The
Special EDge
Winter/Spring 2005
n
Volume 18
n
Number 2
An Overview of What’s New
The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act, 
T
Written from an interview with Art Cernosia, Attorney and Education Consultant, Institute for Program Development, Vermont
he Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), first enacted in 1975, represents
a landmark in federal legislation that has
vastly improved the lives of more than a
million children with disabilities and
their families. On December 3, 2004,
President George W. Bush signed the
latest reauthorization of IDEA entitled
“The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004.”
Suggestions and comments from the
public, as well as from governmental and
nongovernmental agencies, were
solicited for incorporation into the
proposed regulations.
Parents, teachers, and other professionals familiar with IDEA ’97 are naturally
asking, “What’s new in IDEA 2004?”
and “What do the changes mean to me?”
While many of the changes will not take
effect until July 1, 2005, and the final
regulations are not likely to be available
until months thereafter, some new features in the laws and guidelines, as well
as reservations and concerns, can already
be noted here. In brief, there are numerous, clear gains in the legislation:
• A widely hailed feature of IDEA 2004
is its goal of implementing unbiased
testing and evaluation procedures to
reduce misidentification of students
from diverse cultures for special
education.
• Discipline procedures are laid out for
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
students with disabilities, procedures
that retain the right of these students
to a free, appropriate public education.
• Up to 15 states may receive reporting
waivers related to IEPs (Individualized
Education Programs) under a paperwork reduction provision if they can
demonstrate that limited resources
compel them to focus on providing
services instead.
• More attention is paid to services for
children who are homeless or wards of
the state.
Overall, there is greater flexibility seen
throughout the new law, but the price for
it is greater responsibility on the part of
agencies, educators, and families.
Greater Flexibility
There are several areas in the new law that
support increased flexibility for parents,
educators, and service providers.
IEP Team Issues. There is new flexibility in the rules regarding meetings and
composition of the IEP (Individual
Education Program) team. A team member may now be excused from a meeting
with the written consent of the parents
and LEA (Local Education Agency). A
valid reason for excusing attendance
might be that the person’s curriculum or
service area is not being discussed. If a
person’s curriculum or service area is
being discussed, he or she can still be
excused with the agreement of the parent
and the LEA, with the proviso that he or
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
Inside this issue
IDEA 
IEPs

Transition

Behavior

A Parent’s Perspective

Special Pullout
Promising Middle
School Practices
she provide written input for meeting
attendees. Meetings may now be held by
videoconference or conference call, again
provided parents and the LEA agree.
IEP Content. In an effort to reduce
paperwork and streamline processes,
short-term objectives or benchmarks will
now be required only for those students
assessed using alternate achievement standards (students with significant cognitive
disabilities). IEPs may be amended
between annual meetings without calling
IDEA Overview, continued on page 10
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©
1
The
Special EDge
Director, Special Alice Parker
Education Division
California Department
of Education
Contract Monitor Janet Canning
and Project Liaison
Editor Mary Cichy Grady
Content Consultants Maureen Burness
Linda Landry
Geri West
Editorial Assistants Donna Lee
Holly Byers Ochoa
Project Managers Linda Blong
Anne Davin
Special Contributors Janet Canning
Art Cernosia
Bobbie Coulbourne
Paul Hinkle
Dennis Kelleher
Adam Stein
Richard A. Villa
The Special EDge is published tri-annually
by Sonoma State University’s CalSTAT
Project (California Services for Technical
Assistance and Training). Funding is
provided by the California Department
of Education, Special Education Division,
through contract number 0127 with
Sonoma State University’s California
Institute on Human Services (CIHS).
Contents of this document do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies
of Sonoma State University or the California
Department of Education, nor does mention
of trade names, commercial products, or
organizations imply endorsement.
Circulation: ,
The information in this issue is in the public
domain unless otherwise indicated. Readers
are encouraged to copy and share but to credit CalSTAT. This issue is available on disk,
audiotape, and in large type upon request.
Go to http://www.calstat.org/info
Publications.html to download pdf versions of
this and previous newsletters.
Contact The Special EDge by phone at
⁄-; mail to the following address:
The Special EDge c/o Sonoma State University,
CalSTAT/CIHS, 1801 East Cotati Avenue,
Rohnert Park, California ; or email
[email protected].
Informing and supporting parents, educators,
and other service providers on special education
topics, focusing on research-based practices,
legislation, technical support, and current resources
2
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
Letter
From the State Director
In 2004, the nation observed the 50th anniversary of Brown v.
the Board of Education and thirty years of civil rights for
children with disabilities in our schools. In that half century,
special education has focused on developing quality programs.
With the passage and implementation of the No Child Left
Behind Act, and with the new Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act, special education is seeing a
renewed focus on high expectations for all children and
improved educational outcomes, creating a push for increased
access to quality, standards-based education and for systems that
are accountable for improving outcomes for every child. This
By Dr. Alice D. Parker,
type of challenge needs to be our focus for the next 50 years!
Director, California
For too long in education, children with disabilities have
Department of Education,
been excluded from the “table of rigor.” It is no longer
Special Education Division
acceptable to think that quality standards and high expectations
are for others; they are for all children. Our specific goals need to include improved access
to standards, core curricula, and powerful and proven techniques. In order to reach these
goals, we need to retool at all levels—general education, special education, and higher
education—and take responsibility for all children, including those with significant
learning disabilities.
We also need to significantly change the way we categorize students with disabilities and
the way we conceive the Individualized Education Program (IEP). In the past, how these
two issues have been understood and acted on has actually shaped the way people think and
the way they provide services to children with disabilities—and not always for the better.
Specifically, categorization has produced several unintended, negative consequences,
foremost of which is the segregation and isolation of children, even with the inclusive
education practices and the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirements of the IDEA.
The mindset around categorization has also made it more difficult to diagnose discrete
disabilities. Complicating the problem is the way the definitions of categories change
from one state to another: a child who has a disability defined one way in one state can
find himself significantly relabeled when he moves. At the same time, this lack of precision
or understanding of the variances among disabilities does not keep children from being
assigned and sorted by labels.
Another negative consequence of categorization is the overlay of a complex service delivery system that has grown up around the categories. This system classifies children and
teachers and, based on the categories, establishes programs, program standards, and guidelines, creating an interesting paradox, considering the fundamental premise of IDEA: individual needs and individual entitlements. Absent from too many conversations is the
absolute right of children with disabilities to break out of rigid categories and gain access
to and make progress in standards, core content, and rigorous curricula. Our continued vigilance and hard work is needed to make sure this practice changes.
Recreating the IEP is the easier of the two goals to realize in this state, since California
has already taken the forward-thinking step of preparing for just that opportunity through
the State Superintendent’s IEP Task Force.
The implementation of IDEA 2004 offers a perfect opportunity for all of us to become
catalysts for change in every area where it’s needed. By working within the system,
providing information to all, and objectively evaluating the system itself—with the good
of each child in mind—we can realize a vision of positive outcomes for all children.
This requires our ability to revision: to see children with disabilities as unique
individuals and general education participants first. And it requires us to see ourselves as
partners. This is no small task. So we must try, every day, to hold a child’s face in our
mind’s eye; and every day never to forget that this child is depending on the success of our
efforts. If we do this, we will be able to find the necessary vision, energy, and commitment
to ensure that child of equity, access, and every chance of finding eventual success in life.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE
Implications for the Letter and the Spirit of the Law
IDEA  and the IEP
E
By Dr. Richard A. Villa, Educational Consultant on Collaboration, Co-Teaching,
Differentiated Instruction, Inclusive Education, and Systems Change; President,
Bayridge Consortium in San Diego
very time special education
law is amended, parents and advocates
for students with disabilities worry that
hard-earned rights and procedural safeguards might be lost. It is no different
with IDEA 2004. However, despite the
changes within the law, there is one comforting fact: the six principles that have
previously guided special education law
and the provision of services for students
with disabilities will remain in effect:
1. Free and Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE)
2. Full Educational Opportunity
(Zero Reject Philosophy)
3. Child Find
4. Procedural Safeguards
5. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
6. Individualized Education Programs
(IEPs)
While some of these articles remain
untouched, others underwent subtle and
important changes under the new law. I
will focus here on the IEPs.
What’s the Same?
Under the new law, many things that
shape the IEP do remain the same. For
example, the following people remain
members of the IEP team:
• Parents or guardians
• The child, when appropriate
• General and special education teachers
• A district representative
• Someone to interpret the assessment
results
In addition, the IEP will still be required
to contain the following information:
1. Student’s strengths (e.g., learning
styles, interests, multiple intelligences,
abilities, strengths)
2. Student’s present level of performance
3. Measurable annual goals
4. How progress toward annual goals
will be measured
5. Supplemental supports, aids, services
6. Modifications in assessments, if needed
7. Projected date for beginning services
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
8. Transition plans (grade to grade,
school to school, school to adult life)
9. Roles and responsibilities for
next steps
10. How the parents and student will be
involved and the type and frequency
of communication
Finally, the IEP is still designed to promote movement from school to these
seven important outcomes:
1. Postsecondary education
2. Vocational training
3. Employment
4. Continuing adult education
5. Access to adult services (e.g., support
for residential living)
6. Independent living
7. Community participation
What Is Changing
All of the above rests on solid ground,
and it should be an assurance to parents,
educators, and students that the original
intent behind the IEP remains intact. The
changes appear designed to address the
perennial concern over the amount of
paperwork and time that the IEP process
seems to require—time that often has to
be taken away from instructing students.
One-Year or Three-Year IEPs?
Under the IDEA 2004 amendments, up
to 15 states may apply for a waiver, allowing them to move from yearly IEPs to
three-year IEPs. It remains to be seen
whether or not California will apply for
such a waiver. There might be some practicality and/or value in creating three-year
IEPs for some students who have transitioned beyond school and whose IEPs deal
with community-based training, job
development, independence in the community, and education on college sites.
The goals for some of these students may
remain the same over a three-year period.
In my mind, however, it is hard to
envision how changing the time period
for review and development of an IEP
from yearly to every three years in an
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
effort to reduce paperwork will have educational benefit for most students with
disabilities. Goals should be fitting and
responsive to students’ progress and,
therefore, fluid and subject to change.
And even though there is the possibility that IEP goals under this approach
would be rewritten only every three
years, student progress will still need to
be monitored on a regular basis throughout each year of the three-year IEP cycle.
It is encouraging to note that, even with
the prospect of some states receiving the
three-year IEP waiver, the final federal
regulations will require parents to formally agree to change from a one-year
IEP to the three-year.
Reporting Language
Changes in the new law also affect the
language dealing with the frequency of
reporting the progress a student is making toward IEP goals. Rather than
requiring the progress of students with
disabilities to be reported as frequently as
progress reported to parents of nondisabled children, the progress of students with disabilities will now have to
be reported at least four times a year,
regardless of other reporting patterns—
an attempt to reduce the overload of
paperwork that most special education
teachers face.
Another significant change in the IEP
eliminates the requirement for developing short-term objectives or benchmarks
for each of the annual goals, unless the
student is among the one percent not
participating in the statewide or districtwide assessments. It remains to be seen if
individual states or districts will continue to require short-term objectives or
benchmarks, and/or how progress toward
an annual goal will be measured without
them.
Most educators will agree that there is
potential damage in officially getting rid
of the requirement of developing shortterm objectives. To avoid this possibility,
we need to remember that any effort to
monitor student progress should be
designed to help parents, students, and
educators determine the appropriateness
of the student’s goals and the effectiveness of instruction, supports, aids, and
services. Toward this end, it would be
particularly helpful for everyone involved
to ask the following four questions:
IDEA and IEPs, continued on page 4
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©
3
IDEA and IEPs
continued from page 3
Progress. Is the student making
progress toward the goal?
Discrepancy. Is the performance of a
student coming closer to that of
typical peers?
Independence. Is the student more
independent in the goal area?
Goal Status. Will special education
continue or discontinue service in
this goal area?
In the Meantime: Reflection
While awaiting the regulations and
guidance in how to implement the
changes to IDEA, I suggest that educators take this opportunity to reflect on
the efficacy of their current practice as it
relates to the development of IEPs for
students with disabilities. If used correctly, the IEP has tremendous power and
serves as a very effective tool. While an
IEP is, in part, designed to provide lawmakers with a means to monitor and
enforce special education implementation, as well as provide education
agencies with a means to demonstrate
legal compliance, it is also intended to
do the following:
• Provide teachers with an instructional
tool
• Give parents and students a voice,
provide them with assurance, and
assist in monitoring the child’s
progress
• Ensure every child of a free, appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment
It is my belief that many of the above
purposes have not been realized, and it
is this failure that has led to some of the
changes in IDEA 2004.
Changes from the Heart
I have asked thousands of participants in
training sessions across the country the
following two sets of IEP-related
questions—with very interesting results:
Question 1
How many of you believe that IEPs actually do what they are intended to do? In
other words, how many of you believe
that an IEP truly gives educators working with a child a sense of that child’s
strengths, interests, learning styles, and
educational needs? How many of you
think that it provides educators with the
necessary supplemental supports, aids,
4
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
and services necessary for a student to
achieve the goals listed in their IEP?
Answer 1
Of the thousands of general educators,
special educators, related service personnel, administrators, parents, and students
with IEPs who have answered this question, perhaps one percent has responded
that the IEP actually serves the purposes
that it was designed to address.
Question 2
Assume that there are five people in
attendance at an IEP meeting. Who is
the first person at this meeting who will
get a glazed look over their eyes? Is it the
general educator, the special educator, the
administrator, the parent, or the speech
and language pathologist?
Answer 2
The vast majority of respondents answer
that it is the parents who first get that
glazed look—not because of disinterest
or a lack of love for their child, but
rather because of multiple factors:
1. There is usually only one parent
meeting with four, five, or more
school people.
2. Parents come to the meeting with a
whole child, only to witness that
child being dissected into parts.
3. The discussion at the meeting centers
around what is wrong, broken, or
deficient in their child.
4. They have just been read their rights
like they have been arrested.
5. We speak at them in “tongues,” using
all of our professional jargon and
acronyms.
6. Professionals usually speak first and
when they are finished speaking, little
time remains. As we gather our materials to leave and give parents multiple forms to sign, we ask them if they
have any questions.
I do not raise these questions to disparage
any group or to minimize the time, energy, and commitment that go into crafting
IEPs and attending meetings. Rather, my
hope is to help individuals reflect on
their own beliefs and experiences and
reclaim or find a commitment to realizing the original promises and intentions
of IDEA. The changes in IDEA will
mean little if we don’t align our practices
to make this happen.
Answers Beyond the Law
How can we address these potential
problems?
Solution 1
Let’s begin with the first problem: the
fact that so many people believe that the
IEP is inadequate. It is important to realize that IEPs can be extremely helpful if
crafted correctly and if all the necessary
data and perspectives are collected and
considered. The problem with many IEPs
is that they are created in meetings that
focus on a child’s deficits and thus result
in deficit-based documents that describe
what a learner cannot do. We will never
figure out how to teach, motivate, relate,
or support a learner by focusing on what
they cannot do.
We need to focus our assessment and
discussion primarily on what a child can
do—how they are smart rather than how
smart they are (or aren’t) or what disability label we’ve attached to them. After
that refocus, we need a complete set of
data about the child and the classroom
demands (see chart below). It’s at this
point that we can finally determine
whether a child needs support and what
kind of support that might be. And we
might then be able to effectively motivate the child to learn.
Another common problem with IEP
meetings is that they often occur at the
end of the school year; and when they do,
the classroom teacher(s) in attendance are
usually not the teacher(s) who will
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE
instruct the student the following year.
To address this problem, the person coordinating services for a student with an
IEP should provide the educators who
are (or who soon will be) teaching the
child with facts about the way the child
learns (see left-hand column below), and
ask them to describe the content,
process, and product demands of their
classroom (see right-hand column).
Together, and/or with other members of
the IEP team, they can then explore any
potential mismatches between these
facts—the way the child learns and the
demands of the classroom. They can then
brainstorm solutions to address any mismatches.
It is important to note that in classrooms employing differentiated instruction and approaches to universal design
(see end of article for resources), more
effective instruction and fewer mismatches exist between the learner and
the classroom demands. As a result,
fewer additional supplementary supports,
aids, and services need to be called into
service.
Solution 2
How do we address the fact that the
“collaborative” IEP meeting is often
something less than . . . collaborative?
Structured approaches to collaborative
planning can assist team members in
being more effective in their effort to
build and maintain a good working relationship. The following strategies have
proven to be effective in encouraging
increased collaboration in meetings
between parents and educators:
1. Know the two primary goals for
every collaborative meeting: achieving the task and maintaining positive
relationships among the collaborators.
2. Know with whom you need to collaborate. As educators, we often find
one of the greatest barriers to effective collaboration with parents and
students lies in our own thinking
about who is the “expert.” Often the
designated expert is someone who has
a high degree of training in a particular area but who may not know or
understand the particular (or whole)
child. The person with the most
direct experience of the child is the
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
6. Avoid using mystifying jargon and
acronyms.
7. Recognize and respect what motivates
the different people on your collaborative team, and make sure incentives
are varied enough to meet their individual preferences. To this end, create
flexible scheduling that includes time
to meet and plan; training opportunities for learning how to collaborate;
and visits to successful, collaborative
sites that give team members an
opportunity to witness effective teams
working together.
8. Expect to be responsible and expect
Who loves the child?
to be held accountable. Effective collaborators act responsibly: they follow
• Who has the expertise and/or experithrough on their agreements; they
ence needed by the team to make the
attend scheduled meetings; they supbest decisions?
port the participation of their fellow
• Who loves the child?
collaborators; they consciously prac3. Establish and clarify team and inditice effective collaborative skills; and
vidual goals to avoid hidden agendas.
they celebrate team and individual
4. Begin each meeting with something
successes.
positive—a strength or talent disIncluding General Education
played, a goal reached—about the
For years we have heard the concern that
learner who is the focal point of the
many general education teachers do not
meeting. Each member of the team,
show up at IEP meetings; and, when
including the parent and student
they do, they appear disinterested and
him/herself, should be encouraged to non-participatory. For this problem, I
contribute a fact or experience that
offer three suggestions. First, administraputs the student in a favorable light. tors need to clarify that collaboration is
It may seem like a small measure, but an ongoing responsibility rather than a
it effectively transforms the climate of voluntary or whimsical act. It must be an
the meeting by creating a more posi- integral part of mission statements and
job descriptions.
tive, collaborative tone.
Second, staff need training and practice
5. Provide training to all members of
in collaboration and in the habits
the collaborative team on procedures
described above. Rotating various tasks,
for task accomplishment and small
including the job of building and maingroup interpersonal skills.
taining relationships and responsibilities
child him/herself, the family, and
then the connected professionals
(e.g., this year’s teacher, last year’s
teacher). So your collaborators can
include the child, other students,
parents, other teachers, specialists,
community members, and advocates.
When considering who should be
among your collaborators, ask yourself the following questions:
• Who is affected by the decisions we
need to make?
• Who has an interest in
participating?
IDEA and IEPs, continued on page 7
Matching the Student with the Learning
Facts about the learner
4 What are the student’s strengths,
interests, talents, learning styles,
multiple intelligences?
4 What are the learner’s goals?
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
Facts about the classroom demands
4 How does the teacher make the
content accessible?
4 What processes does the teacher
use to facilitate student learning?
4 What products are the learners
asked to produce and how are
they assessed?
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©
5
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
Transition Services and the New Law
I
By Dennis Kelleher, Consultant, California Department of Education, Special Education Division
DEA 2004 offers positive
change as it shifts legislative
focus away from mere compliance and duplicative, burdensome, and
confusing rules toward an emphasis on
ensuring that required procedures and
programs help children learn. To this
end, state education agencies have
expanded monitoring, data collection,
and enforcement responsibilities to establish measurable and rigorous targets of
achievement for all students as part of
the state performance plan.
New Transition Provisions
One service area where IDEA 2004 offers
some additional provisions is in transition services and programs. The term
“transition services” means a coordinated
set of activities that is designed with
results in mind, focusing on improving
the academic and functional achievement
of a child with a disability and facilitating the child’s movement from school to
post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational education,
employment, continuing and adult education services, independent living, and
community participation. These activities are determined and coordinated as
part of a student’s Individualized
Education Program (IEP).
These transition services are based on
the individual’s needs, taking into
account a student’s strengths, preferences,
and interests. They include instruction,
related services, community experiences,
the development of employment and
other post-school adult living objectives,
the acquisition of daily living skills, and
functional vocational evaluation.
Under IDEA ’97, transition service
activities that helped a student initiate
planning for life after high school began
by age 14. Though IDEA 2004 changed
the requirement to age 16, the
Workforce Improvement Act (WIA),
which is currently being considered by
Congress, is expected to reinstate the
requirement to age 14.
There is also an option for up to 15
states to take part in a pilot study to
6
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
develop a three-year IEP. The 15 states
that elect to participate in this study
would be able to explore the impact of
IEP development every three years, as
opposed to the currently mandated oneyear requirement. Supporters contend
that this flexibility will reduce unnecessary duplication of effort, especially for
secondary students whose needs do not
change over a three-year period, and that
this change will also give the staff time
for two important things: the time they
need to work effectively with students
who require intensified services and
whose disabilities require—and justify—
an annual IEP; and time to focus on
effective transition planning.
Ideally, transitioning students into the
world beyond high school involves a
partnership among a broad base of public and private agencies, including, but
not limited to, education, rehabilitation,
employment, social, and health services.
This “Community of Practice” model, as
this collaborative effort is being called
by the National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition, reflects the
recognition that cooperation among
community agencies enhances the opportunities for students’ successful integration into the community. To encourage
collaboration, the new law now allows
federal funding to be used for the development, implementation, and coordination of transition services.
IDEA 2004 not only focuses on transition services for post-secondary students,
but it acknowledges the importance of
“natural transition points” throughout
the school career. These additional points
are identified as those periods that are
close in time to the movement of a child
with a disability from preschool to elementary grades; from elementary grades
to middle or junior high school; and
from middle or junior high school to
high school. While transition services in
IDEA ’97 were mentioned for levels
other than secondary students, the new
law now stresses the importance of guiding and supporting a smooth transition
for students between all program levels.
New requirements for the transfer of
student records to help make this a reality are included in IDEA 2004.
The new law adjusts several additional, important areas of the IEP. It
includes language that clarifies when an
IEP team meeting must be held. This
clarification will help avoid misinterpretations; the hope is that it will reduce
the number of complaints and procedural safeguard hearings needed to resolve
disagreements about this issue.
The law also requires that a lead
agency be identified as responsible for
implementing and coordinating the
transition effort.
Two new requirements help ensure
smooth transitions: when it is time to
begin planning a student’s transition,
parents may now request that representatives from the program where their
child was previously served attend the
IEP meeting as part of the transition
team to assure a smooth transfer. In
addition schools are expected to take
reasonable steps to promptly send or
obtain student records, including the
IEP and other supporting documents.
The new law more firmly secures
transition services for children with disabilities. If a participating agency other
than the local education agency (LEA)
fails to provide the transition services
described in a child’s IEP, IDEA 2004
requires the LEA to reconvene the IEP
team to identify alternative strategies to
meeting the transition objectives for the
child set out in the IEP. For example, if
California Children’s Services is expected
to provide physical therapy to a child
who has an orthopedic impairment and
is unable to do so, the school district
could convene an IEP meeting to consider other options, such as directly contracting for services with a physical
therapist. The law goes on to require
the state to monitor and oversee local
service delivery using objective criteria.
If the state determines that the local,
required service is out of compliance,
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE
sanctions are now in place that can be
used to compel conformity with special
education law.
What’s Next?
The U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs has
begun holding public hearings around
the country to solicit comments that will
assist them in developing regulations by
December 2005 that will further clarify
the various provisions for transition in
this new law. The California Department
of Education (CDE) has also introduced
legislation to align current California law
with the provisions of IDEA 2004. In
addition, CDE has reconvened the IEP
Task Force and Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE) Task Force to
develop recommendation for effective
implementation of IDEA 2004.
Currently, specific plans for transition
services in California include the formation of a Transition Stakeholders Group
to promote interagency collaboration and
plan a Community of Practice conference
to improve the outcomes of California
transition service for students with disabilities. CDE intends to establish a transition listserv and Web page, with links
and resources to facilitate the exchange of
information. Transition service providers
will be invited to contribute information
and materials about effective program
practices and research data demonstrating
what works, along with replication
strategies, to a CDE Transition
Clearinghouse and Resource Center.
The purpose of school is to prepare a
student to have sufficient academic and
social skills to get along with others and
be able to acquire and maintain employment that allows him/her to live independently. With this in mind, one needs
only to review the current data regarding
post-secondary employment of students
with disabilities to recognize the importance of transition services. The dropout
rates are significantly higher and the
graduation rates lower among students
with disabilities than the rates of their
peers without disabilities. Of those students with disabilities who do graduate,
the percentage who become gainfully
employed or who are able to live independently is significantly lower than that
of the general student population.
In addition to the academic, social, and
technical skills required to be successful
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
in a career in the adult world, individuals
need self-advocacy skills. This is even
more important for students with disabilities if they are going to be able to
effectively speak up for themselves, to
know what they need, and to have realistic strategies to acquire necessary skills
and supporting resources in order to live
their lives to the fullest.
Comprehensive transition services are
the key to assuring that a greater percentage of students with disabilities
become self-sustaining, productive members of the community. IDEA 2004
strengthens transition services to help
achieve that goal. i
providing educators and family members
with valuable insights into how the students learn and what interests them. At
the same time, they’re acquiring valuable
self-advocacy skills that, ideally, they will
be able to carry into their futures.
The second approach, MAPs, offers an
eight-step, student-centered, and familyfriendly planning process. An experienced, neutral facilitator guides the
assembled team members through a
series of eight questions. At each step of
the process, the child and the family
speak first. Professionals listen and learn
about the family’s history, dreams, nightmares, and thoughts before sharing their
own. By reversing the usual order and
Additional Resources
allowing the individual and family to
speak first, the professionals establish
California Department of Education’s Transition
to Adult Living Guide for Secondary Education,
trust and gain valuable information.
found at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/
Conclusion
documents/transitiongde.pdf
As the nation awaits clarification of the
changes in the new IDEA through the
continued from page 5
IDEA and IEPs
impending regulations, we have a perfect
among team members, can help to make opportunity to recommit ourselves to
the work fresh and the meetings more
true collaboration and to renew our
fun, collaborative, and productive.
determination to make our meetings and
Finally, general education teachers
paperwork translate into beneficial outneed to understand not only their
comes for students—outcomes that can
responsibilities but also the rights they
have benefits now and in their futures.
enjoy:
The strategies offered here were chosen to
1. The opportunity to attend all IEP
support that effort and to ensure that our
meetings for the students they teach
meetings and IEPs are family-friendly,
2. A chance to develop appropriate
student-centered, positive, and collaboragoals and objectives for the students
tive. The end result will be not only the
they teach
implementation of the law, but also the
3. Access to all specialized materials,
realization of the true spirit and promise
equipment, and curricula to support
of IDEA. i
the learning of these students
Additional Resources
4. Input and feedback related to all
learning and behavioral management Collaborative Teaming
Villa, R. (2002). Collaborative Planning:
strategies developed for a student
Transforming Theory Into Practice. National
5. The opportunity to call additional
Professional Resources. (Video)
IEP meetings as indicated by the stuVilla, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (Eds.).
dent’s mastery (or lack of mastery) of
(2004). A Guide to Co-Teaching: Practical Tips
goals and objectives
for Facilitating Student Learning. Thousand
6. Assistance in implementing individOaks, CA: Corwin Press.
ualized instruction from other multi- Differentiated Instruction
http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac
disciplinary team members
_diffinstruc.html
Strategies for Strengthening
Universal Design
Student-led IEPs and the MAPs (Making
http://www.cast.org/research/udl/
Action Plans) process represent two powindex.html
erful approaches that address the shortMAPs Process
comings illustrated in the question/
http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.
answer scenarios described above. In the
edu/personcentered.htm
first, students with disabilities are
Student-Led IEPs
actively participating in, and sometimes
http://www.cec.sped.org/bk/catalog2/
student-led_ieps.pd
leading, their own IEP meetings, thus
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©
7
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
Behavior and Discipline in IDEA ’
T
By Adam Stein, Program Specialist, Sonoma County SELPA
he Individuals with
Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) 2004 functions as two things: a civil rights law
and a grant/funding law that supports
and regulates educational and related
services for children identified as having
a disability. The law is intended to guarantee that these children receive a free,
appropriate public education (FAPE); it
is also designed to support appropriate
student behavior and give the schools a
balanced authority to discipline students
with disabilities.
In light of these two efforts, the law
also attempts to do a third thing: bridge
the sometimes contentious divide
between the advocacy groups that represent students and parents and the groups
that represent public schools. While
there were several larger thematic shifts
in the law, this article will focus solely
on changes to elements dealing with
behavioral support and discipline in an
effort to provide the reader with a concise overview of how the law has
changed in these two areas. In reviewing
the following information, keep in mind
that many of the pieces of the new law
await clarification and definition
through the regulations, which are to be
released sometime later this year
(although it may take longer). In the
mean time, both the federal Department
of Education and its California equivalent will periodically provide advisories
in an attempt to guide us in applying
the law.
On the topic of student behavior as it
impedes learning, the language in IDEA
2004 remains essentially the same as in
the previous version of the law, IDEA
’97. It states that the IEP team must, in
the case of a child whose behavior
impedes the child’s learning or that of
others, consider the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports,
and other strategies, to address that
behavior. Some advocacy groups, such as
the Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC), have recommended language for
the upcoming regulations that would
8
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
attempt to clarify what the IEP team
must consider. The CEC recommends
that the team consider effective, researchbased interventions that have demonstrable and clear outcomes in terms of both
academics and behavior. They take this a
step further by suggesting that the IEP
team recommend to the local education
agency (LEA) that it (the LEA) use these
interventions at the schoolwide level as a
preventative measure to improve overall
school climate.
Of course, numerous groups and individuals are giving input to the government on what the regulations should
include, but since IDEA 2004 consistently endorses the inclusion of researchbased and validated practices, the CEC’s
recommendation emerges as a particularly sound and fitting one.
The “positive behavioral interventions,
strategies, and supports” mentioned in
IDEA have been taken by behavioral
support personnel to mean that teams
should, at minimum, develop positive
behavioral goals and objectives.
Optimally, a program would include a
Positive Behavioral Support Plan* based
on a Functional Behavioral
Assessment,** a methodology that is
mentioned in IDEA only in relation to
changes of placement and is never
defined in the law. Nevertheless, the use
of positive behavioral interventions,
strategies, and supports is generally
understood to be “best practice” in cases
where the child’s behavior impedes his or
her learning or the learning of others.
In terms of discipline, the new law
* Positive Behavior Support (PBS, sometimes
known as Behavior Support Plans, or BSP) is
an environmental, systemic approach to supporting and reinforcing positive changes in
behavior and learning, while preventing problem behaviors such as self-injury, aggression,
property destruction, defiance, and disruption.
** Functional Behavioral Assessment is a
problem-solving process for addressing
problem behavior in students. It relies on
various techniques and strategies to identify
the purposes of specific behavior and to help
IEP teams select interventions to directly
address those purposes.
offers several changes. Again, keep in
mind that these are subject to interpretation until the regulations are released,
and they may remain unclear until
interpreted by the courts and state
hearing offices.
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
Changes in Placement
School personnel are now given authority
to consider unique circumstances for each
case when contemplating a change in
placement for a student whose
behavior is not found to be a manifestation of the disability. Some advocacy
groups see this as an opportunity for
schools to make exceptions to their
disciplinary policies for some children
with disabilities, while also allowing
the schools greater flexibility in how
they apply their own policies. For
example, if a child with disabilities is
considered for expulsion due to a major
violation, such as possession of a
controlled substance, the school personnel (the school board, in this case) may
choose to suspend (revoke) the expulsion
if the case review indicates that expulsion
would not be in the best interest of the
child. Again, this is not yet defined, and
we must wait for the regulations to provide clarity. This change may also allow
school personnel to increase the penalty
based on the case analysis.
Removal to Interim Alternative
Educational Settings
School personnel may remove a student
to an interim, alternative educational setting (IAES) for no more than 45 school
days (formerly 45 consecutive days) for
the previously established reasons of carrying or possessing a weapon or using or
selling controlled substances, but adds
the following condition for this removal:
if a student inflicts bodily injury on
another person either at school, on the
campus, or at a school function.
Manifestation Determination
The school must still conduct a manifestation determination (a process to determine if the behavior in question is a
manifestation of the disability) within
ten days of a decision to change the
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE
child’s placement. There are some new
criteria for determining whether or not
the behavior is a manifestation:
• If the incident was not only caused
by the disability, but has a direct and
substantial relationship to the
disability, or
• If the incident was the direct result
of the failure of the LEA to implement the IEP.
Formerly, this was to be determined by
the IEP team with a specific list of
questions that needed to be asked. The
change to more general language listed
in the above bullets may result in the
school having an easier time determining that a child’s behavior is not a manifestation of the disability, thus making
it easier to discipline the child in the
same manner as a child without disabilities. One of the major criticisms of
IDEA ’97 by schools was that it was
too difficult to discipline students in
special education.
Congress also sought to clarify that a
behavior is only a manifestation of the
disability if it is directly and substantially related to that disability.
Previously, parents charged that a
behavior tangentially related to the disability (e.g., low self-esteem) could be
construed to be a manifestation of a
disability. These changes also place the
onus on the parent to demonstrate that
the behavior is a manifestation of the
disability. In the previous version of
IDEA, the burden was on the school
personnel to prove that the behavior
was not a manifestation.
The make-up of the team of individuals who conduct the manifestation
determination has also changed: it now
includes a member of the LEA, the
parent, and the relevant members of the
IEP team. Previously, the review was to
be conducted by the IEP team and
other relevant personnel. This team is
still responsible for reviewing all relevant information in the student’s file.
Schools keep the right to apply the
same disciplinary procedures to a student with special needs as they apply to
general education students, if the
behavior of the student with the
disability is not determined to be a
manifestation of the disability.
IDEA 2004 drops the criterion that
students have the ability to understand
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
the impact and consequences of their
behavior and have the ability to control
the behavior in order to be disciplined in
the same way as a child without disabilities. Some analysts feel that this may
make it easier for school personnel to
remove a child from a less restrictive setting (e.g., general education). Again, we
won’t know the full implications of this
change until the regulations come out.
IDEA 2004 clarifies that in cases
where behavior is determined to be a
manifestation of a student’s disability,
the IEP team must do the following:
• Conduct a functional behavioral
assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan if this had not
been done previously
• Review any existing plan and modify
it as necessary
• Return the student to the placement
from which he or she was removed,
except for an IAES due to special circumstances listed above (weapons,
controlled or illegal substances, or
bodily injury), or unless the parent
and the LEA agree otherwise.
Continued Educational Services
IDEA 2004 adds a section that
mandates that a student who receives a
change of placement, regardless of
whether the behavior in question is
determined to be a manifestation of the
disability or not, must continue to
receive educational services to assure
progress towards meeting the IEP goals
and to receive, as appropriate, a functional behavioral assessment and resultant
behavioral supports and modifications to
address the behavior.
Timely Information to Parents
In another change from IDEA ’97, IDEA
2004 stipulates that, no later than the
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
date on which the decision to take disciplinary action is made, the LEA must
notify the parents of the decision and
provide them with information on the
relevant procedural safeguards.
Rights of Appeal
There are several changes in the rights
of a parent or an LEA to appeal a decision about placement or a manifestation
determination:
An LEA may request a hearing if
the LEA believes that maintaining the
current placement is likely to result in
an injury to the child or others.
Previously, only parents held the right to
request a hearing to ask for a change in
placement if they believed their child
was significantly at risk if he or she
remained in the current placement.
The hearing officer now has some
specific authority, including the ability
to order a change in placement, which
the law now defines as either a return of
the child to the placement from which
he or she was removed, or an order to
place the child in an IAES (for not more
than 45 school days) if the officer
believes that keeping the child in the
current placement may result in injury
to the child or others.
Existing law retains language that
allows a parent who disagrees with a
placement or manifestation determination decision to request a hearing.
There is a change to the “stay put”
provision in the law. Under IDEA 2004,
when either the parent or the LEA
appeals a decision about a child’s placement, the child is to remain in the IAES
pending either the hearing officer’s decision or the ending of the time period for
the disciplinary infraction. In the previous law, during an appeal the child could
be removed from an IAES if the school
and the parents agreed to change it, or if
a hearing officer rendered a decision.
This could mean that it would be more
difficult to remove a child from an IAES
during the appeals process. The new law
also requires that, when an appeal is
requested, the State Education Agency
(SEA) or LEA must arrange for an expedited hearing that occurs within 20
school days from the request. The determination (or decision) that results from
the hearing must be made within ten
school days after the hearing takes place.
Behavior, continued on page 11
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©
9
IDEA Overview continued from page 1
a formal meeting, provided that the
parents and LEA provide agreement in
writing. Changes to the IEP must be
recorded, as well.
Transition Services. Also an important
part of an IEP, these must now be
addressed no later than when the student
turns age 16 and culminating with the
student’s graduation or “aging out” of an
instructional program. Previously, the
law had specified age 14 for the introduction of transition services. This is
now an area where providing services to a
younger student may be viewed as
exceeding the federal guidelines at the
discretion of state and local agencies.
Evaluation/Reevaluation Issues. There
is both greater regulation and greater
flexibility among the new IEP eligibility
determination procedures. Under the
new law, screening by the teacher is not
deemed an evaluation, potentially adding
a new step to the evaluation process.
The change was made in an effort to
improve consistency and reliability of the
determinations. Now, the evaluation
must be completed and eligibility determined within 60 calendar days from the
date of consent (previously the timeframe
was unspecified). Individual states may
establish a different timeframe, however.
Exceptions are allowed in situations
where the student moves to a new LEA
prior to the eligibility determination or
if the parent fails to produce the student
for the evaluation.
On the flexibility side, once eligibility
for services has been established for a
child, reevaluation will take place at
three year intervals—unless parents and
LEAs request it less or more often. On
the other hand, parents and the LEA can
waive annual or three-year scheduled
reevaluations, so there is a potential for
workloads to either increase or decrease.
Parents should not waive the right to
have their child reevaluated without
careful consideration; agencies will need
to use discretion and good judgment in
this area as well. To prevent any misunderstandings and later disputes, it is
important to ensure that all stakeholders
are clear about any reevaluation waivers
and that they obtain in writing parental
consent or LEA refusals of more frequent
reevaluations.
10
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
Learning Disability Definitions. In
another example of flexibility, LEAs may
opt out of the “severe discrepancy”
between ability and achievement criteria
for a specific learning disability (SLD)
and use their own criteria based on the
“response to scientific research-based
intervention” (RTI) alternatives that have
emerged from pilot programs throughout
the country. State leadership will be
important, and operational guidelines
must be provided to staff. The greater
flexibility in operations and programs
may be confusing for parents, particularly when the family moves from one district to another with differing guidelines.
Expanded Guidelines
Pre-Referral Services. Early intervention services are supported by IDEA
2004. Included in this area are services to
children in public schools not identified
as needing special education or related
services but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed. The
Council for Exceptional Children, a
national special education lobbying
group, is requesting that early intervention services be offered not only to school
children in grades kindergarten through
12, but to preschool children (from age
3) and young adults at the post-secondary level (ages 18–22) as well.
Discipline. Schools retain the right to
impose suspensions for up to ten school
days under their regular disciplinary
policies. Students remain entitled to a
“free, appropriate public education” (FAPE)
beyond the ten-day expulsion period.
Also, Interim Alternative Education
Setting (IAES) placements are provided
for up to 45 school days in cases of serious bodily injury occurring in school, at
a school function, or on school premises.
The definitions in this area have been
expanded in the new legislation to
include substantial risk of death, extreme
physical pain, protracted and obvious
disfigurement, or protracted loss or
impairment of a bodily member, organ,
or mental faculty.
A manifestation determination shall
be made by the parent, LEA, and IEP
team members to decide if the behavior
was caused by—or had a direct or substantial relationship to—the disability, or
if it was a result of any failure to implement the IEP.
Disputes. A due process hearing must
be initiated within two years of parents
knowing of the disputed decision, unless
a state decides otherwise. This rule also
applies to parents who may claim not to
have known the disputed decision within
the two-year time frame (such cases are a
reason for the current emphasis on
written acknowledgements). Resolution
meetings are to be held within 15 days
of the hearing request between parents
and relevant members of the IEP team.
If no resolution is reached within 30
days, a due process hearing will be scheduled. Court appeal by any party is the
final option and must be submitted
within 90 days of receiving a decision
from the due process hearing. Parental
rights statements should be amended to
include this timeframe.
Legal Fees. In an effort to reduce frivolous lawsuits, local and state educational
agencies (LEAs/SEAs) may seek attorney’s
fees against the parent’s attorney if the
latter’s action is deemed “frivolous,
unreasonable, or without foundation” or
if they unnecessarily prolong the litigation. The recourse is available if a parent’s complaint was presented to improper purposes, such as to harass the district.
Right to Refuse Services. Parents have
the right to refuse special education services for their child, and there is no
override provision if a parent does not
provide informed written consent.
However, it isn’t clear if this covers only
the initial provision of services or before
any service is rendered. It is hoped that
the final regulations will clarify this area.
Private Schools. LEAs are charged with
informing the state agencies of the statistics on children with disabilities evaluated and eligible for special education services who attend private schools and the
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE
numbers of children served in these nonpublic settings. Further, LEAs must
reach out to private school representatives and parents regarding “child find”
procedures and obtain written affirmation that this has been carried out.
Challenges
Teacher Qualifications. Although wellintentioned, new requirements for “highly qualified” special education teachers
are expected to further strain the many
educational systems already burdened by
teacher shortages. Under IDEA 2004,
and effective immediately, special education teachers need to be certified as such;
emergency credentials are not sufficient.
Under the No Child Left Behind Act,
they must also demonstrate competency
in core subject areas by passing “rigorous” state academic subject tests, possessing an undergraduate academic major or
graduate degree in a given area, or holding an equivalent certificate or credential. Teachers not new to the profession
will have until the end of the 2005–06
academic year to meet this requirement.
Special education teachers providing
only consultative services and related
service personnel must be fully licensed
and certificated but are not subject to the
“highly qualified” subject credentialed
criteria. The new law does not, however,
specify a “right of action” on behalf of a
student or class of students for failure to
employ highly qualified staff.
Funding. Underfunding is the second
major area of challenge in IDEA 2004.
Just two days after the legislation was
reauthorized, Congress passed funding
that fell short by $1.7 billion of the
amount authorized to implement it.
Further, the amount budgeted is $481
million short of the amount President
Bush requested for special education.
State and local governments, most of
which still struggle to make ends meet
after years of funding cutbacks and a
weak economy, will be asked to make up
the shortfall. The stated goal is to reach
federal funding of 40 percent of the
national average per pupil cost by 2011.
State Policies. States are being required
to identify rules, regulations, or policies
that exceed those set at the federal level
and then to inform the local and federal
agencies when this is the case. The law
instructs the states to hold such excesses
to a minimum.
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
Summary
California’s Outlook. For California, the
reauthorized IDEA presents moderate
rather than major changes since, overall,
the federal legislation is catching up to
this state’s leadership in special education. Racial and cultural bias in testing
has been an issue in this state for a number of years, and steps have been taken to
reduce it. Parental consent has also been
a state requirement and will now be a
federal one. Likewise, California has
already expanded its special education
outreach to the preschool and postsecondary age groups. It should be noted
that California may choose to continue to
exceed federal benchmarks for special
education services. To help stakeholders
stay abreast of the implications of the
new law as they unfold, the California
Department of Education will offer trainings throughout the year for parents,
teachers, and related service providers.
Final Regulations. The concerns mentioned above, along with others not
detailed here, were submitted by specialists and the public to the federal
Department of Education during the
comments period. It is expected that
some of these will be addressed, and clarifications and definitions provided, in the
final regulations to be issued by the end
of December 2005. i
Art Cernosia is an attorney and education consultant with the Institute for Program
Development in Burlington, Vermont. He also
teaches at the University of Vermont’s
Education Law Institute. Mr. Cernosia previously served as an assistant attorney general for the
Vermont Department of Education. He provides
training, consultation, and technical assistance
services to state and local education agencies
and parent organizations throughout the nation
on disability law issues. He has conducted
numerous workshops and is a frequent presenter
at state and national conferences.
Websites related to this article
http://www.ced.sped.org Council for
Exceptional Children
http://www.fape.org Families and
Advocates Partnership for Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS The
U.S. Department of Education’s Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services
http://www.fapesolutions.com
FAPE Solutions is a nonprofit organization
serving parents, advocates, and educators
http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti/
concepts.html RTI: “Response to
scientific, research-based intervention”
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
Behavior
continued from page 9
Prior law allowed for the expedited hearing but gave no timelines.
Protections for Those Not Identified
Finally, the law adds greater protections
for children who have not yet officially
been found eligible for special education,
but whose inappropriate behavior has
them being considered for disciplinary
action. With the new law, when an LEA
is deemed to “have knowledge” that the
child has a disability, and that knowledge exists before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action took
place, then the child is protected from
the normal disciplinary response to the
inappropriate behavior. An LEA is
deemed to have this knowledge if any
one of the following conditions is met:
• The parent of the child expressed
concerns in writing to supervisory or
administrative LEA personnel, or the
child’s teacher, that the child is in
need of special education and related
services.
• The parent has requested an
evaluation.
• The teacher of the child or other LEA
personnel has expressed directly to the
director of special education or other
supervisory personnel specific concerns about a pattern of behavior in
the child in question.
However, schools gain certain protections,
as well. An LEA is not deemed to have
knowledge of a possible disability that
could affect a child’s behavior if the parent has not allowed an evaluation or has
refused services, or if the child has been
evaluated and not found to be eligible for
special education and related services.
In its many areas related to behavior,
the newly reauthorized IDEA has a
promising face. How that face smiles on
children with disabilities will, in some
part, be determined by the regulations
that are forthcoming. But, regardless of
the look those regulations eventually
assume, the responsibility for their ultimate success will rest on the shoulders
of parents, educators, and service
providers who work with children who
have disabilities. More critical than any
law is the ability of these adults to keep
uppermost in their minds the good of
the child. i
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©
11
Legislative
California Senate Bill
Amendment of Education Code
Update

Special Education, Alternative
Dispute Resolutions
Current California law provides procedural safeguards, like mediations and due
process hearings, against alleged violations of provisions of Part 30 of the
Education Code, related state laws and
regulations, and provisions and regulations of the Individuals with the
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
However, families and school districts
have been harmed with disrupted relationships, and the state has been financially burdened by the increasing number
of due process hearings requested, as well
as the cost of litigation, mediation, and
investigation. And, while the IDEA
encourages mediation between families
and local educational agencies, what often
happens is that parents and local educational agencies disagree on what is best
for their children. A common dispute is
the interpretation of what is a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The
California Legislature has declared that
all individuals with exceptional needs
have a right to participate in FAPE; special educational instruction and services
for these persons are needed in order to
ensure the right to an appropriate educational opportunity to meet their unique
needs. However, parents understandably
often want simply the best, thus leading
to disputes.
SB 605 proposes funding special education local plan areas (SELPAs) to triage
disputes through alternative dispute resolutions and to resolve those conflicts that
do not absolutely require state intervention. In the instances of disputes over
FAPE, SELPAs can work with families to
reach a reasonable agreement for all parties, without pursuing due process hearings or litigation. According to the sponsors of the legislation, solving disputes
locally could reduce state costs with only
a small initial investment to fund
SELPAs. SB 605 would give every SELPA
$50,000 towards developing and providing the alternative dispute resolutions.
The bill’s sponsors say that SELPAs can
provide personal services, such as ensuring that parents’ rights are not violated
and providing parents with a variety of
options. This bill was placed on the
Senate Education Committee suspense
file on March 30, 2005.
California Senate Bill
Amendment of Education Code

Special Education, Staff
Development
California law currently requires school
districts, special education local plan
areas (SELPAs), and county offices of education (COEs) to provide staff development programs for staff who work in special education, including paraprofessionals. While paraprofessionals have been
peripherally included in the required provisions for staff development, the proposed amendment requires establishing
staff development programs specifically
for paraprofessionals. This effort to properly train paraprofessionals is California’s
attempt to meet IDEA 2004 requirements. This bill was amended on March
29, 2005. Go to http://www.leginfo.
ca.gov to track its progress. i
Fall 2005 Summit Follow-Up
High School Reform and Special Education
The California Department of Education invites those who attended the State Superintendent’s High School Summit in October 2004 to continue learning about effective
educational strategies at a follow-up summit in October 2005. This new event will offer
research-based strategies for increasing the performance of students with disabilities in
the core areas of English/language arts and mathematics and for helping them meet
state standards. Also on the agenda are updates on the State Superintendent’s High
Performance High Schools Initiative and research about high-achieving high schools
and their practices in raising educational achievement for students with disabilities. Key
speakers include such notables as Drs. Bill Daggett, Larry Gloeckler, and Richard Villa.
The summit will be held on October 18–19, 2005, 8 AM–4 PM each day, in the Los
Angeles/ Burbank Area, with the specific location to be announced soon. Registration
fee is $75 and includes a continental breakfast, lunch, and afternoon breaks for both
days. Go to http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ac/hsstrng.asp for the most current information.
12
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
Parent’s Voice
continued from page 16
14. I remain hopeful when the state
regulations are written that California
will maintain this requirement.
I actually think the ideal time to begin
talking about transition is at age 12,
when most students are beginning middle school. This makes sense when you
think about the requirements of the
High School Exit Exam and the continual pressure of achieving to higher standards. As the nation struggles to align
IDEA with No Child Left Behind, a
majority of students with disabilities are
put under demands to meet the same
requirements as students who do not
have disabilities. Starting transition services at age 12 would allow time for students, with their parents’ help, to envision where they want to be as an adult
and what steps they need to take each
year to reach their goal. Students with
learning disabilities and the people supporting them also need to think about
how their course of studies will impact
their educational outcomes—what skills
and abilities they need to acquire during
their remaining school years. Likewise,
with their parents’ help, students with
developmental disabilities must begin
thinking about which other agencies will
be available when they no longer receive
special education services. Time passes by
so swiftly, and the middle school and
high school years are critical periods in
the process of becoming a successful
adult who has a high quality of life.
Many changes in the new law affect
students whose behaviors may lead to
disciplinary actions. The burden of proof
of whether the child’s disability affects
the ability to understand actions (their
effects and consequences) now will shift
to the child’s parent. Prior to this, a
school district had to prove that the
behavior was not manifested by the student’s disability (a manifestation determination). Parents must now be vigilant
in anticipating their child’s behavior if
there is the potential for the behavior to
become an issue. Parents must monitor
their child’s educational plan and ensure
that the appropriate supports are in place
to provide immediate intervention, if
needed. Also, parents will need to state
their concerns at the IEP and make sure
their concerns are documented therein.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE
New language has also been added that
removes the “stay put” requirement* for
a student pending an appeal for violating
school code. This could severely limit a
student’s right to FAPE (free, appropriate
public education). There are also new
procedures for filing for due process,
which make the process much more
difficult for a parent to navigate. On a
potentially more positive note, the new
requirements mandate a resolution
session before pursuing due process
proceedings. I am hopeful that this,
along with facilitated IEPs and alternative dispute resolution, will have the outcomes intended—fewer cases taken to
court and, as a result, lower legal fees
for everyone.
Only time will tell how all of the new
requirements will affect students. I
attempt to remain optimistic while wading through the changes. I do understand
that now, more than ever, parents must
join with the other members of their
child’s IEP team to put in place what is
necessary for their child to succeed in
school. There can no longer be the “us”
and “them” on the team.
The education of individuals with disabilities has improved vastly over the last
thirty years. We have moved from just
having a right to attend school to the
expectation that students will actually be
able to demonstrate that they have benefited from their education. We must
maintain the protections that ensure continued progress toward a high quality of
life for all students. I am confident that
my grandchildren will receive the education they are entitled to. However, I do
know that, unless parents take the steps
to become informed and empowered,
their children might not know the same
success. We parents must make it a
priority to understand what rights under
IDEA are guaranteed to our children and
then be diligent in joining as active
partners with educators. We must all
remember that we are all working
towards the same thing: a successful outcome for students with disabilities. i
*If you file a due process hearing to dispute a
decision concerning your child’s identification,
evaluation, or placement, your child must
remain in the “then current educational
placement” and continue receiving all services
currently provided for in the IEP, including all
related services. This is known as the “stay
put” requirement.
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
Library
The RiSE (Resources in Special Education)
Library lends materials to California’s public free
of charge. Go to http://www.php.com to view
the library’s complete holdings and to request
materials online. To order by phone, call Judy
Bower at 408/727-5775, extension 110.
Collaboration
Collaborative Planning/Collaborative
Teaching Set: Transforming Theory
into Practice
By Richard Villa. National Professional
Resources: Port Chester, NY; 2002. Two
videos (35 minutes each). These videos provide a comprehensive understanding of the
five components essential to an effective,
collaborative teaming process. They also
address co-teaching environments and staff
development sessions, addressing obstacles
and offering useful techniques to overcoming them. Call number 23388.
Consultation, Collaboration,
and Teamwork for Students
with Special Needs
By Patty Dettmer, Linda Thurston, and
Norma Dyck. Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA;
2002, Fourth Edition. 400 pages. Designed
to serve as a bridge between theory and
practice, this book provides background
information and field-tested recommendations to help educators work effectively
together. Call numbers 22931, 22932.
Discipline
1-2-3 Magic for Teachers:
Effective Classroom Discipline
Pre-K through Grade 8
By Thomas Phelan and Sarah Jane Schonour.
ParentMagic: Glen Ellyn, IL; 2004. 248
pages. This book explains in straightforward
language exactly how teachers can establish
and maintain a constructive learning environment in their classrooms. Call number
23511.
ABCs of Emotional Behavior
By Attainment Company: Verona, WI;
2005. DVD (33 minutes). This DVD
addresses myths and misconceptions of emotions, effective instructional strategies that
address emotions, the use of role-playing to
de-escalate and resolve conflict, and more.
Call number 23577.
Learning and Behavior Problems in
Asperger Syndrome
By Margot Prior. Guilford Press: New York,
NY; 2003. 326 pages. This book reviews
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
current knowledge on the core learning,
behavioral, emotional, social, and communication difficulties associated with this
complex disorder. Call number 23410.
Positive Intervention for Serious
Behavior Problems: Best Practices in
Implementing the Positive Behavioral
Intervention Regulations
By Diana Browning Wright and Harvey
Gurman. California Department of
Education: Sacramento, CA; 2001, Updated
Revised Edition. 311 pages. This publication describes best practices in implementing the Hughes Bill (AB 2586) with questions and answers and processes for developing a behavioral intervention plan. Call
numbers 14445, 22445.
Why Johnny Doesn’t Behave: Twenty
Tips and Measurable BIPs
By Barbara Bateman and Annemieke Golly.
IEP Resources: Verona, WI; 2003. 122
pages. The first half of this book features 20
“tips” to help you deal effectively with
behavior problems. The second half consists
of sections dedicated to functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans (BIPs). Call number 23453.
Inclusive Classrooms
Commonsense Methods for Children
with Special Education Needs:
Strategies for the Regular Classroom
By Peter Westwood. RoutledgeFalmer:
New York, NY; 2003, Fourth Edition. 245
pages. Fully revised and updated, this book
includes expanded chapters on learning difficulties, effective instructional strategies,
behavior management, self-regulation,
teaching literacy and numeracy skills, and
differentiation across the curriculum. It also
includes new chapters on the learning characteristics and specific needs of students
with intellectual, physical, or sensory disabilities. Call number 23389.
Whole School Success and Inclusive
Education: Building Partnerships for
Learning, Achievement, and
Accountability
By Wayne Sailor, editor. Teachers College
Press: New York, NY; 200. 260 pages. The
book calls for an elimination of the medical
model for categories of exceptionality and
advocates for a merged partnership in
which general and special educators work
together for improved learning of all students in one educational system.
Call number 23543.
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©
13
Internet
Resources
IDEA Reauthorization
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/lr/idea
reathztn.asp
The California Department of
Education provides links to important
references and resources on the reauthorization of IDEA.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/
query/z?c108:h.1350.enr:
This website hosted by the federal government offers the entire text of the new
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004.
http://www.nectac.org/idea/
idea.asp
The National Early Childhood TA
Center offers a cogent overview of the
new IDEA reauthorization from an early
childhood perspective.
http://www.nichcy.org/reauth/
index.html
NICHCY, the National
Dissemination Center for Children
with Disabilities, offers some great
information on the reauthorization, with
various titles including “The Latest
Scoop!,” “What’s Reauthorization All
About?” and the “Committee on
Reauthorization.”
Literacy
http://www.prel.org/
Pacific Resources for Education and
Learning (PREL) joins educational
research, theory, and practice and works
with schools on curriculum development, assessment, and evaluation. On
this site is a highly recommended free
download of a summary of key vocabulary research: “A Focus on Vocabulary.”
School Improvement
and Reform
http://www.csrclearinghouse.org
The Center for Comprehensive
School Reform and Improvement
compiles articles and research in a convenient online library. The collection
includes documents about models of
whole school reform and program evaluation, as well as tools and “how to”
information to aid school reform
planning and sustained change.
14
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
http://www.edreform.com/
The Center for Education Reform
offers a central location for reform
news— local to national—and includes
links for parents, reformers, policy makers, educators, and entrepreneurs.
http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/etw/
The Education Trust-West
This website offers reports analyzing
AYP, STAR, and CAHSEE data. Some
titles include “Achievement in
California: How is Our Progress”;
“Achievement in California: Where Are
We Now”; and “Are California’s High
Schools Ready for the 21st Century.”
http://education.umn.edu/nceo/
default.html
The National Center on Educational
Outcomes focuses on research, collaboration, information dissemination, and
technical assistance.
http://www.sreb.org/programs/hst
w/hstwindex.asp
Southern Regional Education Board:
High Schools That Work offers a
model for high school reform that combines challenging academics with vocational studies to raise achievement.
Statistics and Data
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/ds/documents/pcktbk0203.pdf
The 2002–03 Pocketbook of Special
Education Statistics, downloadable
from this site, contains information
about enrollment, program characteristics, student achievement, and personnel
for the school year 2002–03. Trends
based on data over a longer time period
are also included.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/
The new Fact Book 2005 provides
statistics and information on a variety of
subjects concerning education in
California.
Support and Advocacy
http://www.cdcan.us
The California Disability
Community Action Network, a nonpartisan network, offers information on
local and state public policy issues related to disability.
http://www.napas.org/
The National Association of
Protection and Advocacy Systems,
Inc., is a national network of protection
and advocacy systems (P&As) and client
assistance programs (CAPs), with authority to provide legal representation and
other advocacy services to individuals
with disabilities. In California, P&A:
http://www.pai-ca.org/; CAP:
http://www.rehab.cahwnet.gov/.
Transition
http://www.ncset.org/
The National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition helps youth
with disabilities achieve desirable
futures. The center coordinates national
resources, offers technical assistance, and
disseminates information related to
secondary education and transition.
California Advisory Commission on Special Education
Teaming with Hollywood to Honor
Achievements in Special Education
California’s Advisory Commission on Special Education (ACSE) is launching GOAL, the
Grazer Outstanding Achievement in Learning. Hollywood producer Brian Grazer, whose
accomplishments include producing the Academy Award-winning film
A Beautiful Mind, has made a generous donation to sustain the award for a decade.
Each year, the GOAL will be granted in a different area. This year the award will be given
to programs and/or students with an outstanding record in transition to adult life. The
ACSE is honored to launch GOAL and welcomes this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of dedicated professionals in the field of special education.
The Commission will send out self-nominating applications to all SELPAs (special education local plan areas) and county offices of education in June. The deadline for application
will be August, with judging taking place in September and October. The GOAL award
ceremony is scheduled for November in Sacramento. For more information, contact Dennis
Kelleher by email at [email protected] or by phone at 916/327-0842.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE
Calendar 2005
MAY 2–5, 2005
organizing, and litigation in California.
Sacramento, CA. Go to http://wlcdr. everybody.org/ for more information; to register,
contact Doreen Wong at doreen.wong@
LRP Publications focuses this institute on the lls.edu, or phone 213/736-8365 (voice) or
IDEA 2004, offering a mix of general ses213/736-8311 (TTY).
sions, intensive workshops, and seminars.
JUNE 14–15, 2005
Topics of note include helping IEP teams
Policy and Practice Implications for
comply with the IDEA and NCLB Act and
Secondary and Postsecondary
legal battles in the education of students who Education, Transition, and Workforce
are deaf, autistic, and dyslexic. Las Vegas, NV. Development for Youth with
Register online at http://www.lrpconferences. Disabilities
com/institute_index.html, by fax at 561/622- The National Center on Secondary
2423, or by phone at 800/727-1227.
Education and Transition’s summit will
26th Annual National Institute on
Legal Issues of Educating Individuals
with Disabilities
MAY 3, 2005
help state leadership teams revise action
plans and discuss issues of accountability
and collaboration. Washington, DC. For
This Web seminar offered by the Association more information, go to http://www.
for Supervision and Curriculum Development ncset.org/summit05/index.htm; email
discusses tools to improve and evaluate [email protected]; or call 612/624-2097.
dent performance. To register online, go to
JULY 18–21, 2005
http://www.ascd.org/; click on Professional
What Works in Schools: Translating
Development; click on Web Seminars; and
Research into Action Academy
then choose this title: Using Rubrics to
The Association for Supervision and
Evaluate and Score Student Performance. For Curriculum Development helps schools
more information call 800/933-2723.
develop a four-year plan for comprehensive
Using Rubrics to Evaluate and
Improve Student Performance
MAY 11, 2005
Developing and Writing IEPs under
the New IDEA
This audio conference, facilitated by José
Martin, Esq., explores the intricacies of writing IEPs in light of the new IDEA. Go to
http://www.lrpconferences.com/audio/
edaudio4.html for more information.
MAY 11–13, 2005
school reform based on proven research.
Santa Monica, CA. For more information
and to register online, go to
Mail this in . . .
Request
The Annual Conference of the
California Mental Health Advocates
for Children and Youth (CMHACY)
Position
The goal of this year’s conference is to spread
the spirit of family empowerment, community partnership, well-being of children and
families, hope, and diversity through training, usable information, and skills. Asilomar/
Pacific Grove, CA. For more information, call
707/795-4251 or email coordinators@
cmhacy.org; or visit http://www.CMHACY.
org for registration materials.
Mailing Address
MAY 23–24, 2005
RespectAbility:
Action and Advocacy Conference
This conference of the Western Law Center
for Disability Rights addresses youth in the
disability community; advocacy in health
care, civil rights, education, and other community-based services; and social change,
THE SPECIAL EDGE
©
http://www.ascd.org/, click on Professional
Development, and on Browse by Location.
Scroll down to Western. Confirm registration
at 800/933-2723.
JULY 19–21, 2005
Special Education Leadership Institute
This annual event at California State
University San Marcos has students interacting with nationally known experts in the
field of special education; educators gathering to discuss plans and engage in problem
solving; and parents either becoming aware
of student rights or finding out how to work
for effective service delivery for their children. San Marcos, CA. Go to
http://lynx.csusm.edu/COE/outreach/
Summer.Institute.htm or phone 760/7614916 for more information.
AUGUST 4–5, 2005
Summer Institute on
Neurodevelopmental Disorders
The University of California at Davis
M.I.N.D. Institute will present its Summer
Institute on Neurodevelopmental Disorders
for professionals to address theoretical,
research, educational, and treatment issues
for children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Sacramento, CA. For more information,
email [email protected] or
phone 916/703-0228.
for your free subscription to
q New
q Change
q Administrator
q Family Member
Name
The Special EDge
q Delete
q Educator
q Other
Email Address
School/Organization
Address
City/State/Zip
Other Interests
Mail to
q Online courses
q Parent leadership
q Workshops and trainings
q Educational consulting
Sonoma State University
CalSTAT/CIHS
 East Cotati Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 
⁄-
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
WINTER/SPRING 2005
©

One Parent’s Voice: IDEA 2004
W
By Bobbie Coulbourne, Project Director, Exceptional Parents Unlimited
hile reflecting on how
I was going to present
my thoughts as a parent about the 2004 reauthorization to
the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, I remembered back to
the early days of special education legislation. I remember being a single mother
of two young children, one of whom I
knew was struggling to learn to read. My
daughter did not receive additional
services from a resource specialist until
fourth grade. I remember her frustration
and the damage to her self-esteem from
feeling like she could not learn the same
things that came easily for other students. Even after she began receiving
help, it was a constant effort for her to
find ways to understand and retain information. We had not yet heard of dyslexia
or auditory processing disorder, but my
daughter was fortunate to have the support of dedicated teachers who gave her
the tools she needed to be able to advocate for herself. As a student, and later as
an adult, she came to know the accommodations she required to be successful.
She has used these strategies to become a
successful pediatric nurse. She is also the
mother of four. Her sixteen-year-old,
Nick, has Down syndrome, and twelveyear-old Trent has the same learning disability that she has.
At the time, I knew nothing of the
struggles taking place in our nation’s
Capitol that would make educational
supports and services available for all
children with disabilities. I am still awed
by the reality that it was the parents of
children with disabilities who were the
driving force behind this legislation.
Little did I know that I would find
myself defending these rights so many
years later. Like every grandmother, I
cherish all of my grandchildren. But the
two with disabilities have changed the
course of my career and brought me into
the arena of education and advocacy for
all children who have disabilities. As a
result, I interact daily with the parents of
children with a variety of disabilities and
needs, and I see how legislation translates into the real world.
16
©
WINTER/SPRING 2005
IDEA has been amended and revised
numerous times over the years to better
address the needs of students and to
ensure that their rights to an education
are enforced. In 1997, sweeping reforms
increased parents’ rights to be full members of the IEP team that serves their
child. For the first time it stipulated that
students with disabilities have access to
core curriculum and that parents receive
reports regularly during the year regarding the progress their child was making
toward meeting their IEP goals.
As a parent, as well as an
advocate, I’m concerned.
With a focus on paperwork reduction,
IDEA 2004 has diluted or removed some
of the very important safeguards that
parents have to measure their child’s
progress. Benchmarks and short-term
objectives that are used to measure
progress towards the annual IEP goals
will no longer be required for the majority of students. Only students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities
and who take alternative assessments (less
that one percent) are allotted these measures. My grandson Nick will be one of
them, while his brother Trent will not. I
find it ironic that we no longer have formal ways to track Trent’s progress, while
it is from him that we expect the most
growth. If we are to expect progress,
then it is imperative that we be able to
measure it throughout the year.
Because parents must now request that
the IEP describe how their child’s
progress will be reported, I am very concerned that parents who may not understand their responsibility to request this
information—and their right to receive
it—will not receive these reports.
A second concern is the removal in the
new law of any reference to the extent to
which progress must be made. This will
make it difficult to monitor appropriate
progress; and it could be a rude awakening for a parent to discover at the end of
the school year that her child made little
or no progress.
As a parent, as well as an advocate,
I’m also concerned about the removal of
the requirement that discussions about
transition services begin at age 14. I am
pleased with the new language that
states that the transition process for a
student with a disability begin at age
16. This is intended to ensure that a
transition plan is not merely a written
document, but a process that may
include the involvement of a variety of
agencies. Regarding the new age
requirement, we have been fortunate
that California law stipulates that discussion about transition must begin at age
Parent’s Voice, continued on page 12
Sonoma State University
CalSTAT
California Institute on Human Services
 East Cotati Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA -
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
Non-Profit
U.S. Postage
PAID
Sonoma State
University
©
THE SPECIAL EDGE