Fluent Essays

Write a paragraph (200 words) with a brief summary of the key points, analysis, and arguments of the reading, and any insights you might want to share (response format). Make sure to integrate at least two authors in your response.Reading(s):will be attachedEasy vocabulary. No plagiarism (studypools standards are 15\% and below). altshuler__s.__2007_._everything_you_never_wanted_to_know.docx denhart_perceptions_of_learning_disabilities.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview This article was downloaded by: [College of Staten Island] On: 17 July 2014, At: 09:45 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswd20 Everything You Never Wanted to Know About Special Education … and Were Afraid to Ask (I.D.E.A.) Sandra Altshuler PhD, LICSW a a School of Social Work, Eastern Washington University , 203 Senior Hall, Cheney, WA, 99004, USA Published online: 23 Sep 2008. To cite this article: Sandra Altshuler PhD, LICSW (2007) Everything You Never Wanted to Know About Special Education … and Were Afraid to Ask (I.D.E.A.), Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 6:1-2, 23-33, DOI: 10.1300/J198v06n01_02 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J198v06n01_02 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 Everything You Never Wanted to Know About Special Education . . . and Were Afraid to Ask (I.D.E.A.) Sandra Altshuler SUMMARY. Social workers who work with families and children are often unaware of the legal protections afforded to educational experiences for children, particularly to children with disabilities. Yet, all social workers, regardless of their practice setting, should be aware of the important educational rights to which children with disabilities and their families are entitled, as codified in the original legislation, P.L. 94-142, and its subsequent revisions. This legislation is currently entitled the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,” or the “I.D.E.A.” Provisions included in the I.D.E.A. are covered with which all states that receive federal educational funding are mandated to comply. Reviewed are the 13 “disabling conditions” that allow for students to qualify to receive special educational services, as long as one of the conditions is adversely impacting their educational success. It concludes with recommendations for social work advocacy regarding this legislation. doi:10.1300/J198v06n01_02 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Sandra Altshuler, PhD, LICSW, is Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Eastern Washington University, 203 Senior Hall, Cheney, WA 99004 (E-mail: saltshuler@mail.ewu.edu). [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Everything You Never Wanted to Know Special Education . . . and Were Afraid to Ask (IDEA).” Altshuler, Sandra. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 6, No. 1/2, 2007, pp. 23-33; and: Disability and Social Work Education: Practice and Policy Issues (ed: Francis K. O. Yuen, Carol B. Cohen, and Kristine Tower) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2007, pp. 23-33. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: docdelivery@haworthpress.com]. Available online at http://jswdr.haworthpress.com  2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J198v06n01_02 23 24 DISABILITY AND SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 Website: © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] KEYWORDS. Students with disabilities, the I.D.E.A., social work advocacy, educational rights INTRODUCTION The educational experiences of all children have significant impact on their overall well-being. Social workers who work with families and children are often unaware of the legal protections afforded to children, particularly to children with disabilities. All social workers who work with children and families, regardless of their practice setting, should be aware of the important educational rights to which children with disabilities and their families are entitled (Altshuler & Kopels, 2003). The U.S. Congress enacted a veritable revolution in 1975, when it passed the Education for All Handicapped [note: I will use the term handicapped when it is historically accurate to do so] Act (P.L. 94-142), that provided sweeping rights to such students. Previous to the 1975 Act, schools were permitted to exclude students with any type of perceived handicaps, based on the principle of in loco parentis; e.g., that schools were free to make educational decisions acting in place of parents (Allen-Meares et al., 2000, and Washington & Welsh, 2000). Indeed, all that was required for exclusion was a request by a teacher, parent or administrator, stating that the child’s handicap was making it too difficult either for the child or peers to learn, or for the teacher to teach. Further, there were no agreed-upon definitions about what a handicap was or was not; therefore, any person could claim that a student had a handicap, thereby justifying exclusion. These practices led to widespread private placements of students with handicaps if their parents could afford such services and widespread exclusion from accessing any benefits that public educational settings offer to all other students. In 1975, P.L. 94-142 mandated that all handicapped children were entitled to receive special education and related services specifically designed to meet their needs and provided financial support to ensure its mandates. One of the primary purposes of the original legislation was to ensure that children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 Sandra Altshuler 25 21 were not excluded from public schools. At the time of its passage, more than half of children with disabilities in the United States did not receive appropriate educational services, and one million children with disabilities were excluded entirely from the public school system [20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(2)]. P.L. 94-142 also provided protections for the rights of parents, children, and educational institutions regarding its requirements. While P.L. 94-142 was designated as permanent legislation, Congress was required to reauthorize the federal financial support for it on a periodic basis (theoretically, every three years). During each reauthorization process, Congress was able to modify the requirements of the law. Thus, P.L. 94-142 was reauthorized in 1990 and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 101-476), commonly referred to as the I.D.E.A. One of the major changes instituted in 1990 was the law’s emphasis on comprehensive, coordinated, interagency early intervention services for infants and toddlers (Allen-Meares et al., 2000). The most recent amendments to the I.D.E.A. were adopted in 1999, and expanded definitions of disabilities, including addressing the needs of homeless children and children with disciplinary problems (Altshuler & Kopels, 2003). All of these changes, while significantly impacting the rights and protections of children with disabilities and their families, also retain the basic rights and protections that have been extended to them since the law’s 1975 origin (Altshuler & Kopels, 2003). “P.L. 94-142” and the I.D.E.A. are terms often used interchangeably by professionals and lawmakers. Throughout its history, states have developed policies to comply with the I.D.E.A. based on their varying interpretations of the law. Unfortunately, states’ policies may not always comply with the requirements of the law. In fact, a recent study by the National Council on Disability found that all states are out of compliance with the law’s requirements in some manner (National Council on Disability, 2000). Therefore, this article must, by necessity, cover the mandates found only in the federal law, and may not reflect individual states’ interpretation and policy development. Because of the detail that can be included in every provision of this law, this article will review only the basic protections provided, including the legal definitions of educational handicaps, so that all social workers will be in a strong position of advocacy for their clients, no matter what setting they are placed. For more details about any of these provisions, the student is encouraged to review the law itself and its accompanying revisions. 26 DISABILITY AND SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 Provisions of P.L. 94-142 Zero Reject/Child Find: One of the most important messages of P.L. 94-142 is that all children with disabilities fall within the provisions of the law. No child may be rejected or excluded from accessing education based upon the existence of a disability. Furthermore, P.L. 94-142 requires every state to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in that state [34 C.F.R. § 300.125]. This “child find” principle applies to all children with disabilities, regardless of the severity of the disability or their attendance at private schools. In 1999, Congress clarified that the child find requirements also apply to highly mobile children with disabilities and specifically define highly mobile children with disabilities to include those who are migrant or homeless (Altshuler & Kopels, 2003). Congress also explicitly required that school districts take a more active role in searching out and finding these families and children, rather than leaving the burden of self-identification up to the families themselves. Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): The original law stated that children with disabilities are entitled to receive a free and appropriate public education, commonly referred to as a FAPE. As Altshuler and Kopels (2003) explain, the term FAPE means that special education and related services are provided at public expense and without charge to parents; meets State defined standards; includes education from preschool through high school; and are provided in conformity with an individualized education program [34 C.F.R. § 300.13]. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): This provision of the law requires that students with disabilities receive a FAPE, to the maximum extent possible, with non-disabled, general education students (Allen-Meares et al., 2000). Special education services can be considered a continuum of services, from consultative services on one end, spanning to institutional care on the other end. The extent to which a student’s day is restricted from the typical interactions with their non-disabled peers is how the level of environmental restriction is determined. The overall purpose of the LRE provision is to ensure that schools minimize the amount of time a student is not with their non-disabled peers. Nondiscriminatory Evaluation (NDE): Children with disabilities were protected from nondiscriminatory evaluation through a requirement that a multidisciplinary team must complete a wide range of non-biased assessments specific to children’s suspected disabilities before placement into special education can occur (Altshuler & Kopels, 2003). The NDE must be completed by professionals qualified and knowledgeable Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 Sandra Altshuler 27 in the relevant disability being evaluated. The NDE cannot use a single assessment, or a single discipline, as a sole determinant for placement into special education; it must be comprised of a variety of valid, standardized, non-biased assessment instruments administered by more than one professional [20 U.S.C. § 1414 (b)]. Some states refer to the NDE as a case study evaluation (“CSE”). Regardless of its terminology, the NDE/CSE must be fully re-done every three years, to ensure continuing appropriateness of placement. Multidisciplinary Team (MDT): The MDT, as defined, is comprised of a variety of professionals from a variety of disciplines, who administer and evaluate the standardized assessments for determining eligibility for special education placement. However, the MDT does more than simply assess and evaluate. The MDT attends meetings, often called Multidisciplinary Conferences (MDCs), at which eligibility, placement and educational decisions are made. As such, in addition to the professionals who are performing the evaluations, the MDT is comprised of at least one of the student’s general education and special education teachers; a representative from the local educational administration (LEA) who is familiar with both the general curriculum and the available resources; and the student’s parents [20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(B)]. This is true regardless of the student’s age (e.g., 3-21), although after age 14, it is expected that the student would also become a member of the MDT. Individualized Education Program (IEP): A FAPE is ensured, and children with disabilities are protected from inappropriate educational services, by the mandate that schools must create an Individualized Educational Program. This plan, known as an IEP, is designed specifically for each student receiving special services, a plan that must be reviewed and rewritten yearly to reflect current functioning and progress toward educational goals (Altshuler & Kopels, 2003). As Turnbull and Turnbull (1998) delineate, the IEP is required to have a number of components [20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1)(A)]: 1. A statement of students’ present levels of educational functioning and how the disability impacts their ability to progress within the general curriculum; 2. A statement of measurable annual goals and short-term objectives that address the students’ educational needs that result from their identified disability; 3. An outline of the specific special education services, related services, supplemental services, and program modifications that will Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 28 DISABILITY AND SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION be made in order to achieve the measurable annual goals, including their frequency, duration and location; 4. Any modifications in standardized testing (while this is beyond the breadth of this chapter, it is important to point out that this provision in P.L. 94-142 is contradicted by provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110), which specifically disallows any such exclusion or modification for students with disabilities) and how students will be appropriately assessed for educational progress; 5. A statement of how students’ progress toward the annual goals will be measured and how their parents will be regularly informed; and 6. When students reach the age of 14 (and older), a statement of transitional service needs and agency linkages, if appropriate. The 1990 Amendments that provided for early intervention services also revised requirements for an individualized educational program specifically designed for infants and toddlers. One revision was the requirement of an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) that must be developed for any child identified with a disability younger than 5 years old. As the name indicates, the primary distinction between an IEP and an IFSP is the requirement that the family be included in any individualized program for such children [20 U.S.C. § 1436]. In addition, all IFSP’s must define the specific steps involved in transitioning the child to their next educational setting. Parent Involvement/Procedural Due Process: Every iteration of the I.D.E.A. from its inception has attempted to ensure parental involve- ment and participation in the special education process. Under the cur- rent law, a parent may be defined as a birth or adoptive parent, a legal guardian, a surrogate parent, or someone acting in the place of a parent (e.g., foster parents) [34 C.F.R. § 300.20]. The general idea (not the legal technicalities) of procedural due process has to do with fairness and the ability of the parents to legally disagree with decisions being made about their children. In effect, the federal government has defined exactly how state and local educational agencies must include parents throughout the entire process, and, the legal procedures by which parents can ensure that their, and their children’s, rights are being protected. The I.D.E.A. delineates a series of requirements for State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to involve parents in decision-making about policies and procedures for special education. For example, all SEAs are required to create Advisory Panels for special education that are primarily comprised of parents and teachers of students with disabilities, and individuals with disabilities (in addition to a myriad of educational and administrative professionals) Downloaded by [College of Staten Island] at 09:45 17 July 2014 Sandra Altshuler 29 (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1998). The I.D.E.A., in conjunction with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), addresses issues regarding students’ educational records, including access, confidentiality, and privacy. In ensuring fairness of the process, the school district is required to follow a specific series of steps from the moment that it decides to investigate the potential for a student to qualify for special education. The school district is required to provide to parents a 10 day written notification of any type of MDC and make clear efforts to ensure that parents can attend such meetings. The parents must receive a copy of minutes from the proceedings for all meetings. The school district is required to provide parents with both written and verbal explanations of parents’ and students’ procedural safeguards under the I.D.E.A., and all written communication must be in the parents’ native language. The school district must obtain written informed consent from the parents before initiating any and all components of the NDE/CSE and must obtain written informed consent from the parents again before the child will ever be placed into special education. In other words, providing consent for the evaluation does not mean that parents must, should or otherwise feel obligated, to provide consent for placement into special education. School districts must make efforts to ensure parent participation in the yearly review and development of the IEPs. Finally, in cases where there is a disagreement between the school district and the parents, the I.D.E.A. provides for an abbreviated court procedure, commonly called due p ... Purchase answer to see full attachment