Transcript IDEA 2004 - Santa Clara County Office of Education

IDEA What Does it Mean for
Inclusion? Natural
Environments/ LRE for ALL
Children and the State
Performance Plan (SPP)
December 18, 2008
Pamela Ptacek
SELPA Directors
SELPAs I, II, III, IV & VII
Six Principles of the IDEA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Free and appropriate public education.
Child find (including assessment).
Individualized Education Program/
Individualized Family Service Plan.
Least restrictive environment.
Parent participation in decision making.
Due process (mediation/hearing).
2
Natural Environments
Part C of IDEA states that early intervention
services, "to the maximum extent appropriate,
are provided in natural environments, including
the home, and community settings in which
children without disabilities participate; and are
provided in conformity with an individualized
family service plan adopted in accordance with
section 636" [Sec. 632(4) (G),(H)].
3
Natural Environments (Cont)
The legislation provides the opportunity for
services in other settings when the parents and
the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
team determine that a child’s needs cannot be
satisfactorily met in a "natural environment" as
defined above. The federal law states:
4
Natural Environments (Cont)
To the maximum extent appropriate, early
intervention services are provided in natural
environments; and
The provision of early intervention services for
any infant or toddler with a disability occurs in a
setting other than a natural environment that is
most appropriate, as determined by the parent
and the individualized family service plan team,
only when early intervention cannot be achieved
satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural
environment
[IDEA 2004 §635 (a)(16)(A),(B)].
5
Natural Environments (Cont)
While the IFSP team is required to justify why
services may need to be provided in settings
other than a natural environment, the team
should not feel compelled to provide an undue
burden of justification, as this would violate the
spirit of the requirement that the IFSP be based
on the individual needs of the child.
(Sec. 303.340)
(ASHA)
6
Natural Environments (Cont)
The concept of "natural environments" as
defined by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA 1997; 2004) has created
confusion regarding the appropriate settings for
services for families and their infants and
toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing.
7
What Are Natural
Environments for Deaf or
Hard of Hearing Infants
and Toddlers?
Natural environments for infants and
toddlers, who are deaf or hard of hearing,
and their families should be places where
all have full access to language and
communication through visual, auditory,
and/or tactile communication systems
specific to that child and family.
8
Natural Environments for Deaf or
Hard of Hearing Infants (Cont)
The Joint Committee of ASHA and CED
believes that natural environments for infants
and toddlers, who are deaf or hard of
hearing, are environments that include family
members and caregivers, are developmentally appropriate, and provide direct
communication with adults and peers
through one or more fully accessible natural
languages (e.g., American Sign Language,
spoken English, or Spanish).
9
Natural Environments for Deaf or
Hard of Hearing Infants (Cont)
Natural environments include the home, child
care center, school, or other setting where
the child's language(s) and communication
modality are used by fluent adult users and
where peers are using and/or acquiring the
same languages through similar modalities.
10
Natural Environments for Deaf or
Hard of Hearing Infants (Cont)
Natural environments should be easily
accessible to families and provide
opportunities for families to meet with
professionals, who are knowledgeable about
language and communication development
in children with a hearing loss, and to interact
with other families who have similarly
developing children, whether hearing, deaf,
or hard of hearing.
11
When Determining the Setting
for Services for Families and
their Young Children:



Consider home, community, and program settings
(including center- based programs) that provide
full support for language and communication
development for the child and family.
Base recommendations on a comprehensive
assessment of the child and the family’s priorities,
resources, and concerns.
Provide families with comprehensive information
about all programs and providers.
12
When Determining the Setting
for Services for Families and
their Young Children (Cont)



Encourage families to visit all programs providing
services to young children with hearing loss and
their families.
Support families in selecting the programs,
providers, settings. And services that best meet the
needs of the child and family.
Recommend program and services that employ
qualified providers, who are fluent users of the
language(s) and communication modality or
modalities of the child.
13
Least Restrictive Environment
The placement of students with disabilities
ages three through 21 in appropriate settings
has been an integral to Part B of the IDEA
since its enactment. Three basic principles
are included in the federal mandate. These
are:

Placement is based on the student 's
individualized education program;

Placement is in the least restrictive
environment; and

A continuum of alternative placement
options is available to all students with
disabilities.
14
LRE (Cont)
Of these principles, the requirement to place
students in the least restrictive environment
has raised the most questions and generated
the most discussion. Although this requirement
has been included in Part B of the IDEA since
1975, consistent understanding and direction
have emerged more recently through federal
court decisions, the amendments of IDEA 2004
and the final federal regulations that were
published in 2007.
15
Nonacademic Services
Districts must take steps, including the
provision of supplementary aids and services
determined appropriate and necessary by the
IEP Team, to provide nonacademic and
extracurricular activities in the manner
necessary to afford children with disabilities
an equal opportunity for participation in those
activities. (e.g. counseling, athletics,
recreation, clubs, etc.)
CFR 300.107(b)
16
Least Restrictive Environment
(LRE)
To the maximum extent appropriate, children
with disabilities are educated with their typically
developing peers.
Special classes, separate schooling, or other
removal of children with disabilities from the
regular education environment occurs only if the
nature and severity of the disability is such that
education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily.
17
Determining Educational
Placement
The placement decision is made by a group of
persons, including the parents, and other
persons knowledgeable about the child, the
meaning of the evaluation data, and the
placement options, and is made in conformity
with the LRE provisions of the IDEA.
18
Determining Educational
Placement (Cont)

1.
2.
3.
The child’s placement :
Is determined at least annually;
Is based on the child’s IEP; and
Is as close as possible to the child’s home;
• Unless the IEP of the child with a disability
requires some other arrangement, the child is
educated in the school that he or she would
attend if not nondisabled.
19
Determining Educational
Placement (Cont)
• In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to
•
any potential harmful effect on the child or on
the quality of services that he or she needs;
and
A child with a disability is not removed from
education in age-appropriate regular
classrooms solely because of needed
modifications in the general education
curriculum.
CFR Sec. 300.116
20
LRE for A Child is an IEP Team
Decision
If the IEP team agrees that the student should
receive all or part of the special education
services outside the regular classroom,
opportunities for participation in programs with
typically developing peers in academic or
nonacademic activities must be considered and
included in the IEP as appropriate.
21
LRE for A Child is an IEP Team
Decision
The requirements for placement in the LRE and
the same decision-making process also apply
when considering placement for a preschool
age child with disabilities.
22
LRE for A Child is an IEP Team
Decision (Cont)

However, many school districts do not operate
preschool programs for typically developing
children and the law does not require districts to
establish such preschool programs to meet the
requirements for placing a preschooler with
disabilities in the LRE.

This perceived inconsistency has raised many
questions regarding a practical approach to
addressing this issue.
23
LRE for A Child is an IEP Team
Decision (Cont)

As with any student with a disability, the
determination of whether a placement is more or
less restrictive is based on the opportunity to be
educated and interact with typically developing
peers.

For school age students with disabilities, this
placement is in the regular education class
operated by the district of residence.
24
LRE for A Child is an IEP Team
Decision (Cont)

In the case of a preschooler with disabilities,
there may be no comparable option because the
district does not operate a preschool program for
typically developing children.

Therefore, it is important to note that for
preschoolers with disabilities, placement in a
regular preschool program in another district or
in a privately operated program in the local
community is a less restrictive placement option
than the district's self-contained preschool
disabled classroom.
25
IT’S THE LAW!
School districts must ensure to the
maximum extent appropriate that
students with disabilities ages three
through 21 are educated with
nondisabled children and participate
in nonacademic and extracurricular
activities with nondisabled children.
26
Case Law and LRE
Rachel Holland vs. Sacramento Unified School
District 9th Circuit 1994
The 4 Prongs of the Decision
•
•
•
•
Educational Benefits
Non Academic Benefits
Effect on the Teacher and Children in the
Regular Class
Cost
27
Case Law (Cont)
1.
Educational Benefit
The district court found that Rachel received
substantial benefits in regular education and
that all of her IEP goals could be implemented
in a regular classroom with some modification
to the curriculum and with the assistance of a
part-time aide.
28
Case Law (Cont)
2.
Nonacademic Benefits
The district court next found that the nonacademic benefits to Rachel, also weighed
in favor of placing her in a regular
classroom. The court noted that the
Hollands' evidence indicated that Rachel
had developed her social and
communications skills as well as her selfconfidence from placement in a regular
class, while the District's evidence tended
to show that Rachel was not learning from
exposure to other children and that she
was isolated from her classmates.
29
Case Law (Cont)
3.
Effect on the Teacher and Children in the
Regular Class

The court looked at two aspects: (1)
whether there was detriment because the
child was disruptive, distracting or unruly,
and (2) whether the child would take up so
much of the teacher's time that the other
students would suffer from lack of attention.
The witnesses of both parties agreed that
Rachel followed directions and was wellbehaved and not a distraction in class.
30
Case Law (Cont)
4.
Cost
Finally, the district court found that the
District had not offered any persuasive or
credible evidence to support its claim that
educating Rachel in a regular classroom,
with appropriate services, would be
significantly more expensive than educating
her in the District's proposed setting.
31
State Performance Plan
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in
the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
SPP Indicator 7: Preschool Assessment



Percent of preschool children with Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs) who demonstrate
improved;
Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships);
Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including
early language/ communication and early literacy); and
Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20
U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)).
32
State Performance Plan (Cont)
Indicator 1:
Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who
receive the early intervention services on their
IFSPs in a timely manner.
33
State Performance Plan (Cont)
Indicator 3:
Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who
demonstrate:
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships;
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication; and
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their
needs
34
State Performance Plan (Cont)
Indicator 4:
Percent of families participating in Part C who
report that early intervention services have
helped the family:
A. Know their rights;
B. Effectively communicate their children’s needs;
and
C. Help their children develop and learn.
35
State Performance Plan (Cont)
Indicator 7:
Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with
IFSPs for whom an evaluation and assessment
and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted
within Part C’s 45-day timeline.
36
State Performance Plan (Cont)
Indicator 8:
Percent of all children exiting Part C who received
timely transition planning to support the child’s
transition to preschool and other appropriate
community services by their third birthday
including:
A. IFSPs with transition steps and services
B. Notification to LEA, if child is potentially eligible
under Part B; and
C. Transition conference, if child potentially eligible
for Part B.
37
THANKS FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!
38