Search results

The transition services requirement was added to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. Congress included this mandate in the IDEA to ensure that students with disabilities would be prepared for post-school life. The mandate charges school district personnel with planning and implementing transition services as part of special education programming provided to all eligible students with disabilities when they reach age 16 or earlier if required by state law. The purpose of this chapter is to review the legal requirements regarding transition services and the delivery of transition programming to students with disabilities.

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.

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.

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.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, has exerted a profound influence on the education of students with disabilities. In 2004 major changes were made to the IDEA when it was amended in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. The category of disabilities that was most profoundly affected by these changes may have been the category of learning disabilities. In this chapter we (a) review the development and major components of the IDEA, (b) explain the important changes in the 2004 amendments for the education of students with learning disabilities, focusing on two specific requirements, and (c) reflect on possible changes in future amendments to the IDEA.