IDEA What Does it Mean for Inclusion Natural Environments LRE for ALL Children and the State Perform

1
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
2
Six Principles of the IDEA

• 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).

3
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).

4
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 childs needs cannot be
  satisfactorily met in a "natural environment" as
  defined above. The federal law states

5
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).

6
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)

7
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.

8
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.

9
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 develop-mentally 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).

10
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.

11
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.

12
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 familys
  priorities, resources, and concerns.
• Provide families with comprehensive information
  about all programs and providers.

13
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.

14
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.

15
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.

16
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)

17
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.

18
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.

19
Determining Educational Placement (Cont)

• The childs placement
• Is determined at least annually
• Is based on the childs IEP and
• Is as close as possible to the childs 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.

20
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

21
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.

22
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.

23
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.

24
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.

25
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.

26
ITS 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.

27
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

28
Case Law (Cont)

• 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.

29
Case Law (Cont)

• Nonacademic Benefits
• The district court next found that the
  non-academic 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
  self-confidence 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.

30
Case Law (Cont)

• 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 well-behaved and not a
  distraction in class.

31
Case Law (Cont)

• 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.

32
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)).

33
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.

34
State Performance Plan (Cont)

• Indicator 3
• Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who
  demonstrate
• Positive social-emotional skills (including
  social relationships
• Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
  (including early language/communication and
• Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

35
State Performance Plan (Cont)

• Indicator 4
• Percent of families participating in Part C who
  report that early intervention services have
  helped the family
• Know their rights
• Effectively communicate their childrens needs
  and
• Help their children develop and learn.

36
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 Cs 45-day timeline.

37
State Performance Plan (Cont)

• Indicator 8
• Percent of all children exiting Part C who
  received timely transition planning to support
  the childs transition to preschool and other
  appropriate community services by their third
  birthday including
• IFSPs with transition steps and services
• Notification to LEA, if child is potentially
  eligible under Part B and
• Transition conference, if child potentially
  eligible for Part B.

38
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!