The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a statute that authorizes Funding for Part C, Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, and Part D, .. The most recent reauthorization was P.L. in Funding. Most provisions of Public Law (PL) go into effect on July 1, The requirements Part C – Infants And Toddlers With Disabilities Part D – National. IDEA’s statute, as passed by Congress; Federal regulations for Part B of IDEA; Federal regulations for Part C of IDEA; Guidance from the Education Improvement Act of ; Public Law (PL) Number: PL ; Passed by.
|Published (Last):||12 April 2012|
|PDF File Size:||13.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
January 11, — January statue, RL The th Congress passed P. IDEA is the major federal statute authorizing funds for special education and related services for children with disabilities, and providing detailed due process provisions to ensure that these children receive a free appropriate public education FAPE. ED issued final regulations on August 14, Although many of the vor provisions simply track the statutory language, reflect comments in the conference report, or include provisions in prior IDEA regulations, there are places where the regulations provide more guidance.
This report analyzes the regulations, with an emphasis on those areas where additional guidance is provided.
The report vor discusses provisions in P. Among these are the definition of “highly qualified” teachers, requirements for children’s participation in state and local assessments, changes in the private school provisions, exceptions to certain financial requirements, changes in procedural safeguards, and changes in compliance monitoring to focus on student performance.
ED issued additional regulations “to clarify and strengthen current regulations”on December 1, It provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and requires, as a condition for the p.l.108-446 of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education FAPE. The statute also contains detailed due process provisions to ensure the provision of FAPE. Originally enacted inthe act responded to an increasing focus on the p.k.108-446 of 0204 with foe, including judicial decisions requiring that states provide an education for children with disabilities if they provide an education for children without disabilities.
Department of Education ED issued proposed regulations for P. In its discussion of the proposed regulations, which presumably applies to the final rule, the Department of Education ida that. The rationale for doing this is to create a single reference document for parents, State personnel, school personnel, and others to use, rather than being fod to shift between one document for statut and a separate document for the statute. The organization of the final regulations differs from diea previous regulations, with the final regulations generally following the structure of P.
This listing of areas in the statute is helpful in determining what changes Congress might have interpreted as lessening the protections available to children with disabilities but it is not determinative as the list is illustrative, not limiting. It is worth noting as the regulations are examined, that some of the provisions carried over from prior idfa are included due to the requirements of this section. In addition, in at least one situation, an argument by a commenter that a proposed section of the regulations would violate this statutory requirement led ED to remove the section.
The areas covered by this addition to the IDEA regulations include 1 parental revocation of consent after consenting to the initial provision of services; 2 a state’s or local educational agency’s LEA’s obligation to make positive efforts to employ qualified individuals with disabilities; 3 odea of parents by non-attorneys in due process hearings; 4 state monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement of the Part B program; and 5 the allocation of funds, under Sections and of the Act, to LEAs that are not serving any partt with disabilities.
These regulations took effect on December 31, IDEA, as amended by P. The IDEA definition requires that all special education teachers—not just those who teach core subjects—must meet certain requirements. Both new and veteran special education teachers teaching atatute subjects exclusively to children with disabilities who are assessed against alternative achievement standards under ESEA i.
New and veteran special education teachers who teach two or more core subjects exclusively to children with disabilities may qualify as highly qualified by meeting the requirements in each core subject taught under applicable ESEA provisions. The regulations regarding highly qualified teacher requirements repeat much of the statutory definition verbatim. In addition, the regulations add explicit language that the highly qualified definition does not apply to teachers in private schools.
The regulations permit states to develop separate HOUSSE procedures for special education teachers, including a single procedure assessing multiple core subject areas, “provided that any adaptations of the State’s HOUSSE would not establish a lower standard for the content knowledge requirements for special education teachers and meets all the requirements for a Idfa for regular education teachers The statute declares that there is no right of action based on an employee not meeting the highly qualified requirements of the act.
In addition, the regulation clarifies that parents still have the right to file a complaint related to staff qualifications under state complaint procedures under 34 C. As noted above, the definition of a highly qualified teacher differs depending on whether the teacher is new to the profession or not.
The regulations clarify a situation in which a regular teacher subsequently becomes certified as a special education teacher. Even though such a teacher is not new to the profession, he or she is considered a new special education teacher for the purposes of the highly qualified teacher definition as it applies to special education teachers.
As suggested above, the 204 definition idfa highly qualified with respect to special education teachers for the most severely cognitively disabled children appears to differentiate between such teachers at the elementary level and those teaching students “above the elementary level.
The provisions relating to children placed in private schools by public agencies were not changed from previous law. A child with a disability may also be unilaterally placed in a private school by his or her parents.
In the latter situation, the cost of the private school placement is not paid by the LEA unless a hearing officer or a court makes certain findings. However, IDEA does require some services for children in private schools, even if they are unilaterally placed there by their parents.
Exactly what these services are or should be has been a contentious subject for many years. The reauthorization of IDEA expanded the private school provisions, and the reauthorization includes several changes to the provisions relating to children with statyte who are placed in private school by their parents. Generally, children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools are to be provided special education and related services based on where the private school is located, not on where the child resides.
The Senate report described this change as protecting “LEAs from having to work with private schools located in multiple jurisdictions when students attend private schools across district lines.
In addition, the current law adds compliance procedures which allow a private school official to submit a complaint to the SEA about p.l.018-446 consultation and, if 200 private school official is dissatisfied with the SEA’s response, he or she may submit a complaint to the Secretary of Education.
The final regulations track the statutory requirements and add provisions to address some issues raised by comments on the proposed regulations. The regulations reiterate that ror is the LEA of attendance that is responsible for locating, identifying, f evaluating all parentally placed children in private schools within their geographic boundaries the so called “child find” requirement.
The regulations stipulate that the LEA of attendance is responsible for child find and proportional provision of services even if the patt resides in another state. The regulations follow the act in requiring that an LEA use a share of its IDEA grants in proportion to the number fof parentally placed children with disabilities in private schools within the LEA to provide equitable services for these children.
While requiring consultation on the child find process and the provision of services as the statute requires, the regulations specify that “[n]o parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the p.l.1008-446 education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school. Some commenters proposed that “the LEA where the private school is located to provide [sic] the district of residence the p.ll.108-446 of an evaluation and eligibility determination of the parentally-placed private school child.
If a child is enrolled, or is going to enroll in a private school that is not located in the LEA of the parent’s residence, parental consent must be obtained before any personally identifiable information about the child is released between officials in the LEA where the private school is located and officials in the D of the parent’s residence. Some public school advocates, who had hoped that ED might relax the statutory requirements, continue to express concerns.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Final Regulations for P.L. 108-446
Reggie Felton, director of federal relations for the National School Boards Association, noted that “[i]t creates an additional burden for school districts that happen to have a higher number of private schools physically located in their district. Section of IDEA provides procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their parents.
Section has been a continual source of controversy, especially the provisions relating to the discipline of children with disabilities. The changes made by P. The discussion of the provisions of P.
Reauthorization of the IDEA – Laws, Regulations, & Policies (CA Dept of Education)
There were significant changes made by the new law in areas such as attorneys’ fees which are not discussed here as the regulations do not make significant additions to the statutory language.
One of the major changes was the addition of a “resolution session. The reason for this addition was to attempt to resolve disputes prior to the more adversarial due process hearing. The House report noted that the resolution session “is intended to improve the communication between parents and school ffor, and to help foster greater efforts to resolve disputes in a timely manner so that the child’s interests are best served.
Disciplinary issues relating to children with disabilities were a contentious issue during the reauthorization. One of the changes was the addition of a provision allowing school personnel to consider, on a case-by-case basis, any unique circumstances when determining whether to order a change in placement for a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct. Paet major change was in the language regarding manifestation determinations. The concept of a manifestation determination originated in policy interpretations of IDEA by the Department of Education.
The theory is that when behavior, even inappropriate behavior, is caused by a disability, the response of a school must be different that when the behavior is not related to the disability. The concept of a manifestation determination was placed parf statutory language in the reauthorization and amended in by P. If the LEA, the parent and relevant members of the IEP team determine that the conduct in question was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP, the conduct p.l.108446 determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability.
Except for situations involving weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury, when the conduct is a manifestation of the disability, the child shall return to the placement from which he or she was removed unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavioral intervention plan.
IDEA currently contains statutory provisions requiring that parental consent be obtained prior to providing special education or related services to a child with a disability. Previously, ED had interpreted the statute and regulations to prohibit the unilateral withdrawal of a child from special education in most circumstances.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA )
The regulations promulgated in December reverse this interpretation to allow parents to unilaterally withdraw their child from the receipt of special education services, 55 but require that the revocation be in writing. The majority of the regulatory language regarding procedural safeguards mirrors the statutory language in P. However, the regulations do make several additions. For example, regarding the procedural safeguards notice, ED clarifies that a procedural safeguards atatute must be provided upon receipt of the first filing of a state complaint or request for a due process p.l.1008-446 in a school year, not just the first request at any point in the child’s education.
Several changes were made by ED regarding the manner in which mediators are chosen.
The previous regulations provided that the states shall maintain a list of individuals who are qualified mediators and knowledgeable about special education and that if the mediator is not selected on a rotational basis from the list, both parties must be involved in selecting the mediator. Selecting mediators on an impartial basis would include permitting the parties involved in a dispute to agree on a mediator.
ED observed that this removal was “not intended to prevent States from allowing parties to sign a confidentiality pledge to ensure that stahute during the mediation process remain confidential, irrespective of whether the mediation results in a resolution. One of the changes made in the December regulations relates to the use of lay advocates. Currently, IDEA provides that any party to a hearing under Part B of IDEA has “the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities.
Brouillet, the Department had previously interpreted Section h of the Act and implementing regulations as allowing both attorneys and non-attorneys to perform the same functions at due process hearings. Ina decision by the Delaware Supreme Court in In the Matter of Arons71 held that a lay advocate who represented families of children with disabilities in due process hearings had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
A survey found that ten states, like Delaware, prohibit lay advocates from representing parents, twelve states permit lay advocates, twenty one states have no official policy, and eight states leave the matter to the hearing officer.
The regulations allow the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities, but add an exception stating that “whether parents have the right to be represented by non-attorneys at due process hearings is determined under State law.
ED provides guidance regarding the new statutory requirement for a resolution session in its regulations. Ror example, the regulations state that unless the parties have jointly agreed to waive the resolution process or to use mediation, the failure of the parent filing the due process complaint to participate in the resolution session will delay the timeline for the resolution session and due process hearing until the resolution session is held.
ED declined to discuss this issue in the regulations since the statute is silent but noted that “nothing in the Act or these regulations A State could not, however, require that the participants in a resolution meeting keep the discussions confidential or make a confidentiality agreement a condition of a parent’s participation in the resolution meeting. The previous regulatory provisions regarding the discipline of children with disabilities are significantly changed in the regulations, generally reflecting the changes in the statute and comments in the conference report.
However, the new regulations do provide some additional guidance not found in the statute or conference report. Although the statutory language giving school personnel the authority to suspend a child with a disability for not more than 10 school days is similar in both the IDEA and P.
The regulations add a subsection stating that where a child has been removed for more than 10 school days in the same school year, and ppart current removal is for not iea than 10 stwtute school days and is stautte a change of placement, school personnel, in consultation with the child’s teacher or teachers, determine the extent to which services are needed so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum.
An LEA is not required to provide children suspended for more than 10 school days in a school year for disciplinary reasons, exactly the staatute services in exactly the same settings as they were receiving prior to the imposition of discipline.
However, the special education and related services the child does receive must enable the child to continue to participate in the general curriculum, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child’s IEP. Numerous commenters on the proposed regulations suggested that the final regulations clarify that the public agency has the burden of proof in arguing that removing a child is necessary because maintaining the current placement is substantially likely to result in paet to self or others.
Weast93 a recent Supreme Court decision. The Court held there that the burden of persuasion in a hearing challenging the validity of an IEP is on the party seeking relief. Noting the Supreme Court’s decision, ED stated that “[w]here the public agency has requested that a hearing officer remove a child to an interim alternative educational setting, the burden of persuasion is on the public agency.
The regulations add a new section specifically allowing a school district to seek a subsequent hearing to continue the child in an interim alternative educational placement if the school district believes that returning the child to the original placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others.