Transcript Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

Connecting Research to Practice for
Teacher Educators
1
DeAnn Lechtenberger — Principle Investigator
Nora Griffin-Shirley — Project Coordinator
Doug Hamman — Project Evaluator
Tonya Hettler—Grant Manager
Financial Support for Project IDEAL is provided by the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, with
Federal funds* made available by the United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration on Developmental Disabilities. *$599,247 (74%) DD funds; $218,725 (26%) non-federal
resources.
The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the funding agency[s]. No
official endorsement should be inferred.
2

Education in the United States has changed
– 1600’s:The earliest schools focused on religious
teachings by Pilgrims and Congregationalists
– With immigration of people from different
countries, cultures, and religions, this type of
education became less common
– 1800’s private schools and tutoring were used
– 1852 – 1918: states passed laws requiring children
to attend elementary school.
3
Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. president, wrote of
public education:
“I have indeed two great measures at heart,
without which no republic can maintain itself
in strength: 1. That of general education, to
enable every man to judge for himself what
will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To
divide every county into hundreds, of such size
that all the children of each will be within
reach of a central school in it.“
(in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810)
4



Each state has authority over public education:
laws, finance, personnel, curricula.
Local property taxes and state funds were used
for school expenses with some federal funding.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 addressed educational needs of poor
children (with programs such as Head Start)
and improving instruction in math, science and
foreign languages; assisted with federal
funding.
5
The need for special education became evident
as:
 attendance in public schools became
compulsory

policies of public schools were created and
enforced to exclude groups of children, based
on race, gender, and disability.
6



A group that had been excluded from public
education filed a court case in the early 1950’s
and was heard by the United States Supreme
Court.
In Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka,
racial discrimination was specifically
addressed and ruled unlawful.
In the decision made by that court, Mr. Chief
Justice Warren stated…
7
“…Today, education is perhaps the most important function of
state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance
laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate
our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic
society. It is required in the performance of our most basic
public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the
very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal
instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing
him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust
normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that
any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is
denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity,
where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which
must be made available to all on equal terms…”
8
With this court decision, parents and advocates of
two organizations, the Council for Exceptional
Children and the National Association for Retarded
Citizens, began challenging the school policies that
prevented children with disabilities from attending
those public schools.
 When school officials continued to refuse to admit
children with disabilities to schools, the parents and
advocates filed court cases to challenge and change
the school policies that excluded children with
disabilities.


9
Two court cases brought recognition of the
need for educating all children. These cases
brought forth ideas that are upheld in current
laws and regulations:
 1971: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania
 1972: Mills v. Board of Education, District of
Columbia.
10
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) determined…
 …all persons considered to be mentally retarded could
benefit from education and training
 …schools should provide free, public programs to educate
and train that are “appropriate to the child's capacity.”
 …”a regular public school class” was more beneficial to a
child than a “special public school class”; a special class in a
public school was more beneficial than any other type of
educational or training program.
 If children were assigned to any class other than the “regular
public school class”, they were to be evaluated every two
years.
11
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of
Columbia (1972) found…
 … children who had disabilities were not to be
denied admission, suspended, expelled,
reassigned or transferred from regular public
school classes without due process of law.
 A census of all children in the District of
Columbia was to be completed to discover any
children who were not attending public school.
 Each child was to have a periodic educational
review.
12



The Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (Public Law 94-142) became law in 1975.
This law became known as the “Bill of Rights”
for students identified with disabilities and
their families.
PL 94-142 required states that received
federal funds to provide to their students
with disabilities…
13








A free appropriate public education (PARC)
In the least restrictive environment (PARC)
For children from 3 to 21 years
Written permission from parent required prior to
evaluation (Mills)
An extensive evaluation before placement (Mills)
Periodic reevaluation (PARC, Mills)
Individualized Education Program (IEP) written to
meet child’s needs
Parents informed of due process to challenge
schools’ actions and decisions (Mills)
14

Each IEP was to include:
– statement of present level of educational performance
– annual goals and short term instructional objectives
– specific special education and related services to be
provided for the child
– extent to which child will participate in regular education
program
– projected dates for initiation of services and anticipated
duration of services
– schedule for determining on at least an annual basis
whether the short term instructional objectives are met
(Mills)
15
1990 Amendments to PL 94-142 changed name to
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
 Required students have a transition plan by the
age of 16 years with activities and interagency
linkages for living arrangements, vocational
training, and/or additional education.
 Added social work and rehabilitation counseling
as related services.
 Added autism and traumatic brain injury as
disability categories.
16

The 1997 Amendment to “Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA) added ten
changes to the previous law regarding
discipline, participation in the general
education curriculum and state assessments,
transition planning, assistive technology,
related services and structure of the IEP.
17
Schools allowed to discipline students with
disabilities in similar ways as students without
disabilities if the misbehavior was not a
manifestation of the students’ disabilities
 Statements in the Individualized Education
Program (IEP) describing how students with
disabilities will be involved with and progress in
the general education curriculum
 Documented transition planning that was to
begin when the students were 14 years of age
 General educators became part of the IEP team
 Emphasis placed on annual goals, benchmarks

18





IEP teams were required to consider student’s needs
for assistive technology
Orientation and mobility services for children with
visual impairments and blindness were added as a
related service.
States were required to offer mediation services to
help resolve disputes between schools and families of
students with disabilities.
A variety of assessment tools and strategies were to
be used to collect functional and developmental
information on students who might need special
education.
Students with disabilities were to be included in
statewide assessment programs or given alternative
assessments that met unique needs.
19

Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 was to bring IDEA
of 1997 into alignment with No Child Left
Behind Act
20



Individualized Education Programs were to
base services on more scientific findings
IDEA created a pilot program for 15 states to
develop three-year IEPs
Benchmarks/short-term objectives were no
longer required in the IEP except for students
who take alternative state assessments
21

Zero reject/No exclusion

Protection in evaluation

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Procedural Safeguards

Parental Participation
22

Children who might have disabilities should
be located and identified as soon as possible.

Educational services must be extended to all
children who are evaluated and found to be
eligible for and in need of special education
and related services.
23
Children are evaluated fairly and equitably:
 In their own language
 With a variety of strategies and tools
 With more than one assessment
 Without racial or cultural discrimination
 With assessments that are valid and reliable
 In all areas of suspected disability
 With the intent of gathering information that is
relevant and that will assist in determining the
educational needs of the child.
24
Free appropriate public education is referred to
as “FAPE”.

It is provided at no cost to the parents of the
student with a disability

It is appropriately designed education to
meet the identified needs of the student
25
The least restrictive environment is the education
of students with disabilities with students who do
not have disabilities as much as appropriate.
Students with disabilities may be educated in:
 regular education classrooms
 regular education classes with supplementary
services
 special education classes
 special education facilities
26



Periodic re-evaluation is required.
It may be conducted in accordance with the
IDEA regulation, which requires re-evaluation
at three-year intervals or more frequently if
conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or
teacher requests a re-evaluation.
Requires a school district to conduct a reevaluation prior to a significant change of
placement.
27
Local Level
―Principal
―Superintendent
―School Board
 State Level
―Texas Education Agency
 Federal Level
―Office for Civil Rights

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html?src=rt
28
Texas Education Agency
 http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us
 TEA Parents Information Line: 1.800.252.9668
Divisions within the Special Programs,
Monitoring and Interventions
 IDEA Coordination (Special Education Programs,
Complaints, Deaf Services)
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed
 NCLB Program Coordination
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/nclb
 Special Education Monitoring
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/pmi/spedmon
29
Other Divisions at TEA

Student Assessment
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment
Technical Assistance

ESC Special Education Contacts
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/escinfo/contact.html
First point of contact for special education technical
assistance
 State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC)
www.sbec.state.tx.us
First point of contact for teacher certification issues
30
Resources on the Web
 State Guidance
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/guidance
First point of contact for guidance on state
policy
 Parent Resource Network
www.partnerstx.org
 Texas Project First
www.texasprojectfirst.org
31
Notice of Procedural Safeguards
http://fw.esc18.net/frameworkdisplayportlet/Do
cuments/Procedural%20Safeguards%202-2009.pdf
 Texas Special Education Rules and Regulations
Side-by-Side
http://framework.esc18.net/SBS_April_2008.pdf
 Legal Framework for the Child-Centered Process
http://framework.esc18.net

32
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index.html
Institute of Educational Sciences (IES)
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html
33
IDEA 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act)
http://idea.ed.gov
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html
Section 504 Frequently Asked Questions
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/resources.html
34
DeAnn Lechtenberger, Ph.D.
Principle Investigator
[email protected]
Tonya Hettler, Grant Manager
[email protected]
Webpage: www.projectidealonline.org
Phone: (806) 742-1997, ext. 302
The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the funding
agency[s]. No official endorsement should be inferred.
35