Search results

1 – 10 of over 7000
Book part
Publication date: 15 July 2015

Chris A. Sweigart and Lauren L. Evanovich

There is a concerning disparity between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities in their long-term, postsecondary outcomes. The former group tends…

Abstract

There is a concerning disparity between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities in their long-term, postsecondary outcomes. The former group tends to have a variety of poorer outcomes in important domains of life, such as employment, postsecondary education, independent living, and community participation. Policymakers, scholars, and the general public alike have called attention to this issue, resulting in both legal mandates and research on evidence-based practices in the area of transition services. While the law requires individualized, results-oriented transition services based upon age-appropriate transition assessment and a number of evidence-based transition practices and predictors have been identified, studies of individualized education programs and practices have revealed a significant underuse of best practices in transition assessment and services. In this chapter, we discuss the importance of comprehensive transition assessment as a foundation for setting postsecondary goals and designing services that best fit individual student strengths and needs and best prepare students to be successful in their adult lives. Further, we provide an overview of current recommendations for best practices in planning, conducting, and interpreting transition assessments, and offer suggestions for areas where further research is needed.

Details

Transition of Youth and Young Adults
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78441-933-2

Book part
Publication date: 4 February 2015

Jeremy Erickson and Carol Ann Davis

In the United States, the mandate to provide access to general education curriculum standards for all learners is clear. This chapter provides an overview and a framework…

Abstract

In the United States, the mandate to provide access to general education curriculum standards for all learners is clear. This chapter provides an overview and a framework for making individualized and curriculum choices for learners with low-incidence disabilities and cognitive deficits. Topics covered include reconciling an ecological curriculum model with a standards-based framework and an expanded discussion on embedding individualized learning targets within the ongoing lessons, routines, and activities of inclusive classrooms. Carefully planned and implemented embedded instruction can provide a match between a student’s need for individualized instruction and the everyday practices of inclusive classrooms.

Book part
Publication date: 30 December 2004

Wendy A. Harriott

During the last decade, school districts throughout the United States have implemented inclusion programs utilizing a variety of models. A growing number of school…

Abstract

During the last decade, school districts throughout the United States have implemented inclusion programs utilizing a variety of models. A growing number of school districts are including all students with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities, into general education classrooms (Thousand & Villa, 1990). Although the term inclusion has no legal definition, and has been interpreted by educational professionals in a variety of ways, the concept has been in existence under the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of PL 94-142, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 101-476, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and most recently within PL 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997. According to IDEA (1997), public education agencies are required to ensure that: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [Authority 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)].The concept of inclusion has been defined in various ways within the literature. Catlett and Osher (1994) reviewed policy statements of professional organizations and found at least seven different definitions for inclusion. Currently, in education, inclusion is the term used when students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms for a portion of the school day (Falvey et al., 1995b). The term inclusion is differentiated from mainstreaming. Mainstreaming refers to the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate instructional support (Meyen, 1990). When students are mainstreamed, they are usually prepared prior to placement into general education and are expected to “keep up” with the general classroom expectations (Rogers, 1993). Students with disabilities who are mainstreamed receive the same or nearly the same curriculum as general education students and are expected to “fit” into the general curriculum and classroom. On the other hand, within inclusive programs, the general education teacher is expected to make adaptations to provide a suitable environment for students with disabilities. Within the literature on inclusion, there are a variety of interpretations of the definition of inclusion (e.g. Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Rogers, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1984). For the purposes of this chapter, inclusion is defined as programs in which students with disabilities (with the exception of gifted) are eligible for special education, have an individualized education program (IEP), and receive their education in general education classrooms using different, modified, and/or additional curricula from students without disabilities. This definition of inclusion is similar to “selective inclusion” as described by Zionts (1997). Selective inclusion refers to partial general education class placement of students with disabilities (Zionts). The assumption that this definition is based on is that general education is not always appropriate for every student; some students may benefit by receiving individualized services in addition to general education.

Details

Administering Special Education: In Pursuit of Dignity and Autonomy
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84950-298-6

Book part
Publication date: 2 January 2013

Cynthia G. Simpson, Chad A. Rose and Jeffrey P. Bakken

Students with learning disabilities are a large part of the population of students with disabilities as well as the total student body. In fact, for many students the…

Abstract

Students with learning disabilities are a large part of the population of students with disabilities as well as the total student body. In fact, for many students the general education classroom is where most of these students acquire their content knowledge. This, however, is not the only school placement in which students can receive services. This chapter will describe the historical perspectives regarding placement of students with learning disabilities. Next, it will compare the different instructional settings and interventions that have been effective for these individuals. The impact of the individualized education program will be discussed as well as controversial issues regarding the placement of these students. After reading this chapter readers will have a better understanding of placement issues surrounding students with learning disabilities.

Details

Learning Disabilities: Identification, Assessment, and Instruction of Students with LD
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78190-426-8

Book part
Publication date: 30 December 2004

Kern Alexander and Richard C. Hunter

In the United States, a child with a disability is vested with the statutory right to a free appropriate public education. Public school districts fulfill this right with…

Abstract

In the United States, a child with a disability is vested with the statutory right to a free appropriate public education. Public school districts fulfill this right with an individualized education program designed to address the educational needs of the child. As with all governmental programs designed to extend positive benefits, statutory rights to a free appropriate public education come with attendant and commensurate costs that must be paid by the taxpayer. Rights have costs, and while the rights may be absolute, the remedy to a rights deficiency is subject to political processes. To borrow from Ronald Dworkin’s famous aphorism, costs and politics ultimately trump the right to a free appropriate public education.

Details

Administering Special Education: In Pursuit of Dignity and Autonomy
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84950-298-6

Book part
Publication date: 26 September 2022

Jason C. Travers

Special education for students with severe disabilities depends on advocacy, but for what issues we should advocate is arguable. Prioritizing issues for advocacy also may…

Abstract

Special education for students with severe disabilities depends on advocacy, but for what issues we should advocate is arguable. Prioritizing issues for advocacy also may subject to debate. Some may argue for full inclusion, which is the idea that all children irrespective of impairments or needs should receive all services in general education settings. Full inclusion implies that all decisions about what, how, and where special education is provided must conform to general education contexts. Full inclusion is an absolute imposition and, accordingly, is diametrically opposed to an individualized approach articulated in US special education law. This chapter briefly addresses the incompatibility of inclusion (based on individualization) and full inclusion (based on absolute conformity) for students with severe disabilities, and suggests that special education professionals and leaders should champion meaningful curriculum delivered with effective instruction and behavioral supports. The foundations for this advocacy with and on behalf of students with severe disabilities should be scientific evidence, evidence-based practice, and the continued rights and protections associated with an individualized approach.

Book part
Publication date: 28 April 2021

Jacquelyn Chovanes, Anne O. Papalia, David F. Bateman and Mitchell Yell

This chapter describes possible effects of the 2017 Endrew F. Supreme Court decision that raised the de minimus standard established in 1982 in Board of Education of the

Abstract

This chapter describes possible effects of the 2017 Endrew F. Supreme Court decision that raised the de minimus standard established in 1982 in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley. In Rowley, the court held school districts provided an appropriate education to students with disabilities by demonstrating that students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit. In contrast, the Endrew F. decision requires IEPs to be reasonably calculated to provide progress that is appropriately ambitious in light of the child's circumstances. The implications of Endrew F. in the IEP process are delineated, including the importance of meaningful parent involvement; relevant and current statements of present levels of performance; challenging; ambitious and measurable goals; and frequent, systematic progress monitoring used to inform effective instructional changes that maximize student progress toward IEP goals. Finally, the authors discuss ways that Endrew F. may affect future litigation and that school districts may prepare to avoid possible litigation in the post-Endrew era.

Details

The Next Big Thing in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-80071-749-7

Book part
Publication date: 26 September 2022

Mitchell L. Yell and Angela Tuttle Prince

The essential obligation of special educators under the law known as individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) is to provide a free appropriate public education

Abstract

The essential obligation of special educators under the law known as individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) is to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all students identified as having a disability. A secondary and related obligation is to provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE). To assist a student's individualized education program (IEP) or placement team to determine the setting in which a student will receive a FAPE, the IDEA mandates that school districts have available a continuum of placements (CAP) in which the team will choose the least restrictive and appropriate setting in which the student will receive their special education and related services. Our purpose in this chapter is to explain these requirements and why following the chronological order of determining FAPE and then LRE when developing a student's special education program is critical to meeting the IDEA's programming and placement mandates. We also explain why determining FAPE in the LRE cannot be accomplished without using the CAP.

Book part
Publication date: 12 January 2012

Mitchell L. Yell and Shelley L. Neilsen Gatti

Federal and state laws exert an important influence on the education of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The most important of these laws is the…

Abstract

Federal and state laws exert an important influence on the education of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The most important of these laws is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. States and school districts must adhere to the requirements of IDEA when educating students with disabilities in special education programs. In addition to IDEA, other federal and state laws also affect special education programs for students with EBD. Two other important areas are laws that address (a) supervisory responsibilities of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders and (b) issues of bullying in schools. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and to examine the ways that this and other important laws affect the education of students with EBD and their teachers.

Book part
Publication date: 22 May 2013

Mitchell L. Yell and Michael Rozalski

In this chapter we consider the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act’s (IDEA 2004) provision that requires that students’ special education services in…

Abstract

In this chapter we consider the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act’s (IDEA 2004) provision that requires that students’ special education services in their individualized education programs be based on peer-reviewed research (PRR). We begin by reviewing federal legislation (i.e., Educational Sciences Reform Act, 2002, IDEA 2004; No Child Left Behind Act, 2001; Reading Excellence Act, 1998), which influenced the PRR principle and eventually the PRR language in IDEA. Next, we examine the US Department of Education’s interpretation of PRR in IDEA 2004 and review administrative hearings and court cases that have further clarified the PRR requirement. Finally, we make recommendations for teachers and administrators working to meet the PRR requirement when developing intervention plans for students with disabilities.

Details

Evidence-Based Practices
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78190-429-9

1 – 10 of over 7000