Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / An important part of being an early childhood educator is understanding all federal and state mandates related to education

An important part of being an early childhood educator is understanding all federal and state mandates related to education

Writing

An important part of being an early childhood educator is understanding all federal and state mandates related to education. IDEA is a federal law intended to support students with disabilities. Teachers must understand the intricacies of this law and what is covered under the law.

I have attached the IDEA information. It would not let me copy the link so I just copied the information and pasted it in a word document.

In 500-750 words, compose an essay describing the major components of IDEA Part C.

Include the following in your essay:

  • Purpose of IDEA Part C
  • Overview of the responsibilities of lead agencies
  • Why this is beneficial for early childhood development
  • How you will use this information in your future professional practice

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) from Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and Other Exceptional Individuals The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EHA; PL 94-142), and most recently amended in 2004 by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; PL 108-446), represents a more than 30year national commitment, beginning with EHA, to children with disabilities. IDEA, a federal statute, is the main special education law in the United States, and when initially enacted in 1975, it represented the most sweeping statement this nation has ever made regarding the rights of children with disabilities (Haring, McCormick, & Haring,). The purpose of the law, as most recently articulated by the IDEA, is: (1)(A) to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; (B) to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected; and (C) to assist States, localities, educational service agencies and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; (2) to assist States in the implementation of a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families; (3) to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve educational results for children with disabilities by supporting system improvement activities; coordinated research and personnel preparation; coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support; and technology development and media services; and, (4) to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate children with disabilities. (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d]; Sec. 601[d]) Historical Background Early legislation and case law, spanning over a 20-year period, foreshadowed the enactment of the initial version of the law, EHA, in 1975 (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). Three landmark court cases, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC; 1971, 1972), and Mills v. Board of Education (1972), marked a turning point in the education of children with disabilities and provided the impetus for the development and enactment of federal legislation assuring a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities. Prior to the Brown case, many school districts throughout the nation were operated under the “separate but equal” policy (i.e., segregated classrooms based on race) that were in actuality not equal. Many minorities (African Americans, in the case of Brown) were excluded from an equal educational opportunity in public schools. This practice, according to the Brown ruling, was in violation of the “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Education, which is considered to be a property right, is protected under the equal protection clause, and in the Brown ruling, the property right of African Americans to an education at the public expense was violated by the school district’s racially discriminatory policies (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). Following the Brown ruling and other successful court challenges to racial discrimination in the public schools, parents of children with disabilities began to file lawsuits on behalf of their children, alleging that the children’s right to an education at the public expense was being violated under the equal protection clause. Prior to the 1970s, many schools denied children with disabilities access to a public education based on school district policies, which required a child to meet certain admission standards (e.g., possession of a certain level of adaptive living and cognitive skills). In PARC, parents of children with Mental Retardation brought suit against Pennsylvania because their children were denied access to a public education. In a consent decree, the parents of the children with Mental Retardation won access to the public schools for their children. Similarly, in Mills, the parents of children with behavioral, emotional, and learning problems brought suit on behalf of their children against the District of Columbia for denial of access to a public education. In a consent decree followed by a court order, the court ruled that the schools were required to provide each child with a disability a free and publicsupported education, regardless of the degree of severity or nature of the child’s disability (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). In response to the successful resolution of the PARC and Mills cases, 36 additional “right-to-education” cases were filed in 27 different jurisdictions by parents on behalf of their children with disabilities (Martin,). These cases served as a signal to the U.S. Congress that federal legislation was needed to ensure a full educational opportunity to all children with disabilities (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). In addition to case law, early attempts were made by the U.S. Congress to address the needs of children with disabilities. Funds were made available through various education laws and amendments to develop or improve special education resources, programs, services, and personnel. Beginning as early as the 1960s with the passage of PL 87-276, Congress authorized support for the training of teachers to work with the deaf and for speech pathologists and audiologists to work with individuals with speech and hearing impairments (Abramson,; Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen,). In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; PL 8910), one of the first major federal programs to aid education, was enacted. One year later, Congress amended the ESEA (PL 89-750) and, with these amendments, grants were provided to states to assist in the development and improvement of programs to educate children with disabilities (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). Students with disabilities were also assisted when the 1968 Amendments to the Vocational Education Act (PL 90-576) were passed. With these amendments, funds were made available for students with disabilities in vocational education programs (Abramson,; Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen,). The needs of young children with disabilities were addressed with the establishment of model programs under the Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act (PL 90-538) in 1968 (Abramson,; Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen,). In 1970, Congress repealed and replaced the 1966 amendments to the ESEA (PL 89-750; Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). Public Law 99-230, which replaced PL 89-750, established a grant program similar to PL 89-750 to encourage states to develop special education resources and personnel (Turnbull,). Federal government assistance to states for special education increased with the passage of the Education Amendments of 1974 (PL 93-380). This act also put schools on notice that federal funding for special education purposes would be contingent on the development of a state plan with the goal of providing children with disabilities a full educational opportunity (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). Congress also attempted to address the needs of children with disabilities through antidiscrimination legislation (Martin,). An amendment to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the first pieces of legislation that attempted to ensure equal educational opportunities for children with disabilities. Nine years later, this amendment became part of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 is a civil rights act that prohibits discrimination against children with disabilities in schools receiving federal funds. Federal funds are not available to schools not in compliance with the act (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). Through enactment of antidiscrimination legislation and education laws, passage of amendments to existing education laws, and litigation, the stage was set for the introduction of a comprehensive federal statute that would reaffirm and strengthen the educational rights of children with disabilities and increase the federal government’s financial commitment to children with disabilities (Abramson,; Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen,). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was originally introduced as a Senate bill in 1972. After 3 years of extensive hearings, the U.S. Congress passed the bill in 1975 and President Gerald Ford signed the bill into law on November 29, 1975. EHA was amended in 1978 (PL 98733), 1983 (PL 98-199), twice in 1986 (PL 99-457 and PL 99-372), in 1988 (PL 100-630), and 1990 (PL 101476; Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne,). In 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed PL 104-476 into law. The 1990 Amendments changed the EHA’s name to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The law was significantly amended and reauthorized in 1997 (PL 105-17) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The 1997 act restructured the IDEA into four parts: Part A, General Provisions; Part B, Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities; Part C, Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities; and Part D, National Activities to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities (PL 105-17). In 2002, Congress passed the cornerstone of President George W. Bush’s education reform package, the controversial No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; PL 107-110), which made significant changes to the ESEA. The intent behind the NCLB is to improve education by increasing teacher and school accountability, primarily through increased testing of all students’ reading and math skills and requirements that schools demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” in their students’ proficiency. Students in special education programs are not exempt from the NCLB’s requirement that schools demonstrate adequate yearly progress. States and school districts are allowed to use alternate assessment standards in determining whether certain students meet proficiency requirements, but only for a maximum of 1% of their students, regardless of the number of students who might have serious learning disabilities or otherwise be considered children with disabilities under the IDEA. The NCLB also imposes teacher education requirements, promotes the use of evidence-based educational interventions, and provides parents with some ability to choose alternate schools if their child’s local school fails to demonstrate adequate yearly progress for a specified period of time (Applequist,). The law continues to generate controversy due to what one organization describes as the law’s focus on “punishments rather than assistance, mandates rather than support for effective programs, [and] privatization rather than teacher-led, family oriented solutions” (National Education Association, n.d.). When the IDEA next came before Congress for reauthorization, numerous changes were made in the statute to bring it into compliance with NCLB. The reauthorizing bill, IDEIA (PL 108-446), was enacted on December 3, 2004, by President George W. Bush. The majority of the IDEA’s provisions went into effect on July 1, 2005, though most of the regulations regarding implementing IDEA were not published until 2006 (Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne,). The Department of Education published regulations to implement the 2004 legislation for IDEA Part B in the Federal Register on August 14, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 46,540), with supplemental regulations published on December 1, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 73,006). Proposed regulations for IDEA Part C were published in 2007 but were withdrawn. As of August 2011, revised proposed new rules for Part C had not been published (Jacob et al.,). The IDEA consists of three titles. Title I, which is the primary focus of this article, amends and restates the IDEA, retaining the four-part structure established by the 1997 amendments. It is in Title I that the majority of changes relating to NCLB appear. Title II amends the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. § 9501 et seq.), establishing a National Center for Special Education Research to sponsor research into the needs of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities to improve their developmental, educational, and transitional results and research to improve services provided under the IDEA and support its implementation (20 U.S.C. § 9567). Title III makes miscellaneous changes to other statutory provisions, primarily in order to make them consistent with the changes to the law made by Titles I and II. IDEA Overview The key provisions of IDEA include the requirement that states provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children qualified under the statute, nondiscriminatory assessment, the individualized education program (IEP), procedural safeguards, confidentiality of records, provision of education services in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and related services. State educational agencies (SEAs) are responsible for ensuring that local educational agencies (LEAs) provide FAPE to all children with disabilities. A free appropriate public education must be made available to all children with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of their disability, and consists of special education and related services. Related services are support services required to assist children with disabilities to benefit from special education. Examples of related services include psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology, and orientation and mobility services. Related services cannot stand alone under Part B of the IDEA. Instead, such services must be attached to a special education program. In other words, a child must be eligible for special education under IDEA Part B in order to receive related services (34 C.F.R. § 300.8). Special education and related services must be provided to children with disabilities at no cost to the children’s parents or the children (34 C.F.R. § 300.34[c]). Another key requirement of the IDEA is nondiscriminatory assessment. Testing and evaluation materials must be selected and administered so as not to be culturally or racially discriminatory. In addition, tests must be administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication, unless it is unfeasible to do so. LEAs must also ensure that standardized tests given to a child are validated for the purpose for which they are used and are administered by trained personnel in accordance with the test producer’s instructions. The child must be assessed in all areas of suspected disability. The child must also be assessed with a variety of technically sound assessment tools and strategies, the instruments must be technically sound, and no single procedure must be used as the sole criterion for determining eligibility (34 C.F.R. § 300.306[a][2]). Prior to the 2004 amendments, IDEA regulations stated that a team could only determine that a child has a specific learning disability if the child had a severe discrepancy between an area of academic achievement and intellectual ability. Under IDEA 2004, schools no longer are required to take into consideration whether a severe discrepancy exists between achievement and intellectual ability; states “must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research based interventions” 34 C.F.R. § 300.307[a][2]). In practice, this means that standardized tests of intellectual ability and academic achievement are no longer requirements for the diagnosis of a learning disability. An IEP is required for each child with a disability who is receiving special education. The initial IEP meeting must be held within 30 days after the determination that the child needs special education and related services (34. C.F.R. § 300.323 [c][1]). Each LEA must have an IEP in place for each such child at the beginning of each school year. The child’s IEP is reviewed and revised on at least an annual basis by the IEP team, and a reevaluation is conducted at least once every 3 years. The IEP team consists of the parent of the child, at least one special education teacher and one regular education teacher if the child is or may be participating in the regular education program, a representative of the LEA who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction and who is knowledgeable about the general curriculum and resources available, an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, other individuals at the discretion of the parent or LEA, and the child when appropriate (34. C.F.R. § 300.321 [b][3]). The IEP serves as the mechanism by which goals and objectives are established, programs are planned, and progress of the child is monitored (Abramson,; Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen,). Procedural safeguards are also included in the IDEA. Such safeguards are discussed at length later in this article. These safeguards are intended to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents have certain rights and that these rights are protected under the law. Parents are given the opportunity to present their complaints regarding possible violations of their rights through mediation, due process hearings, and/or civil action with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or placement of a child (34 C.F.R. 300.300). Parents’ rights also extend to the educational records of their child. Educational and psychological records pertaining to the child must remain confidential except to those individuals who are directly involved in a child’s education and who have a specific reason for reviewing the records (34 C.F.R. § 99.3). Parents have the right to examine all records, not just relevant records, with respect to the identification, evaluation, and placement of their child, and the provision of FAPE (34 C.F.R. § 99.10). Additional limitations and requirements regarding the confidentiality of students’ records can be found in the entry for the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Special education and related services must be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for children with disabilities in public or private institutions. In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services he or she needs, and a child with a disability is not removed from education in a general education classroom if modifications can be reasonably made to accommodate these needs (300 C.F.R. § 300.116[d–e]). Part A: General Provisions Part A, General Provisions, includes the congressional findings that constitute the underpinnings of the IDEA, definitions of key terms used in the statute (e.g., “child with a disability”), and provisions establishing an Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to administer the terms of the IDEA, revoking state immunity under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for violation of the IDEA, and various other administrative provisions (relating to, e.g., promulgation of federal regulations under the IDEA; requirements that State rules, regulations, and policies be in compliance with the IDEA; and questionably named “paperwork reduction” provisions; 20 U.S.C. § 1400–1409; Sec. 601-610). The new legislation made some changes to the congressional findings, including some adjustment to the language used to describe certain demographic changes over time and the addition of a specific reference to “improvement efforts under the Elementa.

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

15.89 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Already member?


Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE