Special education law is a cycle of ever-changing requirements. Guess what, reauthorization is due again in 2009. For newcomers, the cycle of special ed law is as follows: the law is passed by Congress, OSEP adopts regulations, the states adopt regulations, all of these are interpreted in hearing officer decisions and court opinions. Then just when we are starting to get comfortable (insert comfort joke here), Congress reauthorizes the law with many amendments, OSEP makes new regs ... This cycle is then repeats indefinitely.
I am aware that the whole "economy is crumbling" issue might push reauthorization back a while, but now is the time to start thinking about what changes we might welcome in the special education law. The good part of the "ever-changing" character of the law is that we can ask for changes just like the other players.
So I'm asking you - what would you change in IDEA? I know from the last couple posts that many of you have strong opinions on transition planning and related issues. What else should be changed? I am considering requesting a change in the adversary nature of due process hearings and will continue a previous series of posts on that issue to try to flesh out the alternatives a bit more. Do you agree these changes should be made?
How about the Rowley standard? Should the educational benefit = appropriate standard be changed? Would you have the Congress reverse the other recent high court decisions: Weast (burden of proof in a dp hearing); Murphy (expert witness fees awarded to prevailing parents); Winkleman (parents can represent themselves in federal court on dp hearing appeals).
How about the non-decision in Tom F.; should the Congress specify whether or not a child must attend public school before reimbursement for a unilateral placement is available, and if so for how long? Should attorney's fees be addressed?
How about Response to Intervention - is it working well as a means of identifying specific learning disabilities? Should it be expanded?
How about NCLB as it applies to kids with disabilities: do we like the accountability aspects? how about the high stakes test? What about the school sanctions provisions?
Do you think the role or mission of OSEP should change? What could it do better as the federal agency charged with enforcing the special ed law?
My goal here is to collect some of your responses and present them to Congress. Sure I've got some ideas, but why not flex our muscles. The readership of this blog is growing. I'm quite proud that many different kinds of special ed stakeholders are tuning in. We have won awards and recognition. If there is power in numbers, why not present some of our thoughts as a group? I'll try to be fair in any presentation I make and I'll try to separate out my opinions (and as you know they can be strong) from group opinions or from group lack of consensus. I think that this may be exciting. Please let me know how you would change the special ed laws.
Transition is a big issue. Schools don't have the resources and aren't designed to offer adequate transition services. I'd like to see IDEA authorize federal funds to go to outside agencies to develop transition services that are offered after school hours. For example, an outside agency could hire special education students to work for a few hours after school to rehab old houses, do car repair etc. Students could learn a marketable trade and the fact they would be paid $ would encourage their participation after school hours. Participation could be conditioned on attendance, grades etc. This type of program would be difficult for schools to offer. It would be easier for an outside agency to do so. The new IDEA could set aside some grant money for this kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents are that procedural safeguards have to be fixed. Mediation is a joke if there is no intention to negotiate unless one goes to due process. Also, they must fix the issue related to expert witnesses, meaning if you win at DP, the school picks up the costs, just like with lawyer fees.
ReplyDeleteThanks Buffalodog,
ReplyDeleteI agree that transition is going to be huge.
Thanks for sharing your idea.
Thanks Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your ideas. The procedural safeguards could definitely be improved.
Jim
Jim, A word about arbitration. Arbitration was considered seriously during the 2004 revision of IDEA. It was rejected because it is unlikely to be any faster or cheaper than due process procedure and lacks the procedural protections (including the rights to appeal) that are so important for parents. I have a discussion of the debate in my article on the 2004 IDEIA, which can be accessed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=907134
ReplyDeletecirca footnotes 144-45.
All best, Mark
Response to Intervention has been, and will continue to be, the death knell for: child find; full and individual evaluations; and parent procedural safeguards. Especially in states like Iowa, where RTI is used for eligibility decisions for not just specific learning disabilities, but for all disability categories. Nevermind that RTI, by definition, cannot identify disability, but only (lack of) response to a given intervention. Unfortunately, like many things in special education, ideology has trumped scientific evidence and best practice.
ReplyDeleteThanks Mark,
ReplyDeleteThe appeal issue is huge. I have a couple more posts, at least, in the what process is due series.
Jim Gerl
Benjamin,
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff. Some of our readers seem to think that Response to Intervention is the best thing ever. Others like you are not impressed. RtI is a bit like me: ya love me or ya hate me! I need to be educated more on this issue.How do others feel?
Jim Gerl
Do you think we will see a surge in RTI-based litigation? More specifically, given the broad nature of RTI, do you think we will see cases which challenge the validity of the overall process or the technical adequacy of the tools utilized in the process?
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteI don't know. My best guess is that whenever a new approach becomes the favored approach, there will be some lawsuits from proponents of the new approach. So my guess is yes!
Jim