpretations of IDEA 2004 have not been effective in addressing disproportionate representation in special education. Recommendations for improving policy to remedy this serious problem are provided.

Commentary on Providing Services to Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders

BACKGROUND The reported prevalence of ASDs in the United States as well as in other developed countries has increased dramatically in the last few years. This increase is likely the outcome of several factors: greater awareness of ASDs on the part of both parents and professionals, leading to earlier identification; changes in definitions related to ASDs (the wider use of the diagnostic category of Asperger's syndrome, for example); and perhaps an increase in environmental triggers of ASDs in genetically susceptible infants. At present, the best data on the prevalence of ASDs point to a rate of in 1 per 110 children, and a substantially higher rate in males. ASDs are defined behaviorally. There is no biological marker that points to a diagnosis of autism, and, as is well known in the medical field, the same symptoms can indicate various underlying conditions. About 10 percent of children diagnosed with ASDs have known medical conditions or disabilities such as Fragile X syndrome, but no such association has been identified in the other 90 percent of cases. The best current thinking is that there may be multiple genetic mutations contributing to susceptibility for ASDs. Although the pace of research into the causes of ASDs was very limited for many years, increased research funding to the National Institutes of Health, along with private funds, have substantially accelerated research opportunities. EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES A decrease in the age of identification of children at high risk for developing ASDs has occurred during the last few years as information about early warning signs or red flags for autism has been disseminated widely, and screening tools designed to identify ASDs in toddlers aged between 18 and 24 months have achieved wider use. Recent research appears to indicate that many children who are later diagnosed with autism can be identified by 12 months of age (Ozonoff, Losif, Baguio, Cook, Hill, Hutman et al., 2010). Researchers are also working on tools to identify infants aged between 12 and 15 months who are at high risk for developing ASDs. At present the mean age for diagnosis of ASDs is about 4 years, but that mean age is likely to decrease as a highly regarded evaluation tool, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ASDOS), becomes available in a version designed for use with toddlers (publication is expected in 2012), and as other new diagnostic tools for use with toddlers at risk for ASDs gain broad acceptance. Because there is impressive evidence that early intervention is associated with better outcomes for infants and toddlers with ASDs (Bruder, 2010; Dawson, 2008), the importance of the development of such tools is clear. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C serves infants and toddlers with developmental delays from birth to age 3. Earlier identification of infants at high risk of developing ASDs and increased diagnostic evaluations of 2-year-olds at high risk should be accompanied by an expansion in the number of children receiving early intervention services. Such services are provided through each U.S. state, and there is great variation in the intensity of services delivered--some states provide such limited amounts of service time as to raise serious doubts about the effectiveness of those services. Moreover, with the budgetary strain that most states are currently experiencing, expansion of service intensity is very unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future, even though parents are already increasingly accessing private insurance and Medicaid waivers to help obtain adequate appropriate early intervention services for their children. When the topic of effectiveness of intervention arises, so too does a question about the availability of research-supported models for serving infants and young toddlers with ASDs. Until recently few such models existed. One of those models is the Early Start Denver Model for Young Children with Autism (Rogers & Dawson, 2010), a comprehensive model that incorporates behavioral principles within a developmental framework focused on social interaction, communication, and relationships. …

A Systemic View of RTI Research: Introduction to the Special Issue

Response to Intervention (RTI) is an alternative approach to identifying students as learning disabled (LD) that was written into law with the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In this introduction to the special issue, RTI is viewed as a comprehensive, systemic approach to teaching and learning designed to address learning problems for all students through increasingly differentiated and intensified assessment and instruction. Within this context, this introduction provides a description of the articles accepted for this special issue, which address a range of important topics including perspectives on RTI, core instruction, assessment, intervention, and coordination of services. The reader is asked to consider these articles within the larger context of RTI as a system of assessment and instruction that is intended to address the needs of all students across the age span and from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Telerehabilitation: An Adjunct Service Delivery Model for Early Intervention Services

Early Intervention (EI) services for children birth through two years of age are mandated by Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); however, personnel shortages, particularly in rural areas, limit access for children who qualify. Telerehabilitation has the potential to build capacity among caregivers and local providers as well as promote family-centered services through remote consultation. This article provides an overview of research related to telerehabilitation and early intervention services; discusses the feasibility of telerehabilitation within traditional EI service delivery models; examines telecommunications technology associated with telerehabilitation; and provides hypothetical case examples designed to illustrate potential applications of telerehabilitation in early intervention.

States’ Accountability and Progress in Serving Young Children With Disabilities

Since the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there has been a growing focus on improving the quality of programs for children with disabilities and measuring the results/outcomes of those programs. Across the country, IDEA Part C Programs for Infants and Toddlers and IDEA Part B, Section 619 Preschool Programs have been developing, implementing, and improving their accountability systems, and in spite of significant fiscal limitations, the states have produced meaningful data demonstrating both program improvement and positive outcomes for the children and families being served. This article uses trend data reported by the states over the past 4 years to provide a national picture of the progress they have made, the challenges they have faced, and the improvement strategies they have undertaken. The lessons they have learned are relevant to the broader early childhood community. A discussion about implications for the future is included.

Using a Classification System to Probe the Meaning of Dual Licensure in General and Special Education

The alignment of the teacher quality provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the transparency of low achievement of students who have disabilities under the testing mandates of NCLB have converged to create substantial renewed interest and activity in collaborative programs of teacher education—a term used to describe program redesign that brings together teacher preparation for general and special education to improve education not only for students who have disabilities but also for all students who struggle. Such preservice efforts (often referred to as “dual certification” or “dual licensure”) are not only proliferating at a rapid pace, they are proceeding in the absence of analytic frameworks to consider collaborative teacher education more critically, to create a common discourse around this trend, to capture variations in collaborative teacher education, to clarify its multiple meanings, and to uncover assumptions under which such program development is taking place. The purpose of this article is to provide a conceptual framework to simultaneously make sense of and problematize the landscape of collaborative teacher education, based on a classification system of program models.

Early childhood interventionists' perspectives on serving maltreated infants and toddlers

A 2003 amendment to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) required states to create developmental screening programs for maltreated infants and toddlers. Programs authorized under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were directed to work with state and local child welfare authorities to develop the screening program. They were also to ensure that additional assessment and intervention was provided when needed. The degree to which this mandate has been implemented varies widely between state and local programs. Some early intervention experts and Part C program administrators have expressed concerns about providers' willingness to serve families referred from child welfare, but there has been no systematic research on this issue. The Professional Interventionist CAPTA Survey (PICS) is a newly developed measure of early childhood intervention providers' perceptions of their responsibilities under CAPTA. The first aim of this study was to conduct analysis of the PICS using a national sample of providers. This study also reports the perceptions of early childhood interventionists about their responsibilities under CAPTA and examines the relationship between worker characteristics and how they perceive these responsibilities. The PICS appears to be useful for examining early childhood intervention providers' responses to CAPTA.

Editorial: Waist Deep in the Big Muddy: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The first iteration of IDEA, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed more than 35 years ago, had several positive elements. Key among these was the concept of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for all children, regardless of the extent of the The establishment of an Individualized Education Plan (???) has had an even more far-reaching impact. Under the guidelines of IDEA, along with parents, professionals with appropriate knowledge and expertise, develop IEPs to meet the unique educational needs of children diagnosed as disabled in one of the thirteen federal categories. In recent years approximately six and a half million American children, or 12% of the total public school enrollment, receive educational services developed through IEPs. The mandate for education in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the major provision that has caused the most confusion and controversy, especially, but not entirely, in the field of education of the deaf. Although there have been attempts, the term has never been defined over the past 35 years to everyone's satisfaction. In general, it has been interpreted to mean that educational placement of a disabled student contiguous to nondisabled peers is preferable to the greatest extent possible. Readers of the Annals are aware of the opposing view that educational placement of deaf children with other deaf children in many instances can increase communication and access to information more efficiently than immersion in a completely hearing environment. From this perspective placement of deaf students with other deaf students constitutes the least restrictive environment. However, because the classification Deaf and Hard of Hearing is one of the 13 federal disability categories, the impact of the mainstreaming/inclusion model interpretation of LRE has been significant. For a number of reasons, educational placement of deaf students had been moving away from residential and center schools since shortly after World War II, but it is undeniable that the LRE provision of IDEA has speeded up the process. In short, the subsumption of education of deaf students under the IDEA umbrella led to a loss of independence in our field, making it more difficult to address the unique needs of deaf students. In some ways the outcome to date has been positive. For example, our educational programs to a large extent were too narrow, concentrating on speech, English, and grammar to the detriment of math, science, social studies, and literature. There has been an important change in emphasis to adapt regular education curricula, especially with the knowledge that many, perhaps a majority, of our children will find themselves in different educational environments. Quite simply, our expectations were too low. On the other hand, we are in danger of losing our identity and being swallowed up within the far larger population of children classified as disabled. The federal government has identified approximately 70,000 deaf and hard of hearing children served under IDEA, slightly more than one child in a hundred with an 1ER If we assume one-half of these students would have severe or profound hearing loss, perhaps one child in 200 children with an IEP is deaf. Two categories - Learning Disabilities and Speech and Language Disorders - constitute the majority of disabled children under IDEA. They receive the type of attention due to them for their numbers; the parameters for them for LRE, for example, are different than they are for deaf students. If regulations for inclusion and for other elements of an IEP are based on majorities, the implications for deaf students may be of concern. Although I know that IEPs, by definition, are individualized, I also know they can be generated by computer. In sum, I think that IDEA has been a mixed blessing for deaf students. Our expectations and curricula are better, but our children may be overlooked and they may not be getting the specialized services they need. …

Medicaid and Supervision in Schools

Medicaid and Supervision in Schools

Middle School Co-Teaching: Effective Practices and Student Reflections

this class, get more attention and more help. I get more time with both They have different stories to tell, so it seems more interesting with two teachers in the class. I get help whenever need it. I understand the subject more. These comments from seventh grade students in co-taught language arts and social studies classes suggest some of the potential benefits of co-teaching. These benefits did not occur by accident; the teachers of these classes spent considerable time co-planning, implementing evidencebased practices, and reflecting on their instruction. This article provides an overview of co-teaching, highlights effective practices used by a middle school co-teaching team, and presents reflections from students in their classroom. What is co-teaching? One way to meet the unique challenges in diverse classrooms is co-teaching. Friend and Cook (2010) described co-teaching as an approach that provides specialized services to individual students in a general education classroom. Specifically, co-teaching involves two or more educators working collaboratively to deliver instruction to a heterogeneous group of students in a shared instructional space. In this environment, teachers blend their expertise, share materials, and develop common instructional goals (Friend & Cook, 2010). Generally, co-teaching team consists of a general educator and another licensed professional such as a special educator, speech/language pathologist, reading specialist, language specialist, or other general educator. Villa, Thousand, and Nevin (2008) noted that co-teaching assumes teachers agree on a goal, share a common belief system, demonstrate parity, share leadership roles while completing tasks, and practice effective communication skills. These principles provide the foundation for creating a fulfilling, professional co-teaching relationship. Co-teaching has gained popularity for a number of reasons. First, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) encourages schools to hold high expectations for all students and ensure students have access to the curriculum in general education classrooms to the maximum extent possible. Most professional educators acknowledge that, given appropriate supports and services, most students should be held to the same academic standards (McLeskey & Waldron, 2007). Coteaching is one viable, effective strategy to serve the needs of all students in general education settings, as required by IDEA (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008). Similarly, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) includes provisions that all students receive instruction from highly qualified teachers. Because some middle and high school special educators are not highly qualified in all academic subjects as defined by NCLB (Rice, Drame, Owens, & Frattura, 2007), this mandate has caused school administrators to reconceptualize how to best use the skills and expertise of all instructional and support faculty (Carpenter & Dyal, 2007). Co-teaching can help schools comply with the spirit of these NCLB provisions by arranging for teachers with content expertise to jointly plan and deliver instruction with special educators to ensure the success of all students. Such efforts may increase academic outcomes for all students while ensuring that students with disabilities receive necessary adaptations (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Finally, teacher roles have become more collaborative than in the past. No longer do teachers work in isolation as they did just a few decades ago. For example, general educators now assume a more active role in developing individualized education plans (IEPs) by helping determine the appropriate accommodations and modifications students need to access the general education curriculum (Turnbull, Huerta, & Stowe, 2006). Consequently, general and special educators now collaboratively discuss students' needs, solve problems, demonstrate instructional techniques, lead or participate in professional development initiatives, share resources, and network with other professionals and outside agencies (Dettmer, Thurston, Knackendoffel, & Dyck, 2009). …

Transition planning and evidence-based research

While high school special education teachers have always helped prepare their students for life after school, it was not until the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 (PL 101–476) that student individualized education programs (IEPs) were mandated to include transition services. Transition services were to be designed to help facilitate a student’s movement from “school to postschool activities including post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation” (20 U.S.C. §[602][34]). Although the 1997 and 2004 IDEA amendments include various transition-related revisions, the two most important changes might have been the required starting age and Indicator 13 for accountability. First, while IDEA 1990 mandated IEP transition planning beginning at 16, IDEA 1997 changed the age to 14 since it was important to start transition planning before, or as, students entered high school. While IDEA

Personnel Preparation and Service Delivery Issues in Rural Areas: The State of the Art

Preparation of high quality personnel to provide educational services to students with disabilities living in rural areas is, at best, challenging. Findings from a comprehensive study concerning the status of the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in rural settings and the issues such implementation presents to teacher education programs in these areas are discussed. Members of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES) participated in the study. Results indicated that strategies for enhancing personnel preparation, recruitment, and retention of individuals to institutions of higher education and K-12 schools in rural settings include distance learning, on-site professional development opportunities, salary incentives/increments, and benefits. Linking evaluation data to the general education curriculum and determining how the student's disabilities affect his/her progress in general education are issues for practitioners implementing IDEA in rural settings. Recommendations are provided for enhancing personnel preparation and service delivery based on the results.

ASHA-CED Committee Leaves Policy Document Legacy

ASHA-CED Committee Leaves Policy Document Legacy

IDEA Requirements for Children with Disabilities in Faith-Based Schools: Implications for Practice

Although public schools have both the obligation and ability to provide free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children and youth with disabilities enrolled in public schools, their obligation does not end there. Children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools do have certain rights to services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and it is expected that public schools will engage in meaningful consultation with private school officials and parents to ensure that those rights are met. In that light, this article summarizes specific requirements of IDEA for students enrolled in private schools, with an emphasis on those students enrolled in faith-based schools, and changes introduced in IDEA 2004. Although it is clear that the extent to which IDEA does apply to children in private schools is limited, there are clear implications for the amount of federal flow-through funds that are available for the provision of special education services to this group of students. Specific suggestions for cooperation between public schools and private school personnel are suggested, with the goal of maximizing the IDEA benefits for children with disabilities in private schools.

The persistence of low expectations in special education law viewed through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence

For more than thirty-five years a paradigm of low expectations has infected efforts to educate children with disabilities and has been a persistent and stubborn obstacle to the successful implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and its predecessor, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). This dilemma raises questions addressed in this paper: What is meant by low expectations in the context of Special Education Law? What are the root causes of this phenomenon, and what makes it so resistant to change? How does it impede implementation of the IDEA? And lastly, in what ways does the paradigm of low expectations impact children with disabilities socially, emotionally, and psychologically? The primary purpose of this paper is to consider these questions, particularly the last, utilizing therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), a theoretical lens through which the emotional and psychological impact of the law and its processes upon those who interact in its context may be viewed and analyzed.

Children, Disability, and Chronic Care

There has been a revolution in the past 50 years in the United States in the care and education of children born with disabilities. The revolution started with the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, first passed and lightly federally funded in 1975 and now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), reauthorized initially in 2002. These transformations have not been without enormous costs, both human and

Ensuring Financial Access to Hearing Aids for Infants and Young Children

Many young children with permanent hearing loss do not receive hearing aids and related professional services, in part because of public and private financing limitations. In 2006 the Children's Audiology Financing Workgroup was convened by the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management to evaluate and make recommendations about public and private financing of hearing aids and related professional services for 0- to 3-year-old children. The workgroup recommended 4 possible strategies for ensuring that all infants and young children with hearing loss have access to appropriate hearing aids and professional services: (1) clarify that the definition of assistive technology, which is a required service under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), includes not only analog hearing aids but also digital hearing aids with appropriate features as needed by young children with hearing loss; (2) clarify for both state Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs that digital hearing aids are almost always the medically necessary type of hearing aid required for infants and young children and should be covered under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program; (3) encourage the passage of private health insurance legislative mandates to require coverage of appropriate digital hearing aids and related professional services for infants and young children; and (4) establish hearing-aid loaner programs in every state. The costs of providing hearing aids to all 0- to 3-year old children in the United States are estimated here.

The Legal Basis of Response to Intervention: Analysis and Implications

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 makes significant and controversial changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Two very significant changes in this law are provisions that (a) allow school districts to spend up to 15% of their IDEA Part B funds on early intervening services in general education settings and (b) prohibit states from requiring that school districts use discrepancy formulas to determine if students are eligible for special education services in the category of learning disabilities. Additionally, Congress recommended that school districts use a response to intervention procedure in both early intervening services and for the identification of students with learning disabilities. In this article we first describe two significant reports that recommended that Congress abandon the current eligibility system in special education for students with high-incidence disabilities. Second we explain how Congress and the U.S. Department of Education changed the special education eligibility system for learning disabilities in the IDEIA and the regulations that implemented the IDEIA. Third we review due process hearings and court cases that have addressed response to intervention. Fourth we offer recommendations to teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers to ensure that they meet the letter and spirit of these new requirements of the IDEIA.