ERIC EJ683477: What Classroom Teachers Need to Know about IDEA '97

2005·0.07 MB·English

by  ERIC

S
pecial education teachers are
not the only ones who need to
know about laws and policies re-
garding students with disabilities.
In the general classroom setting,
informed teachers can deliver nec-
essary and appropriate services to
students with special needs, while
at the same time work toward suc-
cessful outcomes for those chil-
dren, their peers, and their parents.
Knowing about the origin,
implementation, and relevance of
the laws as they relate to students
is an important responsibility for
all classroom teachers. The Indi-
viduals with Disabilities Education
Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA
’97), signed into law on June 4,
1997, by President Clinton,
amended and reauthorized the In-
dividuals with Disabilities Educa-
tion Act (IDEA). The 1997 provi-
sions of the law have been called
the most significant changes in
federal special education law since
the original passage of the Educa-
tion for All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975 (Eyer 1998; Yell and
Drasgow 2000; Yell and Katsiyannis
2000). Integral to the implementa-
by Karen Patterson tion of IDEA ’97 are six fundamen-
tal principles that the federal gov-
ernment emphasizes as being criti-
cal features of special education
General education teachers play an
programs offered to children and
youth with disabilities (U.S. De-
integral role in educating students
partment of Education 2000): a free
with disabilities and should be and appropriate public education;
familiar with the applicable
Karen Patterson is Assistant Profes-
sor of special education at the Uni-
principles of the law.
versity of North Florida. Her re-
search interests include teacher
preparation, positive academic
and behavioral interventions, and
developmental disabilities. She
earned a Ph.D. in special education
from Kent State University and is a
member-at-large of Kappa Delta Pi.
62 Kappa Delta Pi Record • Winter 2005
an individualized education pro- dren with disabilities (Werts, component of the early identifica-
gram; the least restrictive environ- Mamlin, and Pogoloff 2002). IDEA tion process. The classroom
ment; appropriate evaluations; ’97 requires that an IEP be devel- teacher often is one of the first to
parent and student participation in oped and implemented for every recognize a developmental prob-
decision making; and procedural student with disabilities between lem (e.g., reading difficulties, or
safeguards. the ages of 3 and 21 (U.S. Depart- disruptive or aggressive behavior).
ment of Education 2000). The IEP, For young children at risk for learn-
Free and Appropriate which describes both the process ing and emotional or behavioral
Public Education and resulting document that de- problems, Lane, Gresham, and
Students are entitled to a free and fines a FAPE for a student, is the O’Shaughnessy (2002) recom-
appropriate public education centerpiece of the special educa- mended proactive screening in
(FAPE). tion process. The law not only preschool and kindergarten, and
IDEA ’97 defines FAPE as spe- specifies what an IEP must include, again in later grades.
cial education and related services but also who is to take part in its Prereferral interventions both
that are provided at public ex- formulation (U.S. Department of reduce the chances of over-iden-
pense, under public supervision Education 2000). In collaboration, tifying children for special educa-
and direction, and without charge; school personnel and a student’s tion and increase opportunities
meet standards of the state educa- parents design the appropriate for children who truly require ser-
tional agency; include an appropri- educational program. As a result, vices to be identified. Parental
ate preschool, elementary, or sec- the individualized education and consent must be obtained for ini-
ondary school education in the related services that a student in tial and all subsequent evalua-
state involved; and are provided in special education receives are de- tions and placement decisions re-
conformity with the individualized lineated in, and provided in confor- garding special education. The
education program (IDEA 1997, mity with, the IEP (Yell and decisions made during this pro-
1401(8); Yell and Drasgow 2000). Drasgow 2000). cess are significant, and the class-
While primary responsibility for A major goal of the IEP meet- room teacher’s response remains
adhering to FAPE lies with the ing is to form a partnership among the most crucial step. The teacher’s
school districts, classroom teach- parents, teachers, and service pro- role as implementer of prereferral
ers should know the procedural viders. To achieve this goal, teach- strategies cannot be overestimated
and substantive requirements. ers must be able to make critical (Sindelar et al. 1992); the teacher
FAPE guarantees every student decisions regarding the IEP process influences placement and possible
with a disability an individualized in addition to communicating ef- life-altering changes for students.
education program—most often fectively with families during the Referral. In this step, a child
delivered by the classroom IEP meeting. The formation of an actually is referred for special edu-
teacher—that is reasonably calcu- individualized program involves cation services. Candidates for re-
lated to provide meaningful educa- seven steps, beginning with ferral are students whose academic
tional benefits (Yell and Drasgow prereferral and ending with an an- performance is significantly be-
2000). nual evaluation of the student’s hind that of their classmates or
program. who continually misbehave and
Individualized Education Prereferral. The prereferral in- disrupt the learning environment
Program tervention is an informal, problem- (Smith 2004). In addition to having
An Individualized Education Pro- solving process with two primary current knowledge of learning,
gram (IEP) is required for each child purposes: to provide immediate emotional, and behavioral difficul-
with a disability to ensure that ser- instructional and behavior man- ties, classroom teachers should
vices are specific and individualized agement assistance to the child know early identification, preven-
for their needs. and teacher; and to reduce the tion, and intervention strategies
Prior to the mandates of IDEA, chances of identifying a child for (Lane et al. 2002) to facilitate the
families of children with disabili- special education who may not be referral step.
ties were alone in their burden of disabled (Salvia and Ysseldyke Evaluation. The evaluation
educating and caring for their chil- 1988). This process is a critical step in the IEP process is to deter-
Kappa Delta Pi Record • Winter 2005 63
mine whether a child has a disabil- • a statement of measurable an- The IEP documents should make
ity, whether special education is nual goals, including bench- clear the relationships among
required, and what types of special marks or short-term objectives; these components, as well as keep
or related services are needed. • the specific educational ser- their primary focus on the unique
IDEA ’97 is specific in its recom- vices to be provided, includ- needs of each student.
mendation that tests must be non- ing program modifications or Implementation of the IEP.
discriminatory and must be given supports; Many classroom teachers are un-
in the child’s native language. The • an explanation of the extent comfortable with the knowledge
IEP team evaluates the bench- that the child will not partici- that some IEP meetings are char-
marks or short-term objectives, pate in general education acterized by conflict between the
and makes modifications in the classes; parent and representatives of the
placement, instructional program, school district. Often these con-
and related and supplementary flicts are a result of the IEP being
services, as needed. written at the wrong time and for
“What the
Eligibility. Though IDEA ’97 the wrong reason. The legal IEP is
provides definitions for the special student needs is written following evaluation and
education categories, each state identification of a student’s dis-
determined first,
maintains its own definitions. Af- abilities, but before a placement
and then a
ter determining that a child has a decision is made. In other words,
disability, the IEP team decides decision is made what the student needs is deter-
whether the child also needs spe- mined first, and then a decision
about placement
cial education. is made about placement in the
byD Joevhenlo pI.m Geonot odfl tahde IEP. Rep- in the least least restrictive environment in
resentation on the IEP team is restrictive which the necessary services can
specified by IDEA ’97 and should be provided.
environment in
include: at least one general edu- Often seen is the educationally
cation teacher (if the student is par- which the wrong and illegal practice of bas-
ticipating in general education), at ing the IEP on an available place-
necessary services
least one special educator or re- ment; that is, the student’s IEP is
can be provided.”
lated service provider, a represen- written after placements and ser-
tative of the school district, the par- vices are considered (Hallahan and
ents and whom they invite, and Kauffman 2003). This problem is
sometimes the student. The team noteworthy especially for preservice
uses assessment results to help de- • a description of modifications and beginning teachers who most
cide on appropriate education, ser- in statewide or district-wide likely will follow procedures al-
vices, and placement. assessments; ready in place or delineated by the
As participants in IEP develop- • the projected date for initiation directing teacher, peer evaluator,
ment and its subsequent imple- of services and the expected du- special education department, and
mentation, general education ration of those services; general school setting.
teachers must know the key com- • an annual statement of transi- Annual Review. The IEP
ponents of the program. The mini- tion service needs (beginning team, including the parents, con-
mum requirements (U.S. Depart- at age 14), and a statement of ducts an annual review to ensure
ment of Education 2000) of an IEP interagency responsibilities to that the student is meeting the
include: ensure continuity of services goals and objectives specified in the
• the student’s present levels of when the student leaves school IEP components. Evaluation is con-
educational performance; (by age 16); and ducted to determine whether the
• indications about ways the • a statement regarding how the student has achieved, or at least is
student’s disability influences student’s progress will be mea- making progress toward, the
participation and progress in the sured and how parents will be benchmarks specified for each
general education curriculum; informed about the progress. objective.
64 Kappa Delta Pi Record • Winter 2005
Though IDEA ’97 recom- fully educate students with dis- lated significantly to academic
mends an annual review, class- abilities in general education set- engagement rates—or the pro-
room teachers should conduct tings with peers who do not have portion of instructional time dur-
more frequent evaluations of stu- disabilities, then the students’ ing which students are engaged in
dent performance. Because school must provide that experi- learning—as demonstrated by
evaluations typically guide in- ence. Therefore, if teachers are behaviors such as attending to
struction, waiting an entire aware that the LRE is most often tasks, working on assignments,
school year before conducting an the general classroom setting, and participating in class activi-
evaluation is counterproductive. then perhaps they will evaluate ties (e.g., Greenwood 1991).
Frequent evaluations give teach- more carefully the necessity for a Landrum et al. (2003) recom-
ers an opportunity to modify their mended curriculum-based mea-
mode of instruction for increas- surement, class-wide peer tutor-
ing student productivity. In addi- ing, social skills interventions,
tion, objectives that have been and group-oriented contingen-
met can be reviewed rather than cies such as the Good Behavior
taught daily, while other goals “Though Game (see Barrish, Saunders, and
and objectives can take a more Wolf 1969; Tankersley 1995;
IDEA ‘97
prominent place in the student’s Patterson 2003) as effective and
recommends an
program. As a result, the annual positive interventions to improve
review becomes more productive, annual review, both academic and behavioral
and planning for a new year is problems for students in general
classroom teachers
more clearly defined in terms of and special education settings.
what the student already knows should conduct Especially crucial for class-
versus what the student needs to more frequent room teachers is the distressing
know and how the student learns. gap between what research has
evaluations of
discovered about effective in-
Least Restrictive student struction and that which is prac-
Environment ticed in many classrooms
performance.”
Always consider the least restrictive (Heward 2003a). Observations of
environment (LRE) when place- classroom practice have sug-
ment is considered. gested that the education re-
IDEA ’97 mandates that stu- ceived by many students with dis-
dents with disabilities be edu- abilities does not take advantage
cated with children without dis- quick referral. Instead, teachers of the current knowledge of best
abilities to the maximum extent can explore and implement effec- practices (Kauffman 1996; Moody
appropriate, and that students tive intervention strategies that et. al. 2000; Wagner et al. 1993). It
with disabilities be removed to are proven successful for both is imperative that teachers are
separate classes or schools only academic learning and behav- aware of and implement positive
when the nature or severity of ioral problems with students. and effective interventions to
their disabilities is such that they According to Landrum, better facilitate student success
cannot receive an appropriate Tankersley, and Kauffman (2003), in the least restrictive environ-
education in a general education direct instruction has perhaps the ment (see “Improving Student
classroom with supplementary richest empirical history in en- Outcomes.”)
aides and services. Many chil- hancing the academic achieve- For students to be successful,
dren, however, have been placed ment of struggling learners. One teachers must teach, engage in re-
in special education programs of the key advantages of direct in- flective examination as it pertains to
without any consideration for struction for low-achieving stu- their teaching practices, make
general class placement as an op- dents is its emphasis on academic changes where necessary, and main-
tion (Weishaar 1997). If it is at all engagement. Research has shown tain high expectations for both
possible that schools can success- that academic achievement is re- themselves and their students.
Kappa Delta Pi Record • Winter 2005 65
Improving Student Appropriate Evaluations battery of tests. Another way
Outcomes Are the evaluations appropriate? teachers can document student
Other than limiting class size, In assessing students’ perfor- progress is by developing portfo-
often little that goes on in many mance, Smith (2004) identified the lios that demonstrate authentic
special education classrooms can following types of evaluations as student work and achievements.
rightfully be called “special” important in special education: These are especially valuable for
(Moody et al. 2000; Vaughn, Moody, 1. Identify and qualify students tracking the process of change
and Schumm 1998; Ysseldyke et al. for special education. and are crucial for continued
1984). The following are instruc- 2. Guide instruction, continu- growth.
tional methods that can be used in ally ensuring that the practices
general classrooms to help stu- Parent and Student
dents with disabilities achieve suc- Participation
cessful outcomes (Heward 2003a): Always include parent and student
• Assess each student’s present participation to ensure shared de-
“IDEA ‘97
levels of performance for the cision making.
purpose of identifying and pri- requires schools IDEA ’97 requires schools to
oritizing instructional targets. collaborate with parents and stu-
to collaborate
• Define and task-analyze the dents with disabilities in the de-
new knowledge or skills to be with parents and sign and implementation of spe-
learned. students with cial education services. Specifi-
• Design instructional materials cally, beginning at age 14, stu-
disabilities in the
and activities so that the stu- dents must be invited to attend
dent has frequent opportuni- the design and and should be encouraged to par-
ties for active response in the ticipate in entire IEP meetings.
implementation
form of both guided and inde- Heward (2003b) recommended
of special
pendent practice. that students with disabilities
• Use mediated scaffolding (i.e., education participate in the IEP process
provide and then fade prompts through self-determination of
services.”
and cues so the student can re- preferences, self-evaluation, and
spond to naturally occurring goal setting. When empowered as
stimuli). active participants in the IEP pro-
• Provide systematic conse- cess, students have an opportu-
quences for student perfor- nity to heighten their indepen-
mance in the form of contingent implemented are effective, so that dence, self-advocacy skills, and
reinforcement, instructional a minimal amount of instructional self-esteem (German et al. 2000).
feedback, and error correction. time is wasted using a tactic that is Moreover, students may be able
• Incorporate fluency-building ineffective or has lost its power for to offer insights and preferences
activities into lessons. an individual child. that are valuable contributions to
• Incorporate strategies for 3. Determine annual or long- their success.
promoting the generalization term gains, possibly through state-
and maintenance of newly wide or district-wide achievement Procedural Safeguards
learned skills (e.g., program tests given to entire classes of stu- Keep important procedural safe-
common stimuli, general case dents, or by assessing progress to- guards in mind.
strategy, contingencies, and ward achieving benchmarks listed IDEA ’97 recommends that
self-management). on IEPs. parents of each student with a dis-
• Conduct direct and frequent Given the range of disabilities ability have the right to the follow-
measurements of student per- and diversity that exists in special ing due process safeguards:
formance and use those data to education, it is important for class- • Be notified and invited to all
inform instructional decision room teachers to use more than meetings held about their
making. one test or type of assessment, or a child’s educational program.
66 Kappa Delta Pi Record • Winter 2005
• Give permission for their child cated with children without dis- German, S. L., J. E. Martin, L. Huber Marshall,
and R. P. Sale. 2000. Promoting self-
to be evaluated and obtain in- abilities to the maximum extent determination: Using Take Action to teach
goal attainment. Career Development for
dependent evaluations. appropriate in the least restrictive Exceptional Individuals 23(spring): 27–38.
• Have access to their child’s environment. For many children Greetnimweo,o edn, gCa.g Re.m 19en91t,. aAn ldo nagciatduedminiacl analysis of
achievement in at-risk vs. non-risk students.
educational records. in special education, this is the Exceptional Children 57(6): 521–35.
• Participate in all decisions general education classroom. The Hallahan, D. P., and J. M. Kauffman. 2003.
Exceptional learners: Introduction to special
about their child’s educational teacher’s role in that setting is education, 9th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Heward, W. L. 2003a. Ten faulty notions about
program, placement, goals, even more significant. Given that teaching and learning that hinder the
effectiveness of special education. Journal of
and objectives. the principles of IDEA ’97 are Special Education 36(4): 186–205.
Heward, W. L. 2003b. Exceptional children: An
• Be guaranteed mediation, due clearly defined by law, educators introduction to special education. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
process, and civil action. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 1997.
20 U.S.C. 1400–87.
Classroom teachers need to
Kauffman, J. M. 1996. Research to practice
recognize the importance of com- issues. Behavioral Disorders 22(1): 55–60.
Landrum, T. J., M. Tankersley, and J. M.
munication and collaboration not Kauffman. 2003. What is special about
special education for students with
only as good practice in educa- emotional or behavioral disorders? Journal
of Special Education 37(3): 148–56.
tion, but also as the key compo- Lane, K. L., F. M. Gresham, and T. E.
“Initiating par- O’Shaughnessy. 2002. Interventions for
nents in procedural safeguards. children with or at risk for emotional and
behavioral disorders. Boston: Allyn and
Teachers must ensure that com- ent communica- Bacon.
Moody, S. W., S. Vaughn, M. T. Hughes, and M.
munication with parents is a
Fischer. 2000. Reading instruction in the
tion even before
natural part of their role as edu- resource room: Set up for failure.
Exceptional Children 66(3): 305–16.
cators. Communication must be a problem occurs Patterson, K. B. 2003. The effects of a group-
oriented contingency—the good behavior
meaningful, timely, honest, game—on the disruptive behavior of
is an investment children with developmental disabilities.
nonjudgmental, confidential, and Ph.D. diss., Kent State University.
in the relation- Salvia, J., and J. E. Ysseldyke. 1988. Assessment in
free of special education jargon. special and remedial education, 4th ed.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Initiating parent communication ship between Sindelar, P. T., C. C. Griffin, S. W. Smith, and A. K.
Watanabe. 1992 Prereferral intervention:
even before a problem occurs is
teachers and Encouraging notes on preliminary findings.
an investment in the relationship Elementary School Journal 92(3): 245–60.
Smith, D. D. 2004. Introduction to special
between teachers and parents. parents.” education: Teaching in an age of opportunity,
5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
When there is ongoing rapport, Tankersley, M. 1995. A group-oriented
contingency management program: A
parents tend to be more support- review of the research on the Good Behavior
Game and implications for teachers.
ive of, and collaborative with, Preventing School Failure 40(1): 19–24.
U.S. Department of Education. 2000. Twenty-
teachers. For students with dis- second annual report to Congress on
implementation of the Individuals with
abilities, communication and col-
Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:
laboration are required for suc- ED.
in general and special education Vaughn, S., S. W. Moody, and J. S. Schumm. 1998.
cessful outcomes. Broken promises: Reading instruction in the
can provide the necessary and ap- resource room. Exceptional Children 64(2):
211–26.
propriate services that will most Wagner, M., J. Blackorby, R. Cameto, and L.
A Teacher’s Role likely lead to successful outcomes NInefwlumenacne.s 1o9n9 3p.o Wstshcahto mola okuetsc ao mdieffse oref nyoceu?th
IDEA ’97 clearly defines edu- not only for children with dis- with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.
cators’ responsibilities with re- abilities, but also their peers, par- Werts, M. G., N. Mamlin, and S. M. Pogoloff.
2002. Knowing what to expect: Introducing
gard to children with disabilities, ents, and teachers that are in- preservice teachers to IEP meetings. Teacher
Education and Special Education 25(4): 413–
including teachers in both spe- volved in this very important pro- 18.
Weishaar, M. 1997. Legal principles important in
cial education and inclusive gen- cess called special education. the preparation of teachers: Making
inclusion work. The Clearing House 70(5):
eral education settings. Many 261–64.
Yell, M. L., and E. Drasgow. 2000. Litigating a free
general education teachers are
References appropriate public education: The Lovaas
limited in their knowledge of spe- hearings and cases. Journal of Special
Barrish, H. H., M. Saunders, and M. M. Wolf. Education 33(4): 205–14.
cial education law and policies, 1969. Good behavior game: Effects of Yell, M. L., and A. Katsiyannis. 2000. Functional
individual contingencies for group behavioral assessment and IDEA ’97: Legal
yet they play an integral role in consequences on disruptive behavior in a and practice considerations. Preventing
classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior School Failure 44(4): 158–62.
educating students with special Analysis 2(summer): 119–24. Ysseldyke, J. E., M. L. Thurlow, C. Mecklenburg,
Eyer, T. L. 1998. Greater expectations: How the and J. Graden. 1984. Opportunity to learn for
needs. IDEA ’97 mandates that 1997 IDEA Amendments raise the basic floor regular and special education students
of opportunity for children with disabilities. during reading instruction. Remedial and
students with disabilities be edu- Education Law Reporter 126(1): 1–19. Special Education 5(1): 29–37.
Kappa Delta Pi Record • Winter 2005 67