# data[].attributes.body
As a current school counselor intern, a large portion of my job responsibility includes finalizing referrals for Special Education. After a student has gone through the Response to Intervention process and continues to struggle academically, behaviorally, or socially, it is recommended they be testing for Special Education in order to receive additional services and/or accommodations to individualize the learning process and create a more successful learning environment. I chose this topic to gain a better understanding of the Special Education identification process and to ensure proper training for all stakeholders.

# data[].attributes.body
Students receiving Special Education services allows for students to receive an instruction that is appropriate for their ability. Special Education services are unique to each child including, but not limited to: modified or reduced assignments, oral administration on tests and assignments, small group instruction from a Resource teacher, visual or hearing aids, etc. Students that qualify for Special Education services receive an individualized learning plan through the ARD (Admission, Review and Dismissal) process. All students, regardless of race, ability, gender, demographics, or economic background deserve a fair, equitable education. An area emerging in Special Education is the rising need for LEP (Limited English Proficiency) students to receive Special Education services. Many districts are not equipped or staffed to provide Special Education resources in the LEP student's native language. Unfortunately, Special Education LEP students often do not receive an equitable education.

# data[].attributes.body
The National Association of Special Education Teachers provides informative links to laws and publications related to Special Education. As an educator, this is a great resource that offers an overall summary of Special Education.

National Association of Special Education Teachers (2018). Special Education and the Law. Retrieved from https://www.naset.org/index.php?id=specialedlaw01

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Special Education and the Law

As a professional of special education, professor at a college or university, or a graduate student in the field, it is imperative that you have the ability to gain access to any new changes in the laws that govern your work. AtNASET , we provide all members with an extensive and comprehensive site that covers information on special education and the law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
individuals with disabilities education act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Association of Special Education Teachers: Special Education and the Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a professional of special education, professor at a college or university, or a graduate student in the field, it is imperative that you have the ability to gain access to any new changes in the laws that govern your work.

# data[].attributes.headline
4) News Article: Providing SPED services during the pandemic

# data[].attributes.subject
4) News Article: Providing SPED services during the pandemic

# data[].attributes.body
Place a priority on transportation for Special Education students according to a student's IEP (Individual Education Plan)

Adhere to safety guidelines to protect the health and safety of Special Education students

Mitchell, C. (2020, July 8). Getting Students with Disabilities Back to School. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/07/08/getting-students-with-disabilities-back-to-class.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many students with disabilities, access to education begins with transportation.

Plans for getting these students to and from school are spelled out in their Individualized Education Programs, the legal documents that govern schooling for students who are eligible for special education.

During the global pandemic brought on by the novel coronavirus, those travel plans could present a roadblock that hampers the ability of millions of children to return to in-person instruction.

Whether it is a special bus equipped with a wheelchair lift or aides assigned to help medically fragile children or those with severe intellectual disabilities on traditional buses, the requirements can be costly and tough to navigate even during normal times.

If districts continue to choose remote learning, schools can keep using their bus fleets to deliver food and learning materials. If in-person classes resume, the route for a return to schools becomes more complicated.

In Albert Lea, a district in southern Minnesota, a small group of students with disabilities, roughly 20, are already back on buses and in class. To keep the coronavirus at bay and students at least six feet apart, the district is testing out staggered bus arrival times, and assigned seating and temperature checks for students.

This summer school program-designed to help students who struggled during remote learning-is a test run for a potential large-scale return to class in the fall. So far, things have gone off without a hitch. But it is an experiment with a small sample size that some parents opted out of because of concerns about putting vulnerable children at risk. When schools reopen, hundreds more students with disabilities will be eligible for transportation services, based on current counts.

With school systems across the country plotting out a return to school, some want to prioritize the needs of special education students-and get them back in class to make up for lost time with teachers, therapists, and support staff during the school closures that swept the nation. Nationwide, more than 7.1 million students-about 14 percent of K-12 students-receive special education services.

To pave the way for students' return, state and district-level guidance on busing students has emphasized physical distancing and the need for masks and other personal protective equipment to keep students, bus drivers, and aides safe in small, enclosed spaces with many common contact surfaces that could facilitate the spread of coronavirus.

In northern Colorado, the Poudre schools will cut busing for most students in order to ensure that students with disabilities and homeless students-two groups guaranteed transportation under federal law-have access to it. Under the state's current school transportation guidance, only five students would be able to ride on a 47-passenger special education bus. Standard district buses, which some students with disabilities use, would only have 10 of the 77 seats available, per the guidance.

Another dilemma districts face is that, while many students will have trouble adjusting to wearing masks and maintaining physical distancing, some students cannot or will not adhere to the guidelines: medically fragile students or those in wheelchairs who need help to board buses; students on the autism spectrum or those with intellectual disabilities who do not understand the need to wear masks; and children with an emotional disturbance who might refuse to observe the requirements.

No matter the circumstances, schools should not expect to get a pass on busing students, transportation and legal experts say.

A Maryland Department of Education guide on transportation for students with disabilities delivers advice on what schools must do to avoid violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The guide lays out transportation requirements and warns that district transportation departments should not make decisions without approval from a student's IEP team, including teachers, therapists, paraprofessionals, and counselors or psychologists.

The guide suggests that districts survey parents to determine if students currently wear masks and are willing to keep them on. It also recommends that districts consider offering travel training-instructions that can help children with disabilities develop an awareness of their environment and safely use buses and other forms of transportation in ways that prevent the spread of coronavirus.

In New York City, nearly 75 percent of school bus breakdowns and delays involved special education buses, according to a newspaper analysis.

Roughly 40,000 children in the district are eligible for year-round special education services. Students will not return to class this summer, but the district will open sites across the city to resume one-on-one speech, physical, and occupational therapy services for students with disabilities. But it will not be busing students. Instead, the district will offer public transportation passes or travel reimbursement costs for families to get students to appointments.

Education Week spoke to many experts for this installment. In alphabetical order, they are: Brad Aemisegger, director of transportation, Toledo Public Schools; Tami Alphs, director of special services, Albert Lea, Minn., Area Schools; Tim Ammon, owner, Decision Support Group, and co-manager, STARTS (Student Transportation Aligned for Return To School) Task Force; Linda Bluth, transportation consultant, Maryland State Department of Education; Jesse Cole Cutler, partner, Law Office of Regina Skyler & Associates; Ron Hager, managing attorney for education and employment, National Disability Rights Network; Curt Macysyn, executive director, National School Transportation Association; Denise Marshall, executive director, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Kevin Rubenstein, assistant superintendent of student services, Elmhurst, Ill., Community Unit School District 205; Steve Simmons, president, National Association for Pupil Transportation; Wendy Tucker, senior director of policy, National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools; Julie Weatherly, owner and attorney, Resolutions in Special Education, Inc.

Documents: Transportation's Role in Recovery Planning: Maryland State Department of Education; Transportation for Students With Disabilities: Division of Early Intervention and Special Education Services, Maryland State Department of Education; Stronger Together: A Guidebook For the Safe Reopening of California's Public Schools; Reopening 2020-2021, Wake County, N.C., Public School System; Marietta, Ga., City Schools: Student Learning Options and Safety Protocols; COVID-19 Considerations for Re-Opening Schools: Pupil Transportation, Kentucky Department of Education; Going Back to School Before the Kids: A Return to School Roadmap, National Association of Pupil Transportation; Poudre, Colo., School District, Transportation FAQ for 2020-21; Poudre, Colo., School District, Transportation FAQ 2020-21; New York City Department of Education, Extended School Year Services for July and August; NYC School Bus Delays and Breakdowns Increased 73% in Four Years, With Special Education Kids Most Impacted, New York Daily News, Aug. 25, 2019; Questions and Answers on Serving Children With Disabilities Eligible for Transportation, U.S. Department of Education.

Web Only

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Getting Students With Disabilities Back to Class

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many students with disabilities, access to education begins with transportation. Plans for getting these students to and from school are spelled out in their Individualized Education Programs, the legal documents that govern schooling for students who are eligible for special education.

# data[].attributes.headline
5) News Article: Providing SPED services during the pandemic

# data[].attributes.subject
5) News Article: Providing SPED services during the pandemic

# data[].attributes.body
Through IDEA, Special Education students must receive services according to their IEP (Individual Education Plan)

How to ensure the health and safety of students unable to wear face masks throughout the day

Diament, M. (2020, October 5). Ed Department Reminds Schools of IDEA Obligations During Pandemic. Disability Scoop. Retrieved from

https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2020/10/05/ed-department-reminds-schools-of-idea-obligations-during-pandemic/29019/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With an unprecedented school year underway, federal officials are weighing in yet again on how educators ought to be serving students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The U.S. Department of Education issued two question-and-answer documents last week offering further clarification on how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other laws should be implemented while the nation grapples with the coronavirus.

The agency has now offered guidance at least a half-dozen times since March on how services for those with disabilities should proceed amid the pandemic. The Education Department said the latest information comes in response to inquiries it has received.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Above all, federal officials used the new guidance as another opportunity to impress upon educators their continued responsibilities under IDEA.

"No matter what primary instructional delivery approach is chosen, (state educational agencies, school districts) and individualized education program (IEP) teams remain responsible for ensuring that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is provided to all children with disabilities," reads a Q&A document issued by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services' Office of Special Education Programs.

IEP teams should consider a variety of ways that services can be provided, particularly given that changing circumstances may force children to move between in-person, remote and hybrid schedules as the school year goes on, the Education Department said.

What's more, in cases where extended school year services were not delivered over the summer because of the pandemic, schools should factor whether the offerings can be provided during the school year or during breaks or vacations, according to the guidance.

The agency's special education office also addressed some procedural issues like who should attend IEP meetings, when the IEP amendment process can be utilized and considerations for both initial evaluations and reevaluations.

Meanwhile, a separate Q&A document from the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights indicates that schools may choose to prioritize in-person learning for students with disabilities, but whether or not such priority is required "will depend on an individualized determination of the student's educational and disability-related needs."

The civil rights office also clarified several points related to services provided under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and spelled out how schools should handle cases where students with disabilities are unable to wear face coverings.

Districts should "make reasonable modifications in their policies, practices or procedures - including any addressing the use of face coverings - when those modifications can be made consistent with the health, safety and well-being of all students and staff, and are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability," the Q&A document indicates.

Like other guidance, the Education Department said that the newly-released documents do not establish any rights or policies, but simply serve as the agency's interpretation of existing laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ed Department Reminds Schools Of IDEA Obligations During Pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With an unprecedented school year underway, federal officials are weighing in yet again on how educators ought to be serving students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. Department of Education issued two question-and-answer documents last week offering further clarification on how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other laws should be implemented while the nation grapples with the coronavirus.

# data[].attributes.body
14th Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2.)

ensures that states may not deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, including but not limited to public elementary and secondary schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

# data[].attributes.body
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) 20 USC Ch. 33: EDUCATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

Free available education for eligible children with disabilities

IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide services

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Department of Education’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act website brings together department and grantee IDEA information and resources. The IDEA makes available a free appropriate public education to and ensures special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954)

Desegregation of schools was called

Equal educational rights for all students regardless of race or ability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Plessy Decision

Although the Declaration of Independence stated that "All men are created equal," due to the institution of slavery, this statement was not to be grounded in law in the United States until after the Civil War (and, arguably, not completely fulfilled for many years thereafter). In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified and finally put an end to slavery. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) strengthened the legal rights of newly freed slaves by stating, among other things, that no state shall deprive anyone of either "due process of law" or of the "equal protection of the law." Finally, the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) further strengthened the legal rights of newly freed slaves by prohibiting states from denying anyone the right to vote due to race.

Despite these Amendments, African Americans were often treated differently than whites in many parts of the country, especially in the South. In fact, many state legislatures enacted laws that led to the legally mandated segregation of the races. In other words, the laws of many states decreed that blacks and whites could not use the same public facilities, ride the same buses, attend the same schools, etc. These laws came to be known as Jim Crow laws. Although many people felt that these laws were unjust, it was not until the 1890s that they were directly challenged in court. In 1892, an African-American man named Homer Plessy refused to give up his seat to a white man on a train in New Orleans, as he was required to do by Louisiana state law. For this action he was arrested. Plessy, contending that the Louisiana law separating blacks from whites on trains violated the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, decided to fight his arrest in court. By 1896, his case had made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court ruled against Plessy. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice Henry Billings Brown, writing the majority opinion, stated that:

"The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to endorse social, as distinguished from political, equality. . . If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane."

The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshal Harlan, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment another way, stated, "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Justice Harlan's dissent would become a rallying cry for those in later generations that wished to declare segregation unconstitutional.

Sadly, as a result of the Plessy decision, in the early twentieth century the Supreme Court continued to uphold the legality of Jim Crow laws and other forms of racial discrimination. In the case of Cumming v. Richmond (Ga.) County Board of Education (1899), for instance, the Court refused to issue an injunction preventing a school board from spending tax money on a white high school when the same school board voted to close down a black high school for financial reasons. Moreover, in Gong Lum v. Rice (1927), the Court upheld a school's decision to bar a person of Chinese descent from a "white" school.

The Road to Brown

(Note: Some of the case information is from Patterson, James T. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy. Oxford University Press; New York, 2001.)

Early Cases

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy and similar cases, many people continued to press for the abolition of Jim Crow and other racially discriminatory laws. One particular organization that fought for racial equality was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) founded in 1909. For about the first 20 years of its existence, it tried to persuade Congress and other legislative bodies to enact laws that would protect African Americans from lynchings and other racist actions. Beginning in the 1930s, though, the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund began to turn to the courts to try to make progress in overcoming legally sanctioned discrimination. From 1935 to 1938, the legal arm of the NAACP was headed by Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston, together with Thurgood Marshall, devised a strategy to attack Jim Crow laws by striking at them where they were perhaps weakest-in the field of education. Although Marshall played a crucial role in all of the cases listed below, Houston was the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund while Murray v. Maryland and Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada were decided. After Houston returned to private practice in 1938, Marshall became head of the Fund and used it to argue the cases of Sweat v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education.

Pearson v. Murray (Md. 1936)

Disappointed that the University of Maryland School of Law was rejecting black applicants solely because of their race, beginning in 1933 Thurgood Marshall (who was himself rejected from this law school because of its racial acceptance policies) decided to challenge this practice in the Maryland court system. Before a Baltimore City Court in 1935, Marshall argued that Donald Gaines Murray was just as qualified as white applicants to attend the University of Maryland's School of Law and that it was solely due to his race that he was rejected. Furthermore, he argued that since the "black" law schools which Murray would otherwise have to attend were nowhere near the same academic caliber as the University's law school, the University was violating the principle of "separate but equal." Moreover, Marshall argued that the disparities between the "white" and "black" law schools were so great that the only remedy would be to allow students like Murray to attend the University's law school. The Baltimore City Court agreed and the University then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. In 1936, the Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of Murray and ordered the law school to admit him. Two years later, Murray graduated.

Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Beginning in 1936, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund decided to take on the case of Lloyd Gaines, a graduate student of Lincoln University (an all-black college) who applied to the University of Missouri Law School but was denied because of his race. The State of Missouri gave Gaines the option of either attending an all-black law school that it would build (Missouri did not have any all-black law schools at this time) or having Missouri help to pay for him to attend a law school in a neighboring state. Gaines rejected both of these options, and, employing the services of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, he decided to sue the state in order to attend the University of Missouri's law school. By 1938, his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and, in December of that year, the Court sided with him. The six-member majority stated that since a "black" law school did not currently exist in the State of Missouri, the "equal protection clause" required the state to provide, within its boundaries, a legal education for Gaines. In other words, since the state provided legal education for white students, it could not send black students, like Gaines, to school in another state.

Sweat v. Painter (1950)

Encouraged by their victory in Gaines' case, the NAACP continued to attack legally sanctioned racial discrimination in higher education. In 1946, an African American man named Heman Sweat applied to the University of Texas' "white" law school. Hoping that it would not have to admit Sweat to the "white" law school if a "black" school already existed, elsewhere on the University's campus, the state hastily set up an underfunded "black" law school. At this point, Sweat employed the services of Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and sued to be admitted to the University's "white" law school. He argued that the education that he was receiving in the "black" law school was not of the same academic caliber as the education that he would be receiving if he attended the "white" law school. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1950, the Court unanimously agreed with him, citing as its reason the blatant inequalities between the University's law school (the school for whites) and the hastily erected school for blacks. In other words, the "black" law school was "separate," but not "equal." Like the Murray case, the Court found the only appropriate remedy for this situation was to admit Sweat to the University's law school.

McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education (1950)

In 1949, the University of Oklahoma admitted George McLaurin, an African American, to its doctoral program. However, it required him to sit apart from the rest of his class, eat at a separate time and table from white students, etc. McLaurin, stating that these actions were both unusual and resulting in adverse effects on his academic pursuits, sued to put an end to these practices. McLaurin employed Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund to argue his case, a case which eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In an opinion delivered on the same day as the decision in Sweat, the Court stated that the University's actions concerning McLaurin were adversely affecting his ability to learn and ordered that they cease immediately.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954, 1955)

The case that came to be known as Brown v. Board of Education was actually the name given to five separate cases that were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the issue of segregation in public schools. These cases were Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. Board of Education of Prince Edward County (VA.), Bolling v. Sharpe, and Gebhart v. Ethel. While the facts of each case are different, the main issue in each was the constitutionality of state-sponsored segregation in public schools. Once again, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund handled these cases.

Although it acknowledged some of the plaintiffs'/plaintiffs claims, a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court that heard the cases ruled in favor of the school boards. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When the cases came before the Supreme Court in 1952, the Court consolidated all five cases under the name of Brown v. Board of Education. Marshall personally argued the case before the Court. Although he raised a variety of legal issues on appeal, the most common one was that separate school systems for blacks and whites were inherently unequal, and thus violate the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, relying on sociological tests, such as the one performed by social scientist Kenneth Clark, and other data, he also argued that segregated school systems had a tendency to make black children feel inferior to white children, and thus such a system should not be legally permissible.

Meeting to decide the case, the Justices of the Supreme Court realized that they were deeply divided over the issues raised. While most wanted to reverse Plessy and declare segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional, they had various reasons for doing so. Unable to come to a solution by June 1953 (the end of the Court's 1952-1953 term), the Court decided to rehear the case in December 1953. During the intervening months, however, Chief Justice Fred Vinson died and was replaced by Gov. Earl Warren of California. After the case was reheard in 1953, Chief Justice Warren was able to do something that his predecessor had not-i.e. bring all of the Justices to agree to support a unanimous decision declaring segregation in public schools unconstitutional. On May 14, 1954, he delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. . ."

Expecting opposition to its ruling, especially in the southern states, the Supreme Court did not immediately try to give direction for the implementation of its ruling. Rather, it asked the attorney generals of all states with laws permitting segregation in their public schools to submit plans for how to proceed with desegregation. After still more hearings before the Court concerning the matter of desegregation, on May 31, 1955, the Justices handed down a plan for how it was to proceed; desegregation was to proceed with "all deliberate speed." Although it would be many years before all segregated school systems were to be desegregated, Brown and Brown II (as the Courts plan for how to desegregate schools came to be called) were responsible for getting the process underway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Plessy Decision Although the Declaration of Independence stated that "All men are created equal," due to the institution of slavery, this statement was not to be grounded in law in the United States until after the Civil War (and, arguably, not completely fulfilled for many years thereafter).

# data[].attributes.body
19 Tex. Admin. Code § 89.1040

Eligibility Criteria including but not limited to:

Learning Disability

Other Health Impairments

Emotional Disturbance

# data[].attributes.body
Red Oak I.S.D. has a department dedicated to Specialized Learning, including but not limited to Special Education. The attached slide includes the link to Red Oak I.S.D.'s Specialized Learning department. IDEA defines disability to include:

Orthopedic Impairment

Other Health Impairment

Auditory Impairment

Visual Impairment

Deaf-Blindness

Intellectual Disability

Emotional Disturbance

Specific Learning Disability

Speech/Language Impairment

Autism

Traumatic Brain Injury

Multiple Disabilities

Non-Categorical Early Childhood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Once the parent and school agree that they suspect a child may have a disability that impacts his/her learning, the child is scheduled for a Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE). During this evaluation the child is evaluated in each area of suspected disability. Typically the child will be evaluated to determine his/her learning ability and his/her current academic achievement. Information is collected about the child's health status, communication skills, and emotional/behavioral needs. When necessary, other professionals are asked to provide information about the child's current abilities. This could include reports from the child's physician, additional evaluation of the child's speech and language skills, an evaluation by an occupational therapist or a physical therapist, or an evaluation by a psychologist.

Once the Full and Individual Evaluation is completed, a written report is developed, and a copy is provided to the parent. The results of the evaluation are reviewed by the Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD) committee. This committee is comprised of the child's parent, teacher, administrator, and other school staff as required by law. This group, after reviewing the results of the evaluation, determines whether the child meets federal criteria as a child with a disability and the educational needs of the child.

The disability categories identified in federal law include:

DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING

Deafness means a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired with processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, that adversely affects the child's educational performance.

Hearing impairment means an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects the child's educational performance but that is not included under the definition of deafness.
Related links:
A developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child's educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental changes or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.
Related link:
Concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with blindness.
Related link:

EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE

A condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child's educational performance:

An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors

An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers

Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances

A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression

A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY

Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child's educational performance.

ORTHOPEDIC IMPAIRMENT

A severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by a congenital anomaly, impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis), and impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contracture).

OTHER HEALTH IMPAIRMENT

Having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that...

is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome; and

adversely affects a child's educational performance.

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY

A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
Related links:
A communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child's educational performance.

TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

An acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both that adversely affects a child's educational performance. Traumatic brain injury applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. Traumatic brain injury does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma.
Related link:
VISUAL IMPAIRMENT

An impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness.

Related links:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Specialized Learning / Child-Centered Process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Once the parent and school agree that they suspect a child may have a disability that impacts his/her learning, the child is scheduled for a Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE). During this evaluation the child is evaluated in each area of suspected disability.

# data[].attributes.body
RESPONSIBILITY TO STUDENTS A.1.c. Do not diagnose but remain acutely aware of how a student’s diagnosis can potentially affect the student’s academic success.

School counselors are not responsible for diagnosing students, but are ethically responsible creating a learning environment that allows for student success.

# data[].attributes.body
This site offers a multitude of information and additional links involving Special Education. Specific disabilities, processes, and laws are included.

Step 3: Determining Special Education Eligibility (2019). Retrieved from https://www.understandingspecialeducation.com/special-education-eligibility.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
STEP 3: Determining Special Education Eligibility

Special education eligibility is bound by IDEA but there are no definite rules for determining who is eligible for special education. This is a VERY important concept to understand. It means that under the law, the IEP team has the flexibility to determine if a child qualifies for services.

Criteria states that to qualify for special education services, a child must have one of the 13 disabilities as defined by IDEA AND the impact of the disability must create a need for services.

Examples of adverse impacts include:

A discrepancy between performance and ability

Limited progress, or deficiency in cognitive areas

Evidence of emotional or behavioral disturbances

Problems with fine or gross motor skills.

For example, if a child is developmentally and chronologically ten years old but continues to read at a first grade level, the adverse effect would be a limited progression in reading.

A statistical breakdown from 2007 shows the percentages of children in each of the 13 categories of special education.

Specific Learning Disability: 44.6%
Speech and Language: 19.1%
Other Health Impaired: 9.9%
Mental Retardation: 8.6%
Emotional Disturbance: 7.5%
Autism Spectrum Disorder: 3.7%
Multiple Disabilities: 2.2%
Developmental Delay 1.4%
Hearing Impaired 1.2%
Orthopedic Impaired: 1.0%
Visually Impaired: .04%
Traumatic Brain Injury: .04%
Deaf and Blindness: .04%

With regards to and autism spectrum disorders, IDEA allows school districts to add classifications at their discretion. This means that if a disorder is severe, the IEP team can determine that a child needs special education services. Many districts use the "Other Health Impaired" category for these types of situations.

If your child's performance is NOT hindered by their disability, they may not qualify for services, even if they have one of the thirteen disabilities.

Consequently, determining if a child is eligible is not cut and dry. It really depends on the child and their specific situation. Fortunately, IDEA was written to support this flexibility.

STEP 4 of the IEP Process is

to write the Individual Education Program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Special education eligibility is bound by IDEA but there are no definite rules for determining who is eligible for special education. This is a VERY important concept to understand. It means that under the law, the IEP team has the flexibility to determine if a child qualifies for services.

# data[].attributes.body
Adhere to Response to Intervention practices

Stay educated on the laws of Special Education

Hold Annual ARDs (Admission, Review, & Dismissal)

Ensure student is receiving services outlined in their IEP (Individual Education Plan)

Provide services and/or resources in student's native language

Inform/include all stakeholders of any changes to IEP