Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs to Ensure Student Progress

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles students with a disability to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The FAPE entitlement is broadly defined in IDEA and the word appropriate in the acronym is not defined in the law. Any existing standards, understandings, and meanings of FAPE are defined primarily by litigation and judicial decisions. The research literature specifically around a meaning of appropriate and a shared meaning of FAPE is non-existent. The lack of a shared meaning of FAPE throughout the special education system creates the opportunity for poor student programming and the potential to instigate conflict. This study uses a constructivist grounded theory approach to answer research questions about: The foundational components of FAPE that contribute to positive educational outcomes for students with disabilities enrolled in public schools; the relationship of the individualized education program to the basic components of FAPE as it relates to appropriateness and its positive impact on student educational outcomes; and, the points of convergence and divergence between parents and school district personnel around the meaning of appropriate. The study proposes that the place to find any existing shared meaning of FAPE, and build on that shared meaning, is in the dynamic between parents and school district personnel currently involved with the public school special education system on a day to day basis. With data collected through mixed methods, semi-structured interviews and survey, the research compares parent and school district personnel perspectives on FAPE and concludes that a foundation exists for the construction in context of a shared meaning of FAPE. Points of convergence around a shared meaning of FAPE include student success, individualization, placement, and engagement with general education and non-disabled peers. The study includes recommendations for policy improvements intended to directly impact FAPE for students with disabilities.

The prevalence of autism has been steadily rising over the previous decades. The diverse ways in which the disorder manifests in students and the free and appropriate public education (FAPE) mandate of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that a student’s individualized education program (IEP) team tailor interventions to meet the unique educational needs of that student. Deciding on the most appropriate evidence-based intervention programs for students with autism can be complex. In fact, a frequent source of litigation is when families and school personnel disagree on the particular programming to be provided to students with autism. Often this litigation involves disagreement over the extent to which services should be based on the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA). The purpose of this article is to review select case law to analyze how courts have ruled on whether schools must provide ABA services to meet FAPE requirement when families request those services, and to extrapolate implications for practice, including guidance to families and school personnel on how to work collaboratively to resolve conflicts surrounding ABA services.

The Individualized Education Program (IEP) is an essential component in providing a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to individuals with disabilities. The 2004 amendments of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have attempted to reduce the paperwork requirements of the IEP, while simultaneously ensuring that the goal of FAPE is met. Furthermore, the legislation attempts to bring the requirements of IDEA and NCLB into better alignment. Legislative changes to the IEP are described, and possible implications are discussed.

Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are an integral part of the school choice movement, following a market-model of education based on autonomy, competition, and choice. However, charter schools are also mandated to adhere to all laws and regulations in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when educating students with disabilities. The education of students with disabilities within the charter school environment can result in policy tensions. This paper will examine the salient issues surrounding special education as it pertains to the state, authorizer, and operator in the areas of transparency, processes, and outcomes.

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students have exhibited deficient language competencies and low academic achievement for over four decades. As a result, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 requires schools to address special language and communication factors through each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). States have responded in a variety of ways with several that supplement their IEPs using a communication plan. This article examined states’ IEP or communication plan templates to identify the format and specificity with which they addressed these requirements. The IDEA language was parsed into distinct items to allow ratings using a Likert-type scale. The analyses performed descriptive, t test, and ANOVA comparisons on the forms posted on states’ website. Those states using a communication plan had significantly higher ratings overall. Kentucky’s form was the most highly rated IEP and identified each required item. Most state IEP forms identified these factors more generally with a majority rated as only minimally specified. Use of a communication plan or IEP form that incorporates IDEA language similar was the most effective strategy. Overt specificity ensures that DHH students’ language and communication needs are being met in the educational environment and facilitates states’ oversight in meeting their educational responsibilities.

Federal special education requirements specify that information districts must gather and review during the process of finding a student eligible for special education and developing a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). The purpose of this tutorial is to describe the federal requirements related to evaluation and assessment and to apply best practices in assessment to those expectations, thereby enhancing teams' ability to identify students' strengths and needs, determine eligibility for services, and create high-quality IEPs. This tutorial includes a detailed review of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) statute and regulations and the U.S. Department of Education guidance related to evaluation, assessment, and IEP development. The tutorial also reflects on an analysis of existing data regarding the identification of students with speech-language impairment in one state and a narrative review of the current literature related to assessment and its role in intervention planning. The results indicate that the IDEA requires rigorous evaluation and assessment practices to determine eligibility (evaluation) and identify students' unique strengths and needs for intervention (assessment). By adhering to these requirements and employing evidence-based assessment practices, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) can be assured that they are gathering accurate and useful information. This information is fundamental to developing an IEP that will support students' acquisition of the knowledge and skills needed to progress in the general curriculum. This tutorial reviews federal requirements related to assessment and links these with best practices in assessment, to facilitate compliance with federal evaluation requirements and IEP development in a manner that meets the needs of all students. SLPs can rely on the IDEA for guidance in completing their special education evaluations and assessments, using this as a framework for employing evidence-based assessment practices.

Students with mathematics learning disability (MLD) are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as outlined by their Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP is a roadmap to enhance in‐school and postschool outcomes for students with a disability. We reviewed IEPs ( n = 89) for secondary students with MLD enrolled in 15 rural independent school districts in the southeast part of the United States. Results suggested secondary students with MLD have needs in (a) calculation; (b) fractions, decimals, and percentages; (c) functional mathematics; (d) reading; and (e) social and behavioral skills based on annual goals written in their IEPs. Yet 70% of the IEPs reviewed included only instruction in the general education setting, without specialized services. IEPs included a variety of accommodations, but few goals facilitated access to grade‐level content or special education services to support specialized instruction to meet goals. Implications for practice, limitations, and future research are discussed.

This study examined the implementation of the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for secondary students with learning disabilities on Guam. The research questions for the study addressed the following areas: (a) perceptions of the definition of LRE, (b) factors influencing the implementation of LRE, and (c) determination of LRE in relation to the national trends and literature. This research utilized the qualitative method of collecting and analyzing data that included interviews and review of written documents. Parents and school personnel from the secondary schools, involved in the implementation of the least restrictive environment, were interviewed to obtain their perception of the definition of LRE and the factors influencing its implementation. The responses of the interviews were triangulated with information from randomly selected Individual Education Programs (IEPs) and placement rates for secondary students with learning disabilities from the 1995–96 to the 1999–2000 school years. A summary of the responses by school personnel to the question related to the definition of LRE resulted in the following: (a) least restrictive environment refers to the needs of the child, (b) least restrictive environment refers to ensuring access to education for the child, (c) least restrictive environment addresses both access to the general education classroom as well as the individual needs of the child, and (d) least restrictive environment refers to the rights of the child to an education. School personnel also identified seven factors as having an influence in its implementation: (a) IDEA requirement of 1997 related to access and progress in the general curriculum, (b) federal policy, (c) DOE structure and educational delivery system, (d) advocacy, (e) due process and litigations, (f) preparation of individuals involved with the implementation of LRE, and (g) values and beliefs. With the parents, the majority of them indicated they were not familiar with the term least restrictive environment. For the parents, the following were identified as having an influence on the implementation of LRE: (a) the distribution of funds, (b) advocacy, (c) due process and litigations, (d) preparation of individuals responsible for the implementation of LRE, and (e) values and beliefs. School personnel and parents identified the administrator and the consulting resource teacher (CRT) as the individuals most influential in ensuring the implementation of LRE. A review of the IEPs for the past five years revealed that students with learning disabilities have been placed in more restrictive settings as

The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) called for an increase in student involvement in individualized education program (IEP) meetings. To determine the extent of student involvement in educational planning, this study observed 109 middle and high school IEP meetings; 90% of the participants completed a postmeeting survey. There were statistically significant differences by role between those present throughout the meetings, and those who participated intermittently. Special education teachers talked 51% of 17,804 observed 10-s intervals, family members 15%, general educators and administrators 9%, support staff 6%, and students 3%. Students seldom exhibited leadership behavior, and scored significantly lower on IEP meeting knowledge questions compared to other meeting participants. The results from this study support research suggesting that students need to be taught effective meeting participation skills to enhance participation by all parties and result in more effective transition IEPs.

This study provides a systematic analysis of published court decisions concerning identification of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The 41 pertinent child find and eligibility court decisions yielded 51 relevant rulings, with the majority being under the IDEA and in favor of school districts (i.e., rejecting eligibility and child find). The most frequent IDEA disability category at issue was other health impairment. Examination of the court opinions revealed three variables that appeared to be notable decisional factors: the presence of comorbid disorders, the results of high-stakes testing, and previous implementation of accommodations and interventions. After the 1999 recognition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the IDEA regulations, the frequency of relevant IDEA rulings and the proportion in favor of parents increased. The authors identify implications for school psychologists and areas of future research.

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderASHA Convention Coverage1 Jan 2005Schools Forum at Convention Draws 400 Marat Moore Marat Moore Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.ACC2.10012005.2 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Members from across the nation shared challenges and brainstormed strategies on more than 40 topics in roundtable discussions at the 2004 Schools Forum. ASHA’s top leaders also addressed the group, announcing the breaking news of reauthorization for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Kathleen Whitmire, ASHA’s director of school services, served as moderator of the forum, held Nov. 18 at the ASHA Convention in Philadelphia. Leadership Reports “Schools are a priority for ASHA,” said President Larry Higdon as he welcomed the crowd. Of the 100,000 ASHA-certified SLPs, 56% are employed in the schools. Higdon outlined the Association’s ongoing program work through the 2004 Focused Initiative on school issues, including advocacy and training related to IDEA and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), ongoing literacy activities, promotion of a workload approach to caseloads, and the 2005 Schools Conference set for July 8–10 in Indianapolis. Celia Hooper, vice president for professional practices in speech-language pathology, listed the outcomes related to schools programs and services, which include: an increased number of states and districts that utilize workload models access to information on IDEA an increased number of states and districts that offer salary supplements for the CCCs support from the State Education Action Team to five targeted states consultations on workload to 25 districts and four states support to 38 districts in 14 states that gained salary supplements In the area of reimbursement, ASHA’s working group on Medicaid supervision developed a technical report and position statement on ASHA-certified SLPs providing supervision to lesser qualified personnel for Medicaid-reimbursed services in the schools. In 2005, ASHA’s focused initiatives include: personnel issues, doctoral shortage, reimbursement, and evidence-based practice. Catherine (Kate) Gottfred, vice president for governmental and social services, updated participants on IDEA reauthorization, the new schools finance committee, training materials and activities related to the No Child Left Behind Act, and the 2005 public policy agenda. President-elect Dolores E. Battle noted the “exciting time we’re in” related to the confluence of IDEA, NCLB, literacy, and workload. She spoke of the importance of accurate assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, and noted the development of new intervention models, evidence-based practice, and the ongoing personnel challenges in the schools. For CLD students, “there are issues beyond bilingualism. We all have a culture,” she said, stressing that children “need a chance to show what they can learn.” Ellen Estomin, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Caseload Size, gave participants more background on the workload analysis approach, noting that training has been offered in more than 40 states using ASHA’s practice documents. ASHA has contacts in 25 districts and four states related to implementation of the workload approach. Former president Nancy Creaghead updated the group on literacy resources and initiatives, including practice documents, the online “ Literacy Gateway,” advocacy with the U.S. Department of Education, and other program activities in the National Office and liaison work with external organizations. Roundtable Discussions Break-out roundtable discussions drew enthusiastic responses and prompted intense discussions of dozens of topics. Those topics included: apraxia, AAC, autism, auditory processing disorder, cleft palate, cochlear implants, collaboration, assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students, fluency, evidence-based practice, literacy, IDEA, Medicaid, NCLB, recruitment of SLPs, rural challenges, salary supplements, severe disabilities, Internet treatment materials, voice disorders, urban challenges, and workload. The discussion on eligibility and dismissal issues drew such a crowd that tables had to be combined. When the discussion turned to funding, facilitator Tom Ehren pointed out that “the most important part of money is not our paycheck, but where the money comes from.” One participant noted, “In lots of schools, there are inconsistencies among SLPs about which students qualify and which don’t. A spectrum is OK, but too many discrepancies are a problem. It sends a mixed message.” Another issue raised in the group related to parents who did not want their children dismissed. Ehren said, “We talk about dismissal from the very beginning, and we celebrate dismissal.” In the roundtable on CLD students, clinicians spoke about the challenges of dealing with multiple languages and parents who juggle jobs and are often transient. One participant said, “Don’t forget about the older kids, the adolescents who are facing more academically complex challenges.” Another participant said that their staff gives parents of young children books in their native language. Other approaches in the group include after-school programs and homework clubs, and finding interpreters in the community to assist clinicians in the schools. President-elect Battle, who acted as facilitator, noted the importance of communication with middle school students. “How do you get that level of conversation with parents to help their kids in middle school?” she asked. “Often they will drop out or end up in the criminal justice system.” The group also addressed the issue of scoring tests, and the need to take the time to do comprehensive assessments. Author Notes managing editor of The ASHA Leader, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 10Issue 1January 2005 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jan 1, 2005 Metrics Downloaded 56 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

COVID-19 has engendered serious challenges with the provision of special education services for youth and young adults incarcerated in U.S. adult correctional facilities. This article describes the recent lawsuit, Charles H. et al. v. District of Columbia et al., which focused on the lack of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) at the Inspiring Youth Program (IYP) school in the Washington DC jail during the pandemic. Following a brief review of relevant components of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2006) regulations, we describe the three areas in which there were violations to the provision of IDEA and FAPE, as well as the harm incurred. Specifically, we discuss the lack of: (a) instruction and monitoring of youth academic progress; (b) related services (i.e., behavioral interventions and supports, counseling); and (c) DC public schools Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) supervision and oversight. Finally, we provide a discussion of the need for compensatory education to remediate harm.

More than half of U.S. speech–language pathologists (SLPs) currently practice in the school setting and 92.6% of SLPs who work in schools provide services focused on children's speech sound production (articulation and/or phonology). This article describes evaluation and eligibility requirements for children with speech sound disorders in the United States focusing on four sources of information: (1) federal requirements, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (2) state and local requirements and guidance, (3) other sources of guidance (e.g., from professional associations), and (4) research. To be eligible to receive services under the IDEA, three conditions must be met: (1) the student has an impairment, (2) that impairment results in an educational impact, and (3) the student requires specially designed instruction to make progress. Civil rights and diversity (cultural, linguistic, and gender) within these contexts also are considered. Case examples are provided to highlight eligibility criteria and to guide SLP practice. The information and examples provided in this article will enable SLPs in the United States to navigate IDEA evaluation and eligibility requirements to ensure children with speech sound disorders who are eligible under the IDEA receive appropriate services.

Beginning with the authorization of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA) in 1970 and continuing with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990, 1997, 2004), federal legislation has been working to meet the needs of all students through specific supports of students with disabilities. Through the many amendments to the law and litigation over the last four decades, disability categories have been added and refined, funding has been provided to states and technical assistance centers, and guidance has been specifically outlined regarding the implementation of services and supports for students with disabilities from birth to age 21. The IDEA contains five parts, or provisions, which outline specifically what is expected of states if they are to receive federal monies and also how the federal government is responsible for supporting research and implementation of best practices. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) are the cornerstone of the IDEA and special education. The IEP demonstrates how students will receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). There have been numerous court cases that have further defined what receiving FAPE in the LRE looks like in practice, but the core tenets remain: Use of evaluation and assessment results to determine students' present levels of academic and functional performance, identification of appropriate accommodations, modification and related services, determination of measurable annual goals, and an outline of the services being provided to the student. All of this information is used to make a placement decision, which must be in the LRE. FAPE and LRE are two of the primary mandates of the IDEA and ensure that students and families are provided the appropriate services at no cost, in the appropriate setting, so that educational progress is ensured for the student. The response by Congress to the growing population of students with disabilities who were not able to access their public education led to the eventual creation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The current 2004 iteration works to ensure that all students, birth to 21, and their families receive the necessary support as they traverse their public education in the United States.

Although parent involvement is a cornerstone of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), few individual parents of children with disabilities participate in civic engagement to voice their suggestions for the next IDEA reauthorization. To address this gap, a civic engagement training was conducted with 95 parents of children with disabilities across four states. At the end of the training, participants completed videotaped testimonials voicing their suggestions for the next IDEA reauthorization. Participant suggestions clustered around three themes: expanding IDEA to address specific concerns; adding text to provide specificity and clarity in IDEA; and implementing the current version of IDEA. Implications for research and policy are discussed.