The Impact of IDEA 1

The Impact of IDEA on the American Education System

and the Lives of Individuals with Disabilities

Jason Michel

Introduction to Persons with Exceptionalities

November 18, 2016

 The Impact of IDEA 2

Abstract

This paper explores the six major principles of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) and its impact on the education system. Those guidelines hinge mostly on equality for all

students, especially those with disabilities. IDEA also determined what constitutes an appropriate

education, and how educators can tailor their instruction to fit all children. The act ensures the

rights of exceptional children are not breached, and some court cases will be examined that

highlight this struggle. Several provisions have been enacted to give each student an opportunity

to achieve success in their education. Parental rights are also addressed, which become a pivotal

part of the decision making process for individual schools. This paper examines the challenges

faced by todays educators and how they have become equipped to provide for the needs of all

students.
 The Impact of IDEA 3

The Impact of IDEA on the American Education System

and the Lives of Individuals with Disabilities

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act established several major guidelines

which impacted the way exceptional children are educated in todays world. Most of those

principles were designed to ensure equality and appropriate learning amongst all students.

Educators have been tasked with providing a learning environment that benefits children of all

races, cultures, and intellectual ability levels. The law reflects a need to ensure the rights and

privileges of all students are being protected. IDEA exerts a profound influence in every school

building in the country and has changed the roles and responsibilities of educators (Heward,

2013).

Zero Reject

No student with a disability can be denied a public education. All students with

disabilities between the ages of 6 and 17 are guaranteed this right. In terms of extra services for

those younger than 6 or older than 17, the law protects students with special needs from being

discriminated against for such programs. Each individual state is responsible for ensuring these

rights are not being violated. This requirement is called the child find system (Heward, 2013).

These provisions were spurred by the court case Timothy W. v. Rochester (1989) in New

Hampshire. Timothy was denied education by his school district because he was a student with

profound mental retardation, and therefore couldnt benefit from special education. The case

reached the Supreme Court, which eventually ruled that Timothys rights were violated on the

basis that school boards are required to provide special education regardless of the severity of the

disability. This ruling would pour over into other aspects of IDEA, including discriminatory acts.
 The Impact of IDEA 4

Nondiscriminatory Evaluation

An important provision of IDEA was the protection in evaluation procedure (Heward,

2013). It addressed the fact that results cannot be drawn about a students intelligence based on a

single test or factor. When a child is suspected of having a disability, they must be evaluated

with a nondiscriminatory, multi-factored procedure. This ensures that intellectual ability tests

arent biased against any particular race, culture, or language. IDEA acknowledges the

differences students have with regards to types of intelligence. The law creates a fair and

appropriate evaluation procedure which can successfully determine the strengths and weaknesses

of a student with a learning disability. How well students are evaluated largely affects their

chance to receive an appropriate education.

Free Appropriate Public Education

All students, regardless of disability, are entitled to receive a free appropriate public

education (FAPE). For a child with special needs, this begins with the development and

implementation of an Individualized Education Program (IEP). This is designed to meet the

unique needs of every student with a disability (Heward, 2013). A critical point in the IEP is the

childs present levels of performance. This comes from the evaluation process, and sets a

benchmark for learning. The IEP also illustrates annual goals, which are specific, achievable, and

measurable. Special education and services are provided to help the child reach those goals.

Progress must be documented every step along the way.

Another aspect of an appropriate education is accommodating the physical limitations of

a disability. This includes providing transportation if needed, wheelchair access, administering

medication, and many other things. IDEA requires schools to allow access to any services a child
 The Impact of IDEA 5

might need to benefit from special education (Heward, 2013). At the age of 16, a transition plan

must be developed. This aids in postsecondary preparation and allows the student to identify the

skills which will make him or her a successful citizen. The IEP must also explain to what extent

the student will not participate with their classmates who are not disabled. This aspect of the IEP

deals with the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).

Least Restrictive Environment

The LRE portion of the law requires schools to educate students with disabilities with

children without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate (Heward, 2013). Students with

disabilities are to be kept in the general education classrooms unless they can no longer receive

an appropriate education. Special education is used only as a necessity when extra aids and

services are needed. IDEA ensures that placement in special education is clearly justified and

thoroughly explained in the childs IEP. Extracurricular and other nonacademic activities in

which the student will not participate are also written in the IEP. There must be an ongoing effort

from the school district as the child progresses through school to make sure alternative services

are always made available. These requirements of the law are safeguards against letting a student

fall behind their peers, but also create equal opportunities for students with disabilities.

Some aspects of the least restrictive environment can be difficult to interpret. This creates

differing perspectives of the law in each special situation. In the case of Hartmann v. Loudoun

County Board of Education (1997), the federal court ruled that Mark Hartmanns rights within

the LRE were violated. Mark was a child with autism and severe communication deficiencies,

coupled with behavioral issues. Because of this, the district wanted to place him in a classroom

specifically designed for children with autism in another elementary school. The Hartmanns

argued that the Board failed to educate their son with other non-handicapped children to the
 The Impact of IDEA 6

maximum extent appropriate. Despite numerous testimonies from Marks general education

classroom teachers about his lack of progress, the federal court was not swayed. This became a

defining moment regarding the Courts stance on least restrictive environment for students with

disabilities. The case brought to light an issue at the local level, where procedural safeguards

should have protected Marks rights.

Procedural Safeguards

Procedures were put in place by IDEA to protect the rights of students with disabilities

and their parents. Throughout the entire evaluation duration and IEP process, the parents of the

child must be involved. Confidentiality of student records must be maintained, and need to be

available to the parents. This law gives parents a great deal of power to ensure a FAPE is being

given to their child at all times. Along with this, the parents are entitled to request a due process

hearing, as well as an opportunity to resolve the matter through mediation by a third party before

a hearing (Heward, 2013). Most conflicts between parents and school districts can be resolved

without a due process hearing.

William Blackwell and Vivian Blackwell (2015) conducted a study of 258 due process

hearings in Massachusetts over the course of eight years. The study found the most frequent

cause of due process hearings to be the IEP development and implementation, along with

program placements. This demonstrates a significant concern among parents about the accuracy

of IEP placements and maintaining an appropriate education within the LRE. While this study is

a small portion of the overall number of cases across the country, it paints a vivid picture of

parents involvement in decision making through IDEA.

Shared Decision Making

 The Impact of IDEA 7

The parents input and wishes must be considered in determining IEP goals, service

needs, and placement decisions (Heward, 2013). It is important that the school district facilitates

an attitude of open communication with parents of students with disabilities. A pivotal step in the

process is prior written notice. This is meant to inform parents about any actions the school is

proposing to take regarding their childs education. Parents must be given the opportunity to

attend any meeting involving their students evaluation, placement, or IEP. If a child is over the

age of 16, this would also include transition services and postsecondary planning.

The case of Doug C. v. Hawaii (2013) dealt with the crucial role of parent attendance in

IEP meetings. Doug, the father of a student in special education, argued his rights were violated

by not being included in his sons IEP meeting. Despite numerous attempts, Doug and the school

districts IEP team were not able to agree upon a meeting date before the annual IEP deadline.

Rather than missing the deadline, the team chose to meet without him. During the meeting, a

decision was made to place Dougs son in another school. The U.S. District Court reversed the

ruling at the due process hearing, stating that prioritizing a strict deadline of compliance over

parent participation was unreasonable. (page 15) This case set a precedent that every effort must

be made to include parents in the IEP process.

Other Provisions

There are several other equality and FAPE aspects written into the law of IDEA.

Preschool for children age 3 to 5 was extended to include kids with disabilities anytime it is

available to non-disabled students. An incentive program was also developed to aid infants and

toddlers. Many education and human services agencies work together to provide assessment,

physical therapy, speech and language assistance, and counseling.

 The Impact of IDEA 8

With the rapid growth of technology in our world, assistive tools have become more

readily available for students with disabilities. IDEA requires IEP teams to consider whether

assistive technology is required in order for a child to receive a FAPE (Heward, 2013). This

includes communication devices, vision aids, and mobility devices. Steps have also been made

toward adapting instruction and designing curriculum that can include the largest majority of

students. This presents some unique challenges for educators.

Impact on Educators

One of the more recognizable court cases impacting educators was Armstrong v. Kline

(1979). Parents of five students argued their children regressed during breaks in the school year,

and 180 days wasnt sufficient to meet their needs. The court agreed and ordered the schools to

extend the school year for the students. As a result, IDEA requires school districts to extend

school years if an IEP team determines it to be necessary. This could create more working days

and commitments for teachers in those school districts. However, the fact that it benefits the

student should be viewed as a positive.

IEP teams present teachers with an opportunity to be involved in decision making for

students with disabilities. It allows their voice to be heard, which is important given they may

spend a large portion of the day with the student. This also furthers the facilitation of

communication between parent and teacher. When educators are invested in their students, it

creates a strong relationship of trust with the parents. It is crucial for teachers and parents to be

partners in the process, not enemies. Ultimately, teachers must respect the parents wishes and

realize whats best for the student.

 The Impact of IDEA 9

IDEA also contains provisions about disciplining students with disabilities, which can be

controversial. A school cannot seek expulsion or suspension greater than 10 days. The IEP team

must determine whether the behavior is related to the disability, which is called the manifestation

determination (Heward, 2013). If the misconduct is not related to a disability, then the same

discipline other students face must be imposed. In special circumstances, such as the student

possessing a weapon on drugs, immediate action may be taken. These are difficult decisions for

teachers to make. It may not always be apparent what is causing the misconduct, but it must be

dealt with appropriately and in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Inclusion is perhaps the most crucial aspect a teacher faces when it comes to students

with disabilities in the general education classroom. According to the LRE, students with

disabilities must be included to the greatest extent appropriate. This puts a heavy burden on

teachers to ensure all students are educated equally. Students with disabilities deserve an

appropriate education, and teachers can provide that opportunity.

Conclusion

IDEA was brought about to address the issue in society of excluding people who are

different. It has been as much about changing a culture as it has changing the law. Equality and

opportunity are the foundation of public schools in America. It is important that the rights of

every student and their parents are protected. The courts have demonstrated a desire to defend

those rights. It is important that educators do the same.

 The Impact of IDEA 10

References

Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979)

Blackwell, W. & Blackwell, V. (2015). A Longitudinal Study of Special Education Due Process

Hearings in Massachusetts: Issues, Representation, and Student Characteristics. SAGE

Open, 5(1).

Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education, 12-15079 (9th Cir. 2013)

Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 118 F.3d 996 (4th Cir. 1997)

Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.

Timothy W. v. Rochester, 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989)