Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Table of Contents
Bernadette Harris
University of North Florida
Graduate School
I. Introduction
July 2009
II. Brief history of IDEA and Inclusion
III. Federal statutes implicating classrooms
I. Introduction
downtown Jacksonville. Unlike most Catholic schools, our student body consists of a 100%
African American student population of very low SES. The school has been in operation for 88
years, and receives 85% of its funding from charitable donations. Although our student body is
100% African American, only 4 out of 15 faculty members are of that heritage. The principal,
Elise Kennedy, has been at our school for 30 years, 20 of which have been as the principal. She
has completed part, but not all, of her Master’s in Educational Leadership. She attended college
in Florida, and her entire career in education has predominantly been at our school.
Although our school has benefited from state-provided Title I pull-out services for some
of our students for more than a decade, we have just begun accepting students on McKay
scholarships, with I.E.P.’s. Therefore, I decided, with the help of our school superintendent, Pat
Tierney to investigate closely the legal requirements attached to educating students with special
needs, as well as litigation that has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court for schools, teachers
and districts’ negligence in adhering to these requirements. On the following pages, I will
attempt to convey my findings with regard to where I believe some of the “holes” exist in our
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM:
special needs and I.E.P.’s is deciding whether or not our school has the resources to meet their
needs. We do offer minimal pull-out services in small group settings for children who are
struggling to stay at grade level in the classroom, but we do not staff any special education
In my opinion, the problem is larger than just knowing whether or not we can meet the
students’ needs. The basic problem that I have identified in my study is multi-faceted. The
predominant part of the problem is lack of education and training on the part of the schools,
districts and educators. Most ESE students in classrooms in America today are not in self-
contained environments. Instead, IDEA law demands that most ESE students remain in the
Education Plans designed by a child study team. In our school, we do not staff a psychologist,
which is a very integral part of a child study team involved in the evaluation of students with
special needs. Therefore, students coming to us with I.E.P.’s would have to revert to their prior
public school’s child study team to reevaluate and make changes to the I.E.P. annually, based on
recommendations and observations from our school’s teachers and guidance counselor, and the
parents.
This is a minor inconvenience more than a problem. The major problem lies in the fact
that none of our regular education classroom teachers have completed any coursework or
specialized training in working with ESE students. Our university programs did not include
special education courses, which seem very necessary with the demands of inclusion. Teachers
in regular education classrooms have not been taught how to identify special needs, make
guidelines as addressed in student I.E.P.’s. In addition, most have not been informed of the legal
ramifications they face if they are found to have been negligent in following these plans.
PROCEDURE:
1) To begin my study, I read several pieces of literature regarding I.D.E.A. law, including
the various liabilities schools, districts and teachers face with regard to violating or neglecting
their duty under IDEA. In my observations and research, it is my contention that lack of
education and training of regular classroom teachers, as well as school administrators and other
members of a prospective child study team contributes to the overwhelming occurrence of IDEA
noncompliance.
2) After examining literature, my next step was to complete five case briefs regarding
litigation over noncompliance with I.D.E.A. law. The summation of the five cases is described
3) My third step in my study was to attend a child study meeting that involved a student’s
parents who had been requesting the school district to evaluate their child for special services
and implement either a 504 plan or I.E.P. for him, based on his diagnosed A.D.H.D. for
approximately two years. I was able to attend the meeting at the parents’ invitation as an
interested party. During the meeting, I asked the school psychologist several questions to
address why the school had neglected to bring in the child study team, after having the student’s
psychological evaluation from a private physician for 12 months. According to the Florida
constitution, and I.D.E.A., a school has no more than 30 days to bring together the child study
team to design an I.E.P. for a student once their psychological evaluation has been completed. In
addition, I observed several violations of Section 504 and I.D.E.A. during the meeting. For
instance, according to the I.D.E.A. additions of 2004, teachers must attend the I.E.P/ 504
meeting, unless being granted a special exception, which has to go through specific processes.
One teacher out of the six who taught the student this year was present. One attended for five
minutes, and excused herself stating that she didn’t see the need for her to be there and left. The
student’s file was displaced, with part of his psych evaluation in one folder, and the other pages
in a completely different file. The school psychologist, who had worked for Duval County
Public Schools for over 15 years, stated that a 504 Plan and an I.E.P. were identical. This is not
true, as I.E.P.’s fall under exceptional education and carry many more available services for the
student, including the family’s ability to exercise their use of the McKay Scholarship, which the
psychologist claimed to have never heard of, although he has been involved in writing I.E.P.’s in
Duval County for 15 years! At the close of the meeting, a cursory 504 Plan was put into place
and entered into the computer system. Within the first month of the next school year, the child
study team has promised to begin the process for having the student complete the remaining
steps necessary to qualify him for an I.E.P., which will then replace the current 504 Plan.
4) My fourth step in this study is to create a portfolio to present to the University of North
Florida’s Dean of the College of Education, as well as the Chair for curriculum of undergraduate
degrees in education. In this portfolio, I will demonstrate my findings and the need for the
university to revisit its current catalog requirements for graduation with a Bachelor of Arts in
Elementary Education degree. Currently, there is only one course addressing social and
psychological needs of ESE students. This one course is a very recent addition to the core
requisites, as it was not required when I completed my B.A.E. at UNF in 2007. Based on all of
the amendments and additions to I.D.E.A. since 2004, it hardly seems sufficient to only include
one special education course to prepare teachers who will have as much as 30% of their
classroom populated with students with special needs, since we are legally bound to provide the
least restrictive environment for educating special needs students. The determination for most
ESE students of least restrictive environment has been found to be the mainstream regular
throughout the district who are involved with working with ESE students, especially
those required to follow I.E.P.’s and 504 Plans in the classroom. It is my goal to ensure
that all members of our school board and faculty are well versed in the legal liability that
we are under, even though we are a private school district. Unlike most mandates that we
are relieved of under contractual vs. state law, I.D.E.A. law pertains to private as well as
In the interest of taking a look at today’s elementary and secondary classroom through
the best practices and legal lens, this project was commenced with a vision of reform and fine
tuning for the educators of the twenty-first century. Specifically, the area of focus is inclusion
classrooms and what they mean for us as educators, under the guidelines of IDEA law.
At the onset of this project, my expectation was to find a well structured and clearly
defined set of parameters framing the way classrooms implement inclusion with efficiency and
consistency, to ensure they are the facilitators of NCLB, providing the best possible education in
the least restrictive environment for students with special needs. What I found instead were
glaring inconsistencies and patterns of gross negligence, inferior practices bred from lack of
training and professional development, as well as the absence of a well defined model of
bringing to fruition the very tenet upon which IDEA is based. In the pages that follow, it is my
hope to provide a framework for understanding the need for reform and revision within the
education system at all levels if true strides in learning and inclusion are ever to be made, and if
the courts in America are ever to cease being inundated with noncompliance litigation.
My research was conducted at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville, and within
the Duval County school system, under the direct supervision of my professor of public school
law. My contact information is listed below, should you have any further questions or comments
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Amendment was modified most
recently in 1997, and brings with it two very basic educational requirements for students with
disabilities: the child must receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least
restrictive environment. The least restrictive environment is, according to Wright (2006), “the
one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children together with
children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child
were not disabled. The IDEA statute and implementing regulations emphasize the requirement
to educate children with disabilities in regular classes with their nondisabled peers."
The blending of the disabled and nondisabled students into the mainstream classroom, as
As part of the inclusion model, IDEA statutes mandate that Individualized Education
Plans (IEP’s) designed by the school or district’s child study team, must be created and
implemented for each child receiving special education services inside or outside of the
mainstream classroom. The guidelines for the creation, implementation, review and
modification of said IEP’s are clearly defined in IDEA’s statute (Wright, 2006).
each child’s IEP include: A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or
short-term objectives related to--(i) Meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s
disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and (ii)
meeting each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. Thus,
the IEP team for each child with a disability must make an individualized determination
regarding (1) how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and what
needs that result from the child’s disability must be met to facilitate that participation; (2)
whether the child has any other educational needs resulting from his or her disability that also
must be met; and (3) what special education and other services and supports must be described in
the child’s IEP to address both sets of needs (consistent with Sec. 300.347(a)).”
As described in this brief section of the additions to I.D.E.A. brought forth in 1997, the
regular classroom teacher requires significant preparation in identifying needs and monitoring
In the appendix of this portfolio, an in-depth description of the literature review exists,
containing significant evidence of the inferiority of the preparation of the current inclusion
Most of our current university programs preparing educators to enter the mainstream
classroom include only one, if any, required courses in special education, and no coursework in
special education or public education law, rendering graduates unprepared for the duties of IDEA
and inclusion.
CASE LAW
in following any portion of a student’s I.E.P. is grounds for suit at both the state and civil level.
Included in this is the ability for suit for compensatory damages, which can be attached to any or
all of the parties involved! Case law excerpts from my study will demonstrate many instances
where such noncompliance issues made their way to the Supreme Court for resolution, and were
not found in favor of the school boards, districts or individual schools or teachers. In addition, a
school or district can lose its federal funding if they continually are found to be in violation of
I.D.E.A. or Section 504 Americans with Disabilities Act of the Civil Rights Amendment, which
provides for a similar individualized objective plan for students, including accommodations and
modifications, but with less additional ESE services afforded the student.
Under IDEA, one might safely assume that at the district level, little question would exist
as to the legal requirements of providing FAPE to ESE students, with regard to implementing
1515, 24 IDELR 21) the Supreme Court had to intervene on behalf of the Whitehead family,
whose child needed an IEP and despite court injunctions, the district refused to write them! It
was district policy not to create Individual Education Plans for ESE students! That “policy” cost
In the case of Doe V. Withers in West Virginia, a high school teacher blatantly refused to
make accommodations outlined in the student’s IEP, which allowed for the student to receive all
tests orally. Despite many requests and demands by the school’s ESE coordinator, the teacher
continued to refuse to comply. The student’s family received $60,000 in compensatory damages,
$30,000 of which was charged to the teacher. Certainly if this teacher had received adequate
training in his legal expectations with regard to ESE inclusion, he would not have refused to
In Knable V. Bexley, Columbus Ohio No. 96-01159, the Bexley County School Board,
superintendent and school principal were found to be negligent in failing to implement an IEP
for a student with ADHD, ODD and dyslexia. Instead, the school continually pushed for the
removal of the student and his transfer to a school outside their district. Under IDEA, they were
obligated to implement an IEP and provide all necessary services for the student’s academic
success. In the end, the district was required to pay $80 per day for each day the student
continued to receive educational services at a private school the parents eventually transferred
In Reid V. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, the school district committed repeated
violations of IDEA over the course of a four year period. The district initially refused to provide
an evaluation of the student, later refused to retain or create an IEP for the same student despite
his medical diagnosis of multiple disabilities, and later refused to modify the student’s IEP to
accommodate the additional special needs the student was found to have. In addition, a hearings
officer violated the student’s due process rights by making an independent determination with
regard to the student’s continued services. The district was ordered to pay a continual and
needed.
Again, the violation in these cases took place at the district level, which I found to be
consistently alarming. Given the evidence of repeated cases of district negligence, it is fair to
assume that school board representatives and superintendents are either not amply educated as to
their legal obligations under IDEA, or that the systems in place for the evaluation,
recommendation and implementation of student services under IDEA are inefficient and in need
of restructuring.
each child’s IEP include: A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or
short-term objectives related to--(i) Meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s
disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and (ii)
meeting each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. Thus,
the IEP team for each child with a disability must make an individualized determination
regarding (1) how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and what
needs that result from the child’s disability must be met to facilitate that participation; (2)
whether the child has any other educational needs resulting from his or her disability that also
must be met; and (3) what special education and other services and supports must be described in
the child’s IEP to address both sets of needs (consistent with Sec. 300.347(a)).”
delicate procedure requiring highly qualified and specially trained individuals. These are the
school psychologist, guidance counselor, ESE specialist/ standards coach, as well as the
classroom teacher and parents. Two of the members of this team, the parent and the classroom
teacher, however, are not highly qualified in ESE! An alarming citation in the determinations is
“whether the child has any other educational needs.” Determining whether a student requires
more services and has “other” needs is a vague and ongoing process. Can a regular classroom
teacher who has not been trained in special education be expected to be qualified to make that
determination? Whether the teacher is able to determine special needs or not, under IDEA
As Wright has cited, regular classroom teachers require preparation. However, in our
current universities and school systems, they are not receiving it. During my undergraduate
studies at the University of North Florida, I was never introduced to IEP’s or 504 Plans. Special
education coursework was not part of the core curriculum for the B.A.E. program in 2007. Since
then, UNF has added only one special education class to the undergraduate core curriculum.
One course is highly unlikely to adequately prepare teachers to efficiently service students with
initial evaluation for eligibility within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent. After
witnessing the failure to execute this policy at the middle school involved in Andrew’s IEP, it is
safe to say that our schools do not have adequate procedures in place to safeguard the
compliance with this section of the law. Clearly, if a student’s evaluation can be neglected for an
entire school year before being evaluated, the school and district in question ( in this case a
magnet school in Duval County, FL) need to revisit and revise the handling of such paperwork to
According to Wright (2006, p. 26) experts in the field of educating children with
disabilities believe that the majority of children identified with specific learning disabilities “are
victims of poor teaching.” Wright’s experts contend that almost ALL children could learn to
read efficiently, but many do not receive appropriate instruction because teachers are not
adequately prepared to teach them! This statement affirms my contention that a single course in
special education is insufficient to prepare educators to teach ESE students literacy, math, social
and organizational skills. Many students on IEP’s and 504 Plans do not receive any of their
instruction from special education teachers under the current system of inclusion.
Minden, Chen, Schachar, & Ickowicz 2008), approximately 450 ADHD students between the
ages of 7 and 12 were tested using a battery of methods, including parent and teacher interviews,
standardized intelligence tests and psychological testing for learning disabilities. The results
confirmed that the prevalence of mathematical learning disability is present in 20% of children
with ADHD, which is three times the prevalence in the general population. Without specified
strategies for teaching ADHD children with and without math learning disabilities, the regular
education teacher is hardly adequately prepared to provide the best possible education for
children who fit into this population. The most alarming facet of this study is that ADHD
students, along with many others with “minor” disabilities make up the majority of students in
setting. According to Avrimides et al (2000), there was a significant and measurable difference
in the academic progress as well as teacher attitude towards ESE inclusion students between
teachers who had received professional development at the university level in preparing them to
meet IEP requirements and those that did not. Most of the teachers that took part in the study
who had not received adequate education and training in dealing with special needs students had
negative attitudes and predispositions regarding those students, as well as poorer results in
corresponding with their attitudes with respect to concern, indifference and rejection, which
correlated strongly to the degree of disability in the students. A Chi-square analysis of the data
was used to evaluate the level of instructional tolerance and differential expectations according
to the level of student disability. According to Clark (2001), the results confirmed the theory that
students with mild or “hidden” disabilities were “overrepresented” in the teacher rejection
prompt. The results indicated that teachers tend to form different attitudes and expectations of
their inclusion students based on the “obviousness” of their disabilities. Cook contends that,
based on the consistent findings of this study, a preponderance of teachers have ‘given up’ on
students with mild or hidden disabilities, due to lack of expertise in identifying and addressing
these disabilities. An example that comes to mind of a minor or hidden disability is that of
ADHD or SID. These are both sometimes harder to identify and diagnose in students, and
without specific training in instructional strategies to obtain academic success in these students,
many teachers become frustrated and provide minimal teaching to them. Many of these students
come with 504 plans and IEP’s in place; some of which are designed effectively, and many of
which are in need of revision. However, the teacher is not likely to recommend revisions or
additional services for the child if he/she is not trained or educated as to the types of services and
pedagogy that are most effective for these students’ success. Herein we fail as an educational
system, in my opinion, to provide FAPE for these students, making less than adequate
accommodations or modifications, and providing less than acceptable opportunities for them to
My findings with regard to the recurring theme of noncompliance with IDEA litigation
are consistent. In as much as numerous Supreme Court cases have been heard and decided
against multiple school districts and teachers across the United States, a localized system for
The cases listed above represent only a fraction of Supreme Court litigation regarding
noncompliance and negligence with regard to IDEA. As expressed throughout the literature
review presented in the Appendix of this portfolio, there is a profound lack of educator
preparation at the classroom, school, district and school board level in our current system in the
United States. Universities are not adequately preparing teachers and administrators for the
duties and obligations they face under IDEA through current core requirements for these degrees.
Consequently, the teachers in the mainstream classroom who hold primary if not sole
responsibility for educating students with special needs are falling short in providing FAPE for
these students. The training needed to identify special needs, make recommendations for
services, assist in the designing of IEP’s and implementing the necessary modifications and
accommodations to the student’s curriculum is not being provided in our current standard
Within the schools and districts, efficient systems have not been put into place to ensure
that sensitive documentation receives diligent processing, or that students are being evaluated
and IEP’s created within the time constraints outlined by IDEA. Some teachers, schools and
districts are deliberately avoiding conducting the steps required of them in instituting services for
students with special needs. Instead, they are stalling, attempting to remove the students from
their schools, and in many cases completely neglecting the needs of students, even after being
provided with medical and psychological reports, as well as court orders and injunctions.
A. Each state must address in its constitution procedural outlines for school districts to
follow in the evaluation of students with special needs for services. In these procedural
outlines, provisions must be made and consequences for failing to make provisions
clearly defined.
B. Each state university, under the guidance of certified special education specialists, needs
to revise the core curriculum requirements for a Bachelor’s degree in education, as well
effectively prepare graduates for the task of working within the inclusion classroom.
ensure that teacher preparation programs include adequate and sufficient coursework and
C. Each school board must design and implement a stringent Improvement Plan for
compliance with IDEA. The plan must include such components as mandatory
procedures for the handling of student psychological evaluations, the setting up of initial
and follow-up IEP and 504 meetings, monitoring of student progress according to IEP /
504 Plans, and accountability of all interested parties within the school who are involved
D. At the school level, each administrator must appoint a coordinator to monitor and account
for compliance with all IDEA requirements. This monitoring should include frequent
psychological and medical reports and evaluations, time constraints of initial evaluations
requiring special services, and accountability for all school professionals involved in the
E. School and district level professional development for teachers and administrators
already working with students with special needs must be mandated and made available.
Most educators currently working in the system have students with special needs in their
mainstream classrooms and do not have the necessary training or education to properly
implement all modifications and accommodations outlined in student IEP’s and 504
plans.
Capano, L.,Minden, D., Chen, S., Schachar, R.J. & Ickowicz, A.(2008). Mathematical
learning disorder in school-age children with attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 53,6.
Miranda, A., Soriano, M., Fernandez, I., & Melia, A.(2008). Emotional & behavioral problems
of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: impact of age and learning
disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology 31,4.
Wright, P.W.D. & Wright, P.D. (2006). Special Education Law. Hartfield, VA: Harbor
House Law Press.
IEP meeting attended: James Weldon Johnson Middle School Child Study Team
James Weldon Middle School
1840 West 9th Street
Jacksonville, FL 32209