# data[].attributes.body
My Role: Assistant Principal
Audience: Campus Staff
Topic: ARD Requirements
Reason for Selection: When working with special populations there are many extra precautions and services required that can lead to legal litigation if not addressed properly.

# data[].attributes.body
How do the ARD Requirements impact your work?

The ARD requirements really set the rules and expectations for the Special Education ARD process. ARD requirements are the legal guidelines that dictate many things like time frames, best practices, and resources and contacts needed when unique or questionable situations occur.

Are there legal requirements or compliance issues you regularly monitor or have to be attentive to in this area?

Monitoring placement dates drive students receiving services and eligibility testing before their eligibility expires at the three-year marker. Also, being tentative to newly enrolled students and whether or not they received special services at their previous campus.

Are there any policies or rules you have currently written or revised related to this issue?

Currently working on procedures for special education services at private entities such as church schools, private schools, mental health facilities, and juvenile detention centers that serve special education students. Recently public school special education department has been expected to assist with private entities and their service of special needs students.

Is there current or pending legislation related to this issue?

The new legislation about the public school system expected to be responsible for making sure that special needs students receive appropriate services. Possible new legislation related to special education and COVID 19.

Do court cases and their decision impact your work?

We usually study cases and the decisions to decide how to implement procedures and prevent cases within our own district.

Are there certain student or employee rights that relate to this issue?

There are more rights for the students and parents identified in the ARD requirements.

Can you share a situation related to this issue and how you resolved it?

One of the challenging things to address is compensatory services, were to want more services or feel as if their student did not receive enough service, to address this it is difficult to organize and get because of finding the budget to pay after-hour services since students can not be pulled out of their classes.

Have you attended or provided any trainings recently on this topic?

Due to COVID, the annual 48-hour legal training where lawyers come to present cases and popular points to look for.

How do you stay current on this topic?

To stay current on ARD requirements, there are trainings available and subscribe to TEA, SPED network, follow the LawDog blog, and updates from supervisors.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: National Association of Special Education Teachers: IEP Components. (2018, August 8). Retrieved July 17, 2020, from Naset.org website: https://www.naset.org/index.php?id=3321
Summary: The article covers the different components of an Individual Education Plan (IEP). An IEP focuses on the general education curriculum, extracurricular activities, and non-academic activities. Goal setting and progress on student goals is significant when meeting and discussing a students individual education plan.

‌

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A NASET series that looks at each component of the IEP in depth

Before diving into the specifics of what must be included in an IEP, it's important to consider the "Big Picture" of the IEP-its purposes, how it serves as a blueprint for the child's special education and related services under IDEA, and the scope of activities and settings it covers.
The IEP has two general purposes:
(1) to establish measurable annual goals for the child; and

(2) to state the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services that the public agency will provide to, or on behalf of, the child. When constructing an appropriate educational program for a child with a disability, the IEP team broadly considers the child's involvement and participation in three main areas of school life:

the general education curriculum

extracurricular activities

nonacademic activities

By general education curriculum, we mean the subject matter provided to children without disabilities and the associated skills they are expected to develop and apply. Examples include math, science, history, and language arts.

When we talk about extracurricular activities and nonacademic activities, we're referring to school activities that fall outside the realm of the general curriculum. These are usually voluntary and tend to be more social than academic. They typically involve others of the same age and may be organized and guided by teachers or other school personnel. Examples: yearbook, school newspaper, school sports, school clubs, lunch, recess, band, pep rallies, assemblies, field trips, after-school programs, recreational clubs.

The IEP can be understood as the blueprint, or plan, for the special education experience of a child with a disability across these school environments.

Most special educators have an awareness of what is basically required in a child's IEP. However, the more you understand about each individual part, and especially how they go together to form an action plan for a child's education, the easier it will be to write a well-grounded and effective IEP. Using information from the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, this 11 part series will focus on each specific component of the IEP.

PAST ISSUE OF IEP COMPONENTS SERIES

How is the child currently doing in school? How does the disability affect his or her performance in class? This type of information is captured in the "present levels" statement in the IEP.

Once a child's needs are identified, the IEP team works to develop appropriate goals to address those needs. Annual goal describe what the child is expected to do or learn within a 12-month period.

Benchmarks or Short-Term Objectives
Benchmarks or short-term objectives are required only for children with disabilities who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards. If you're wondering what that means, this article will tell you!

Each child's IEP must also contain a description of how his or her progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when it will be reported to parents. Learn more about how to write this statement in this short article.

The IEP must contain a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child. This article focuses on the first element: a statement of the special education that will be provided for the child.

To help a child with a disability benefit from special education, he or she may also need extra help in one area or another, such as speaking or moving. This additional help is called related services. Find out all about these critical services here.

Supplementary aids and services are intended to improve children's access to learning and their participation across the spectrum of academic, extracurricular, and nonacademic activities and settings. The IEP team must determine what supplementary aids and services a child will need and specify them in the IEP.

The IEP must also include an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and in other school settings and activities. Read how this connects to IDEA's foundational principle of LRE.

IDEA requires that students with disabilities take part in state or districtwide assessments. The IEP team must decide if the student needs accommodations in testing or another type of assessment entirely. In this component of the IEP, the team documents how the student will participate.

When will the child begin to receive services? Where? How often? How long will a "session" last? Pesky details, but important to include in the IEP!

After a child is found eligible for special education and related services, a meeting must be held within 30 days to develop to the IEP. The school system must notify the child's parents of when and where the meeting will take place, so they have the opportunity to attend and participate.

After a child is found eligible for special education and related services, a meeting must be held within 30 days to develop to the IEP. The school system must notify the child's parents of when and where the meeting will take place, so they have the opportunity to attend and participate.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs. The law requires that public schools develop appropriate Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for each child. The IEP is a written plan for educating a child with a disability. The IEP describes the student's specific special education needs as well as any related services, including assistive technology.

The focus of this issue of NASET's IEP Component series was written by the National Dissemination Center for Students with Disabilities (NICHCY). The article will connect you with resources in the employment world. Exploring what these organizations and centers have to offer can be extremely helpful when involved in planning a student's future in this area.

Certain members of the IEP team may be excused from an IEP meeting under specific conditions. These conditions will vary depending on whether or the team member's area of expertise is going to be discussed or modified in the meeting. This issue of NASET's IEP Components series will address the issue of excusal of IEP team members from IEP meetings.

Many different individuals come together to help the student plan for transition. Typically, transition planning is handled by members of the IEP team, with other individuals becoming involved as needed. It's important to involve a variety of people, for they will bring their unique perspectives to the planning table. The team draws upon the expertise of the different members and pools their information to make decisions or recommendations for the student. In addition to the regular players at the IEP table (parents, student, special education and general education teachers, related service providers, administrators, others), when transition is going to be discussed, representatives of outside agencies may be invited, especially those who are well informed about resources and adult services in the community. This issue of NASET's IEP Components series presents a list of four different agencies to consider, plus the ever-useful "Other" category. Each is discussed in some detail throughout this article.

NSTTAC is the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, an OSEP-funded project whose expertise is secondary transition. As part of its work, NSTTAC has developed extensive training materials to help states collect data about the transition services they provide to youth with disabilities. Those materials are also useful for our purpose here, which is to look closely at the type of transition information to include in a student's IEP. NSTTAC's materials include a checklist of questions to ask, which are adapted here for use by IEP teams as they plan a student's transition services and craft statements to include in the student's IEP. This issue of NASET's IEP Components series will present a checklist of questions to ask for IEP Teams as they plan a student's transition. NASET would like to thank the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center for their permission to use its materials for this publication.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series was written by Dr. John Nikolaros. The paper specifies critical measures required by the Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students with special needs. The author explains and offers successful strategies in special education. The specific benchmarks that are examined consist of the process leading up the Individual Education Program (IEP) meeting, the impact of the special education chair, and the least restrictive environment (LRE). The purpose of this paper is to inform the audience of practices in special education that lead to consistency and successful implementation.

This issue of IEP Component Series was written by Catherine C. George, Ph.D. and Sharon A. Lynch, Ph.D. The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act included substantial changes related to Individual Education Programs. These changes require school personnel to provide students with disabilities greater access to the general curriculum. Multidisciplinary teams must implement these changes when developing and measuring a student's IEP. This article highlights some of these changes and offers practical recommendations to assist educators in the IEP development process. Specifically, the present article provides a working guidance document for developing a quality statement of a student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance that leads to individualized benchmarks and goals. Additionally, the authors provide several recommendations regarding methods which can be used to measure student progress on a variety of benchmarks and goals.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series was written by Olga M. Torguet from Florida International University. Her article focuses on the barriers to full participation in the IEP Process. To advocate for their children and make informed educational decisions, parents must be able to understand the information presented at Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997 legally mandated that students 14 and older be invited to participate in IEP meetings. As a means to better understand parents' and students' passive participation during these meetings, I analyzed current literature related to barriers that inhibit their full participation in the IEP process. Two studies were identified related to the readability of Procedural Safeguard documents provided by states department of education. Eight published articles were dissected to identify the reasons for the inactive involvement of parents and students. Overall arguments that emerged repeatedly across all articles concerned the inability to advocate due to the high readability level of parents' rights documents, jargon utilized in meetings, and lack of understanding of system procedures and policies.

This issue of IEP Component series was written by Arnold Chee Keong, CHUA, MEd/BCSE. Young children with developmental disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder, global developmental delay, cerebral palsy, and Down syndrome is on the rise in Singapore. Children diagnosed with such disabilities at the age of three years or below will undergo an early intervention program to prevent or minimize developmental delays. Teachers in the early intervention sector require to develop an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), a written statement of the educational program designed to meet a child's individual needs. Every child who receives special education services must have an IEP. Educators working with children of various disabilities need to consider several factors in the formulation of an appropriate IEP. Using the proposed S.M.A.R.T. framework, this paper discusses five key elements of designing an IEP (S: Specificity, M: Meaningful, A: Appropriateness, R: Routine-based, and T: Transferability) which educators can adopt so as to improve the quality of written IEP goals and objectives. It is hope with this framework, the child's learning can promote engagement, social interaction, and finally independence.

Adolescence is a time for dreaming-for youth to imagine and set a course for the future. High school students naturally spend time imagining the future-if and where to continue their education, to find a job or pursue a career, to move away from home, or to start a family. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes a process to help youth with disabilities turn their dreams into reality. This issue of NASET's IEP Component series comes from a Parent Brief from the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition and was written by Ceci Shapland, Co-Director of the Healthy & Ready to Work National Center. It provides information on the benefits of and strategies for including health in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series was written by the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability and discusses career planning and vocational assessment for transition-age youth. Many youth with disabilities have not had the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers in terms of exposure to career preparation options. In the past, the career planning process for youth with disabilities often did not reflect the values of choice and self-determination. Many youth with disabilities were relegated to passive roles in their own career planning process. As a result, many youth have not had the opportunity to pursue career options that they found motivating and satisfying.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series was written by Jay Gottlieb, Ph.D., Mark Alter, Ph.D., and Marc A. Gottlieb, Esq. Why, forty years after passage of the original Education for All Handicapped Act of 1975 (the predecessor legislation to IDEA), is there is still no agreed-upon operational heuristic for defining the least restrictive environment? As with so many aspects of public education, the answer is complex. Schools are ultimately responsible for identifying the LRE, but they are buffeted by many external and internal influences that affect the quality and quantity of education IEP students receive. Even in the absence of internal or external influences, substantial variability in LRE implementation is to be anticipated; in fact, it is desirable. The underlying rationale of the federal special education law is that each student is unique and requires a tailored program. The potential wealth of services and placements recommended on an IEP define an appropriate education, and they should be different for each person.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series was written by Dr. Heidi D'Ambrosio and Ms. Lora Reese. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) coupled with the Free Appropriate Education Act (FAPE) mandates the honoring of student rights to have complete access to curriculum and communication with zero rejection. Despite the legal demands of these two great Acts, some children are still being left behind. The purpose of this article is to bring attention to just one of many cases where the rights of a student with autism, a prevalent diagnosis, was denied his due entitlement to reach full academic and social potential. The United States Supreme Court has adjudicated cases as recently as Spring 2017. A case law review was conducted to offer insight into the world of school litigation and legislation as it relates to achievement, accountability, parental involvement, and special and remedial education reform policies and practices.

In this issue of NASET's IEP Component series, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) lists five special factors that the IEP team must consider in the development, review, and revision of each child's IEP. Read IDEA's exact words. The importance of these special factors in the education of children with disabilities and the need for individualized consideration of these factors in IEP development and revision cannot be underestimated. The special factors are: (1) Behavior; (2) Limited English proficiency; (3) Blindness or visual impairment; (4) Communication needs/Deafness; and (5) Assistive technology. This edition of NASET's IEP Components series will provide you updated information and resources regarding special factors in IEP development.

In this issue of NASET's IEP Component series, Operating on the premise that the student with a disability-who is the focus of all this discussion and planning- may have something vital to contribute to planning his or her educational program and future, IDEA clearly provides for the child's inclusion in, and participation on, the IEP Team whenever appropriate.

In this issue of NASET's IEP Component series, A significant aspect of IDEIA's requirements relates to including transition-related goals and statements in the IEPs of students preparing for life after high school. Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, and updated annually, thereafter, the IEP must include appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and the transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. This issue of NASET's IEP Components series comes from The Center for Parent Information and Resources (CPIR) and takes a much closer look at the kind of information that might need to be included in a student's IEP as part of transition planning.

In this issue of NASET's IEP Component series, Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, and updated annually, thereafter, the IEP must include appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and the transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals. This issue of NASET's IEP Components series is designed to connect you with basic information about transition planning. We've included articles, guides, and online trainings designed for specific audiences, because we all process and use information from the vantage point of why we want to know and what we're going to do with the info.

Assistive technology enables children with disabilities to participate more fully in all aspects of life (home, school, and community) and helps them access their right to a ?free appropriate, public education? in the ?least restrictive environment?. The IEP team must determine whether an individual child needs an assistive technology device or service, and if so, the nature and extent to be provided. This issue of NASET's IEP Component series comes from the Center for Parent Information & Resources. The checklist provided is designed to help IEP teams consider the needs of students with disabilities for assistive technology. It was adapted from the Nebraska Department of Education's Nebraska IEP Technical Assistance Guide (1998, September).

This issue of NASET's IEP Components series was written by Rebecca Fields. The article focuses on collaborating with parents through the transitioning stages of an IEP. Transitioning from one stage of life to another can be tedious. More-so tedious when considering a student with disabilities (SWD). One can imagine the hesitation, frustration and fear that conjures from the anticipation of the unknown for both the parent and the SWD. Specifically, transitioning from high school to the next step in life can be a nerve wrecking experience for most parents to SWD. For this reason, it is plausible to assume that being a well-informed parent is critical for the success of the student in many ways. By creating a culture of open communication and providing resources for both the parent and student, it is possible to establish a sense of ease in relation to transition. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the effects that parental involvement has on SWD and their transitioning stage into post-school settings. It is a product of five articles that examine transition planning, family involvement, and parental collaborations.

Developing appropriate Individual Education Program (IEP) academic goals can be a daunting task for IEP teams when considering that many special education students perform below grade level. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, student IEPs must be aligned with grade-level standards. A recent study that focused on identifying how teachers were navigating the potentially competing demands of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Language Arts expectations and best practices for students with mild to moderate disabilities raised some potential concerns regarding IEP compliance in regards to academic goal development. This issue of NASET's IEP Component series will present those findings and provide implications for future practice, and research.

This issue of NASET's IEP Components series was written by Jessica Ramos. The Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) mandates parents' participation in planning the Individual Education Program (IEP). This review of the literature examines parents' experiences during the IEP meeting and the capacity in which parents are included. Additionally, the literature analyzes the barriers and limitations parents encounter due to culturally and linguistically diversity (CLD). According to the research, CLD parents of are less likely to feel fully involved in the IEP process due to bureaucratic procedures, legal jargon and verbal and nonverbal barriers. Research suggests, empathy along with formalizing relationships are key components in delivering an effective partnership between parents and educators in creating a quality IEP for students with disabilities.

By Ricki Sabia, Martha L. Thurlow, and Sheryl S. Lazarus Source: Sabia, R., Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. S. (2020, January). Developing IEPs that support inclusive education for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (Brief #3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, TIES Center. This issue of NASET's IEP Component series comes from the TIES Center. The IEP team must consider the general education classroom in the student's home school first before considering a more restrictive placement such as a special education class. The goal for the IEP team is to determine the least restrictive environment in which the student can be educated satisfactorily. It should be difficult to overcome the presumption that students should be educated in the general education classroom. Simply being behind peers in progress in the curriculum is not a reason to move a student to a more restrictive setting. "Restrictiveness" in LRE decisions relates to the amount of time spent with nondisabled students in the general education classroom or other general education environments (e.g., study hall). That is why the general education classroom is considered less restrictive than a special education classroom. The type of support a student may need, such as an aide in the general education classroom, does not make the setting more restrictive. Similarly, "LRE requirements apply to transition services, including employment-related transition services, and apply equally to the employment portion of the student's program and placement." There are many resources available for parents, but not all focus specifically on ensuring that the IEP is written in a way that supports inclusion in the general education curriculum and classroom. The purpose of this issue of NASET's IEP Component series is to identify specific ways in which the IEP can be written to support inclusion.

As part of a student's transition planning for life after high school, the student and the other members of his or her IEP team will probably consider the possibility of more education or training. In keeping with the options specifically mentioned in IDEA, the discussion of education/training after high school may focus on: (1) postsecondary education at a college, university, or community college; (2 ) vocational education to learn a trade or specific job skill; or (3) continuing and adult education. This edition of NASET's IEP Component series comes from the Center for Parent Information and Resources and will connect you with organizations and articles that can help tackle the education/training question during transition planning.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series was written by Elizabeth M. Vasquez. Parents and guardians of students with disabilities play a fundamental role in their child's education. They play the advocate for their students in a room full of professionals. They are a piece of the puzzle that creates an Individualized Education Plan for their student. Their involvement in education allegedly is cohesive with the educators, psychologists, therapists and administrators. But there is a lack of parameters in effective parent involvement and engagement practices. The Individuals with Disability Education Act states clearly that parent participation needs to be ensured in their student's education, but there are no clear criteria. This leaves the idea of parent involvement for either parties, educators and/or parents, left up to their perception or understanding. With no guidelines parent involvement remains inconsistent, leaving those culturally or linguistically diverse less involved and uninformed.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series comes from the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials, otherwise known as the AEM Center. It provides excellent guiding questions for those involved in writing a student's IEP. It begins by answering such basics as: What are accessible educational materials and technologies?; Why is it important for IEP teams to consider whether a student needs them in order to access the general curriculum? What does IDEA require? Where in the IEP should certain AEM-related information be included-and how? (Great examples!) The brief looks at key parts of the IEP where AEM-information can be and needs to be inserted, given the student's particular AEM needs.

The U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has received requests from a diverse group of stakeholders asking that the Department issue new guidance interpreting requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in light of the many challenges of the COVID?19 pandemic and as more schools and programs are returning to in-person services. Topics include meeting timelines, ensuring implementation of initial evaluation and reevaluation procedures, determining eligibility for special education and related services, and providing the full array of special education and related services that children with disabilities need in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In addition, stakeholders have inquired about the implications of delayed evaluations and early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families served under IDEA Part C. This issue of NASET's IEP Component series highlights certain Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements related to the development and implementation of individualized education programs (IEPs) and other information that state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs), regular and special education teachers, related services providers, and parents should consider.

This issue of NASET's IEP Component series offers our readers the opportunity to view a webinar from the U.S. Department of Education. Content is focused explicitly and in detail on the development and implementation of IEPs as students return to school. Revisions to a student's IEP may be crucial, given changes that may have occurred in the social, emotional, mental, and behavioral well-being of the child during the pandemic. Students may need to reevaluated to determine what their current needs are, so these can be addressed in their IEPs. Much discussion centered around compensatory services: what they are, when and how schools should determine whether a student needs such services, and more.

This issue of NASET's IEP Components series comes from the Center for Parent Information and Resources. It will help you when it comes time to help students plan for transition to life after high school and especially to write an IEP that will: capture the student's postsecondary goals in concrete, measurable terms; write corresponding IEP goals to support and prepare the student to achieve the postsecondary goals after leaving high school; reflect the IEP team's decisions about the transition services the student needs (including what the student will study while still in high school) in order to achieve the postsecondary goals. Transition planning is complicated and involved. There are so many dimensions of adulthood to consider! That's why, for students with disabilities, planning ahead is critical. The more significant the disability is, the more imperative it is to prepare, plan, specify, investigate, coordinate, and support. Adulthood's coming.

This issue of NASET's IEP Components series comes from the Fall 2022 edition of JAASEP. It was written by Michael Dunn, Ph.D. and Mary Rice, Ph.D. This study investigated special educators' perspectives about an online toolkit that offers teachers example goals and objectives statements to use in service plans for students with special educational needs as well as teaching strategies and assessments. Special education teachers in a large school district in a Pacific Northwestern state answered a short survey (n=19). Some respondents also participated in group interviews (n=6). The research questions were: what are special education personnel's perspectives about the online toolkit materials for writing goals and objectives for children with special educational needs; and, what do special education personnel perceive to be online toolkit's limitations as well as weaknesses? Results indicated that the participants preferred to use the online toolkit for identifying initial ideas for goals and objectives statements in the disability service plans. However, the teachers desired more professional learning and collegial dialogue to learn about instruction, strategies, and assessment tools. The authors also discuss implications and suggested next steps for online tools in professional learning for teachers.

This issue of NASET's IEP Components series was written by Buruuj Tunsill, Ed.S. A global pandemic placed a strain on many educators across the world, educators and students alike had to suddenly switch to a different mode of education--online learning. Online learning is when students receive instruction through synchronous or asynchronous interactions via the internet (Rice & Carter, 2015). Without professional training, educators were expected to deliver all lessons virtually to all students, which includes students with disabilities. Prior to the pandemic, educators have had difficulties implementing individualized education plans for students with disabilities. The research identifies key issues that impact educators who teach culturally and linguistically diverse students via online learning and provide recommendations for how special educators and other practitioners can better serve culturally and linguistically diverse students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Thought fictitious scenarios incorporating Yessenia and Shawn, issues that may negatively influence online learning experiences will be examined to determine the best approaches to resolving the issues in an online learning setting. There were four identified factors that can contribute to culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities online success and proper implementation of their rep: Collaborate with families, build relationship with student, familiarize yourself with students' IEP and exceptionalities, and professional development for online teaching.

Transition planning is complicated and involved. There are so many dimensions of adulthood to consider! That's why, for students with disabilities, planning ahead is critical. The more significant the disability is, the more imperative it is to prepare, plan, specify, investigate, coordinate, and support. This issue of NASET's IEP Component Series will address transition goals in the IEP. It will help you when it comes time to help students plan for transition to life after high school and especially to write an IEP that will: capture the student's postsecondary goals in concrete, measurable terms; write corresponding IEP goals to support and prepare the student to achieve the postsecondary goals after leaving high school; and reflect the IEP team's decisions about the transition services the student needs (including what the student will study while still in high school) in order to achieve the postsecondary goals.

This issue of NASET's IEP Components Series was written by Lydia K. Mallah. Parents' involvement in their children's education is paramount to their children's successful learning and behavior outcomes in schools. As the school-age population continues to grow with students from diverse races and ethnicities, parents face the challenge of smoothly collaborating with schools and teachers to support their children. The CLD families of children with disabilities who are served with IEPs under the IDEA face more barriers and feel marginalized in implementing their legal rights in IEP meetings where decisions are made about their children with disabilities education or behavioral support. This review presents current trends in the growing population of various races and ethnicities and impacts on education, CLD families' experiences in IEP meetings, challenges, and recommendations that teachers can use to improve their collaboration with families and their experiences and participation in the IEP process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Association of Special Education Teachers-national membership org for teachers, professors, and college students involved in special education

# data[].attributes.body
Link: https://www.educationdive.com/news/supporting-special-needs-students-during-remote-iep-meetings-learning/581460/
Citation: Barack, L. (2020, July 15). Supporting special needs students during remote IEP meetings, learning. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from Education Dive website: https://www.educationdive.com/news/supporting-special-needs-students-during-remote-iep-meetings-learning/581460/

‌Summary: The article discusses ARD/IEP meetings during remote learning platforms being utilized.

Send materials home for parents and students to review prior to the meeting

Encourage the use of cameras

Ensure that students are getting what they need

Concerns - available materials, the impact of virtual learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dive Brief:

For schools holding virtual IEP meetings this fall, educators can help ensure the events are comfortable and meaningful for students by employing nine strategies outlined in District Administration.

Schools can send materials to students and their families at least a few days in advance of the meeting so they can review them beforehand. Then during the meeting, educators can ask students what they feel worked or didn't work during the most recent school year.

Faculty and staff can encourage the use of cameras during the gathering, but also show families how to use a virtual background for privacy. Screen sharing can help students and families glean more details, and chat messages can provide a venue for students who don't want to be on camera to ask questions.

Dive Insight:

Serving students with special needs remotely was a big concern in the spring and will continue to be an issue this fall. Besides the IEP meeting, educators in charge of curriculum need to continue to ensure these students are getting what they need if school continues from home or in a hybrid in-person/digital learning format.

Prior to the pandemic, school districts were already working to make the IEP process more effective and easier to navigate for families. Research released earlier this year by the Center for Reinventing Public Education found a lack of specialized expertise leaving families with difficult choices, as well as an ongoing need for more detailed information about programs despite improvement in the choice process overall.

For its part, the U.S. Department of Labor last year ruled IEP meetings are a valid reason for taking family and medical leave.

Beyond working out the details of each student's IEP, however, schools must also navigate a wide range of resources and tools to support the different learning styles of students with special needs while also expanding equity and accessibility. These include vision-impaired options, such as the Read Aloud Chrome extension Google offers and free text-to-speech programs, as well as assistive technologies such as closed captions on video content for hearing-impaired students.

When these students' needs are not considered in advance, they can sometimes wait six to eight weeks for learning resources that work for them, according to the Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training. That can put these children in danger of falling behind in their learning, as compared to their classmates.

And some educators are already concerned about the impact of remote learning and whether it has contributed to learning loss for all types of students.

The Council for Exceptional Children compiled a resource list for educators specifically focused on how to support special needs students and their families. Schools continuing to incorporate online learning can find options from materials for specific subjects, such as math, to webinars tailored to the special education community.

There are even resources for educators on how to monitor their own feelings to ensure they're not only taking care of their students, but themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supporting special needs students during remote IEP meetings, learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For schools holding virtual IEP meetings this fall, educators can help ensure the events are comfortable and meaningful for students by employing nine strategies outlined in District Administration. Schools can send materials to students and their families at least a few days in advance of the meeting so they can review them beforehand.

# data[].attributes.body
Link: https://www.educationdive.com/news/ed-department-idea-waiver-requests-leave-need-for-clarity-and-certainty/576859/
Citation: Naaz Modan. (2020, April 29). Ed Department IDEA waiver requests create need for “clarity and certainty.” Retrieved July 17, 2020, from Education Dive website: https://www.educationdive.com/news/ed-department-idea-waiver-requests-leave-need-for-clarity-and-certainty/576859/
Summary:

Due to COVID regulations, there may be flexibility for transition timelines under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

If approved

initial evaluations of toddlers will be postponed

districts will still be required to provided service for students 3 and up

act's passage, educators requested flexibilities around IEP review and complaint timelines, reevaluation requirements, and procedural and fiscal maintenance requirements would be left alone

Strong communication with parents will be key

Communicating extensions on deadlines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy this week submitted to Congress waiver requests that, among other changes, include flexibilities for transition timelines under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

But the flexibilities called for by the U.S. Department of Education don't completely align with what education leaders had conveyed were necessary.

If granted, these waivers would allow districts to postpone initial evaluations for toddlers with disabilities as they transition into K-12. Obligations to conduct initial evaluations and determine timelines would resume when health and safety factors allow for in-person meetings -​ as opposed to existing law, which requires a transition plan in place 90 days before a toddler's third birthday.

In the meantime, districts would still be required to continue educating and providing early intervention services for toddlers who have turned 3 years old, regardless of their eligibility determination.

Flexibility needed as leaders work "around the clock"

While these waivers are a start, the Council of Administrators of Special Education said, they don't meet all the needs administrators had vocalized.

For instance, Danny Carlson, director of advocacy and policy for the National Association of Elementary School Principals,​ said, "We've called for striking a balance to reaffirm that principals and school leaders are doing everything they can, but also recognizing that some very narrowly targeted, temporary flexibilities while schools are closed are needed."

He added that school leaders are "working around the clock" to continue educating remotely.

At the time of the act's passage, educators requested flexibilities around IEP review and complaint timelines, reevaluation requirements, and procedural and fiscal maintenance requirements. This waiver request leaves those areas untouched.

In the meantime, districts must find ways to continue services and meet deadlines or collaborate with parents to find solutions on a case-by-case basis. ​ Previous guidance by the department suggests encouraging district leaders to continue as many special ed services as possible and find flexible alternatives to in-person services.

And this time, DeVos says the department "has provided extensive flexibility to help schools transition," adding that Congress need not waive other provisions.

Continuing a "good faith effort" to find solutions

But some say continuing to educate all students with no other flexibilities in the law is easier said than done. Meeting IEP timelines while simultaneously transitioning to an online learning environment, which isn't conducive to special ed requirements like therapy or progress monitoring, has left many districts scrambling to find solutions.

According to Education Department guidance -​ and, in turn, state-level guidance in many places -​ districts are being urged to work with families and agree on timeline extensions. States including Kentucky are looking for a "good faith effort" from districts.

Communication with families, keeping documentation of all efforts, and working with community partners is working for some schools. But in other locations, parents had begun litigation just a few weeks into closures, AASA advocacy director​ Sasha Pudelski said. The disconnect between parents and districts was especially exacerbated where communication was lacking.

In a move criticized by many, New Jersey districts required parents to sign waivers prior to continuing special ed services, fearing legal retaliation where they fell short.

For now, Meghan Whittaker, director for policy and advocacy at the National Center for Learning Disabilities, suggests while IEP meetings can be conducted virtually, re-evaluations may have to be postponed for a later date when in-person meetings are possible. In some cases where existing information like performance data informs reevaluations rather than new assessments, even those re-evaluations may still be possible.

And there still remains the hope from administrators that Congress could include additional flexibilities outside of what DeVos requested in its next package.

"I think most folks understand that this isn't a request for something that's 'nice to have.' This is a real challenge. There's not a panacea," Carlson said. "But we're hoping that leaders in Congress help schools get through the remaining months of the school year with some sort of clarity and certainty."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ed Department IDEA waiver requests create need for 'clarity and certainty'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy this week submitted to Congress waiver requests that, among other changes, include flexibilities for transition timelines under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But the flexibilities called for by the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
#6 Original Source of Law - Constitutional Law

# data[].attributes.subject
#6 Original Source of Law - Constitutional Law

# data[].attributes.body
Law I:14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the frame for educational equity

Reference - U.S. Const. Amend. XIV

Source of Law - Constitutional Law

Link - https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=43

Summary - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives.

Revolution and the New Nation

Expansion and Reform

Civil War and Reconstruction

The Development of the Industrial United States

The Emergence of Modern America

The Great Depression and World War II

Postwar United States

A note about the documents included on this page: These documents were originally selected for the project Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives, a national initiative on American history, civics, and service. They were identified to "help us think, talk and teach about the rights and responsibilities of citizens in our democracy...These documents reflect our diversity and our unity, our past and our future, and mostly our commitment as a nation to continue to strive to 'form a more perfect union.'" The original list included only documents created prior to 1965. In the future, this page will be updated with additional documents created after 1965. The original list also included several documents from the Library of Congress (Federalist Paper No. 10, Federalist Paper No. 51, Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address) and the New York Public Library (George Washington's Farewell Address)."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives.

# data[].attributes.headline
#7 Original Source of Law - Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.subject
#7 Original Source of Law - Statutory Law

# data[].attributes.body
Law II: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Reference - 20 U.S.C. § 6301

Source of Law - Statutory Law

Link - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-
title20/pdf/USCODE-2010-title20-chap70-subchapI.pdf

Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) set the
standard for equal opportunity for all students including students with
disabilities. ESEA is the starting point for educational equity.

# data[].attributes.headline
#8 Original Source of Law - Judicial Law

# data[].attributes.subject
#8 Original Source of Law - Judicial Law

# data[].attributes.body
Law III: Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

Reference - Mills v. The Board of Education, 1972

Source of Law - Judicial Law

Link - https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/

Summary - Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia addressed
that all students should have access to a free and appropriate public
education no matter their different abilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dan Stewart Discusses Education Rights for Students with Disabilities
The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities is pleased to announce an interview with a leading expert on Special Education (view all).
Dan Stewart currently serves as the Legal Director of the Minnesota Disability Law Center (MDLC). Before joining MDLC, Dan practiced with a private law firm and with the state Department of Education. He also founded the University of Minnesota Law School's Special Education clinic. In addition to being an attorney, Dan has a Master's degree in education administration, and a PhD in social work. In this video, Dan answers questions about Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Section 504 and behavioral supports, as well as eligibility criteria and updates to special education law. He provides outreach and training sessions to a wide variety of national, regional and local audiences.

Brown v. Board of Education
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal...

This decision provided the constitutional foundation for parents of children with disabilities and disability rights activists to press for equal educational opportunities for all children, including those with developmental and other disabilities.

Extending Brown to Children with Disabilities

P.A.R.C. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. PA 1972)

In 1954, early in his tenure as Executive Director of the then-named National Association for Retarded Children, Dr. Gunnar Dybwad called attention to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. He suggested that the case had enormous possibilities for children with disabilities as well. [ ADA Legacy Project]

In 1971, Thomas K. Gilhool, the attorney who represented the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (P.A.R.C.), relied on Brown in his class action suit filed on behalf of 14 children with developmental disabilities who had been denied access to public education in Pennsylvania, under a state law that specifically allowed schools to exclude children who had not reached a "mental age of five years" by the time they should be enrolling in first grade. The plaintiffs argued that this exclusion violated their rights under both the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In connection with a Consent Agreement approved by the Court a three-judge panel of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Court enjoined Pennsylvania from denying any child up to age 21 admission to a public school program "appropriate to his learning capacities", or from having his educational status changed without first being notified of and given the opportunity for a due process hearing.
The Consent Agreement stated:

Expert testimony in this action indicates that all mentally retarded persons are capable of benefiting from a program of education and training... It is the Commonwealth's obligation to place each mentally retarded child in a free, public program of education and training appropriate to the child's capacity.

It also said:

Placement in a regular school is preferable to placement in a special school class is preferable to placement in any other type of program of education and training.

Mills expanded the impact of the P.A.R.C. case beyond children with developmental disabilities. The Mills class action lawsuit was brought in 1972, the same year as the P.A.R.C. case, on behalf of seven school-age children who had been denied placement in a public educational program for substantial periods of time because of alleged mental, behavioral, physical or emotional disabilities. The plaintiffs sought an injunction on the grounds that they had been denied their constitutional right to Due Process.

The District of Columbia government and school system conceded that it had the legal "duty to provide a publicly supported education to each resident of the District of Columbia who is capable of benefiting from such instruction" but argued that it was impossible to do so because they lacked the necessary financial resources. The Court held that no child could be denied a public education because of "mental, behavioral, physical or emotional handicaps or deficiencies." The Court further noted that defendants' failure to provide such an education could not be excused by the claim of insufficient funds, stating:

If sufficient funds are not available to finance all of the services and programs that are needed and desirable in the system, then the available funds must be expended equitably in such a manner that no child is entirely excluded from a publicly supported education consistent with his needs and ability to benefit therefrom. The inadequacies of the District of Columbia Public School System, whether occasioned by insufficient funding or administrative inefficiency, certainly cannot be permitted to bear more heavily on the "exceptional" or handicapped child than on the normal child.

Subsequent developments in Special Education Law

Twenty-seven federal court cases followed the P.A.R.C. and Mills decisions, leading to the pressure of federal laws guaranteeing a public education for all children. In 1975, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), codified the right to a free, appropriate public education for all students, including those with severe disabilities. IDEA requires all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education to children with physical and mental disabilities. It also requires that each child have an "individualized education program" (IEP) that is implemented in the "least restrictive environment" possible. However, the meaning of "appropriate" education is an ongoing source of controversy and litigation. Under IDEA, states are required to develop plans with the following components:

Provision of "full education opportunities" to all;

Due process safeguards to aid parents in challenging many decisions regarding the education of their children;

A guarantee that children with disabilities will be educated to the fullest extent possible;

Procedures to assure that tests and other materials used to evaluate a child's special needs are not culturally or racially biased; and

Evaluation of all of the state's children with special needs.

From the United States Department of Justice, January 9, 2020
Justice Department Settles with School to Protect the Rights of Children with Disabilities from Unnecessary Reliance on Classroom Exclusion and Restraint
Anova Center for Education, a private school in California, provides elementary and secondary education services to children with autism. Following a complaint and allegations by a parent that her 10 year old son had been prone restrained 77 times over several months, the US Department of Justice conducted an investigation and compliance review, and substantiated the allegations. Even though parents and local schools provided Anova Center with resources about individual supports and interventions to address behavior issues, Anova Center refused to utilize those resources.

On January 9, 2020, a three year Settlement Agreement was entered into to resolve the allegations. The terms of the Agreement addressed 11 specific areas related to the adoption and implementation of nondiscrimination policies and procedures regarding behavioral supports and interventions for children with disabilities that affect behavior, all subject to review and approval by the US Department of Justice. Regular monitoring reports are also required for the duration of the Settlement Agreement.
https://www.ada.gov/anova_sa.html From the Georgia Advocacy Office, The Center for Public Representation, The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, The Arc, DLA Piper LLP, and The Goodmark Firm, October 11, 2017 Parents and Advocates Sue State of Georgia Over Separate and Unequal Education for Thousands of Students with Disabilities
In July 2015, the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, completed a multi-year investigation of the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS). The GNETS Program dates back to 1976. The investigation found "systemic unnecessary reliance on the segregated GNETS Program across the State of Georgia...." Both in terms of operation and administration of the GNETS Program, Georgia was found to be in violation of Title II of the ADA - unnecessary segregation, unnecessary reliance on segregated settings for students with behavioral disabilities, and inequality of educational opportunities for students with disabilities. The Department concluded that relevant policies, practices, and services could be modified, and the majority of students could receive services in more integrated settings.
Georgia-GNETS-students-BED-7-2015-DOJ-Letter

The investigation culminated in a class action lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging discrimination against "thousands of public school students with disabilities by providing them with a separate and unequal education" and diverting them to the GNETS Program. The extent of the conditions found in the GNETS Program is presented in a summary of the Complaint. While the GNETS Program was originally intended to be a "placement of last resort," it has become a "dumping ground" for students that local school districts don't want to have to serve.

GeorgiaNETS-Complaint-Summary_-FINAL-10-10-17
Georgia-NETS-ClassAction-Press-Release-10-10-17
From The Gazette, June 7, 2017 Iowa City schools must fix use of seclusion, state says
In a 35 page report issued last week, the Iowa Department of Education responded to a complaint filed on December 21, 2016 regarding the broad use of seclusion rooms and without the parents' knowledge. The complaint also noted that "black students were disproportionately put into Iowa City seclusion rooms" during the 2013-14 school year.

Thomas Mayes, a state Education Department complaint officer, reviewed 455 seclusion reports involving 64 Iowa City students and visited two Iowa City school with seclusion rooms. The district has 90 days to review its policies, practices and procedures relating to restraint and seclusion with changes made within 180 days.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/education/k-12-education/iowa-city-schools-must-fix-use-of-seclusion-state-says-20170606
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Stacy Fry, Et Vir, As Next Friends of Minor E.F., Petitioners v. Napoleon Community Schools, Et Al, 580 U.S. ____(2017)
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The scope of the exhaustion requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is at issue here. The Court held that "... exhaustion is not necessary when the gravamen of the plaintiff's suit is something other than the denial of the IDEA's core guarantee - what the Act calls a "free and appropriate public education."

The Court discussed at length both portions of IDEA's exhaustion requirement, §1415(l) and the reach of that requirement. In this case, a five year old kindergarten student, enrolled at Ezra Eby Elementary School, had a trained service dog as recommended by her pediatrician. The School refused the parents' request to have the service dog with their daughter in the classroom. The parents ultimately removed her from school and began homeschooling.

They then filed a complaint with the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) charging that the school's exclusion of their daughter's service dog violated her rights under Title II of the ADA and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The OCR found the school in violation; the school eventually relented. The parents, concerned about their daughter's return to Ezr Eby, found a different public school in a different district where their daughter was well received with her service dog. The then filed suit in Federal District Court.

The District Court granted the school district's motion to dismiss on the basis that the exhaustion requirement had not been met. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The US Supreme Court granted cert and vacated the Sixth Circuit's decision.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-497_p8k0.pdf
From EdSource, March 19, 2017 Two-decade old legal battle over special education oversight nears resolution, brings major changes
Achievement levels for students with disabilities in California are among the lowest in the United States. A 1996 class action lawsuit, brought by eight special education students alleging "erratic or nonexistent special education services" and poor oversight by the California Department of Education, led to a corrective action plan. That plan required that California "...reform its dysfunctional state level monitoring system."

The California Department of Education has blocked changes since the plan was issued in 2014 by the US District Court of Northern California. The Department has now decided to cease the legal challenges and follow the correction action plan. The plan includes staff training, student assessments, creation of individual Education Programs (IEPs), and the integration of students with disabilities in regular classrooms.
https://edsource.org/2017/two-decade-old-legal-battle-over-special-education-oversight-nears-resolution-brings-major-changes/576675
Endrew R., a Minor, By and Through His Parents and Next Friends, Joseph F. and Jennifer F., Petitioner v. Douglas County School District Re-1
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (580 U.S. ____(2017), March 22, 2017

Thirty-five years ago, in Board of Dd. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. V. Rowley . 458 U.S. 176 (1982), the United States Supreme Court established a substantive right to a "free and appropriate public education " for certain children with disabilities but declined to create a single standard for determining when children with disabilities are receiving sufficient educational benefits to satisfy IDEA requirements.

That Court rejected an "equal opportunity standard," because FAPE was too complex and considered such a standard as "entirely unworkable," requiring "impossible measurements and comparisons" that a Court could not make.

The Court today has revisited the Rowley decision, vacated the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its holding. The Administrative Law Judge and both lower courts rested on and continued to abide by the language in Rowley that instruction and services for children wth disabilities must confer "some" educational benefit so children make "some" progress, and the IEP is adequate if the benefit is "merely ...more than de minimus."

The Court clearly departs from Rowley -

"[W]e find little significance in the [ Rowley] Court's language concerning the requirement that States provide instruction calculated to 'confer some educational benefit'...and the statement that the Act did not 'guarantee any particular level of education' simply reflects the unobjectional proposition that the IDEA cannot and does not promise 'any particular [educational] outcome... No law could do that - for any child.

A child's educational program should be 'appropriately ambitious' just as advancement from grade to grade is considered appropriately ambitious for children with out disabilities...The IDEA demands more."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf
From the United States Department of Education, December 7, 2017
Questions and Answers (Q&A) on U.S. Supreme Court Case Decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has released a Question and Answer (Q&A) document for parents and other stakeholders about the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District on the implementation of IDEA.

Endrew clarifies the "free appropriate public education (FAPE) standard and its scope for determining whether a student's IEP is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." Prior to Endrew, courts relied on the "merely more than de minimus" standard that grew out the 1982 Rowley decision. Because a particular test for establishing "educational benefit" was not identified in Rowley, courts applied different standards and school districts only had to show a more than minor or trivial educational benefit to meet its FAPE obligations.The Endrew Court has now clearly rejected that standard. Rowley is no longer good law. All children, regardless of disability, age or current placement should have the chance to make educational progress and meet challenging objectives.

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear a Douglas County School District Case (Colorado) regarding a "free and appropriate public education" (FAPE) in the 2016-2017 session.
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision, August 25, 2016
The United States Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in a case regarding the educational benefit standard a school must meet to satisfy the "free and appropriate public education" (FAPE) requirement pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Court has not addressed this issue since the 1982 Board of Education v. Rowley decision that affirmed access to the classroom but not the quality of education. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/15-827-opinion-below.pdf

Special Education Resources and References
Videos and Multimedia Resources Parallels in Time: A Place to Learn Partners in Education Online Curriculum How the PARC Case Began: Video Interview with Gunnar Dybwad The Right to Education: Video Interview with Gunnar Dybwad The Role of the Courts: Video Interview with Gunnar Dybwad The PARC Case: Audio presentation by Tom Gilhool, Lead Plaintiff Attorney Articles and Other Secondary Sources
ADA Legacy Project: The Right to Education Based on Brown v. Board of Education

" Access to Justice: The Impact of Federal Courts on Disability Rights. " The Federal Lawyer, December 2012.

Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

United States Courts: History of Brown v. Board of Education
Legal Resources and References

Opinions:
District Court (1971): 334 F.Supp. 1257
District Court (1972): 343 F.Supp. 279 (1972)
Wrightslaw

1. ^BROWN et al. v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KAN., et al., 74 S.Ct. 686, 692 (1955)

2. ^Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257, 1259 (E.D. Pa 1971).

3. ^Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279, 307 (E.D. Pa 1972).

4. ^Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F.Supp. 866, 871 (DC Dist. of Columbia 1972)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Right to Education - Disability Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dan Stewart Discusses Education Rights for Students with Disabilities The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities is pleased to announce an interview with a leading expert on Special Education (view all). Dan Stewart currently serves as the Legal Director of ... Continued

# data[].attributes.headline
#9 Original Source of Law - Administrative Law

# data[].attributes.subject
#9 Original Source of Law - Administrative Law

# data[].attributes.body
Law IV: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Reference - 29 USC § 794

Source of Law - Administrative Law

Link - https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-
title29-section794&num=0&edition=prelim

Summary - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act forbids discrimination
on the basis of disability in activities operated by federal funds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
§794. Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.

(b) "Program or activity" defined

For the purposes of this section, the term "program or activity" means all of the operations of-

(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or

(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;

(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or

(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section 7801 of title 20), system of career and technical education, or other school system;

(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship-

(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or

(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks and recreation; or

(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or

(4) any other entity which is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3);

any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.

(c) Significant structural alterations by small providers

Small providers are not required by subsection (a) to make significant structural alterations to their existing facilities for the purpose of assuring program accessibility, if alternative means of providing the services are available. The terms used in this subsection shall be construed with reference to the regulations existing on March 22, 1988.

(d) Standards used in determining violation of section

The standards used to determine whether this section has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination under this section shall be the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.) and the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201-12204 and 12210), as such sections relate to employment.

( Pub. L. 93-112, title V, §504, Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 394; Pub. L. 95-602, title I, §§119, 122(d)(2), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2982, 2987; Pub. L. 99-506, title I, §103(d)(2)(B), title X, §1002(e)(4), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1810, 1844; Pub. L. 100-259, §4, Mar. 22, 1988, 102 Stat. 29; Pub. L. 100-630, title II, §206(d), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3312; Pub. L. 102-569, title I, §102(p)(32), title V, §506, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4360, 4428; Pub. L. 103-382, title III, §394(i)(2), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4029; Pub. L. 105-220, title IV, §408(a)(3), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1203; Pub. L. 107-110, title X, §1076(u)(2), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 2093; Pub. L. 113-128, title IV, §456(c), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1675; Pub. L. 114-95, title IX, §9215(mmm)(3), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2188.)

References in Text

The amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (a), mean the amendments made by Pub. L. 95-602. See 1978 Amendments note below.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L. 101-336, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 327. Title I of the Act is classified generally to subchapter I (§12111 et seq.) of chapter 126 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. Section 510 of the Act was renumbered section 511 by Pub. L. 110-325, §6(a)(2), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3558. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12101 of Title 42 and Tables.

Amendments

2015-Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 114-95 made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 7801 of title 20.

2014-Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 113-128 substituted "career and technical education" for "vocational education".

2002-Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 107-110 substituted "section 7801 of title 20" for "section 8801 of title 20".

1998-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105-220 substituted "section 705(20)" for "section 706(8)".

1994-Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 103-382 substituted "section 8801 of title 20" for "section 2891(12) of title 20".

1992-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102-569, §102(p)(32), substituted "a disability" for "handicaps" and "disability" for "handicap" in first sentence.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 102-569, §506, added subsec. (d).

1988-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100-630, §206(d)(1), substituted "her or his handicap" for "his handicap".

Pub. L. 100-259, §4(1), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100-259, §4(2), added subsec. (b).

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 100-630, §206(d)(2), substituted "section 2891(12) of title 20" for "section 2854(a)(10) of title 20".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100-259, §4(2), added subsec. (c).

1986- Pub. L. 99-506 substituted "individual with handicaps" for "handicapped individual" and "section 706(8) of this title" for "section 706(7) of this title".

1978- Pub. L. 95-602 substituted "section 706(7) of this title" for "section 706(6) of this title" and inserted provision prohibiting discrimination under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service and requiring the heads of these agencies to promulgate regulations prohibiting discrimination.

Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114-95 effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114-95, set out as a note under section 6301 of Title 20, Education.

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107-110 effective Jan. 8, 2002, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 107-110, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6301 of Title 20, Education.

Exclusion From Coverage

Amendment by Pub. L. 100-259 not to be construed to extend application of this chapter to ultimate beneficiaries of Federal financial assistance excluded from coverage before Mar. 22, 1988, see section 7 of Pub. L. 100-259, set out as a Construction note under section 1687 of Title 20, Education.

Abortion Neutrality

Amendment by Pub. L. 100-259 not to be construed to force or require any individual or hospital or any other institution, program, or activity receiving Federal funds to perform or pay for an abortion, see section 8 of Pub. L. 100-259, set out as a note under section 1688 of Title 20, Education.

Construction of Prohibition Against Discrimination Under Federal Grants

Rights or protections of this section not affected by any provision of Pub. L. 98-457, see section 127 of Pub. L. 98-457, set out as a note under section 5101 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Coordination of Implementation and Enforcement of Provisions

For provisions relating to the coordination of implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this section by the Attorney General, see section 1-201 of Ex. Ord. No. 12250, Nov. 2, 1980, 45 F.R. 72995, set out as a note under section 2000d-1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Executive Order No. 11914

Ex. Ord. No. 11914, Apr. 28, 1976, 41 F.R. 17871, which related to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12250, Nov. 2, 1980, 45 F.R. 72995, set out as a note under section 2000d-1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
[USC02] 29 USC 794: Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Long, M. (2018). SPECIAL EDUCATION: ARD COMMITTEE AND INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM - EHBAB(LEGAL)-P - San Angelo ISD. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from Tasb.org website: https://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/1139?filename=EHBAB(LEGAL).html&title=SPECIAL%20EDUCATION&subtitle=ARD%20COMMITTEE%20AND%20INDIVIDUALIZED%20EDUCATION%20PROGRAM
Selection: The policy was chosen because it clearly outlines the components, expectations, and the committee members needed for an ARD meeting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Admission, Review, and Dismissal Committee

Responsibilities of ARD Committee

The responsibilities of the ARD committee and the district include:

1. Evaluation, reevaluation, and determination of eligibility for special education and related services;

2. Placement of students with disabilities including disciplinary changes in placement;

3. Development of the student's IEP;

4. Development and implementation of service plans for students who have been placed by their parents in private schools and who have been designated to receive special education and related services;

5. Compliance with the least restrictive environment standard;

6. Compliance with state requirements for reading diagnosis and state assessments;

7. Development of junior high or middle school personal graduation plans;

8. Development of accelerated instruction under Education Code 28.0211 and intensive programs of instruction under Education Code 28.0213 [see EHBC];

9. Evaluation, placement, and coordination of services for students who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or visually impaired; and

10. Determining eligibility for extracurricular activities, under Education Code 33.081.

Committee Members

A district shall ensure that each ARD committee meeting includes all of the following:

1. The parents of a student with a disability;

2. At least one regular education teacher of the student (if the student is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);

3. At least one special education teacher or, if appropriate, at least one special education provider of the student;

4. A representative of the district who:

1. Is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities;

2. Is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and

3. Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the district;

5. Other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the student at the discretion of the district or the parent;

6. An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the ARD committee described in items 2-5;

7. The student, if appropriate;

8. For a student with an auditory impairment, including deaf-blindness, a teacher who is certified in the education of students with auditory impairments;

9. For a student with a visual impairment, including deaf-blindness, a teacher who is certified in the education of students with visual impairments;

10. For a student with limited English proficiency, a member of the language-proficiency assessment committee (LPAC), who may also be a member as described at items 2 or 3;

11. A representative of any participating agency likely to be responsible for providing transition services for a student, as appropriate, and with the consent of the student's parents or a student who has reached the age of majority; and

12. When considering initial or continued placement of a student in a career and technical education program, a representative from career and technical education, preferably the teacher.

20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. 300.321; 19 TAC 75.1023(d)(1), 89.1050(c)
A district member of the ARD committee shall not be required to attend an IEP meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent and the district agree in writing that the attendance is not necessary because the member's area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed during the meeting.

Regular Education Teacher

If an ARD committee is required to include a regular education teacher, the regular education teacher must, to the extent practicable, be a teacher who is responsible for implementing a portion of the child's IEP. Education Code 29.005(a)

Parent Involvement

A district shall take steps to ensure that one or both parents of a student with a disability are present at each ARD committee meeting or are afforded an opportunity to participate, including:

1. Notifying the parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend (the notice shall include the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, who will be in attendance, that persons with knowledge or special expertise may be invited by either the parent or the district, and that the Part C service coordinator or other representatives of the Part C system may be invited to the initial meeting for a child previously served under a Part C early childhood intervention program); and

2. Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.

If the purpose of the meeting is to consider transition services, the notice must also indicate this purpose, indicate that the district will invite the student, and identify any other agency that will be invited to send a representative.

Alternative Means of Meeting Participation

If neither parent can attend an ARD meeting, the district must allow other methods of participation, such as through telephone calls or video conferencing. 20 U.S.C. 1414(f); 34 C.F.R. 300.322(c); 19 TAC 89.1050(d)

An ARD meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if a district is unable to convince the parents that they should attend, but the district shall have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as detailed records of telephone calls, correspondence, or visits made or attempted and the results of any of those actions. 34 C.F.R. 300.322(d)

Meetings

A district shall initiate and conduct ARD committee meetings for the purpose of developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP of a child with a disability. The committee shall review each child's IEP periodically, and, if appropriate, revise the IEP. A meeting must be held for this purpose at least once a year. The ARD committee must also determine the child's placement once a year.

A "meeting" does not include informal or unscheduled conversations involving district personnel and conversations on issues such as teaching methodology, lesson plans, or coordination of service provisions if those issues are not addressed in the child's IEP. A "meeting" also does not include preparatory activities that district personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting.

Meeting at Parent's Request

Upon receipt of a written request for an ARD committee meeting from a parent, the school district must schedule and convene a meeting in accordance with the procedures in 19 Administrative Code 89.1050(d) or within five school days, provide the parent with written notice explaining why the district refuses to convene a meeting. 19 TAC 89.1050(e)

Written Notice

If a parent is unable to speak English, a district must provide the parent with a written notice regarding the ARD committee meeting required under 19 Administrative Code 89.1050(d) (notice for purposes of scheduling) or (e)(2) (notice explaining why the district refuses to convene a meeting) in the parent's native language, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. If the parent's native language is not a written language, the school district must take steps to ensure that the notice is translated orally or by other means to the parent in his or her native language or other mode of communication so that the parent understands the content of the notice. 19 TAC 89.1050(f)

Transfer Students

In-State Transfers

When a student transfers to a new district within the state in the same school year and the parents verify that the student was receiving special education services in the previous district or the previous district verifies in writing or by telephone that the student was receiving special education services, the new school district must meet the requirements of 34 C.F.R. 300.323(e) regarding the provision of special education services. The time line for completing the requirements outlined in 34 C.F.R. 300.323(e)(1) or (2) is 30 school days from the date the student is verified as being a student eligible for special education services.

Transfers from Another State

When a student transfers from a district in another state in the same school year and the parents verify that the student was receiving special education services in the previous district or the previous district verifies in writing or by telephone that the student was receiving special education services, the new district must meet the requirements of 34 C.F.R. 300.323(f) regarding the provision of special education services. If the new district determines that an evaluation is necessary, the evaluation is considered a full individual and initial evaluation and must be completed within the time lines established by 19 Administrative Code 89.1011(c) and (e). The time line for completing the requirements in 34 C.F.R. 300.323(f)(2), if appropriate, is 30 calendar days from the date of the completion of the evaluation report. If the school district determines that an evaluation is not necessary, the time line for completing the requirements outlined in 34 C.F.R. 300.323(f)(2) is 30 school days from the date the student is verified as being a student eligible for special education services.

Transfer of Records

The district in which the child enrolls shall take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the child's records, including the IEP and supporting documents and any other records relating to the provision of special education or related services to the child, from the previous district.

The previous district shall take reasonable steps to promptly respond to the request from the new district and must furnish the new school district with a copy of the student's records, including the student's special education records, not later than the tenth working day after the date a request for the information is received by the previous school district.

Military Dependents

A district shall initially provide comparable services to a military student with disabilities based on his or her current IEP. This does not preclude the district from performing subsequent evaluations to ensure appropriate placement of the student. Education Code 162.002 art. V, C [See FDD]

Individualized Education Program

A district shall develop, review, and revise an IEP for each child with a disability. 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(4); 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)

At the beginning of each school year, a district shall have in effect, for each child with a disability in its jurisdiction, an IEP. 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.323(a)

The term "individualized education program" means a written statement for each student with a disability that documents the decisions of the ARD committee with respect to issues discussed at each committee meeting and includes:

1. A statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance;

2. A statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals;

3. A description of how the student's progress toward the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress of the student will be provided;

4. A statement of the specific special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the student;

5. A statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the student;

6. An explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with nondisabled students in the regular class and in extracurricular and nonacademic activities;

7. The projected dates for initiation of services and modifications and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of these services and modifications;

8. A statement of any individual appropriate and allowable accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the student on state or district-wide assessments;

9. If the ARD committee determines that the student must take an alternative assessment instead of a particular regular state or district-wide assessment, a statement of why the student cannot participate in the regular assessment and why the particular assessment selected is appropriate for the student;

10. If the ARD committee determines that a student is in need of extended school year (ESY) services, identification of the goals and objectives that will be addressed during ESY services;

11. Beginning not later than when a student reaches 14 years of age and updated annually thereafter, the ARD committee's consideration and decisions regarding the transition issues under 19 Administrative Code 89.1055(j) [see EHBAD];

12. Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the student is 16, or younger if determined appropriate by theARD committee, and updated annually thereafter, a statement of appropriate measurable postsecondary goals and transition services needed to assist the student in reaching those goals [see EHBAD];

13. Beginning not later than one year before the student reaches the age of 17, a statement that the student has been informed of the rights that will transfer to the student upon reaching the age of majority;

14. The date of the meeting;

15. The name, position, and signature of each member participating in the meeting; and

16. An indication of whether the child's parents, the adult student, if applicable, and the administrator agreed or disagreed with the decisions of the ARD committee.

20 U.S.C. 1414(d); 34 C.F.R. 300.320; Education Code 29.005(b‑1), .011; 19 TAC 89.1055
The written statement of a student's IEP may be required to include only information included in the model form developed by TEA under Education Code 29.0051(a) and posted on the TEA website. A district may use the model form to comply with the requirements for an IEP under 20 U.S.C. 1414(d). Education Code 29.005(f), .0051

Behavioral Intervention Plan

The ARD committee may determine that a behavior improvement plan or a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) is appropriate for a student for whom the committee has developed an IEP. If the committee makes that determination, the BIP shall be included as part of the student's IEP and provided to each teacher with responsibility for educating the student. Education Code 29.005(g); 19 TAC 89.1055(g)

Translation of IEP into Native Language

If the parent is unable to speak English and Spanish is the parent's native language, a district shall provide a written or audiotaped copy of the student's IEP translated into Spanish. If the parent's native language is other than Spanish or English, a district shall make a good faith effort to provide a written or audiotaped copy of the student's IEP translated into the parent's native language.Education Code 29.005(d)

A written copy of the student's IEP translated into Spanish or the parent's native language means that all of the text in the student's IEP in English is accurately translated into the target language in written form. The IEP translated into the target language must be a comparable rendition of the IEP in English and not a partial translation or summary of the IEP in English.

If a parent's native language is not a written language, the district must take steps to ensure that the student's IEP is translated orally or by other means to the parent in his or her native language or other mode of communication.

Autism/Pervasive Developmental Disorder

For students with autism/pervasive developmental disorders, the following strategies shall be considered by the ARD committee, based on peer-reviewed, research-based educational programming practices to the extent practicable and, when needed, addressed in the IEP:

1. Extended educational programming;

2. Daily schedules reflecting minimal unstructured time and active engagement in learning activities;

3. In-home training and community-based training or viable alternatives that assist the student with the acquisition of social/behavioral skills;

4. Positive behavior support strategies based on relevant information;

5. Beginning at any age, futures planning for integrated living, work, community, and educational environments that considers skills necessary to function in current and postsecondary environments;

6. Parent/family training and support, provided by qualified personnel with experience in Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD);

7. Suitable staff-to-student ratio appropriate to identified activities and as needed to achieve social/behavioral progress based on the student's developmental and learning level (acquisition, fluency, maintenance, generalization) that encourages work towards individual independence;

8. Communication interventions, including language forms and functions that enhance effective communication across settings;

9. Social skills supports and strategies based on social skills assessment/curriculum and provided across settings;

10. Professional educator/staff support; and

11. Teaching strategies based on peer-reviewed, research-based practices for students with ASD.

If the ARD committee determines that services are not needed in one or more of the areas in 1-11 above, the IEP shall include a statement reflecting that decision and the basis upon which the determination was made.

Visual Impairment

If a district provides special education services to students with visual impairments, it shall have written procedures as required in Education Code 30.002(c)(10) (staff access to resources). 19 TAC 89.1075(b)

Collaborative Process

All members of the ARD committee shall have the opportunity to participate in a collaborative manner in developing the IEP. Decisions of the ARD committee concerning the required elements of the IEP shall be made by mutual agreement, if possible. The ARD committee may agree to an annual IEP or an IEP of shorter duration.

Ten-Day Recess

1. The student's presence on campus represents a danger of physical harm to the student or others;

2. The student has committed an expellable offense; or

3. The student has committed an offense that may lead to placement in a disciplinary alternative education program. [See FOF]

These requirements do not prohibit the ARD committee from recessing an ARD committee meeting for reasons other than the failure to reach mutual agreement about all required elements of an IEP.

During the recess, the ARD committee members must consider alternatives, gather additional data, prepare further documentation, and/or obtain additional resource persons who may assist in enabling the ARD committee to reach mutual agreement.

Failure to Reach Agreement

If a recess is implemented and the ARD committee still cannot reach mutual agreement, a district shall implement the IEP it has determined to be appropriate for the student. Each member of the ARD committee who disagrees with the IEP developed by the ARD committee is entitled to include a statement of disagreement in the IEP.

If the IEP is not developed by agreement, the written statement of the program must include the basis of the disagreement. Each member of the ARD committee who disagrees with the IEP developed by the committee is entitled to include a statement of disagreement in the written statement of the program.

Modification of Existing IEP

Upon request, a parent shall be provided with a revised copy of the IEP with amendments incorporated.

To the extent possible, a district shall encourage the consolidation of reevaluation meetings for the child and other ARD meetings for the child.

Teacher Access to IEP

Each district must ensure that each teacher who provides instruction to a student with a disability has access to relevant sections of the student's current IEP, is informed of the teacher's specific responsibilities related to implementation of the IEP, and has an opportunity to request assistance regarding implementation of the student's IEP. 19 TAC 89.1075(c)

Teacher Request to Review IEP

Each district shall develop a process to be used by a teacher who instructs a student with a disability in a regular classroom setting:

1. To request a review of the student's IEP;

2. To provide input in the development of the student's IEP;

3. That provides for a timely district response to the teacher's request; and

4. That provides for notification to the student's parent or legal guardian of that response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The responsibilities of the ARD committee and the district include: Evaluation, reevaluation, and determination of eligibility for special education and related services; Placement of students with disabilities including disciplinary changes in placement; Development of the student's IEP; Development and implementation of service plans for students who have been placed by

# data[].attributes.body
(G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws.
Relation to ARD Requirements: All educators have to comply with laws and policies including IDEA, the ARD requirements, and many other laws and policies that affect special education students and families.
Citation: Texas Administrative Code. (2010). Retrieved July 17, 2020, from State.tx.us website: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=2

‌

# 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.body
Citation: Morin, A. (2019, November 25). For Teachers: What to Expect in an IEP Meeting. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from Understood.org website: https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/for-educators/learning-and-attention-issues-basics/for-teachers-what-to-expect-in-an-iep-meeting
Informs on the Topic: The article gives information to teachers on what to expect in an IEP meeting.

General educations role in special education

Required members of an IEP meeting

Information on student progress

Members can ask questions, raise concern, and suggest solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine this scenario: You open your school email or check your mailbox and find a notice for an IEP meeting. You know some of the students in your general education classroom have IEPs (Individualized Education Programs). You also know you're responsible for implementing accommodations and other supports in the classroom. But you may not be sure about your role as a general education teacher in the IEP meeting.

You're not alone in having questions about IEP meetings. If you're not a special education teacher, you may not have a lot of training around the IEP process.

Here are some of the basics: An IEP lays out the special education instruction and unique supports and services a student with disabilities will receive to make progress in school. The written document that outlines the program is a legal document.

Creating an IEP is a collaborative process between a student's family and the school aimed at meeting the unique needs of the student. The program can be changed if it's not providing the support the student needs to make progress.

When it comes time for an IEP meeting, here are four things you need to know about your role:

1. General education plays a big part in special education.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law that governs special education. It's vast, so you're not expected to know all the ins and outs of it. But there are a couple of key concepts to understand.

Free, appropriate public education: IDEA guarantees every student a free, appropriate public education (or FAPE ). For most students, FAPE is provided through the general education curriculum. That may look different for students with disabilities. Some may need special education and related services (like speech therapy, occupational therapy, or counseling) to make reasonable progress. The IEP outlines that specific student's program.

Sign up to receive tools and tips that can support your students on their journeys.

Least restrictive environment: IDEA says that students who receive special education should be educated in the least restrictive environment (or LRE) "to the maximum extent that is appropriate." Put more simply, they should spend as much time as possible in general education classes.

Research shows that students who learn and think differently spend the majority of the school day in general education classrooms. With that in mind, speak up for the resources, training, and support you need to make LRE work for you and your students.

Special classes, separate schools, or removal from general education classes shouldn't be the IEP team's first consideration. The team should only consider these placements when a student's disability is so severe that FAPE can't be provided in the general education classroom-even with supports and services.

2. You are a required member of the IEP team.

Each person on the team plays a different role. IDEA requires that at least one general education teacher be part of the team. As a general education teacher, you know the curriculum for your grade level (and subject). You also know the academic and behavioral expectations of your class.

At an IEP meeting, you bring that perspective to the table. It means you can answer parents' and guardians' questions about what their child will be learning in your class. It also means you have important information. You can help the team decide what type of support, services, and instruction students may need to help them meet grade-level standards.

Depending on where you are in the school year, you may have already had the chance to build a positive, trusting relationship with the student's family. That allows you to serve the important role of bridging communication between families and other staff they may not know yet.

3. You will provide information on progress.

At the IEP meeting, every teacher and related service provider will give an update on progress. If a student already has an IEP, be sure to review the current IEP goals to be able to talk about progress. Gather relevant work samples and other data for the meeting, too. You might bring the following documents to the meeting:

Recent work samples, assessments, and current grades

Information on which accommodations the student chooses to use in your class (even if they're not in the current IEP) and how often they're used

Progress monitoring data from response to intervention (RTI) or other instructional interventions data

Notes and data on any behavioral issues and the interventions you've used to help

Be ready to speak about the student's growth and strengths as well as challenges. Speaking personally about students' personalities, interests, and hobbies shows you've taken the time to get to know them. It lets families know you know the value of getting to know their child.

Teacher-to-teacher tip: Before an IEP meeting, I sometimes interview my students to ask what accommodations have worked best for them. If the student isn't attending the IEP meeting, I bring that information to share with the team. If a student does attend the meeting, I support them in self-advocating for the accommodations that have worked for them in class. -Lauren Jewett, Understood Teacher Fellow

4. You can ask questions, raise concerns, and suggest solutions.

You'll hear a lot of jargon and acronyms in discussions about special education. If you're not sure what another team member is talking about, it's OK to ask for clarification. You probably won't be the only person at the table who needs an explanation. Asking for simple clarifications can often be a way to advocate for the student and family.

Know, too, that it's important to discuss any challenges you're having in working with the student. It can be scary to talk about difficulties. But in the end, it benefits the student. Tell the team what you've tried already and ask them to help brainstorm other solutions. Let families know you want their ideas and feedback, too. They know the student in a way the rest of the team doesn't and may have unique answers.

It's important to understand which specific goals and objectives you will be responsible for supporting. If you're not sure how to implement an accommodation, behavior plan, or anything else in the IEP, be sure to let the team know. Tell them you'll need time to consult with the special education teacher or specialist. Speak up about what training or other support you will need. That way it can be written into the IEP.

By law, IEP teams must meet at least once a year to review the student's goals and progress. But any member of the team-including you-can ask for a meeting at any time if things aren't going as expected. Don't hesitate to talk to the special education teacher about having a meeting if you think it's necessary.

About the Author

About the Author

Amanda Morin

worked as a classroom teacher and as an early intervention specialist for 10 years. She is the author of The Everything Parent's Guide to Special Education. Two of her children have learning differences.

Reviewed by

Reviewed by

Brittney Newcomer, MS, LSSP

is the director of instructional design at Understood for Educators, which she joined after serving in public schools for more than a decade as a teacher, evaluator, and curriculum manager.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For Teachers: What to Expect in an IEP Meeting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine this scenario: You open your school email or check your mailbox and find a notice for an IEP meeting. You know some of the students in your general education classroom have IEPs (Individualized Education Programs ). You also know you're responsible for implementing accommodations and other supports in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.headline
#13 Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
#13 Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
1.  Teachers are legally required to follow students accommodations

2. Both general education and special education teachers are responsible for accommodations, tracking student progress, and participating in ARD/IEP meetings

3. Staying up to date on new legislation, rules, and policies related to ARD requirements and special education

4. Come prepared with appropriate materials and data to ARD meetings

5. Make sure the appropriate people are attending the meeting and that there was plenty of time to be notified and prepared

6. Meet ARD timeline and timeframe requirements