Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Research Articles

Part C Early Intervention Procedural Safeguard Notices: Are They Supporting Parents to Understand Their Rights?

A family-centered early intervention (EI) approach mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C, means involving parents fully in EI and ensuring they know their legal rights and responsibilities for participating. However, many parents report difficulty accessing information and decision-making in EI. IDEA mandates all jurisdictions provide parents with a procedural safeguard notice (PSN) outlining parents’ rights and advocacy processes. Yet, it is unclear to what extent PSNs are accessible, particularly to parents with marginalized identities. This study analyzed PSNs from 56 Part C jurisdictions for the components required by law, understandability to the general public, and availability in multiple languages. The PSNs generally did not include all required information, necessitated grade-levels above high school, minimally attended to plain language, and were infrequently available in non-English languages, suggesting that many parents are prevented from information about EI. PSNs, therefore, are a source of bias in Part C.

Addressing Conflicts and Role Responsibilities in the Special Education Service Delivery Process: Adult Sibling Involvement and Facilitation as Cultural and Linguistic Brokers

This case study explores the role of adult siblings in bridging and brokering cultural and linguistic gaps in special education on behalf of their sibling with a disability. Focusing on the Le family, the study explores how Eunice Le, an adult sibling, is navigating communication between their Vietnamese-speaking family and the school, and advocating for their brother Kai, a culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) student with autism. The case is premised on two key provisions within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that center on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team configuration and parent participation. This case reveals the difficulties that arise when schools and families have divergent approaches to supporting students with disabilities and their extended families from racialized and minoritized communities.

Principals as Co-Advocates for Caregivers of Children With Disabilities: Possibilities and Realizations Beyond IDEA’s Collaborative Ideal

Although special education and its legal provisions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were designed to support all children with disabilities, it has created a litigious and bureaucratic environment that further marginalizes disabled and labeled children of color and their families. Falling short of a collaborative ideal, school principals who can serve pivotal roles are often siloed from the rest of the school team, often lack special education knowledge and training beyond procedural matters, and can perpetuate inequities through their actions or inactions. We present a scenario illustrating the challenges and possibilities for school principals to promote equitable transformation through (a) an equitable, active leadership role, (b) embodying systemic equity commitments using intersectionality as praxis, (c) moving beyond school and district compliance, and (d) a co-advocacy role with families.

Navigating the Complexities of School Leadership for Students With Disabilities

This case study delves into the complexities faced by Principal Williams, a newly appointed leader at Hudford Elementary School, as she navigates the challenges of providing high-quality education for students with disabilities in an elementary school. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), each student with a disability is required to have access to the general education curriculum and specially designed instruction (SDI) that is tailored to the student’s unique needs. As Principal Williams steps into her role as leader of Hudford Elementary School, she has questions about the current service delivery model for students, the distribution of responsibilities across general and special education, and the extent of inclusion. She is considering her next steps, including how she will address some problematic working conditions experienced by special educators at the school. Through this case, readers gain insights into the complexity of supporting students with disabilities in a time of teacher shortages and learn about identifying the resources teachers need to fulfill their responsibilities.

Leading for Equity and Inclusion at the Intersections of Disability and Race: A Call to Action Through Interdisciplinary Engagement

In this special issue, we asked contributing authors to identify complex and intersectional equity concerns in special education and to tie those concerns to leadership and to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Our goal was to create teaching cases that could empower aspiring and current leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to support and promote social change and justice for students with disabilities at their intersections. Each case situates the enactment of the IDEA within a local context, allowing readers to understand how the interaction between leadership, IDEA, and intersectional equity concerns relate. Throughout the special issue, we encourage readers to move beyond compliance with IDEA, to engage with intersectional and expansive equity approaches, and to address both ableism and racism.

General education inclusion of students with significant disabilities: the role of the school-based occupational therapy practitioner

ABSTRACT Since the passage of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, it has been mandatory for disabled children to be educated with non-disabled children within public agencies to the greatest extent possible. While school systems have responded by creating academic and functional programs better suited for educating students with disabilities, they tend to be self-contained environments with limited opportunities for exposure to typical peers throughout the school day. The inclusion of special education students, especially those with significant impairments, is currently not meeting the expectations set forth by IDEA. The reasons for this vary widely and have led to the pervasive restrictive placement of students with extensive support needs (ESN) despite the numerous benefits of inclusive placement presented in available research. This manuscript will compile the existing evidence on the educational placements of significantly disabled students and use it to paint a picture of the current state of inclusion, identify the barriers to its implementation, list the benefits of inclusion for all students, and discuss how occupational therapy practitioners can facilitate, enhance, and expand inclusion of these children. This manuscript serves as a call to action for school-based occupational therapy practitioners to expand their role in this setting by emphasizing their unique skill sets to educators and fully utilizing their strengths to act as advocates for the significantly impaired students they serve.

Legal Analysis of the Interpretation of Adapted Physical Education in US Law

ABSTRACT The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a cornerstone of special education and mandates for physical education (PE) and adapted physical education (APE). Little is known about how these areas are interpreted within court cases. We employed a legal content analysis to examine the interpretation of IDEA in state and federal court cases related to PE and APE. Among the seven cases examined, schools were identified as the prevailing party in most cases. Cases highlighted the significance of proper documentation of PE and APE, the limited involvement of trained adapted physical educators, and misconceptions surrounding PE and APE. Findings underscore the gap between legal interpretations and academic understanding of PE and APE within IDEA.

Evidence-Based Practices for Evaluating Preschoolers Who Are Deaf/Hard of Hearing Using Listening and Spoken Language for Special Education Eligibility

Purpose: Many young children who are deaf/hard of hearing (D/HH) using listening and spoken language (LSL) demonstrate improved spoken language outcomes. Anecdotally, one cascading effect of these improved outcomes is that many children are not qualifying for continued services at the age of 3 years during the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 Part C to Part B transition due to norm-referenced language performance within the average range. Although norm-referenced performance is one metric for determining language delay and is heavily relied on by educational teams, these siloed measures do not reflect listening, language, and learning demands of a typical preschool classroom. This tutorial highlights the research-to-practice gap currently existing in school-based contexts when evaluating a young child who is D/HH using LSL for special education services. Conclusions: An evidence-based framework for ecologically valid, school-based evaluations during the transition period from IDEA (2004) Part C to Part B for young children who are D/HH using LSL between 30 and 35 months of age is presented that balances sensitivity with feasibility. With a particular emphasis on assessment practices for spoken language, the framework connects the purpose of special education eligibility evaluations with evidence-based practice guidance from the literature. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26359642

Influence of COVID-19 in Pennsylvania Rural Schools' Due Process Hearing Decisions

During the COVID-19 Pandemic, rural Pennsylvania Local Education Agencies (LEAs) were found to have failed to properly offer special education services in alignment with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ranks among the most litigated states in disputes over the proper facilitation of services as mandated by IDEA. Despite this high volume of litigation, there was no analysis of how being defined as a rural LEA influenced due process hearing officer decisions after the COVID-19 Pandemic. The current study addresses this research gap by reviewing special education due process hearing activity for rural LEAs and comparing activity for the two years before and after the COVID-19 pandemic-mandated office closures. Findings offer guidance on problematic practices by analyzing the relationship between the pandemic and hearing officer ruling outcome, activity frequency before and after the pandemic, and remedies owed by rural LEAs from post-COVID decisions.

Moving Beyond Compliance and Toward Equity to Address Racial Disproportionality

The rights of approximately seven million students with disabilities in the United States are secured via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Despite these protections, consequential inequities still need to be addressed. Racialized inequities in special education outcomes persist across classifications, placements, and disciplinary outcomes—often referred to as racial disproportionality. The disjuncture between the promises of IDEA and persistent racial disparities highlights an equity dilemma. We tackle this dilemma and provide recommendations for educators to move beyond IDEA compliance and toward equity when addressing racial disproportionality. We discuss how efforts to address the inequity can be re-imagined across personal, classroom, and system levels. We provide three broad recommendations responsive to IDEA provisions and the myriad of root causes contributing to racial disproportionality.

Understanding policy reverberations across the educational ecosystem to effectuate change

ABSTRACT We outline a multidimensional ecological systems policy framework to better understand how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and patterns of racial disproportionality in special education relate. The framework engages with ideology, power, privilege, and context across the multiple layers of the policy-implementation process and educational ecosystem. It highlights how policy reverberates through the educational ecosystem via interpretation and implementation flows spanning from the exo-, macro-, and meso levels (e.g., federal policy, state education agency (SEA) guidance, local education agency (LEA) officials’ actions, educators) to the micro- level (e.g., families and students) and back up. The framework provides critical insights that can inform efforts to reduce racial and ability inequities.

Implementation of Universal Design For Learning In Inclusive Education : A Scoping Review In Asian Countries

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) derives from the Universal Design (UD) architecture, challenging traditional product adaptation by advocating for designs that consider every individual (King-Sears, 2009). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) extended UD to learning environments, resulting in the development of UDL with three core principles outlined by CAST in 2020. These enduring principles emphasize multiple ways of engagement, various means of representation, and multiple means of action and expression, aligning with the brain's learning networks (CAST, 2021). UDL goals encompass inclusivity, equity, flexibility, and accessibility. Methods include diverse means of representation, engagement, and action and expression, utilizing accessible texts, multimodal resources, and technology tools. Assessment in UDL involves formative assessment, varied formats, clear criteria, and consideration of learning styles. Implemented in Asian countries, UDL positively impacts education, particularly for special needs students. Shifting from instructor-centered to student-centered approaches enhances student involvement, satisfaction, and self-efficacy. UDL empowers teachers to diversify methods, adapting to student abilities and improving learning quality. The effect of UDL on inclusive education is substantial, increasing accessibility, individualized paths, engagement, breaking barriers, empowering diverse learners, and enhancing academic performance. UDL's multifaceted approach ensures effective use of materials and activities by students with diverse needs. In conclusion, UDL is a robust framework fostering inclusive and effective learning environments. Its principles, methods, and materials contribute to overall inclusive educational success. Limitations, including educator training gaps, pose barriers to rigorous implementation. Scoping review data unveils UDL's multidimensional implementation in various Asian educational contexts, providing crucial insights into its regional applications and implications.

Unintended Consequences of Special Education and Consideration of Change

This scholarly review presents a case for transforming special education rather than reauthorizing special education law in its present form and, in doing so, reconceptualizing the inclusion movement to recognize marginalizing influences. A comprehensive review of research, policy reviews, and observations of praxis is undertaken to examine current special education law. Three unintended consequences are identified: (a) the least restrictive environment provision; (b) incremental successes of the inclusion movement’s emphasis on placement; and (c) the effort to promote racial integration in current special education policy. While unintended consequences cannot be foreseen, the structure of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEIA) has changed little since the 1970s despite evolving praxis and understandings of social justice. This article is intended to facilitate a conversation about a path forward for special education, including whether IDEIA should be reauthorized in its present form, or what form might be taken under alternative policy.

AAC in AACtion: Collaborative Strategies for Special Education Teachers and Speech-Language Pathologists

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) refers to a wide variety of communication devices, systems, tools, and strategies that support or replace spoken language. Augmentative and alternative communication users represent a range of ages, abilities, and communication needs. Support for AAC often begins in the public school setting. Although the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates public schools to provide adequate assistive technology for communication and training to support implementation, researchers estimate that fewer than 40% of students with communication impairments using AAC are proficient communicators. Barriers to implementation include a lack of training opportunities, limited preparation time, unfamiliarity with AAC systems, and difficulty finding evidence-based strategies for AAC. To address these, we present evidence-based strategies that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and special education teachers may use in collaboration to support students using AAC and practical tips for implementation. Strategies described include aided language modeling, core vocabulary, and communication partner support behaviors. Planning considerations for collaboration are discussed.

Effects of Occupational Therapy Professional Development Training on School-Based Practice

ABSTRACT Purpose A training program was provided to school-based occupational therapy practitioners (SBOTPs) in Massachusetts to support practices aligned with educational policies and regulations. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of this training program on school-based practice patterns. Methods This study used a researcher-designed online exploratory survey to determine occupational therapy practice patterns in Massachusetts public schools following the training program. The survey was emailed to the 309 SBOTPs who participated in a Massachusetts Department of Education sponsored training between 2007 and 2019. The survey questions analyzed the frequency of reported participation-based intervention methods, in-context and out-of-context services, and interdisciplinary collaboration used by these practitioners. A Chi Square Goodness of Fit Test was performed to determine if there were categorical differences in the frequency of responses to each research question. Results After analyzing our 29 responses we determined that the training program was effective and had an impact on how SBOTPs practice within their schools. After the training, SBOTPs in Massachusetts reported engaging more frequently in participation-based practice in natural school contexts, and collaborating with teachers and other school professionals. Contribution to Occupational Therapy This research serves as evidence that professional development courses can impact how SBOTPs practice. This study suggests that practice patterns of SBOTS can be influenced by participating in trainings that include a model with rationale and facilitated practice for providing occupation-based services in the least restrictive environment and for increasing collaborative practices in schools. School-based occupational therapy (SBOT) is integral to the educational development of children who require this service as part of their individual educational program (IEP). SBOT helps students to achieve success in occupations within the school setting, such as education, play and leisure, activities of daily living (ADLs), and social participation. Students who receive special education services are eligible for occupational therapy if the IEP team determines that SBOT is necessary to achieve the prioritized student goals developed by the team, enhancing the student’s ability to succeed in the educational program. The overarching goal of school-based occupational therapy in working with eligible students with disabilities under the federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is to support students’ abilities to successfully participate (academically and functionally) in their educational program in the least restrictive environment in order, ultimately, to prepare them for adult living (AOTA, 2017; IDEA, 2004).

Examining paradoxes of access in disability law: a critical analysis of the least restrictive environment

ABSTRACT We employ theoretical pluralism and engage in a multi-level analysis to understand how the racialized segregation of students with dis/Abilities persists despite a commitment to inclusion via the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provision embedded within one of the most significant civil rights inspired legislation impacting students with dis/Abilities in the United States (US) – the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We use critical discourse analysis, case study and vignette analysis, and critical autoethnography to understand how injustices are sustained across macro (legal), meso (school or institutional), and micro (student) levels of the school system through the LRE provision. We find that the LRE provision promotes ableism and fails to adequately address intersectionalities which sustain racialized educational inequities under a rights framework across macro, meso, and micro levels. We conclude by describing how the LRE provision sustains inequality and promotes seclusion under the guise of inclusion.

Challenges Posed During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Special Education Teachers

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.

States’ Accountability for Facilitating Parent Involvement under IDEA

Since the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, state IDEA programs have been required to report annually on a set of performance indicators. Indicator 8 of the Part B State Performance Plan is the “percent of parents who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.” The purpose of this study was to investigate whether changes over time in national and state-level performance on Indicator 8 provide evidence in support of the effectiveness of the accountability requirement related to parent involvement. Data were extracted from states’ Annual Performance Reports and other publicly available documents. Findings indicated that national performance on Indicator 8 increased from 63% in 2006 to 76% in 2018. Within-state change in performance from 2014 to 2019 ranged from –13.47% to +42.50%, with several states indicating dramatic year-to-year changes in their reported performance. The findings raise important questions about the extent to which the indicator in its current form can support the dual purpose of holding states accountable for their facilitation of parents’ involvement and supporting improvement efforts. Implications for both federal policy and state-level action are discussed.

Why We Have Special Education Law: Legal Challenges to the IDEA

ABSTRACT In 1974, the Education for all Handicapped Protection Act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford. This law which was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, established a federal entitlement to special education for eligible students with disabilities. In 1982 and again in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the primary purpose of the law, that is the obligation of public schools to provide eligible students with a free appropriate public education. In this article we (a) examine the legal underpinnings of special education in the IDEA, (b) analyze legal challenges to IDEA, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s efforts to define the IDEA-mandated free appropriate public education (c) focus on the limits of the law to require scientific solutions for improving special education and (d) offer potential solutions to these challenges in the law and in the federal government’s efforts to improve special education.

Welcome to the Destruction of Special Education in the Name of Ideology

ABSTRACT Special education stands at a pivotal juncture, confronting both existential challenges and transformational opportunities. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is not upholding its mandate of promoting the Individualized Education Program (IEP). I underscore the centrality of the IEP in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and argue that the continuum of alternative placements (CAP) is essential for delivering individualized, intensive instruction that may not always be feasible in general education settings. The emergence of Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) has added to the vulnerability of special education as a discipline. Special education is built on a long tradition of scientific research, and the unbridled assault by some DisCrit devotees on special education practices supported by research, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) risks denying students the benefit of effective treatments. Ultimately, advocates for students with disabilities must support IDEA and its core components.