President Bush signed the new federal law – Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act – IDEA’04 (which was IDEA’97) on December 3, 2004.
Son of the critical changes which affect children with disabilities IEP process are:
- Elimination of short term objectives from the IEP. The objectives are only required for children for children who are taking alternative assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards. NCLB limits participation on these assessments to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The IEP team determines if a child is eligible for alternate assessments. Even though short term objectives aren’t required, IDEA’04 does require for a description of how progress toward meeting will be measured and parents can contend that short-term objectives are the answer.
- IEP progress reports. The progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals must be reported, but there is no longer a reference to “the extent to which the progress is sufficient to attain the goal by the end of the year”. Thusly parents may see progress all year only to realize at the end of the year that the progress wasn’t sufficient to meet the goal.
- Transition information in IEP. The amendments clarify that the transition process for a student with a disability now begins at age 16 and is not merely a plan for transition. Parents should request that the student's IEP, when appropriate, include a statement of inter-agency responsibilities and any needed linkages since this language is no longer in the statute.
- IEP attendance and participation. A new section allows IEP team members to be excused from attendance if their area is not being discussed. When this section is read with new provisions allowing alternate means of meeting participation, consolidation of reevaluation meetings and other IEP meetings, and a pilot program authorizing up to 15 states to use multi-year IEPs, the combined effect is a revolution in the traditional IEP meeting.
While written parental consent is required before these actions can occur, parents may find that they are under considerable pressure to provide their consent. At least once a year the parents should be able to get all the members of their child's team in one room, all sharing ideas for the benefit of the child. The
|
potential richness of these conversations can not be anticipated in written reports submitted by excused members and conference calls do not allow for the same flow of ideas.
- Pilot program for multi-year IEPs. The Secretary of Education is authorized to approve proposals from up to 15 states to allow local school districts to offer, with parental consent, a multi-year IEP, not to exceed 3 years. This option will limit parent participation in their child's education by not having a comprehensive annual IEP review, except in certain situations. Also, 3-year IEPs will contain multi-year goals which can be expected to be less specific and harder to measure than annual goals -especially when benchmarks and short-term objectives are no longer required for all but those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Another serious problem is that the required elements under IDEA for these multi-IEPs are not as inclusive as for annual IEPs. This is true with respect to statements on progress reports, accommodations, supplementary aids and services and more. While, the states may include these as required elements in the multi-year IEPs, IDEA does not mandate that they do so. Parents in these states will have to consent to the 3-year IEPs that must be reviewed at natural transition points by the IEP team. Therefore, it will be critical that parents are informed, knowledgeable and well prepared to deal with any pressure that may be put on them.
Pilot program for paperwork reduction. The Secretary of Education is authorized to grant waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements, for a period not to exceed 4 years, to 15 states proposing to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving requirements related to civil rights or the right of a child to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Another significant concern is that "pilot" implies that this is the first step toward expanding these programs beyond the 15 states.
- IEP team transition. Parents of a child transitioning from Part C services (early childhood) to part B services (school-age) can request an invitation to the initial IEP meeting be sent to representatives of the Part C system to assist with a smooth transition of services. This provision doesn't require a Part C representative to attend but it does encourage collaboration.
- Transfers between school districts. Services comparable to those described in the IEP in effect before a child's transfer must be provided by the new school district. These services must continue until the previous IEP is adopted, or a new IEP is developed, adopted and implemented, in the case of a transfer in the same state or until a new IEP is developed, in the case of a transfer outside
 |
the state. This new provision will help parents of transferring students know what they can expect from their new schools. (Adapted from www.pacer.org, translated by HUNE)
Some resources online are:
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
CEC provides a resume of the law, it’s recommendations, and a connection to the law. http://www.cec.sped.org/
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)
NASDSE will soon have a side-by-side comparison of IDEA 97 and the new law available for purchase via their Web site.
http://www.nasdse.org/
Thomas: Legislative Information on the Internet
For the full text of the law (H.R. 1350), go to this Library of Congress Web site and search for H.R. 1350. Choose option 7 (H.R. 1350.ENR), which is the final version.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Wrightslaw Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004
This Web site provides information on changes in the law, as well as some brief explanatory comments.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law
/idea/index.htm
|