Early Childhood Family Support

Redirect - Beach Center's Family Support Community on Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:05:00 +0000

This blog is, for now, not being updated and the original community of practice that spawned it and was the source of many of the great resources posted here is also gone.

But this is not the end, just a new beginning.

The Family Support community has been reborn on Facebook:

. . . and join us in creating a new community of practice

. . . on Facebook . . . on Ning . . . on LinkedIn . . . Twitter

whereever you go online to find and share information

and resources for improving the quality of life of families

with members who have disabilities--we want to be there with you.

Click on the image or go to: Beach Center Family Support CoP on Facebook

In Memory of Jay Turnbull

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:17:00 +0000

http://jayturnbullmemorial.blogspot.com/

Today on January 7, 2009, we are sad to announce that our beloved friend and co-worker, Jay Turnbull died suddenly while at the start of his morning routine. Jay’s father and mother are Rud and Ann Turnbull, Co-founders and Co-Directors of the Beach Center on Disability. He was their inspiration for the Beach Center. He worked at the Beach Center from its beginning in 1988 and provided over 20 years of dedicated service. Jay quickly befriended all of us at the Beach Center and many, many friends in the Lawrence community with his endearing smile, special handshake, and infectious laughter. While Jay was widely known and welcomed in the Lawrence community, he also touched so many lives worldwide through the stories Ann and Rud shared about him and their life together. In so many ways, Jay changed the world.

Without Jay, there would be no Beach Center on Disability. He was our greatest teacher and our biggest inspiration. Jay was and continues to be the heart and soul of our work. It is in his name that we renew our dedication to making life better for all people with disabilities and their families.

You can post your memories, stories, and tributes to Jay to Jay’s friends on a blog dedicated to JT's memory at http://jayturnbullmemorial.blogspot.com/ or email them to Lois Weldon, lois@ku.edu , or Martha Blue-Banning, at mbb@ku.edu.

Visitation will be Friday evening at 6 at the Warren-McElwain Funeral Home, 120 West 13th St., Lawrence, KS. The funeral will be Saturday at 11:00 a.m. at the Plymouth Congregational Church, 925 Vermont, Lawrence, Kansas. Rud and Ann ask you to consider making donations to the Jay Turnbull Fellowship, KU Endowment Association, 1891 Constant Avenue, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7548, 888.653.6111.

Thank you for all your support and your prayers

The Staff of the Beach Center on Disability

Elevating Disability Policy within the White House Domestic Policy Council

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:08:00 +0000

A CALL TO THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY

FROM RUD AND ANN TURNBULL
BEACH CENTER ON DISABILITY
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

ELEVATE DISABILTY POLICY WITHIN THE
WHITE HOUSE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL

Background

The audacity of hope lies in the heart of the disability community.

The insistence on rights is still part of its daily agenda.

As individuals with disabilities and their families perform their civic responsibilities, they prove that rights create opportunities for effective citizenship.

The integration of disability policy into other policies can threaten individuals and families affected by disabilities; there are no assurances that policy reforms will always be disability-sensitive and provide for reasonable accommodations or other means for equal treatment.

But the integration of disability policy also creates opportunities because policy-integration advances integration and full participation of people with disabilities.

Individuals with disabilities and their families need a change they can believe in – a change that only President Obama and his leadership team can offer.

They need the opportunity to participate as equals in domestic policy debates.

So, we propose elevating disability policy.

Proposal

The President should create a Disability Policy Section within the White House Domestic Policy Council.

The Disability Policy Section should have the same status, opportunities, responsibilities, and staffing as policy sections related to all other major areas of domestic policy.

In particular, it should have the opportunity and responsibility to participate in all other units of the Council to develop new or assure the vigorous implementation of current policy.

To these ends, it should have leadership with the same expertise as the other sections related to domestic policy.

To the maximum extent practicable, it should be directed and staffed by individuals who have disabilities and are parents or other close family members of individuals with disabilities.

That kind of staffing will acknowledge that families are the core units of society and that attaining the nation’s four disability policy goals – equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and full participation – depends on the strength of families as much as on the opportunities for and strength of people with disabilities.

Accordingly, it should be directed by an individual who has extensive experience in developing disability policy as a result of service in Congress, as a senior member of the staff of a Congressional committee with jurisdiction over disability policy, or as a member of an executive agency responsible for implementing disability policy.

Further, its director or the director’s designee should have ex officio membership on such existing federal commissions and committees as the National Council on Disability, the President’s Commission on People with Intellectual Disability, and comparable entities.

If you agree in substance with our proposal, please contact

· Melody.barnes@ptt.gov

· Heather.higginbottom@ptt.gov

They are members of the transition team charged with domestic policy work.

School Discipline and Behavior Intervention: REDUX

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:37:00 +0000

Update! Check out this free IDEA online discipline tool!

Of all the posts on this blog, the ones related to school discipline, positive behavior interventions, and the stay put rule are the most popular -- so it is time for a school discipline and behavior intervention REDUX. We've put a lot of useful information up regarding IDEA, behavior, and discipline, but if you think of something you want us to add or a question you would like answered, just let me know.

We dispelled the 5 big Myths about Discipline and IDEA .
We discussed Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and when IDEA requires the school to consider using PBIS. We also provide some links to PBIS resources in this post.
We discussed IDEA's requirements regarding long and short term suspensions or expulsions.
We explained how and when the 10-day rule turns a series of short term removals into a long term removal.
We discussed IDEA's discipline rules with respect to behavior involving weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury .
We went over manifestation determinations and when and how they are applied.
We explained how the stay-put rule applies (or doesn't apply) to disciplinary removals.

We've covered a lot of ground here, and I hope it has been helpful. Any other specific discipline or behavior topics you want me to cover?

Early childhood inclusion: inclusion in a natural environment

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:51:00 +0000

The least restrictive environment mandate applies to children ages 3-21 under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For children age 0-3, inclusion is guided by Part C of IDEA, which requires inclusion for infants and toddlers with disabilities to be fostered through early intervention services provided in "natural environments." This article provides an overview of the natural environment mandate.

What is a Natural Environment?

A natural environment is one in which a child would receive services if he or she did not have a disability. In other words, a natural environment is one that is typical for children without disabilities. Thus the word "natural" simply refers to a setting that is not exclusively provided for children with disabilities. Inclusion for early intervention is therefore a bit different from inclusion in schools --it is about "normalization" rather than just interaction and participation alongside children without disabilities. Natural environments include both the home of the child and inclusive care settings. Since children without disabilities are often raised entirely in the home environment, the home is considered a natural environment even if it does not provide opportunities for the child to interact with children who do not have disabilities. Since many children without disabilities are also in child care settings, those child care settings that include children with and without disabilities are also natural environments.

What is the Natural Environment mandate?

Put simply, the requirement to deliver early intervention services in a natural environment is really a legal preference or presumption. A child must receive early intervention services in a natural environment unless the purposes of early intervention cannot be successfully achieved in a natural environment. Thus, services can be in a non-natural environment if the needs of the child require it--such as when a child requires extensive medical interventions. But early intervention services in a care setting that does not include children without disabilities (a setting that is not a natural environment) must be justified in the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) based on the child's needs.

Choosing the Natural Environment: Home vs. Inclusive Care Settings

Since the home is considered a natural environment and an inclusive care setting is also considered a natural environment--how do you decide which natural environment to use? IDEA provides some guidance here in that it says the "most appropriate" natural environment should be used--but how do you decide which natural environment is most appropriate? Appropriateness in IDEA refers to the benefit the child will receive. So, whether a home environment or inclusive care setting is most appropriate depends on which is more likely to provide the most benefit to the child. For example, if the IFSP team determines that the child would particularly benefit from opportunities to interact with children without disabilities, than an inclusive care setting would be the most appropriate natural environment. Note that choosing the natural environment is not an either or question--some early intervention services may be best provided in the home while others may be best provided in an inclusive care environment.

IDEA and progress toward full inclusion

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:16:00 +0000

Sometimes a child is not ready for full inclusion in the classroom and may even need to receive services in a segregated environment. This is why IDEA provides a continuum of placements and requires maximizing inclusion rather than full inclusion. But if one of the goals of special education is to prepare the student for life after school, we must ask how well those segregated environments prepare the student to work, learn, live, and play in the community. Our national goals of equal opportunity, full inclusion and participation in society, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for students with disabilities cannot be achieved through the use of segregated settings. Even if we can't achieve full inclusion for all students, we can ensure that the child's educational opportunities become increasingly inclusive over time.

The mandate for increasing inclusion is not explicit in IDEA. IDEA explicitly provides many rules about inclusion in schools, inclusion in the general curriculum, and inclusion in classrooms--as I discussed in the Inclusion in Schools post--but doesn't say anything specifically about increasing inclusion. So where does this rule originate? Where is this requirement?

You have to look at the forest instead of the trees. Inclusion is one of the purposes behind IDEA. Inclusion is part of the definition of an appropriate education. In conducting the evaluation, the IEP team must examine how the student's disability affects inclusion. In creating the IEP, the team must--in addition to maximizing inclusion--include goals related to the student's access to and progress in the general curriculum (part of inclusion).

So . . . IDEA requires you to know what needs affect inclusion, address those needs with appropriate services, and then evaluate progress and re-evaluate what needs affect inclusion. If you are successfully addressing the reasons the student can't receive services in a more inclusive environment, shouldn't it logically follow that you are improving the student's ability to receive education in an inclusive setting? Shouldn't the maximizing the student's inclusion in school mean responding to improved ability to access and participate in inclusive settings, lessons, and activities? Put simply, if the student is not better able to participate in an inclusive environment than he or she isn't making significant progress and isn't receiving an appropriate (and inclusive) education.

Inclusion in Schools: more than just inclusion in the classroom

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:49:00 +0000

Part B of the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) requires inclusion in schools to be maximized for each child with a disability. But what does that really mean? What is inclusion? Some people still seem to think it means just ensuring inclusion in the classroom, or in other words, placement in a regular education classroom. Some may even think inclusion in schools with children who do not have disabilities is sufficient to meet IDEA's requirements for inclusion. Still others may argue that inclusion in schools refers only to academics. In this inclusion article, I try to clear up some of these misconceptions about one of the most controversial issues in special education: inclusion and the least restrictive environment mandate (LRE).

What is Inclusion and What is the LRE?

I am discussing these terms, inclusion and LRE, together because they are often used interchangeably. If you want to be precise, inclusion is a theory about participation of children with disabilities and the LRE is the legal mandate for inclusion in schools as set out in IDEA.

What Does IDEA Require for Inclusion in Schools?

The easiest way to remember and apply the LRE/inclusion rule is to start by asking: What is typical for students without disabilities? Whatever that is, the LRE mandate requires the school to provide students with disabilities to the "maximum extent appropriate" with the same opportunities as children without disabilities. This means access, participation, placement, and interaction in the same activities alongside students without disabilities. Thus, inclusion in schools includes:

Inclusion in the classroom that students without disabilities attend
Participation in the regular academic curriculum or "general curriculum"
Participation in extracurricular activities (clubs and sports)
Inclusion in other school activities with other students (meals, busing, recess, etc.)

What Does Maximizing Inclusion in Schools Mean?

Not all students with disabilities can learn what they need to in regular classrooms or participate fully in the general curriculum or in all school activities. IDEA recognizes this and requires maximizing inclusion in schools rather than full inclusion in schools or even full inclusion in the classroom. To maximize inclusion means to provide as much inclusion in the above areas as possible and providing separate services, environments, and activities only when inclusion is not appropriate (i.e. harmful or not beneficial) because of the child's disability.

Other resources for inclusion in schools and inclusion in the classroom:

The philosophy of inclusion

Benefits of inclusive education

Inclusion strategies
Inclusive teaching

Big list of inclusive education resources

Note: This post covers inclusion in schools for students ages 3-21 under Part B of IDEA--not inclusion in the classroom for infants and toddlers under Part C of IDEA.

Discipline and Safety: Weapons, Drugs, and Injury

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:43:00 +0000

Update! Check out this free IDEA online discipline tool!

We all want safe schools. When a student's behavior compromises the safety of the school and the safety of students, the school must act--particularly when the behavior involves weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury. Behaviors that involve weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury are categorically different from simple violations of the school's code of conduct, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) recognizes the difference and makes student and school safety a priority. IDEA provides exceptions to its standard discipline provisions for a student with a disability whose behavior involves weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury.

In this post, I discuss discipline under IDEA when the student's behavior involves weapons, drugs, and serious bodily injury--starting with the heightened flexibility of schools to ensure safety by removing the student from the school.

What can a school do when a student's behavior involves weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury?

First, I should note that none of the other discipline options are off the table just because the student's behavior involved weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury (see Top 5 Myths of IDEA Discipline ).

Second, IDEA specifically allows schools to immediately put the student in a interim alternate educational setting (IAES) for up to 45 days without discussion and before a hearing, manifestation determination, or other procedures even begin. Of course such removal does trigger the long term suspension rules, but with one exception as discussed below.

Third, even if the behavior (the weapons, drugs, or serious bodily injury violation) turns out to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the school can keep the student in the IAES. The student with a disability's behavior is a threat to student safety, and thus, the school does not have to send the student back to his/her regular education setting even if the behavior is a manifestation of disability.

So what behavior triggers IDEA's exceptions for weapons, drugs, and serious bodily injury?

Weapons--All a student has to do to violate this part of the rule is to carry or possess a weapon on school grounds or at a school function. A "weapon" is (basically) defined as a device used for or readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury according to the federal criminal code.

Drugs--If the drug is illegal possession or use is sufficient behavior to trigger a violation. If the drug is a "controlled substance," or in other words a drug that is available by prescription, a violation occurs if they sell or solicit the sale of the drug. The distinction here is that IDEA does not intend to provide the exception when a student with a disability is simply using a drug legally prescribed to him or her.

Serious Bodily Injury--As defined in the criminal code, serious bodily injury means injury that involves substantial risk of death, extreme pain, serious disfigurement, or loss of functional ability. It is a pretty high bar all things considered, but remember that this definition is only for the exception to the regular rules governing discipline--schools may still follow those procedures.

Discipline and Behavior: Top 5 IDEA Myths

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:36:00 +0000

There are a lot of myths out there about discipline or punishment and the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA). Most of the myths suggest that the IDEA prevents schools from disciplining or punishing students with disabilities. Here are my top 5 IDEA myths related to discipline, punishment, and behavior.

Myth 1: IDEA doesn't allow students with disabilities to be punished for bad behavior.

Ridiculous. IDEA doesn't affect most types of discipline except to say that you can only discipline students with disabilities to the same extent and in the same manner that students without disabilities are punished. To do otherwise is discriminatory. There are only two situations in which discipline is affected by IDEA: when the discipline involves a long term suspension or when the behavior impedes learning. In the latter case, the punishment isn't affected, the school simply has to also act to address the behavior such as through positive behavior supports. Detention, extra work, sending the student to the office--pretty much all of the standard punishments--are unaffected by IDEA.

Myth 2: IDEA doesn't allow schools to suspend students with disabilities.

Nonsense. IDEA allows schools to suspend a student with a disability for up to 10 days without triggering any special protections or inquiries. As mentioned before, it is only long-term suspensions that are different.

Myth 3: You can't discipline or punish a child with a disability if the behavior is caused by the disability.

You'd think this would be true since it seems pretty unfair to punish a child for a behavior that they can't control (that is a manifestation of their disability), but it's a myth. A manifestation determination only comes into play if there is . . . you guessed it . . . a long-term suspension. IDEA allows schools flexibility here, because the legislature recognized that consequences can be an important part of addressing a student's disability related behavior needs. IDEA does, thankfully, allow schools to take into account the student's disability in determining disciplinary action. So, one would hope that schools use this flexibility to provide a more equitable approach to disciplining a student whose behavior is not entirely under their control. One that is calculated to improve the behavior would be best. Arguably, if a student's behavior is caused by the child's disability, it represents one of the student's disability related needs and should be addressed (at least in some way) in the student's IEP.

Myth 4: IDEA discipline provisions only protect students who have already qualified for special education.

Just because a student hasn't been found eligible for IDEA--i.e. hasn't been evaluated--doesn't necessarily mean the student doesn't have a disability or doesn't qualify for the protections offered by IDEA's discipline provisions. A student (or parent) can claim IDEA protections if (a) their child does have a disability and (b) the school "had knowledge" about the disability before the behavior occurred. The schools is considered to "have knowledge" of the disability if the parent or school personnel expressed concerns about the student having a disability or requested an evaluation. Of course, if the parent refused to consent to an evaluation or the child is evaluated and found not to have a disability--the IDEA discipline provisions don't apply.

Myth 5: It is reverse discrimination to not punish students with disabilities the same as other children.

Ok, in some very limited situations, this might be somewhat true (although it is hard to come up with an example)--but that's why IDEA's disciplinary default is the same treatment rule. All things considered, the impact of discipline on students with disabilities--particularly when it takes away from time in instruction--is often going to be greater than it will be on other students. Students with disabilities are also more commonly exposed to negative treatment from other students that can lead to behavior issues even in the most well-behaved of children. Add to that the fact that some behaviors are only going to be partially under the control of some students with disabilities and that students with intellectual disabilities may lack necessary understanding of the rules (but will still be subject to them), and it's pretty clear that the system is still weighted against students who have disabilities. More than anything else, IDEA provides school personnel the ability to balance out these inequities and thereby give students with disabilities a chance to receive the benefits of our education system to which all children are, or should be, entitled.

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports (PBIS): IDEA requirements

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:23:00 +0000

Update! Check out this free IDEA online discipline tool!

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), also called positive behavior supports (PBS), are an approach to changing behavior that encourages (supports) positive behaviors rather than just punishing negative behaviors. PBIS can be implemented school-wide or be used to support positive behavior in individual students. Some schools use PBIS and some schools don't, but in some situations, the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) requires a school to consider using positive behavior interventions and supports, whether or not PBIS is part of the school's usual approach to problem behavior.

This post discusses when IDEA requires consideration of positive behavior interventions and supports and what that means. If you just want to know more about PBIS, you should check out the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance website (sponsored by OSEP). If you are interested in the law and PBIS, read on.

When is a school required to consider positive behavior interventions and supports?

The basic rule is that the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team must consider positive behavior interventions and supports and other strategies to address a child's behavior if the behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others.

Let's break that down to figure out when PBIS must be considered.

First, the school is only required to consider PBIS when a behavior impedes learning. IDEA doesn't define what "impede" means, but generally, it means that PBIS is required when the behavior is disruptive of teaching or otherwise has a significant effect on time spent or concentration on learning.

Second, the PBIS provision of IDEA specifically says impedes the learning of the student or others. So, PBIS must be considered regardless of whether the behavior interferes with the child's studies or disrupts the learning of other students.

So, that tells us when PBIS must be considered; but what does it mean to "consider" PBIS? Let's break it down a bit more.

Third, to "consider" positive behavior interventions and supports, one must know what PBIS is. The IEP team has to know enough about PBIS as a positive approach to addressing and preventing problem behavior to be able to weigh its pros and cons. Since the IEP team must make the decision, "consider" also suggests discussing PBIS among team members. Finally, if the team has considered positive behavior interventions and supports, it will have one or more reasons for choosing to use or not use PBIS.

Fourth, the school is required to consider PBIS and other strategies. In other words, the school has to consider more than one approach to behavior--PBIS is required, but not sufficient. So to "consider" positive behavior interventions and supports, the school must have some basis of comparison, with PBIS on the one hand and some other strategy or approach on the other.

So that's the basic rules requiring consideration of positive behavior interventions and supports in IDEA. PBIS must be considered when behavior impedes learning of the child or others. Considering positive behavior interventions and supports requires (a) knowing enough about PBIS to evaluate it as an approach, (b) discussing PBIS, (c) comparing PBIS to other approaches, and (d) having one or more reasons for deciding to use positive behavior interventions and supports.

One final note: it can be (and has been) argued that by specifically naming PBIS, the law creates a preference for positive behavior interventions and supports and against aversive methods of punishing behavior. But the law doesn't explicitly require positive approaches to behavior--but from what I understand, IDEA's requirement to use evidence based methods makes many of the aversive approaches legally risky. PBIS is specifically mentioned in the statute, so positive behavior interventions and supports are a pretty safe bet when it comes to meeting the evidence-based methods standard.

The "Stay Put" provisions

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:28:00 +0000

Update! Check out this free IDEA online discipline tool!

When the parents and the school disagree about a child's IEP services or setting for services there are three ways it can turn out: somebody gives in, they compromise, or they end up in due process (or mediation/arbitration). A common question when parents proceed to due process to challenge a school's decision is:

In what setting are services provided to my child while we are in due process?

The school and the parents often have differing opinions as to the appropriate placement for the child during the due process hearing--but the basic rule and answer that IDEA provides to this question is that the "then-current" placement of the child is maintained during the resolution of the dispute. In other words, the child "stays put" unless the hearing officer or arbiter eventually rules that the school's preferred placement is the appropriate one. That's why these provisions in IDEA are often referred to as the "stay-put rule."

There are two exceptions to the stay put rule:

(1) The parents and the school can ignore the stay put rule if they agree on an alternate placement during the hearing (but both must agree).

(2) Proposed changes in placement and other removals based on disciplinary incidents are also treated differently. In 2004, IDEA was amended to state that for discipline-based removals, the 'stay put' placement is the disciplinary placement. In other words, while waiting for a resolution to the dispute, children removed from their IEP placement for disciplinary reasons must remain in the "interim alternate setting" or other setting in which they were placed as part of the school's response to their behavior.

The stay put rule, as first glance, may seem fairly straight forward with little to dispute. Nevertheless, it is often a contentious issue with many of the arguments between schools and parents predicated on different opinions as to what the "then-current" placement of the child was when due process was initiated. This issue arises most often when the child is going through some form of transition (such as from preschool to grade school or when changing districts). The courts are split on many of these issues and there are significant differences between the court decisions in different jurisdictions, but the courts often turn to the last agreed-upon IEP placement in making their decision.

Manifestation Determinations: Behavior, Disability, and Discipline

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:44:00 +0000

Update! Check out this free IDEA online discipline tool!

Your child has been suspended from school for two weeks or more. You know that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires a “manifestation determination” to be conducted whenever a suspension or expulsion lasts more than 10 days. But what exactly is a manifestation? How do you determine if one exists? Who conducts the manifestation determination? What happens if your child’s behavior is found to be a manifestation of his or her disability? These are important questions—so here are some straight answers:

What is a manifestation determination?

A manifestation determination is an inquiry into whether your child’s behavior (the behavior leading to the suspension) was:

(a) Caused by your child’s disability,
(b) Directly and substantially related to child’s disability, or
(c) a direct result of the school's failure to implement your child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP).

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, IDEA states that the behavior is considered to be a manifestation of the student's disability.

If the answer to all of these questions is no, IDEA states that the behavior is not a manifestation of the student's disability.

Who conducts the manifestation determination?

IDEA requires a manifestation team to meet and conduct the manifestation determination. The manifestation team must include the child’s parents, a representative of the student’s school, and relevant members of the IEP team. So you are a member of the team that determines whether or not your child’s behavior was a manifestation of his or her disability.

How do you determine whether the behavior is a manifestation of the child’s disability?

IDEA is not very specific about the hows of a manifestation determination. Nevertheless, one can assume that in making the determination, the manifestation team will consider and discuss evidence related to your child’s behavior, your child's disability, and the school’s implementation of the child's IEP. You and the other members of the manifestation team must determine whether that evidence supports answering each of the questions “yes” or “no.”

You should know that there is a high bar for finding a manifestation. IDEA requires the connection to the student's disability to be direct and substantial or otherwise caused by the student’s disability for it to qualify as a manifestation. The connection can't be speculative or just one of many factors contributing to the behavior. Similarly, any failure to implement IEP services must have directly resulted in the behavior for it to be considered a manifestation.

So what happens if the team determines that the behavior is a manifestation?

If your child’s behavior is determined to be a manifestation of his or her disability, the disciplinary action has to be moderated in two ways:

First, your child must be returned to his or her usual placement (there is no change in placement unless the parents and school agree otherwise).

Second, a functional behavior assessment (FBA) must be conducted and the IEP team must create a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) or modifying an existing behavior plan to respond to the results of the FBA. In other words, the IEP team must address your child's behavior because, as a manifestation of the child's disability, it represents one of your child's needs.

Special Education Teaching Resources

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:55:00 +0000

There are a lot of resources on the web for special education teachers. I would gather them up, but it's already been done pretty well by teaching tips. They have a list of 102 websites/resources on teaching students with special needs in a post entitled "The Ultimate Guide to Special Needs Teaching."

I've also thought about putting together a glossary of IDEA, special education, and early intervention terminology and acronyms--but again, others have beat me to the punch. Here are some glossaries to help you sort through the jargon of special education and IDEA speak:

Wrightslaw glossary--IDEA terms defined

Here's DSU's glossary with related links and some videos associated with each term.

The Belleview district in Washington has a nice list of acronyms related to special education--although some are specific to Washington.

The Tennessee SIG (state improvement grant) site also has a nice downloadable guide to terms and acronyms, but again there are going to be some that are state specific.

Blog Features

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:52:00 +0000

As you may have noticed, we reworked the blog. This change was done so that we could include and highlight some key features.

Search our blog, the sites of our Friends in Blogging, or our list of Law Blogs

The search box (a widget provided by Google) provides a means to search our blog for entries on topics you are interested in. But it gets even better--by selecting the tabs in the search results, you can also see what entries other blogs have related to your search terms. The tabs include: Our Friends in Blogging, Law Blogs, and the Web. These first two searches are specific to those sites listed under the same headings in this blog (scroll down and look at the left navigation bar).

RSS subscription through a reader or in your email

For those who don't know much about subscribing to a blog, this widget (from feedburner) provides the choice of receiving updates in a feed-reader or in your email.

Translation into eight other languages

For individuals who have limited proficiency in English, we have included the Google translation widget. Just click on a flag and the whole site is translated into the language represented by that flag.

If you haven't tried out any of the features, I recommend giving them a spin. The search, in particular, is just remarkably useful.

Long-term or short-term suspensions: what's the difference?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:39:00 +0000

Some of the most common questions I field about SPED law and IDEA are about behavior and discipline. And this is one of the most fundamental questions in all discipline matters:

Is it a long-term or short-term suspension (or expulsion)?

There are two steps to answering this question. The first is easy; the second is a bit complicated.

STEP 1:

If the child is suspended for MORE than 10 school days in a row (i.e. at least two weeks + one school day), it is a long-term suspension. If that's the case, you're done. Skip on down. If not, go to Step 2.

STEP 2:

If there is a sufficient Pattern of Removals, it is a long-term suspension. A sufficient Pattern of Removals exists when:

The child has been suspended more than once (a series of removals).
Adding up the days suspended equals MORE than 10 days (in a given year).
The behavior in each suspension is substantially similar.
Additional factors--such as a high number of days in suspension or suspensions occurring close together (over a short time period)--support the idea that it is just a broken-up long-term suspension

All of the above must be met to find a pattern of removals, and as you can see, there is a significant amount of leeway in determining whether some of these factors have been met. If all are met, it is a long-term suspension. If not, it is a short-term suspension.

How do the long and short term suspension categories affect the child's rights?

If the suspension is long-term, also sometimes called a change of placement, IDEA requires:

A manifestation determination to be conducted to identify if the child's behavior resulted from either the child's disability or failure to implement the IEP.
Some actions be taken by the school to address the behavior (depending on circumstance and results of the manifestation determination).
The child's IEP services to be provided during the suspension period (starting on day 11).

If the suspension is short-term, IDEA has only one requirement:

Any disciplinary action chosen by the school must be "in the same manner and for the same duration" that a child without a disability would be punished. In other words, the discipline cannot be discriminatory--the school can't proscribe a more severe punishment for a child just because that child has special needs.

I'll try to follow up this post with others on discipline to clear up some of the confusion around manifestation determinations, behavior assessments, interim alternate educational settings, and positive behavior supports.

Your choice of Part C services

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:34:00 +0000

Some time ago, I made a table of the major differences between Part B services (for school age children) and Part C services (for infants and toddlers) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Looking at that table today, I realize I didn't include one of my favorite provisions of Part C:

Parental Consent.--The contents of the individualized family service plan shall be fully explained to the parents and informed written consent from the parents shall be obtained prior to the provision of early intervention services described in such plan. If the parents do not provide consent with respect to a particular early intervention service, then only the early intervention services to which consent is obtained shall be provided. (20 USC 1436(e))

Read the last sentence again. In Part B, the IEP is developed and the parents then have an all-or-nothing choice to consent to the IEP or not. Sure, parents can--and absolutely should--inform the school district of their thoughts and feelings about different services offered under an IEP; but it simply isn't the same thing as having the authority granted in Part C.

Part C parents have the equivalent of a line-item veto of offered services. They can reject or continue to negotiate some services without affecting other offered services that they and the rest of the IFSP team agree on.

Not only is this good for the parents, it is good for everyone. It starts things off with recognition of what everyone agrees on, implements agreed on services (so they aren't delayed by disagreement about other services) and finally, focuses further discussion on those disagreements.

Families and disability blogosphere

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:51:00 +0000

There is a growing number of parents of children with disabilities starting blogs and sharing their experiences and knowledge (and joys, hopes, heartache, and more) online.

I am a big believer in the wisdom of families, and so this post is a tribute to those families who have joined the blogosphere and helped create a community of family/disability bloggers.

I've created an extensive blogroll of links entitled The Big List of family/special needs blogs. I encourage other bloggers to look through them and share some 'link love' with a few that you most like--that is how communities are built on the web.

Evaluation for Early Intervention REDUX

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:33:00 +0000

While not as comprehensive as I'd like, we've gathered a significant number of posts on evaluation for early intervention--enough to do a REDUX. So, lets see what we have . . .

If you are a new parent who has concerns about your child's behavior or development, there are several good posts by Terri Mauro and others in our Evaluation Round-up--includes good tips about what to do before, during, and after you consult with a physician.

A good bit of news for parents who are considering a genetic test for their child (or who are worried that their family medical history will affect their insurance rates) as part of the diagnosis process--the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008 was enacted.

If you are a parent who is getting ready to start the early intervention evaluation process, you might find these posts helpful in understanding:

The difference between screening, assessment, and evaluation.
The purpose of evaluations for early intervention.
Legal requirements for the two types of evaluation in early intervention.

Once you are past the evaluation stage and getting ready to plan services, you might want to check out our posts on:

Early Intervention Evaluation Round-up

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:31:00 +0000

Time for a quick look around at what other sites have to say to parents who are concerned that their young child might have a disability or who are entering into the early intervention system.

About.com has a gem of a parent writer and blogger in Terri Mauro. If you haven't seen her blog and other resources, you should check them out at About.com: Parenting Special Needs. Some on-topic posts that I recommend include:

Another About.com writer, Ann Logsdon, writes a very good column/blog on learning disabilities--but some of them are just good advice for any parent of a child with a disability. One example, related to our topic of evaluation for early intervention, is about Bayley Scales of development in early assessment.

Another good introduction to development and potential delay is provided by ChildCareAware--Does your child have special needs?

For new parents wondering if their child's development or behavior might indicate an Autism Spectrum Disorder, Andrew D. has a nice blog entry that gives a brief overview of the signs and criteria for diagnosis--What is Autism/PDD?

I welcome other additions to this list--put them in the comments below and I'll move them up into the post.

A Second Home(page)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:09:00 +0000

The Beach Center blog is now being republished at HealthCare.com. In other words, we now have a blog there that simply lists the titles to every post from here, and if anyone clicks on one--it sends them to the actual story on this website.

This is similar to what we do with PatriciaEBauer.com--just look at the sidebar to the left of this post. She has the best disability news site around and is nice enough to let us republish her updates on our site. I have been considering syndicating another blog in our sidebar, but it is difficult to choose. Suggestions?

Two Evaluations in Early Intervention

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:06:00 +0000

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that every state system of early intervention must include:

"A timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation of the functioning of each infant or toddler with a disability in the State, and a family-directed identification of the needs of each family of such an infant or toddler, to assist appropriately in the development of the infant or toddler" (Sec. 1435(a)(3)).

This provision clearly requires two evaluations--one focused on the child, and one focused on the family. Each of these evaluations plays an important role in fulfilling the purposes of early intervention and has its own requirements.

Child Evaluation

The IDEA provision above includes three requirements related to the evaluation of a child suspected of experiencing (or being at risk for) developmental delay:

(1) Timely. One of the primary purposes of Early Intervention is to . . . uh . . . intervene early. Providing child services early on may prevent or reduce the impact of the disability on the child's life. So, naturally, an evaluation of a child for early intervention should occur as soon as possible when their is a reason to suspect the child might have a disability. What exactly is timely? The prior regulations to IDEA set a two day standard, but the newly proposed regulations would change that to as soon as possible--or in other words, what is reasonably timely under the circumstances (whatever they are).

(2) Comprehensive. Preventing or reducing the impact of disability also requires an evaluation to be sufficiently comprehensive--it must address all suspected areas of disability. For Early Intervention there are five categories of development to assess: Physical, Cognitive, Communication, Social/Emotional and Adaptive. The required statement in the IFSP of present level of development uses these same categories. Additionally, IDEA requires evaluation of the child's unique strengths as well as needs.

and (3) Multidisciplinary. The history of assessment and evaluation exposed the need for a cross-disciplinary approach to the complexities of evaluating the developmental needs of an infant or toddler. Therefore, IDEA requires that an evaluation be multidisciplinary and that no single method of evaluation be used to determine eligibility and needs for services. It also helps ensure that appropriate services are identified that will meet the child's needs.

Family Evaluation

While the requirement to evaluate the child suspected of developmental delay includes significant provisions guiding the procedure for evaluation, IDEA is considerably less clear about necessary elements for the family assessment. Still, there are some standards in the statute and in the regulations (although I should note that new finalized regulations have not been published for Part C yet). The Evaluation must:

Assess the family's strengths and needs related to enhancing their child's development. This includes the family's resources, priorities, and concerns.
Be voluntary. Parents can turn down the family assessment.
Be based on information the family provides (interview).
Incorporate the family's description of their strengths and needs.
And, finally, it must identify services needed to enhance the family's capacity to meet the needs of their child.

These two evaluations, child and family, provide the foundation for early intervention services and development of the IFSP.

Special Ed in NY--all cards on the table

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:21:00 +0000

I just want to briefly comment on a story I saw on PatriciaEBauer.com:

New York Schools start posting special education information online.

Assuming the privacy issues are properly taken care of (I assume they are and no one's personal information will be compromised), this is a remarkable step forward in a system that is not known for its willingness to open up and be transparent in its activities. Kudos to NYC.

Giving to Charity without spending any (additional) $$$

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:26:00 +0000

There are many good organizations that serve families of children with disabilities that rely heavily on donations. Some, such as our friends at Parent to Parent USA, manage on almost no budget at all.

Thanks to the internet, there are now ways to support these worthy causes without spending a dime, or at least not spending a dime more.

The most completely free is GoodSearch. GoodSearch is just a yahoo powered search tool that donates a bit of each advertising dollar it receives (all search engines make dollars from ads) to a charity of your choosing. The charity must be registered with GoodSearch, of course, but there are many to choose from and you can always ask the charity you want to contribute to to register with the site. I am sending my GoodSearch pennies to P2P USA (they are registered).

GoodSearch is easy to use. I recommend downloading their search tools for your browser--that way you have a goodsearch in your browser bar and you don't have to go to their site to search and donate. BUT, make sure you remember to select the charity you wish to donate your GoodSearch profits to from their main page.

GoodSearch also has a companion site called GoodShop. You can do online shopping through GoodShop at Amazon, Ebay, itunes, Toys R Us, Priceline, Flowers.com, Gap, and a whole bunch of other stores and services you'd recognize. The Good part is that for every purchase, the company donates a certain % of the price to your selected charity. Another service, Giveness, is very similar and seems to give a larger amount per purchase to your charity--although I don't think P2P USA is currently registered at Giveness.

If you are running a non-profit, there are a few other fundraising aids available that you should check out:

Google Grants -- provides in-kind advertising for non-profit groups to increase awareness and traffic to your site. You have to apply, but the eligibility criteria doesn't seem to difficult to meet.

Fundable -- gives you a website to raise a specific amount of money for a particular event, goal, or purpose in a specific amount of time. People can pledge money online to meet the $$ goal, and if the goal is met--it collects the cash. If the goal is not met--it ends and the pledges are released.

cMarket Online Auctions -- a service that lets you put a charitable auction online.

Finally, there are few other sites that are worth a mention (even though they can't be used for family support and disability causes):

Free Rice--a vocabulary game that challenges you to identify the meaning of words . . . every correct answer gives a few grains of rice to the UN Food program and the bowls fill up reasonably quickly (especially if you are a vocab wiz, which I am not).

Ripple--you click, watch a brief advertisement, and they donate to some international causes providing water, food, education, or money (finance loans) to those in need.

Is "doing what works" working for special education?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:06:00 +0000

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) made doing "what works" a focus of school improvement. The what works principle is as simple as it sounds--that schools and teachers should use methods for teaching that have been proven to be effective. In keeping with efforts to align general and special education, the 2004 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also adopted the what works principle. And it does make perfect sense--who could possibly argue with doing what works? One could argue that IDEA has always included the principle of what works in its requirement for an appropriate education--but the principals are somewhat different.

The NCLB takes 2 basic approaches to identifying what works. First, it emphasizes use of methods that are based on research. Second, it uses standardized assessment and a school's progress toward the goal of educating all children as methods of identifying success. IDEA has always required assessment of individual progress, but the 2004 amendments added the requirement to use evidence based methods and emphasized inclusion of special education students in standardized testing and school progress.

So has it worked? Honestly, I'm not sure and perhaps it's too early to know. At this stage it is easier to look at implementation than outcomes.

Research Basis for What Works

The Institute for Education Sciences publishes a What Works Clearinghouse that

"aims to promote informed education decision making through a set of easily accessible databases and user-friendly reports that provide education consumers with high-quality reviews of the effectiveness of replicable educational interventions (programs, products, practices, and policies) that intend to improve student outcomes."

In other words, the WWC reviews the research and identifies what works and what doesn't. There is also a new website from the Department of Education called Doing What Works. To a large extent, content on the DWW website is based on the information from the WWC website--but their focus is on explaining how effective methods work and how to implement them. I first found out about the DWW site from a news alert from the National Association of Special Education Teachers.

While both sites have much to admire and quite a lot of good information about the research basis for teaching math, reading, and English--I couldn't find anything on special education or related services.

So, is there a comparable resource for special education instructors and directors?

I am also wondering the extent to which schools trust the assessments of what works on these websites . . . my very limited experience suggests that some instructors and administrators prefer to rely on their own and their colleagues' personal experiences.

In short, my current perspective is that the what works principle in special education is still mostly on the books . . . at least as far as reviewing the research base goes . . . but, please, let me know if there is more going on out there than I know . . . .

Screening, Evaluation, and Assessment

noreply@blogger.com (Matt --attorney, researcher, and (now) blogger) — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:51:00 +0000

I have been using the term evaluation in a very general sense, but parents are likely to hear other terms being tossed around, such as screening and assessment. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they don't actually refer to the same part of the evaluation process.

Screening refers to the procedures used to determine if a child is likely to be experiencing or at-risk for developmental delay. This is often the first step in the evaluation process and serves as a form of triage for evaluation. In other words, screening is used to determine who should be fully evaluated for eligibility for Early Intervention services.

Evaluation refers to procedures used to determine if a child is eligible for Early Intervention services under Part C of IDEA.

Assessment refers to procedures used to determine a child's needs and strengths or in the case of the family assessment, the resources, priorities, and concerns of the family related to the child's development.

So that's IDEA evaluation terminology in a nutshell. Each term refers to a different stage in the process that leads to the next: Screening-->Evaluation-->Assessment-->IFSP development.