Post by Mayleng on Nov 8, 2003 9:28:23 GMT -5
Pls read this, and be ready to write to your senators, if this is going to impact anybody it is going to be a major impact on our ADHD kids as it deals with Behavior. Our Kids are in serious trouble if they implement the new revisions to the IDEA. They are taking alot of protections away from our kids.
NOVEMBER 6, 2003
WHAT IS AND WHAT SHALL BE
The Senate’s version of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] has been released to the public and sent to the Senate floor. We have no firm assurance that the bill will be debated and passed before the Senate takes its holiday break, but our expectation is that it will be voted on within the next three weeks. We all must do what we can to educate ourselves to this new S1248 and to let our Senators know how we feel. Our Children Left Behind hopes to summarize parts of the bill for our readers to help in the education process.
Our S1248 topic for today is discipline. The Senate bill radically alters IDEA, deleting many current protections. If you only have time to make one contact with the Senate about S1248 we believe these provisions most need your comments and criticism.
Our children, with and without disabilities, attend school to learn across the spectrum. They go for reading, writing and arithmetic, and to learn how to interact with peers, adults and society. We expect our children to make mistakes while at school, both academically and in the social skills arena. Our children with disabilities frequently have greater difficulty mastering social skills than they do mastering academics. IDEA’s disciplinary provisions recognize this fact and strive to turn disciplinary procedures into learning opportunities rather than opportunities to punish. S1248’s primary focus is on punishment, not learning.
The present IDEA places heavy focus on involving school personnel and parents in a process that tries to understand student behavior and to change it, rather than to punish it. Here are just a few of the ways those efforts are made.
· IDEA does not specifically define behaviors that would subject a child with or without disabilities to discipline. S1248 specifically permits disciplining students with disabilities who violate the student code of conduct.
· When challenging behavior is identified, schools are required to evaluate the behavior using functional assessments of behavior and develop behavior intervention plans. If a behavior plan already exists, the IEP Team must review and modify the plan as necessary to address the challenging behavior. S1248 eliminates these requirements.
· If a school initiates disciplinary action that might result in separating the student from her/his current educational placement for more than ten days the school must – on the day the decision is made – notify the parents of the action and provide them with written notice of their procedural safeguards. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
Both IDEA and S1248 use the “manifestation determination” method of evaluating a child’s behavior and deciding what effect, if any, the child’s disability has on the behavior. S1248 eliminates many of the current “process” safeguards available to schools and students.
· IDEA requires the IEP Team to rule out the child’s disability related issues before the student can be punished for the behavior. S1248 reverses the focus to requiring proof that “the conduct in question was the result of the child’s disability.”
· IDEA specifically requires that the IEP Team consider and review the student’s IEP and placement as part of the manifestation review process. S1248 ELIMINATES this requirement.
· IDEA requires the IEP Team to specifically find that the student’s IEP and placement both were appropriate. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· Under IDEA, the IEP Team must specifically find that the student’s IEP supports and behavior strategies were in fact being provided to the student. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA mandates that the IEP Team specifically determine that the student’s disability neither impaired the student’s ability to understand the impact and consequences of her/his behavior nor impaired her/his ability to control the behavior. S1248 ELIMINATES THESE REQUIREMENTS.
IDEA and S1248 both permit the school to move the student to an “interim alternate educational setting” for certain serious behaviors, but S1248 significantly erodes both hearing officer powers and student protections.
· Both IDEA and S1248 permit use of alternative placements for 45 days if the student possesses a dangerous weapon or possesses or sells drugs, whether or not the behavior is related to the student’s disability.
· IDEA recognizes the school’s right to place student’s in alternative placements when the student’s placement “is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others,” but the “substantially likely” finding must be made by a hearing officer. S1248 permits alternative placement when the student “has committed serious bodily injury,” by including this provision with its provisions regulating weapons and drugs. The school makes the decision, subject to hearing officer review, rather than the hearing officer making the decision.
Under IDEA, hearing officers must consider a number of factors before ratifying alternative placement for students other than those who committed weapons or drug violations. S1248 radically modifies hearing officer requirements and powers.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to consider the appropriateness of the student’s placement. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to consider whether the school made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm to the student and others. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to confirm that the alternative setting permits the child to participate in the general curriculum and continues to receive IEP services and modifications to “meet the goals” of the student’s IEP. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires [and permits] the school to have an expedited hearing if the school questions the student’s potential dangerousness in her/his regular placement. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT AND PERMITS A CHILD’S ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT FOR FEAR OF DANGEROUSNESS WITHOUT NEED FOR ADVANCE APPROVAL FROM THE HEARING OFFICER.
· Once placed in an alternative setting, IDEA requires that the setting must “enable the child to meet the goals set out in [her/his] IEP. S1248 ONLY REQUIRES THAT THE SETTING ENABLE THE CHILD “TO PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING” IEP GOALS.
S1248 also dramatically alters how a manifestation determination or placement decision is considered by the IEP Team and/or hearing officer.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to find that the school “that the child’s behavior was not a manifestation of such child’s disability.” S1248 ONLY REQUIRES THE HEARING OFFICER TO “DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECISION REGARDING SUCH ACTION WAS APPROPRIATE.”
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to determine the appropriateness of a child’s placement as part of her/his review of the IEP Team’s manifestation determination. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer evaluating evidence alleging a student’s dangerousness to find that the school has “demonstrated by substantial evidence” the student is substantially likely to injure himself or others. S1248 ELIMINATES THE “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA specifically defines the term “substantial evidence.” S1248 ELIMINATES BOTH THE TERM AND THE DEFINITION.
Finally, IDEA states that once a student’s 45-day alternative placement has ended, the student shall be returned to her/his current IEP placement. If the school wishes to challenge that “current” IEP placement and the parents contest the change through due process, IDEA states that the “stay-put” placement for the student is the “current” IEP placement. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS PROVISION.
The changes outlined above should scare the wits out of any parent whose child experiences delayed ability to learn social skills and behavior skills in a school setting. Virtually every IDEA presumption favoring fair and honest evaluation of the student’s needs and behavior has been eliminated in favor of weak provisions that emphasize school discretion over student rights. We cannot permit these provisions to become law.
Stay tuned to Our Children Left Behind over these next few days as we continue to share our analysis and to post the findings of other advocacy and consumer representative organizations. Be prepared to call your Senators. It is more vital now than ever.
Tricia and Calvin Luker
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com
©2003 by Tricia and Calvin Luker.
Our Children Left Behind [OCLB] was created and is owned/operated by parent volunteers (Sandy Alperstein, Tricia & Calvin Luker, Shari Krishnan, and Debi Lewis). Permission to forward, copy, and/or post this article is granted provided that it is attributed to the author(s) and www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com. For more about OCLB or to share information, please contact parentvolunteer@ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
Edited by:
NOVEMBER 6, 2003
WHAT IS AND WHAT SHALL BE
The Senate’s version of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] has been released to the public and sent to the Senate floor. We have no firm assurance that the bill will be debated and passed before the Senate takes its holiday break, but our expectation is that it will be voted on within the next three weeks. We all must do what we can to educate ourselves to this new S1248 and to let our Senators know how we feel. Our Children Left Behind hopes to summarize parts of the bill for our readers to help in the education process.
Our S1248 topic for today is discipline. The Senate bill radically alters IDEA, deleting many current protections. If you only have time to make one contact with the Senate about S1248 we believe these provisions most need your comments and criticism.
Our children, with and without disabilities, attend school to learn across the spectrum. They go for reading, writing and arithmetic, and to learn how to interact with peers, adults and society. We expect our children to make mistakes while at school, both academically and in the social skills arena. Our children with disabilities frequently have greater difficulty mastering social skills than they do mastering academics. IDEA’s disciplinary provisions recognize this fact and strive to turn disciplinary procedures into learning opportunities rather than opportunities to punish. S1248’s primary focus is on punishment, not learning.
The present IDEA places heavy focus on involving school personnel and parents in a process that tries to understand student behavior and to change it, rather than to punish it. Here are just a few of the ways those efforts are made.
· IDEA does not specifically define behaviors that would subject a child with or without disabilities to discipline. S1248 specifically permits disciplining students with disabilities who violate the student code of conduct.
· When challenging behavior is identified, schools are required to evaluate the behavior using functional assessments of behavior and develop behavior intervention plans. If a behavior plan already exists, the IEP Team must review and modify the plan as necessary to address the challenging behavior. S1248 eliminates these requirements.
· If a school initiates disciplinary action that might result in separating the student from her/his current educational placement for more than ten days the school must – on the day the decision is made – notify the parents of the action and provide them with written notice of their procedural safeguards. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
Both IDEA and S1248 use the “manifestation determination” method of evaluating a child’s behavior and deciding what effect, if any, the child’s disability has on the behavior. S1248 eliminates many of the current “process” safeguards available to schools and students.
· IDEA requires the IEP Team to rule out the child’s disability related issues before the student can be punished for the behavior. S1248 reverses the focus to requiring proof that “the conduct in question was the result of the child’s disability.”
· IDEA specifically requires that the IEP Team consider and review the student’s IEP and placement as part of the manifestation review process. S1248 ELIMINATES this requirement.
· IDEA requires the IEP Team to specifically find that the student’s IEP and placement both were appropriate. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· Under IDEA, the IEP Team must specifically find that the student’s IEP supports and behavior strategies were in fact being provided to the student. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA mandates that the IEP Team specifically determine that the student’s disability neither impaired the student’s ability to understand the impact and consequences of her/his behavior nor impaired her/his ability to control the behavior. S1248 ELIMINATES THESE REQUIREMENTS.
IDEA and S1248 both permit the school to move the student to an “interim alternate educational setting” for certain serious behaviors, but S1248 significantly erodes both hearing officer powers and student protections.
· Both IDEA and S1248 permit use of alternative placements for 45 days if the student possesses a dangerous weapon or possesses or sells drugs, whether or not the behavior is related to the student’s disability.
· IDEA recognizes the school’s right to place student’s in alternative placements when the student’s placement “is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others,” but the “substantially likely” finding must be made by a hearing officer. S1248 permits alternative placement when the student “has committed serious bodily injury,” by including this provision with its provisions regulating weapons and drugs. The school makes the decision, subject to hearing officer review, rather than the hearing officer making the decision.
Under IDEA, hearing officers must consider a number of factors before ratifying alternative placement for students other than those who committed weapons or drug violations. S1248 radically modifies hearing officer requirements and powers.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to consider the appropriateness of the student’s placement. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to consider whether the school made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm to the student and others. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to confirm that the alternative setting permits the child to participate in the general curriculum and continues to receive IEP services and modifications to “meet the goals” of the student’s IEP. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires [and permits] the school to have an expedited hearing if the school questions the student’s potential dangerousness in her/his regular placement. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT AND PERMITS A CHILD’S ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT FOR FEAR OF DANGEROUSNESS WITHOUT NEED FOR ADVANCE APPROVAL FROM THE HEARING OFFICER.
· Once placed in an alternative setting, IDEA requires that the setting must “enable the child to meet the goals set out in [her/his] IEP. S1248 ONLY REQUIRES THAT THE SETTING ENABLE THE CHILD “TO PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING” IEP GOALS.
S1248 also dramatically alters how a manifestation determination or placement decision is considered by the IEP Team and/or hearing officer.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to find that the school “that the child’s behavior was not a manifestation of such child’s disability.” S1248 ONLY REQUIRES THE HEARING OFFICER TO “DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECISION REGARDING SUCH ACTION WAS APPROPRIATE.”
· IDEA requires a hearing officer to determine the appropriateness of a child’s placement as part of her/his review of the IEP Team’s manifestation determination. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA requires a hearing officer evaluating evidence alleging a student’s dangerousness to find that the school has “demonstrated by substantial evidence” the student is substantially likely to injure himself or others. S1248 ELIMINATES THE “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” REQUIREMENT.
· IDEA specifically defines the term “substantial evidence.” S1248 ELIMINATES BOTH THE TERM AND THE DEFINITION.
Finally, IDEA states that once a student’s 45-day alternative placement has ended, the student shall be returned to her/his current IEP placement. If the school wishes to challenge that “current” IEP placement and the parents contest the change through due process, IDEA states that the “stay-put” placement for the student is the “current” IEP placement. S1248 ELIMINATES THIS PROVISION.
The changes outlined above should scare the wits out of any parent whose child experiences delayed ability to learn social skills and behavior skills in a school setting. Virtually every IDEA presumption favoring fair and honest evaluation of the student’s needs and behavior has been eliminated in favor of weak provisions that emphasize school discretion over student rights. We cannot permit these provisions to become law.
Stay tuned to Our Children Left Behind over these next few days as we continue to share our analysis and to post the findings of other advocacy and consumer representative organizations. Be prepared to call your Senators. It is more vital now than ever.
Tricia and Calvin Luker
www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com
©2003 by Tricia and Calvin Luker.
Our Children Left Behind [OCLB] was created and is owned/operated by parent volunteers (Sandy Alperstein, Tricia & Calvin Luker, Shari Krishnan, and Debi Lewis). Permission to forward, copy, and/or post this article is granted provided that it is attributed to the author(s) and www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com. For more about OCLB or to share information, please contact parentvolunteer@ourchildrenleftbehind.com.
Edited by: