Special Education - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Special Education PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 41231f-OWNkY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Special Education

Description:

Special Education Patricia R. Andrews Andrews & Price History 1972-PARC Consent Decree Challenged the education of mentally retarded students in PA Agreement to ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:8
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 30
Provided by: trisha3
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Special Education


1
Special Education
  • Patricia R. Andrews
  • Andrews Price

2
History
  • 1972-PARC Consent Decree Challenged the education
    of mentally retarded students in PA
  • Agreement to provide educational services to all
    children
  • Established 1st due process hearings to challenge
    program
  • Hearings very simply
  • Districts usually prevailed

3
History
  • 1975 Public Law 94-142
  • Modeled after the PA scheme
  • No major changes for PA
  • Hearings more complex
  • New issues
  • Advocates
  • Some lawyer involvement

4
History
  • 1986 Smith v. Robinson
  • U.S. Supreme Court Case
  • Held no attorneys fees available for prevailing
    parties under P.L. 94-142

5
History
  • 1988 Protection for All Handicapped Children
    Act
  • 94-142 amended to provide for attorneys fees for
    prevailing party
  • Only for parents
  • No meaningful substantive changes
  • Parent lawyers now come on scene
  • More complex and longer hearings

6
Major cases
  • Amy Rowley v. Hendrick Hudson S.D.
  • Deaf student requesting an interpreter as part of
    educational program
  • Holding
  • Substantive children are only entitled to an
    appropriate, not best, program
  • Procedures cannot have substantively appropriate
    program if procedures not followed

7
Major cases
  • Oberti
  • Down Syndrome child requesting inclusion in the
    regular education environment
  • IDEA adopts the Courts decision
  • Holding Children are entitled to be educated in
    the least restrictive environment
  • Children educated with nondisabled peers to
    maximum extent appropriate
  • Must provide supplementary aides and services to
    allow inclusion to be satisfactorily achieved

8
Major Cases
  • Gaskins Consent Decree
  • In the process of being finalized
  • Emphasizes requirement of IEP Team to
    appropriately consider LRE before making
    placement determinations
  • Monitored by PDE

9
Major cases
  • W.B. v. Matula
  • Third Circuit
  • Holding school districts can be liable for
    monetary damages as well as compensatory damages
  • Every other circuit has held the opposite

10
History
  • 1997-IDEA
  • 1st meaningful substantive changes in 22 years
  • Reauthorization finalized in 2004
  • Effective July 1, 2005

11
IDEA
  • Incorporates the holdings of PARC, Rowley,
    Oberti
  • School must identify all children with
    disabilities and provide FAPE
  • FAPE is an individualized education program
    designed to meet the needs of the child that is
    reasonably calculated to provide meaningful
    educational benefit
  • Procedures must be followed
  • Education must be in the least restrictive
    environment
  • Parents have due process rights

12
IEP Team
  • The IEP Team is the decision maker under IDEA
  • Responsible for developing, reviewing and
    revising an IEP
  • There are no individual decisions

13
Required Members of the IEP Team
  • IEP Team includes
  • Parents
  • At least 1 regular education teacher of the child
  • At least 1 special education teacher of the child
  • LEA
  • Qualified to provide or supervise the provision
    of SDI is knowledgeable about the general
    curriculum is knowledgeable about the
    availability of resources of the public agency

14
IEP TEAM ATTENDANCE
  • An IEP team member shall not be required to
    attend all or part of the IEP meeting if the
    parent in writing and the LEA agree that the team
    members attendance is not necessary because the
    members area of the curriculum or related
    services is not being modified or discussed at
    the meeting
  • DOCUMENT!

15
IEP TEAM ATTENDANCE
  • An IEP team member may be excused from attending
    all or part of the IEP meeting when the meeting
    involves a modification to or discussion of the
    members area of the curriculum or related
    services if the parent in writing and the LEA
    consent to the excusal and the member submits, in
    writing to the parent and Team input into the
    development of the IEP prior to the meeting

16
IEP TEAM ATTENDANCE
  • Is this really helpful?
  • This provision requires written documentation
    do not forget this step cannot just leave!
  • Does this take more time than just attending the
    meeting itself?
  • RECOMMENDATION As a general rule, the required
    members of the Team should be present throughout
    the meeting this provision should be the
    exception to the rule.

17
AMENDING THE IEP
  • Changes after the annual IEP meeting
  • Parent and LEA may agree not to convene an IEP
    meeting
  • Instead may develop a written document to amend
    or modify the current IEP
  • Can still hold a full team meeting
  • Parent shall be provided with the revised document

18
AMENDING THE IEP
  • RECOMMENDATION
  • Too many pitfalls
  • Must document the agreement takes time
  • Are all teachers notified of changes?
  • Are parents truly aware that a change is being
    made to the IEP?
  • GENERAL RULE Hold the IEP Team meeting! This
    should be the exception to the rule.

19
AMENDING THE IEP
  • Changes can be made by amending the IEP rather
    than by redrafting the entire document.
  • Document this clearly to avoid confusion
  • Provide parent with a copy of the changes

20
IMPLEMENTATION
  • Once IEP is agreed to, must be appropriately
    implemented
  • IEP is a legally binding agreement
  • IEP Team agreed that the items in the IEP are the
    required special education services to provide
    child with FAPE
  • Entire IEP must be followed
  • Cannot chose portions of IEP to implement
  • As the LEA must monitor implementation

21
Why should I care?
  • Extreme-Doe v. Withers-Teacher held personally
    liable for money damage for failing to implement
    the IEP. (School insurance did not cover him).
  • This teacher actively refused to implement the
    specially designed instruction even after
    administration cited him.
  • Court reasoned that this was sufficiently
    egregious conduct to defeat claims of immunity.
  • Jury returned verdict against high school teacher
    for 5,000.00 compensatory and 10,000.00
    punitive.

22
Why Should I Care?
  • Discipline - 24 P.S. 11-1122
  • Incompetency
  • Unsatisfactory Rating
  • Persistent negligence in the performance of
    duties
  • Willful neglect of duties
  • Failure to follow District Policy or
    Administrative directives

23
Understanding LRE
  • Children placed in special education are general
    education children first
  • Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
    Education

24
Understanding Least Restrictive Environment
  • Inclusion is not a legal term-LRE is the law.
  • Legal mandate that disabled children should be
    educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with
    their nondisabled peers.
  • Presumption is that children with disabilities
    are to be educated in regular classes.

25
LRE
  • Shift in emphasis!
  • Prior to 1997 IEP explained the extent a child
    would be able to participate in reg. Ed. now an
    IEP must explain the extent the child will not be
    placed in regular ed. and why.

26
LRE
  • Determination of educational placement made by
    the IEP Team including the parents!
  • At least annually
  • Team must assure that child is removed from
    regular education environment only if the nature
    or severity of the disability is such that
    education in regular classes with the use of
    supplementary aides and services cannot be
    achieved satisfactorily
  • Is the child making progress?

27
Prior Written Notice
  • A NOREP must be issued to the parents if
  • The District proposes to initiate or change the
    educational placement of a child with a
    disability
  • Parents must agree, on the NOREP before a change
    of placement can occur
  • Verbal consent is not sufficient
  • CANNOT CHANGE UNILATERALLY!

28
Why Should I Care?
  • Little Mistakes Lead to Big Problems
  • Due Process
  • Time Consuming
  • Adversarial
  • Damages
  • Compensatory education
  • Tuition reimbursement
  • Money
  • Discipline
  • In the job and personally

29
Why Should I Care?
  • Avoid problems by following IDEAs procedures
  • Remember IEP Team makes all final decisions
  • Remember Parents part of Team
  • Remember Obtain parental consent through a
    NOREP for every change no matter how small
  • Remember IEP must be fully implemented
About PowerShow.com