# data[].attributes.body
As a future School Administrator it is important that parents, educators, and administrators understand the ethics and legal rights that surround the Special Education Program in Public Schools. As a teacher in a very small district, I was only familiar with the training I received that was mandated by law. I understood how important it was to keep documentation, attend ARDS, follow IEPS and provide the least restrictive environment for my students with special needs. After having the opportunity to interview my current district's Special Education Director regarding a legal issue that arose in our district, I realized that I really did not know how much went in to providing support for our special needs students and their parent, as well as the rights that parents and students have when receiving these supports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Interview with Special Education Director

# data[].attributes.body
In my endeavors to become a school administrator, it is important that I understand the legal and ethical principles that surround our Special Education Program. By law, we are required to follow individualized educational programs for our children with disabilities and be sure to respect parents and students rights within the program. If parents feel that their rights  are being violated or the school is not doing their duty in fulfilling a student's IEP, there can be serious repercussions if the school is found at fault. Because there are so many aspects, laws, and ethics to understand within the Special Education Program, I felt it was in my best interest to interview our District Special Education Director, Mrs. Valerie Dykstra. Mrs. Dykstra has over 20 years of experience within the program and is also married to a Superintendent of schools. When I spoke with Mrs. Dykstra about best practices to ensure the students' needs are being met she shared the following 3 as a starting point.
1. She is sure to complete routine training for staff that are required by law and additional training as she sees fit.
2. It is pertinent to inform parents of their rights. This is done every month.
3. She stresses the importance of documentation to prove that teachers and staff are doing right by the student's IEP. This is so important and often the most difficult for her to obtain. If ever there is a case to arise and there is no documentation, this can get a school in hot water.
An article is linked pertaining to parents feeling that their rights are being violated by the Special Education program in their district. According to Mrs. Dykstra, these are the types of cases that require the most documentation and investigation. "The last thing a small district like ours wants is a lawsuit." Following the appropriate measures, IEPS and providing sufficient documentation is crucial to avoid being the target of unwanted media attention and/or lawsuits. These cases have been known to go all the way to the Supreme court, she shares.

Interview conducted with Mrs. Valerie Dykstra, Special Education Director, Devine ISD.

Article: https://sonomasun.com/2022/02/26/school-board-distracted-from-needs-of-special-ed-students-parents-say/

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 3: Professional Association Resource

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 3: Professional Association Resource

# data[].attributes.body
The Notice of Procedural Safeguards is a booklet that outlines the rights of Students with Disabilities. This resource is given to parents routinely throughout the year, and each time a parent or guardian receives the document, it must be documented. This resource provides the measures that parents can take to file a formal complaint if they feel there is a violation of rights.

TEA. (2021, February). Notice of Procedural Safeguards. Texas Education Agency. https://framework.esc18.net/Documents/Pro_Safeguards_ENG.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
In Indiana, there is a proposed bill that would prohibit schools from requiring parents of special needs students to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement when settling a Special Education Program Dispute.

Parents feel that NDA's isolate them from other parents and the ability to share their stories to find advice and support from other parents with special needs children.

If the bill passes, it will be the first of its kind.

Schools feel that confidentiality is needed in a settlement. Settlements are common in these cases, as due process litigation is very costly and time consuming for both parents and districts.

Gaines, L. V. (2022, January 27). Parents can be silenced in special education settlements. A proposed bill would change that. WFYI Public Media. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/parents-special-education-settlements-legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Karla knew something was wrong. Her daughter still couldn't read by the time she reached the fifth grade.

In early elementary school, Karla's daughter was diagnosed with an auditory processing disorder, among other conditions. Her daughter's school district in northwest Indiana provided her with special education services under an individualized education program, or IEP, intended to help her progress.

But Karla said her daughter had failed to make significant academic gains during her fourth grade year. She was concerned the school was missing something.

Karla paid thousands of dollars to have her daughter evaluated by a neuropsychologist. She scored a 91 on a nonverbal intelligence test, which placed her in the average range. That was nearly 50 points higher than what the school reported from its own IQ testing, which placed her in the extremely low range.

The results validated Karla's suspicion about her daughter's potential.

"My daughter was average. She was smart enough," Karla said. "And the school was not giving her the credit that she needed."

Armed with the independent report, Karla asked school staff to add the neuropsychologist's recommendations to her daughter's IEP at the beginning of her fifth grade year; those additions to help in the classroom included a one-to-one paraprofessional and a specialized reading program, among other requests.

But Karla said school staff refused.

Karla and her husband were desperate to get their daughter the help she needed. They hired an attorney who initiated a request for due process - a complicated legal proceeding intended to resolve disputes between families and schools over special education services. Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, parents can request a due process hearing if they believe the school isn't meeting its legal obligation to provide their student with appropriate services, accommodations or placement.

In Indiana there are about 90 requests for due process every year. Very few of these cases wind up in hearings before an impartial officer who decides the case. Rather most requests result in settlement agreements between schools and families

WFYI spoke with multiple special education attorneys, advocates, parents and experts who say schools frequently request non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements as a condition of a settlement.

It is an approach, a WFYI investigation found, that prevents parents from talking to other parents of children with disabilities about their experience. And it leaves parents in fear that a school district may take legal action against them for a perceived violation of the clause.

That's what happened to Karla.

Her school district agreed to settle the case so long as Karla agreed to an indefinite NDA.

Karla said her attorney tried to negotiate, but the district refused to take it out of her agreement.

WFYI isn't using Karla's full name, identifying her daughter or her school district to both protect her daughter's privacy and because Karla fears retaliation from her school for speaking out.

Karla said the agreement contained services for her child that she believed were imperative to her academic success and development.

"We had to look at the greater good," Karla said about the family's decision to sign the settlement with the NDA. "[My daughter] was already very behind. And the longer we fought, the longer it was going to take and the more she was going to lose."

Karla is one of an unknown number of parents in Indiana who have agreed to an NDA as a condition of their settlement agreement.

The NDA continues to bother Karla. She wants to share her experience with other parents, but she's fearful that doing so could lead the district to come after her for violating the agreement.

"It makes me feel like they still have some sort of power over me, because they can still control what I say about this," Karla said.

Now, proposed legislation in Indiana would bar school districts from requesting parents sign NDAs, confidentiality agreements and non-disparagement clauses as a condition of a special education due process settlement or as part of the resolution of a special education dispute. Advocates of the measure say NDAs harm families of students with disabilities, while opponents say NDAs are a useful litigation strategy, and their elimination could result in more due process requests. The Indiana House has already approved the bill, and it is expected to be considered in the Senate in the coming weeks.

"I think probably every initial settlement agreement that we've received from a school district will include some form of confidentiality in it," said Tom Crishon, legal director for Indiana Disability Rights, an independent state agency and legal organization that represents parents of students with disabilities.

"Oftentimes [NDAs are] even coupled with what's called liquidated damages clauses," Crishon said. "So if there is a perceived violation, it's a set sum of money that the family would owe the school for violating that part of the agreement - which are often confusing and ambiguous."

Rep. Ed Clere (R-New Albany) authored the proposed legislation, House Bill 1107, with help from Crishon and the Arc of Indiana, an advocacy organization for people with disabilities.

Both Clere and Crishon say there's a power imbalance between districts and families in disputes over special education. While schools do not have unlimited resources, they have far more at their disposal than families, Clere said.

"Nondisclosure agreements put families in a terrible position," he said. "They cause families to fear financial consequences for talking about their experiences and that deprives other families of learning from those experiences."

Experts, advocates, parents and school district officials all agree that due process proceedings are extraordinarily stressful, time-consuming and expensive endeavors. It's not uncommon for a family to accrue upwards of $10,000 in legal fees. Additionally, families of children with disabilities often feel alone in their struggle to obtain appropriate services, and Crishon said adding an NDA to their plate increases that sense of isolation.

Clere said the proposed legislation won't force families to speak openly about their experiences, but it gives them the option to if they want.

Additionally, Crishon said NDAs shield schools from accountability.

"We're talking about publicly-funded school districts who are provided funding to give appropriate services to students with disabilities hiding behind confidentiality agreements," he said.

If passed, the legislation could be a one-of-kind law, according to Perry Zirkel, a professor emeritus at Lehigh University who studies special education law. Zirkel said he conducted a search of all state laws and regulations related to special education.

"And I found nothing that was even close to this," he said. "So I think it is a very unusual provision."

A policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures told WFYI a search through state statutes and consultation with the National Center for Learning Disabilities found no examples of this policy in other states.

Support for confidentiality

But not everyone agrees these settlements should be public. Special education administrators from across the state spoke against the measure during a recent House Education Committee hearing. Many feared that the elimination of NDAs would increase the number of due process requests - which they said typically cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per case - and pull staff away from classroom and administrative duties.

Angie Balsley, president of the Indiana Council of Administrators of Special Education, was one of the administrators who testified. In an interview following the hearing, Balsley said she understands that parents want to talk about their children and their experiences in their school districts. But in settlement agreements, Balsley said schools may compromise by offering services that are "above and beyond what they normally would do."

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires schools provide a free, appropriate public education to students with disabilities. Balsley said conflicts arise when parents and schools disagree over what an appropriate education entails.

Balsley is also the executive director of Earlywood Educational Services, and she said she's been involved in multiple settlement agreements - and nearly all included an NDA.

She said school districts may agree to a settlement even if they believe they could win the case in a hearing. That's because the hearings themselves can last a week or longer, require intensive preparation and take staff away from their job duties.

She said the NDA clause is a litigation tool executed in the "spirit of compromise and collaboration." And Balsley worries that allowing parents to publicize their agreements will result in more parents filing for due process as a means to get educational services for their children.

"It's just a general feeling amongst special education directors that you don't want those very specific remedies in that situation to be shared publicly, as we fear that they might [lead] everybody [to feel] that's their way to get that answer for their own child," Balsley said.

She added that every child with a disability needs individualized services; it's not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Balsley said she believes the state should focus more time on promoting alternatives to due process, including mediation and facilitated IEP meetings.

Alexandra Curlin, an Indianapolis-based attorney who represents both parents and school districts in special education disputes, said the NDA portion of the proposed legislation is "at best, unnecessary, and at worst overreaching."

Curlin said attorneys can structure confidentiality agreements that allow families to talk about their experiences without disclosing the terms of their settlement agreements.

"What this legislation teaches me is that the people who wrote this legislation are missing a lot of information about the reality of what special education litigation is," she said.

Unintended consequences

Zirkel, the Lehigh University professor emeritus, said NDAs provide potential advantages to both parents and schools, but he acknowledged that schools likely reap the most benefit from these clauses. In situations where schools agree to pay for a student's costly services, like a placement in a private school or a residential setting, the disclosure of that information could anger taxpayers who think schools are spending too much money on an individual student.

Under IDEA, parents aren't entitled to monetary damages in a due process proceeding, however, they can receive reimbursement for expenses like tuition for private school placements, independent evaluations, and attorneys fees.

"I find in some cases that parent attorneys like these confidentiality clauses ... because part of the agreement is that they're going to get their fees," Zirkel said. "And that ticks off a lot of taxpayers."

He said the legislation could have unintended consequences such as fewer settlements for families.

School attorneys may be more likely to settle with parents if they can keep the details hidden from public view, Zirkel said. If they can't guarantee that the details of these cases won't be publicly shared, then they may be more likely to go to a hearing, in which there are higher costs for both sides.

"There's a cost of time, there's a cost of attorneys, there's a cost of emotions. And there's a cost of this child just sort of waiting to get this whole thing resolved," he said. "And those costs of transactions get even worse once the due process decision is appealed by either side."

Zirkel has studied the outcomes of due process hearings, and he found that independent hearing officers are more likely to side with schools than parents in these cases.

"Districts win the clear majority - it's a sort of two-to-one ratio," he said.

The reason hearing officers frequently side with schools, Zirkel said, is due in part to school administrators' perceived expertise. There's also a power imbalance between districts and parents, especially when parents can't afford to hire an attorney, he said.

Settlement agreements are likely public records

While districts may pressure parents to sign NDAs in a bid to keep these cases underwraps, Zirkel said settlement agreements are likely public records. WFYI spoke with multiple attorneys who agree that these documents are subject to the state's Access to Public Records Act.

Zirkel compares special education dispute resolutions to an iceberg; the only publicly available information about these cases are contained in hearing officer decisions and other court documents - in other words, the tip of the iceberg. Settlement agreements - while they may be public record in theory - are not posted publicly.

"The vast majority of this iceberg is below the water and very few people know what the hell is going on," Zirkel said.

Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt said he believes these agreements are public record and that "95 percent of the time those NDAs are going to be unenforceable as written if they attempt to shield otherwise disclosable public records from disclosure."

Crishon, with Indiana Disability Rights, also said "it's very likely they are public records." But the problem is that parents may not know that these NDAs aren't enforceable, nor do they want to go to court to fight schools on the issue.

"They're probably going to be scared enough not to discuss or share any kind of information, which goes back to, you know, not being able to obtain support or give support to other families who are experiencing similar issues," Crishon said.

The proposed Indiana legislation could offer a unique peek into the issues addressed in settlement agreements; the bill would require schools to send their settlements to the Indiana Department of Education on an annual basis. The department would create and maintain a database that includes the types of issues addressed, either explicitly or implicitly, in these agreements.

A spokesperson for the Indiana Department of Education, Holly Lawson, wrote in an email that, currently, the department does not receive copies of due process settlement agreements and therefore is unaware what's included in these agreements or whether they include an NDA.

'Really frustrating and sad'

It's been several years since Karla, the parent in northwest Indiana, agreed to the settlement with her daughter's school district. Yet, she still lives in fear that her school district might take her family to court.

"What [the school district] could do, should they have reason to pursue, would be absolutely devastating to my family," Karla said. "They still have power."

The good news is Karla's daughter is doing well. While she hasn't caught up to her peers, Karla said she's on the right track, and attributes that improvement to the additional classroom and other services provided under the settlement agreement.

Had she not fought for her daughter's educational rights, Karla said she would have fallen further behind in school, "and she was not going to reach her highest potential that way - she wasn't even going to get close to it."

But she still feels muzzled by the NDA.

"I can't fully support my friends who are special needs parents when I have to be careful about what I say, as far as our whole journey with the school system and how that has gone. And that's really frustrating and sad."

Contact reporter Lee V. Gaines at lgaines@wfyi.org. Follow on Twitter: @LeeVGaines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parents can be silenced in special education settlements. A proposed bill would change that

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Karla knew something was wrong. Her daughter still couldn't read by the time she reached the fifth grade. In early elementary school, Karla's daughter was diagnosed with an auditory processing disorder, among other conditions. Her daughter's school district in northwest Indiana provided her with special education services under an individualized education program, or IEP, intended to help her progress.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 5: Current News Article-- Military Families need timely Services for Children with Special Needs

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 5: Current News Article-- Military Families need timely Services for Children with Special Needs

# data[].attributes.body
In Ohio, military families are reporting having to wait an average of 23 months for their children to receive special education services after being identified as special needs (Jowers, 2021).

The population is unique as the families often move, and some parents even report going without services at some points of their moves (Jowers, 2021).

According to IDEA, schools are to provide "timely access to a free and appropriate public education for those with disabilities" (Jowers, 2021).

Jowers, K. (2022, February 3). Lawmakers vow to fix DoD special needs program for military families. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2022/02/03/military-kids-face-delays-inequities-in-getting-special-education-services/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Military children with special education needs are facing significant delays in getting services they need, according to a new report based on a parent survey.

The delays are systemic and parents are resigned to expecting those delays - findings which are no surprise to special needs families in general, said Jennifer Barnhill, chief operating officer and lead researcher for Partners in Promise, a nonprofit focused on protecting the rights of military children in special education. That organization, along with researchers at Ohio State University, conducted the fall 2021 survey of military and veteran parents of children with diagnosed disabilities.

The overwhelming majority of the 1,156 people who responded were members of active duty families, including 238 active duty service members and 685 active duty spouses, Barnhill said.

On average, parents said they wait 23 months between the time their child's issue is first identified and the time their child receives special education services. That includes waiting for and getting an evaluation of the child, waiting for the eligibility determination, getting the individual plan for services, and receipt of services.

But military moves further exacerbate the issues for these parents, and Barnhill said this survey provides some rare data about that. About 39% of parents surveyed said they went without special education services at some point after a permanent change of station move. Of those, the average delay was 5.75 months.

"Our survey shows that military families are not equipped to fix special education challenges in their communities," said Michelle Norman, executive director and founder of Partners in Promise. "These families are so numb to the systemic timeline delays and inequities in access to an appropriate education that they no longer believe any one group or any one system is able to help them. "

Are school districts violating law?

Many military families reported that school districts aren't providing the minimum amount of support and services required by federal and state laws, according to the report.

Some of the delays "constituted procedural violations" of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the researchers found. The basis of the IDEA is to guarantee timely access to a free and appropriate public education for those with disabilities to help them thrive.

The delays "have become so normalized they have been left largely unexamined," the report stated. "Parents may not even raise an objection because 'it's just the way it is' across all states."

The IDEA requires school districts to hold an initial meeting within 30 days of receiving a new student with an Individualized Education Program, or IEP, which outlines the education, support and services that student needs to thrive. But the researchers noted the law doesn't require that states stick to a specific timeline to establish a new IEP. When a student moves to a new school, that school may accept, reject, or propose changes to the child's previous IEP. Some school districts might require their own evaluation, which means the lengthy process starts over again.

Researchers said the data show military families are resigned to waiting for their children to be able to have access to a free and appropriate public education. "They are resigned to accept the education they are given by a new district because they believe their military status prevents them from pursuing recourse.

"And despite knowing the needs of their children, they are resigned to 'go it alone,' " the report stated, "because they do not believe the systems that are in place to support their children in special education will make a difference."

It's essentially up to parents to navigate the the complicated maze of federal and state laws to advocate for their children and enforce the special education laws themselves, the researchers stated. "Military children are suffering from their parent's (perceived or real) inability to enforce this law. This is not an issue felt by military students alone, but rather one that is simply exacerbated by the highly mobile military lifestyle."

When parents don't believe the law is being followed, and their child isn't receiving the services they need, they can register an unofficial complaint with the school. If the conflict is not resolved there, parents may choose to file a complaint with the state board of education. Only 20% of respondents have filed any level of complaint, according to the survey.

However, of those who didn't file, 74% indicated that they wanted to file. But nearly a fourth of them responded, "I didn't think that filing a claim would help."

While the Department of Defense has a number of programs available to help special needs families, many families may not be aware of the services, the report stated. For example, 76% said they didn't know whether their installation provides military legal assistance for special education concerns. The services have been increasing their legal assistance for special needs families. Only 23% of those who filed a complaint notified a military point of contact at the installation, such as a school liaison officer, or contacted the Military Interstate Children's Compact Commission.

Parents are angry

Many of the parents who responded to the survey were angry, the researchers stated. Parents struggle in their relationships with schools as they try to get services for their children.

One parent wrote, "the emotional and financial stress of having two children with disabilities is indescribable. Parents are in a constant state of worry and angst as if waiting for the other shoe to drop. Nothing with schools is ever easy. We manage and do the best we can, but there's always so much to do, people, providers to follow up with, battles with the schools."

Some families - 35% - said they had paid out of pocket for special education support over the previous year. Of those, 24% paid between $500-$1,000 and 9% paid over $10,000.

As of 2018, there were more than 130,000 individuals enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program, which is mandatory for families with special needs. The program is designed to make sure a family's needs are considered during the military assignment process and to provide support and resources to families. Researchers analyzed the 1,156 responses collected through an online survey distributed in a direct email campaign.

Although this survey is not a random, scientific sampling, this type of tool has been increasingly used by nonprofits to gather information and dig deeper into military families' issues and trends, and can be used in conjunction with other sources, such as the Defense Department's own surveys, said Barnhill. EFMP families represent about 6% of the military family population, she said. The survey sample size is about 0.84% of the EFMP population, which allows researchers to "reliably generalize to the EFMP population," she said.

Among other findings:

♦ 61% of survey respondents reported that their children didn't receive an eligibility determination for special education services from their public school within the 60-day timeframe, from the start of special education evaluations, required by the IDEA.

♦ 43% of the families reported they were either extremely satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their public school experiences; but 35% reported negative experiences.

♦ 85% of the families said that all their eligible children were enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program.

♦ There were no significant differences among the experiences of families in the different branches of service.

♦ 64% of the 740 military spouses who responded said they weren't paid employees; 33% said they were unemployed to care for their child's educational needs. It's not known how the pandemic affected these employment situations.

♦ Families who were informed about the support and services available to them experienced better results in getting that support for their children. But being informed didn't prevent families from experiencing delays and timeline violations.

Recommendations

"We can't do this alone," said Norman. "We need allies that are willing to work together with us on actionable solutions while prioritizing the voices of our exceptional families."

The researchers recommend:

♦ Reducing barriers to advance enrollment for special education children when they move by developing a plan to address the issue across all service branches and for each installation to work with states and local schools.

♦ Educating parents on their rights, the procedures for addressing violations and providing effective support systems.

♦ Standardizing EFMP process and resources across the service branches to lessen the burden placed on special needs families by DoD-controlled systems and programs.

♦ Increasing the input from military special education families to lawmakers and the Department of Education in the EFMP decision-making process. "Representation is vital to develop real solutions that fund and enforce the IDEA," researchers stated.

They noted that the fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act requires new data on special education for military children, including a DoD tracking requirement on special education disputes filed by military members, and a Government Accountability Office study examining, among other things, the effectiveness of special education attorneys and other legal support services for these families.

Karen has covered military families, quality of life and consumer issues for Military Times for more than 30 years, and is co-author of a chapter on media coverage of military families in the book "A Battle Plan for Supporting Military Families." She previously worked for newspapers in Guam, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fla., and Athens, Ga.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Military kids face delays, inequities in getting special education services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Military children with special education needs are facing significant delays in getting services they need, according to a new report based on a parent survey. The delays are systemic and parents are resigned to expecting those delays - findings which are no surprise to special needs families in general, said Jennifer Barnhill, chief operating officer and lead researcher for Partners in Promise, a nonprofit focused on protecting the rights of military children in special education.

# data[].attributes.body
The United States Congress passed the Education of Handicapped Children act in 1975, which since then has evolved to the Individuals with Disabilities Education act we follow today (Do It, 2021).

The law initially made it federal law that public schools had to provide supports for children with disabilities. This law ensures that children with special needs are "granted a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Do It, 2021).

IDEA today

"Ensures that all children with an identified disability receive special education and related services to address their individual needs. Ensures that children with disabilities be prepared for employment and independent living. Ensures that the rights of children with disabilities and their families are protected under the law. Assesses and ensures the efforts of institutions providing services to persons with disabilities. Provides assistance to states, localities, federal agencies, and educational service agencies in providing for the education of children with disabilities" (Do It, 2021).

20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq
Statute and Regulations. (2021, December 8). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/

What is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? | DO-IT. (2021). Do It. https://www.washington.edu/doit/what-individuals-disabilities-education-act#:%7E:text=The%20Individuals%20with%20Disabilities%20Education%20Act%20(IDEA)%20is%20the%20federal,Children%20Act%2C%20passed%20in%201975.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Statute

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law, or statute, authorizing:

1. formula grants to states

2. discretionary grants to state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations

Search IDEA Statute

Sections of the IDEA Statute

The IDEA statute includes four parts:

Part A. General Provisions

Part A outlines IDEA's general provisions, including the purpose of IDEA and the definitions used throughout the statute.

Part B. Assistance for All Children with Disabilities

Part B includes provisions related to formula grants that assist states in providing a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for children with disabilities ages three through 21.

Part C. Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

Part C includes provisions related to formula grants that assist states in providing early intervention services for infants and toddlers birth through age two and their families.

Part D. National Activities to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities

Part D includes provisions related to discretionary grants to support state personnel development, technical assistance and dissemination, technology, and parent-training and information centers.

Complete IDEA Statute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statute and Regulations - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law, or statute, authorizing: formula grants to states discretionary grants to state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations The IDEA statute includes four parts: Part A outlines IDEA's general provisions, including the purpose of IDEA and the definitions used throughout the statute.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 7: Constitutional Law-- 14 Amendment U.S. Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 7: Constitutional Law-- 14 Amendment U.S. Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
The 14th amendment includes the Equal Protection Clause. This states that a "state may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws" (Johnson 2015).

After the Brown v. Board of Education case, discrimination in public schools was against the law. Although the law referred to race, it set the stage for equal public education for all.

Any public school receiving federal funding had to provide a fair and equal education for all.

The Constitution of the United States. (2022, January 19). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution

Johnson, S. F. (2022, January 11).
The 14th Amendment Protects the Right to a Public Education. Concord Law School. https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/constitutional-law/14th-amendment-protects-rights-education/
U.S. Const. amend XIV § 1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--Preamble to the United States Constitution

The Constitution of the United States

All four pages of the document are on permanent display at the National Archives.

The Constitution acted like a colossal merger, uniting a group of states with different interests, laws, and cultures. Under America's first national government, the Articles of Confederation, the states acted together only for specific purposes. The Constitution united its citizens as members of a whole, vesting the power of the union in the people. Without it, the American Experiment might have ended as quickly as it had begun.

Back to Main Page What Does it Say?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Español We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 8: Administrative Law- TAC Student Eligibility

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 8: Administrative Law- TAC Student Eligibility

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Administrative Code follows the many of the rules and regulations of the federal government when it pertains to a fair education for students with disabilities.

Eligibility for services is outlined in the TAC. Some of the qualifications for students to receive special education services are as follows:

Students must be between the ages of 3-21.

Students must have a disability.

Students must receive an evaluation by a licensed professional(TAC § 89.1040).

Some of the eligibility definitions include autism, deaf-blindness, deaf or hard of hearing, emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment and other health impairments as seen fit (TAC § 89.1040)

At any point a parent may refer their child to the Special Education program to receive services, should the child be eligible.

Tex. Admin. Code § 89.1040 (2005)

Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 2 | Texas Education Agency. (2021). TEA. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/laws-and-rules/texas-administrative-code/texas-administrative-code-title-19-part-2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This page contains information about special education rules and regulations.

Special Education Rules and Regulations Side by Side

The purpose of the side by side rules is to help educators, parents, and other stakeholders to better understand the federal regulations, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Texas Education Code (TEC), and the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), which is the Commissioner's and State Board of Education (SBOE) Rules. For more information and a side-by-side view of these rules and regulations please visit Special Education Rules and Regulations (side-by-side).

Federal Regulations - IDEA 2004

IDEA is the collection of federal regulations for special education that ensures a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities that attend public schools. IDEA requires that each public school provide services to eligible special education students in the least restrictive environment (LRE) and in accordance with each student’s individualized education program (IEP). For more information regarding IDEA, please visit:

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)

State Rules Not Required by IDEA or Federal Regulations

As part of their annual state application to receive funding, states must identify any rules, regulations, or policies that are state-imposed, and not required by IDEA or federal regulations. States must also inform local educational agencies (LEAs) in writing of such state-imposed rules, regulations, or policies (20 U.S.C. 1407(a)). For a list of state rules not required by IDEA or federal regulations, please visit State Rules (Not required by IDEA or federal Regulations).

Commissioner's Rules

In Texas, special education rules are established by the SBOE and the Commissioner. SBOE and Commissioner’s Rules are a collaboration of state agency rules compiled and published as the TAC. Special-education-related Commissioner's Rules are found in the TAC, Title 19, Chapter 89. To view the Commissioner Rules currently in effect and guidance related to those rules, please visit Commissioner's Rules, currently in effect.

Additional sections of Commissioner Rules related to Special Education include:

§75.1023. Provisions for Individuals who are Members of Special Populations

§89.1230. Eligible Students with Disabilities

§101.1005. Limited English Proficient Students at the Exit Level

§101.1009. Limited English Proficient Students Who Receive Special Education Services

State Board of Education Rules

See TAC, Title 19, Part II, Chapter 89. Title 19 Part II for special-education-related SBOE rules.

Additional sections of SBOE Rules related to special education include:

§101.1. Scope of Rules

§101.5. Student Testing Requirements

Texas State Law

The TEC includes laws and rules passed by the state legislature. These laws and rules apply to most LEAs that are supported in whole or in part by state tax funds. To view TEC legislation online, you may visit the Texas Constitution and Statutes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education Rules and Regulations | Texas Education Agency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page contains information about special education rules and regulations.

# data[].attributes.body
In the case of Forest Grove School District v. T.A., "the Supreme Court held that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services' when the school is not providing a free appropriate public education (Oyez, 2008)

The school in the case was then ordered to reimburse the family for the financial burden accrued from enrolling the student in a private school to receive the appropriate education for the students needs.

Forest Grove School District v. T.A. 557 U.S. 230 (2009)
Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-305

# data[].attributes.body
At Devine High School, a student can be referred into the special education program by a parent. Upon referral, the student will be evaluated. A referral can happen at any time (DHS Student Handbook, 2022).

Once a referral is made to the appropriate person, the school district has 15 school days to respond (DHS Student Handbook, 2022).

The referral need not be written. By federal law, a school must also take action if the request is made verbally (DHS Student Handbook, 2022).

Parents have rights when it comes to special education, and these need to be followed at all levels.

Devine High School. (2021). Devine High School Student Handbook 2021-2022. http://p12cdn4static.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_436199/File/For%20Parents%20&%20Students/Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct/2021-22/DHS%20Handbook%202021-2022.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 11: Ethical Principle-- Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 11: Ethical Principle-- Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators

# data[].attributes.body
Standard 3.4 in the Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators states "The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation" (19 Tex. Admin. Code § 247.2).

It is an educators duty to provide a safe, meaningful, and equal education to all students, regardless if they have a disability or not.

By following IEPS and attending ARDS, teachers are informed on how best to accommodate special needs students and provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

19 Texas Administrative Code § 247.2 (2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Importance of Special Education Rules and Policies

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 12: Personal Connection to Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 12: Personal Connection to Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
It is important that all students receive a fair and equal education, regardless if they have a disability. It is important that teachers and staff understand the needs of these students and the importance of following individualized educational plans. As a Principal, I want to make sure that all of my staff understands the laws and ethics in working with all students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 13: List of Best Practices and Recommendations for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 13: List of Best Practices and Recommendations for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
In dealing with all students, especially students on individualized educational program, it is crucial that staff maintains appropriate documentation.

Teachers need to receive routine training on how to best teach and support students with special needs. This can include classroom management and best practices for differentiation.

Building relationships with parents and maintaining an open communication can help avoid problems and violations.

The school principal needs to be aware if student needs are being met by being consistent with classroom walkthroughs and teacher feedback.

Familiarize teachers with the special education staff in the district. Teachers should maintain open communication with the special education department and ask for support as needed.

Individual Education Plans must be appropriate, reasonable, and followed with fidelity.