1. 1 Connecting Research to Practice for Teacher Educators

2. DeAnn Lechtenberger — Principle Investigator Nora Griffin-Shirley — Project Coordinator Doug Hamman — Project Evaluator Tonya Hettler—Grant Manager Financial Support for Project IDEAL is provided by the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities, with Federal funds* made available by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Developmental Disabilities. *$599,247 (74%) DD funds; $218,725 (26%) non-federal resources. The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the funding agency[s]. No official endorsement should be inferred. 2

3.  Education in the United States has changed – 1600’s:The earliest schools focused on religious teachings by Pilgrims and Congregationalists – With immigration of people from different countries, cultures, and religions, this type of education became less common – 1800’s private schools and tutoring were used – 1852 – 1918: states passed laws requiring children to attend elementary school. 3

4. Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. president, wrote of public education: “I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it.“ (in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810) 4

5.  Each state has authority over public education: laws, finance, personnel, curricula.  Local property taxes and state funds were used for school expenses with some federal funding.  Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 addressed educational needs of poor children (with programs such as Head Start) and improving instruction in math, science and foreign languages; assisted with federal funding. 5

6. The need for special education became evident as:  attendance in public schools became compulsory  policies of public schools were created and enforced to exclude groups of children, based on race, gender, and disability. 6

7.  A group that had been excluded from public education filed a court case in the early 1950’s and was heard by the United States Supreme Court.  In Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, racial discrimination was specifically addressed and ruled unlawful.  In the decision made by that court, Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated… 7

8. “…Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms…” 8

9.  With this court decision, parents and advocates of two organizations, the Council for Exceptional Children and the National Association for Retarded Citizens, began challenging the school policies that prevented children with disabilities from attending those public schools.   When school officials continued to refuse to admit children with disabilities to schools, the parents and advocates filed court cases to challenge and change the school policies that excluded children with disabilities. 9

10. Two court cases brought recognition of the need for educating all children. These cases brought forth ideas that are upheld in current laws and regulations:  1971: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania  1972: Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia. 10

11. PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) determined…  …all persons considered to be mentally retarded could benefit from education and training  …schools should provide free, public programs to educate and train that are “appropriate to the child's capacity.”  …”a regular public school class” was more beneficial to a child than a “special public school class”; a special class in a public school was more beneficial than any other type of educational or training program.  If children were assigned to any class other than the “regular public school class”, they were to be evaluated every two years. 11

12. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) found…  … children who had disabilities were not to be denied admission, suspended, expelled, reassigned or transferred from regular public school classes without due process of law.  A census of all children in the District of Columbia was to be completed to discover any children who were not attending public school.  Each child was to have a periodic educational review. 12

13.  The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) became law in 1975.  This law became known as the “Bill of Rights” for students identified with disabilities and their families.  PL 94-142 required states that received federal funds to provide to their students with disabilities… 13

14.  A free appropriate public education (PARC)  In the least restrictive environment (PARC)  For children from 3 to 21 years  Written permission from parent required prior to evaluation (Mills)  An extensive evaluation before placement (Mills)  Periodic reevaluation (PARC, Mills)  Individualized Education Program (IEP) written to meet child’s needs  Parents informed of due process to challenge schools’ actions and decisions (Mills) 14

15.  Each IEP was to include: – statement of present level of educational performance – annual goals and short term instructional objectives – specific special education and related services to be provided for the child – extent to which child will participate in regular education program – projected dates for initiation of services and anticipated duration of services – schedule for determining on at least an annual basis whether the short term instructional objectives are met (Mills) 15

16. 1990 Amendments to PL 94-142 changed name to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)  Required students have a transition plan by the age of 16 years with activities and interagency linkages for living arrangements, vocational training, and/or additional education.  Added social work and rehabilitation counseling as related services.  Added autism and traumatic brain injury as disability categories. 16

17.  The 1997 Amendment to “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA) added ten changes to the previous law regarding discipline, participation in the general education curriculum and state assessments, transition planning, assistive technology, related services and structure of the IEP. 17

18.  Schools allowed to discipline students with disabilities in similar ways as students without disabilities if the misbehavior was not a manifestation of the students’ disabilities  Statements in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) describing how students with disabilities will be involved with and progress in the general education curriculum  Documented transition planning that was to begin when the students were 14 years of age  General educators became part of the IEP team  Emphasis placed on annual goals, benchmarks 18

19.  IEP teams were required to consider student’s needs for assistive technology  Orientation and mobility services for children with visual impairments and blindness were added as a related service.  States were required to offer mediation services to help resolve disputes between schools and families of students with disabilities.  A variety of assessment tools and strategies were to be used to collect functional and developmental information on students who might need special education.  Students with disabilities were to be included in statewide assessment programs or given alternative assessments that met unique needs. 19

20.  Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 was to bring IDEA of 1997 into alignment with No Child Left Behind Act 20

21.  Individualized Education Programs were to base services on more scientific findings  IDEA created a pilot program for 15 states to develop three-year IEPs  Benchmarks/short-term objectives were no longer required in the IEP except for students who take alternative state assessments 21

22.  Zero reject/No exclusion  Protection in evaluation  Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)  Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)  Procedural Safeguards  Parental Participation 22

23.  Children who might have disabilities should be located and identified as soon as possible.  Educational services must be extended to all children who are evaluated and found to be eligible for and in need of special education and related services. 23

24. Children are evaluated fairly and equitably:  In their own language  With a variety of strategies and tools  With more than one assessment  Without racial or cultural discrimination  With assessments that are valid and reliable  In all areas of suspected disability  With the intent of gathering information that is relevant and that will assist in determining the educational needs of the child. 24

25. Free appropriate public education is referred to as “FAPE”.  It is provided at no cost to the parents of the student with a disability  It is appropriately designed education to meet the identified needs of the student 25

26. The least restrictive environment is the education of students with disabilities with students who do not have disabilities as much as appropriate. Students with disabilities may be educated in:  regular education classrooms  regular education classes with supplementary services  special education classes  special education facilities 26

27.  Periodic re-evaluation is required.  It may be conducted in accordance with the IDEA regulation, which requires re-evaluation at three-year intervals or more frequently if conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or teacher requests a re-evaluation.  Requires a school district to conduct a re- evaluation prior to a significant change of placement. 27

28.  Local Level ― Principal ― Superintendent ― School Board  State Level ― Texas Education Agency  Federal Level ― Office for Civil Rights http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html?src=rt 28

29. Texas Education Agency  http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us  TEA Parents Information Line: 1.800.252.9668 Divisions within the Special Programs, Monitoring and Interventions  IDEA Coordination (Special Education Programs, Complaints, Deaf Services) http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed  NCLB Program Coordination http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/nclb  Special Education Monitoring http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/pmi/spedmon 29

30. Other Divisions at TEA  Student Assessment http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment Technical Assistance  ESC Special Education Contacts http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/escinfo/contact.html First point of contact for special education technical assistance  State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) www.sbec.state.tx.us First point of contact for teacher certification issues 30

31. Resources on the Web  State Guidance http:// ritter.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/guidance First point of contact for guidance on state policy  Parent Resource Network www.partnerstx.org  Texas Project First www.texasprojectfirst.org 31

32.  Notice of Procedural Safeguards http://fw.esc18.net/frameworkdisplayportlet/Do cuments/Procedural%20Safeguards%202-20- 09.pdf  Texas Special Education Rules and Regulations Side-by-Side http://framework.esc18.net/SBS_April_2008.pdf  Legal Framework for the Child-Centered Process http://framework.esc18.net 32

33. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html Office of Elementary and Secondary Education www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index.html Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html 33

34. IDEA 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) http://idea.ed.gov Special Education and Rehabilitative Services www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html Section 504 Frequently Asked Questions www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/resources.html 34

35. DeAnn Lechtenberger, Ph.D. Principle Investigator deann.lechtenberger@ttu.edu Tonya Hettler, Grant Manager tonya.hettler@ttu.edu Webpage: www.projectidealonline.org Phone: (806) 742-1997, ext. 302 The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the funding agency[s]. No official endorsement should be inferred. 35