CONGRESS AND SPED ED laws

[Guest guest]

There was an article on the front page of our paper today which was written about the Sped Ed laws that congress is now done with and that will change and be put through.

I have heard about this for a few years now.

I guess it is now going to happen and soon be implemented.

Can anyone tell me where to find current information and also more about this.

I know most adovacy groups were not in favor of the way it was being written.

I had heard that they can be less tolerant of a child with disabilities and even remove that child from class for exactly what they would remove any other student for. I can not eplain this right now in writing, but perhaps someone else can share what this all is going to mean.

Thanks

in IL

[Guest guest]

This is an article from the New York Times

November 22, 2004

Parts of Special-Ed Bill Would Shift More Power to States and School

Districts

By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - In updating the law governing special education for

the nation's 6.5 million disabled students, Congress has given state and

school officials more power to shape the terms for providing services to

disabled children, paring down rights that advocates for such students had

won during the Clinton administration.

Supporters of the bill said the new law was aimed at reducing costs, red

tape and the adversarial relationship between parents and school districts.

But advocates for disabled children said the bill, which both houses of

Congress passed Friday, would make it harder for dissatisfied parents to sue

to obtain services for their disabled children. For one thing, they will

have to submit to mediation or other meetings to give school officials a

last chance to resolve disputes before the courts may intervene.

And if the courts deem a suit frivolous, or aimed at harassing a school

system, the bill allows school districts to recover legal costs from parents

or their lawyers. Though courts have in the past meted out such penalties on

a case-by-case basis, the threat of huge legal fees will now be written into

the federal law, a victory for school districts that some advocates for

children fear will be used to intimidate parents.

" For parents and children, this bill represents a step backwards, " said

Calvin Luker, a lawyer and founder of Our Children Left Behind, a Web site

for special-education parents that has monitored the Congressional reworking

of the 29-year-old law, known as the Individuals with Disabilities in

Education Act.

" In a sense, we do feel that it's painting lipstick on a pig, " Mr. Luker

added. " It's still taking away rights, making it easier for the school

districts to do what they want to do, and making it more difficult for

parents to protect the rights of their children. "

School officials, however, were pleased to see Congress restoring powers

schools lost in 1997, when Congress last updated the law on special

education.

" They've cleaned up so many things and made the law less adversarial, " said

Bruce Hunter, a lobbyist for the American Association of School

Administrators.

Mr. Hunter said superintendents and principals were glad that parents would

now have to spell out their criticisms precisely before they can sue and

stick to their original charges in seeking redress, making it easier for

school systems to anticipate and contain legal challenges.

The law also gives schools greater latitude to remove disabled children who

misbehave, shifting to parents the burden of proving that a disability

caused disruptive behavior. Previously, it was up to the schools to

demonstrate that the misbehavior was unrelated to the student's medical

condition and to show they had done everything in their power to help the

child.

Mr. Hunter also said the requirements that parents and senior school

officials make a last-ditch effort to resolve complaints before going to

court would " save a ton of dough, and in my judgment, solve problems. "

Despite their unhappiness over the changes, parents and advocates expressed

relief that the final bill abandoned what they saw as the most troubling

proposals in an earlier version approved by the House in April 2003.

That version, which was widely supported by school and state officials,

would have permitted schools to oust disabled children who violated behavior

codes, without considering whether the misbehavior was caused by their

disability. It would also have allowed states to limit reimbursements to

lawyers who win suits for disabled children against school systems.

Instead, the final bill largely followed the more moderate version that won

bipartisan approval in the Senate last May. And given the more conservative

makeup of the House and Senate in the next Congress, groups representing

children in special education said they would have fared worse had Congress

been forced to start rewriting a bill from scratch again next year.

" All the people on the advocate side were protective of current law, " said

Kathleen H. McGinley, deputy executive director for public policy at

National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. " But this is the

best we could do in this environment, and I don't think it's likely we would

do better starting over next year. "

There are some features in the new law that please advocates for the

disabled. One, aimed at reducing the over-identification of

African-Americans for special education, requires the federal government to

better monitor special-education enrollment and investigate racial

disparities. Another creates new demands for states to publicly report on

the academic progress of disabled students.

Elaine , a lawyer based in Houston who represents disabled children,

said that with the growing importance of standardized exams in rating school

performance, schools had tended to exclude disabled students from

accountability systems, instead opting to give them alternative exams that

can be more open to manipulation.

Parents who insist their children take grade-level exams instead find

themselves " quickly outnumbered " in meetings with school officials, she

said, adding, " The parents are looking for something meaningful. "

One of her clients, Kelli D., a 16-year-old in Texas found to have attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder and clinical depression,

was forced out of her neighborhood school after she was accused of buying

antidepressants from another student. Kelli now attends an alternative

school for children who have discipline problems. She says that long before

that, the schools had given up on her, promoting her from one grade to the

next whether or not she advanced academically.

" They pass me and they don't really care, " Kelli said. In school, she said,

her younger brothers learn important things, like how to write in script.

She cannot.

" That's all that really matters to them at school, how to get rid of me, "

she said.

Her parents agreed, saying that Kelli had not brought home homework since

the third grade. " For all practical purposes they just continue to push

Kelli up and move her on, " her father said. " They're not educating her. "

The law also takes aim at the disproportionate share of minority students

tracked for special education. According to the Civil Rights Project at

Harvard University, schools are up to three times more likely to label

African-Americans than whites as mentally retarded, and twice as likely to

label blacks emotionally disturbed.

Nevertheless, the quality of special-education services available to them is

often " grossly inadequate, " said Dan Losen, a legal and policy research

associate at the Civil Rights Project. The project estimates that 60 percent

to 80 percent of young blacks who wind up incarcerated have learning

disabilities.

The strengthened federal role the new law details, which permits Washington

to withhold money from districts that come up short, has infuriated some

state officials. They say Congress, since it first passed the law in 1975,

has consistently failed to sufficiently finance special education.

Shreve, the education lobbyist for the National Conference of State

Legislators, said that when schools or states failed to fulfill their

obligations to educate a disabled child, " you've got to back all the way up

the system and figure out why is the promise broken.''

" Many promises are broken because the resources aren't there to follow

through on the promise, " Mr. Shreve said.

>From: Laha1960@...

>Reply-Autism and Aspergers Treatment

>undisclosed-recipients:;

>Subject: CONGRESS AND SPED ED laws

>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:51:41 EST

>

> There was an article on the front page of our paper today which was

>written

>about the Sped Ed laws that congress is now done with and that will change

>and

>be put through.

>I have heard about this for a few years now.

>

>I guess it is now going to happen and soon be implemented.

>

>Can anyone tell me where to find current information and also more about

>this.

>

>I know most adovacy groups were not in favor of the way it was being

>written.

>

>I had heard that they can be less tolerant of a child with disabilities and

>even remove that child from class for exactly what they would remove any

>other

>student for. I can not eplain this right now in writing, but perhaps

>someone

>else can share what this all is going to mean.

>Thanks

> in IL

[Guest guest]

This is an article from DREDF

All Over But The Shouting

IDEA Rapid Response Network (RRN)

[From the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF).

DREDF

is a long-established disabilities advocacy organization.]

http://www.dredf.org preserveIDEA@...

IDEA was reported out of the conference committee on Wednesday,

November 17, 2004. The House passed the conferenced bill with a vote of

397 - 3 on November 19, and the Senate agreed to it by unanimous

consent on

November 19. The IDEA has been re-authorized.

What Did We Lose And What Did We Gain?

The bill we ended up with looks very much like the Senate bill,

with a

lot of refinements that occurred over the last months and weeks. DREDF

will

do a complete analysis of the law that is emerging and what it means

for our

families and supporters and children, as well as a post-mortem of the

process, in the fullness of time. But we can say now that the voices of

parents and advocates were heard loud and clear, that we DID make a

difference in the outcome, and that, given the political and strategic

circumstances and the situation on the Hill during this reauthorization

process, our hard work and dedication paid off in getting our children

the

best possible bill we could get. Is it perfect or ideal? No. Is it

fully

funded? No. But we need to keep fighting and not be defeated by any

sense of

despair or failure.

We Lost Some Protections.

It remains to be seen how " measurable annual goals " and quarterly

progress reports will work to replace short-term objectives and

benchmarks;

up to 15 states may be granted an opportunity to pilot optional

three-year

IEPs; students who violate school codes will have to remain in an

interim

placement pending an appeal of the manifestation determination (a

hearing

must occur within 20 days).

Yet we also held back ferocious assaults on discipline provisions

and

due process protections, and we prevailed in several key areas, from an

increase in the number of certified special education teachers to

expanded

access to assistive technology to sanctions on states that do not

comply

with the law.

And we retained continued services for students moved to

alternate

placements, attorney fee reimbursements for parents who prevail in due

process hearings, and functional behavior assessments and manifestation

determinations. As we said in RRN #30 on September 30, 2003, there are

also

key improvements in this bill: provisions for alternate assessments,

positive behavioral supports, school to life transitions, assistive

technology, and personnel standards.

In RRN #31, from November 6, 2003, we wrote: " . . . we should

consider

ourselves as having dodged a bullet if we can emerge from conference

with a

bill more closely resembling the Senate's than the House's. " We worked

hard

to dodge that bullet, and we succeeded. A great deal of the credit for

what

we achieved goes to Connie Garner, Senator Kennedy's Disability Policy

Advisor and chief staffer on the HELP Committee for IDEA. A parent

herself,

Connie Garner is a true champion of children's rights, and the parent

and

advocacy communities are indebted to her. We were happy to hear Senator

Kennedy acknowledge her work both in his conference speech and on the

Senate

floor.

What Happens Now?

Everyone's efforts resulted in the bill being better than we

feared,

but not as good as we would have liked. The first thing to say is that

the

voices of parents were raised, we were heard, and we made a difference.

In the main, the principals of IDEA are preserved. The extremely

negative provisions in the House bill have been eliminated, and

parents'

rights remain largely intact. The final bill does contain a few changes

that

are weaker or that can be interpreted to be weaker than current law.

Thus it

is important that parents and advocates have the best strategies to

deal

with these new provisions. Now is the time to disseminate accurate

information about the changes, develop advocacy strategies, and ensure

that

parents of IDEA students are trained in the new 2004 provisions.

Here are some examples:

1. Advocates fought against the early resolution meeting now set

forth

in the bill on the grounds that parents may feel coerced to go to a

meeting

after the filing of a complaint and be intimidated into signing a

legally

binding document under duress. This concern is very real. Parents need

to

know that they can opt out of this meeting if they choose to go to

mediation. Parents must know that they do not have to sign the document

in

the meeting, but should take it home to consider.

2. The new manifestation determination does not specify that a

manifestation will be found if the child's disability impairs the

child's

ability to understand or control the behavior or if the IEP has not

been

appropriately implemented. Under the new language, a manifestation will

be

found any time the conduct was caused by OR had a direct and

substantial

relationship to the child's disability or the failure to implement the

IEP.

We should be arguing that this standard is at least as strong as

current

law. If a child's disability impairs the child's ability to understand

or

control his behavior, it necessarily follows that the conduct was

substantially related to the disability.

3. The attorney fees provision has gotten a lot of attention.

Parents

should know that the reauthorization did no more than incorporate civil

rights attorney fees law that has been established since 1978! In

other

words, don't give in too easily. We can work with the new law! Our

children

have not lost their rights.

>From: Laha1960@...

>Reply-Autism and Aspergers Treatment

>undisclosed-recipients:;

>Subject: CONGRESS AND SPED ED laws

>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:51:41 EST

>

> There was an article on the front page of our paper today which was

>written

>about the Sped Ed laws that congress is now done with and that will change

>and

>be put through.

>I have heard about this for a few years now.

>

>I guess it is now going to happen and soon be implemented.

>

>Can anyone tell me where to find current information and also more about

>this.

>

>I know most adovacy groups were not in favor of the way it was being

>written.

>

>I had heard that they can be less tolerant of a child with disabilities and

>even remove that child from class for exactly what they would remove any

>other

>student for. I can not eplain this right now in writing, but perhaps

>someone

>else can share what this all is going to mean.

>Thanks

> in IL