special education leadership conference 2010 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Special Education Leadership Conference 2010 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Special Education Leadership Conference 2010

Special Education Leadership Conference 2010

165 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Special Education Leadership Conference 2010

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Special Education Leadership Conference 2010 Office of Special Programs (OSP) September 27th September 29th September 28th

  2. Academy For New Special Education DirectorsSeptember 27, 2010 Data Sources

  3. Welcome Phyllis Veith Assistant Director Office of Special Programs Program Improvement Professional Development

  4. Dr. Steven Paine Superintendent West Virginia Department of Education Legal Internal Operations System of Support Communi-cations Technical & Adult Ed. Support Services Curriculum & Instruction Information Systems Human Resources School Finance

  5. What Do New Special Education Directors Need to Know? Pat Homberg Executive Director Office of Special Programs OSP Communi-cations OSP Fiscal OSP Data OSP Targeted Programs OSP Accountability OSP Professional Development OSP Program Improvement OSP Monitoring

  6. Making the Connection New Directors Legal Foundations Professional Development Finance Data Collection Resources Staffing

  7. New Special Education Directors2010 - 2011 • Cabell…………………..Karen Veazy • Fayette…………………David Cavalier • Gilmer………………….Patty Louther • Hampshire…………..Russ Conrad • Marshall……………….Shelby Haines • Mason………………….John Lehew • Monongalia………….Tiffany Barnett • Morgan………………..Terry Riley • Pocahontas………….Diane Delfino • Putnam………………..Annette Pratt • Ritchie………………….Deborah Bever • Upshur…………………Tina Lou Edwards • Lincoln………………...Dana Snyder New Directors

  8. Who Can Help?RESA Directors

  9. Who Can Help?OSP Monitors

  10. Who Can Help?

  11. Who Can Help?Coordinators

  12. What Do You Need To Know? Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities

  13. Policy 2419 • Child Find • Multidisciplinary Evaluation • Eligibility • Individualized Education Program • Procedural Safeguards • Discipline

  14. What Will Be Monitored? WV Policy 2419 Indicator Checklist • Full Instructional Day • Classrooms in proximity to age appropriate peers • Classrooms adequate/ comparable • Child Find activities • Developmental/ sweep screening 3-5 year olds with timelines • Summary of Performance on file • Reevaluation/ Annual Reviews within timelines • Clearly documenting EC Data • Students served with age-appropriate peers

  15. Transfer of rights provided 1 year prior to 18 • File reviews meet 80% compliance • Per period caseload limits are met • Discipline procedures followed when it is not change of placement • Discipline procedures followed when it is change of placement • All services on IEP implemented • Reports submitted on time • Confidentiality requirements followed • Procedural Safeguards provided • Prior Written Notice provided

  16. VISION Is Seeing The OPPORTUNITY Inside TheCHALLENGE OSP Accountability OSP Communi-cations OSP Fiscal OSP Monitoring OSP Targeted Programs OSP Professional Development OSP Program Improvement OSP Data

  17. Special Education Legal Foundations Dr. Sandra McQuain Assistant Director Office of Special Programs Targeted Programs Fiscal Data

  18. What is due process?

  19. Fourteenth AmendmentSection 1 • No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  20. Early Legal Foundations of Special Education • Brown v. Board Of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) • PARC v. Commonwealth – 1972 • All children can learn • Denial of due process • Equal protection - FAPE; equal opportunity for ed/training appropriate to child’s capacity • Differing resources for differing objectives • 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972),

  21. Mills v. D.C. Bd. Of Educ. (1972) • Failure to provide education to exceptional students • Excluding, suspending, reassigning without due process (hearing) • Compulsory attendance laws presuppose availability of education • Interest in educating children must outweigh preserving financial resources 348 F.Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972)

  22. Due Process and Parent Participation • Notice and consent • Two types of notice: • Notice of/opportunity to attend meetings; • Notice of proposal/refusal to initiate/change a student’s identification, evaluation, educational placement or free, appropriate public education • Consent - initial evaluation/reevaluation, initial placement • Parent’s right to revoke consent

  23. Content of Prior Written Notice • A description of the action proposed or refused by the district; • An explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action; • A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report that the district used as a basis for the proposed or refused action;

  24. Content of PWN (con’t) • A description of other options the IEP Team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; • A description of other factors relevant to the district’s proposal or refusal; • A statement that the parent/adult student has special education rights and if notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, a description of how to obtain a copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice; and • Sources to contact in obtaining assistance in understanding their Procedural Safeguards Notice.

  25. Right to Special Education Established through: • Case law • State mandates • Federal statutes • Federal regulations • Policies and procedures • Interpretations

  26. Hierarchy of Law • U.S. Constitution • Federal Statutes • Public Law • United States Code (20 USC §1400 et seq) • Federal regulations • Code of Federal Regulations (34 CFR §300 ) • Federal Case Law • U.S. Supreme Court (U.S or Sup. Ct.) • U.S. Court of Appeals – 4th Cir.; F. 2d; F 3d • U. S. District Court – S.D. WVa.; F. Supp.

  27. Hierarchy of Law • WV Constitution • WV State Courts • WV Code - §18-20-1 • Administrative Regulations: WV Board of Education Policy • Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities • Policy 4350: Procedures for the Collection, Maintenance and Disclosure of Student Data

  28. Education for All Handicapped Children Act PL 94-142 – EHA (1975) • Free appropriate public education (FAPE) • Zero reject • Due process • Protection in evaluation • Least restrictive environment • Parent participation • Confidentiality of student records

  29. Protection in Evaluation • Nondiscriminatory methods and materials • Use more than one measure • Validated for use • Given in native language/mode of communication

  30. What is FAPE?

  31. Free Appropriate Public Education • Special education and related services: • At public expense • Meets state standards • Includes preschool, elementary, secondary • Provided in accordance with an IEP • Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 1982 • Irving Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro • J.H. ex rel. J.D. v. Henrico County School Board, 326 F.3d 560 (4th Cir. 2003) ESY

  32. Bd. of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Sch. Dist. V. Rowley (1982) Free, appropriate public education: • The IEP should be formulated in accordance with the act • If the student is in regular classes, the IEP should be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit

  33. Zero Reject ALL STUDENTS CAN LEARN ALL STUDENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO EDUCATION • Timothy W. v. Rochester, N.H. Sch. Dist., 875 F. 2d 954 (1st Cir., 1989)

  34. Irving Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro468 U.S. 883 (1984) • Clean intermittent catheterization • Three-pronged test: • The student has a disability and requires special education • The service is necessary for the child to benefit from special education • A nurse or other qualified provider who is not a physician can provide the service

  35. Honig v. Doe484 U.S. 305 (1988) • Stay put prevents exclusion of students with disabilities from school • Student may be temporarily suspended up to ten days for immediate safety threat • School officials may go to court to request a temporary restraining order or Honig injunction Congress subsequently amended the law

  36. Requirements addedIDEA 97 • Access to general curriculum • Extended school year when needed for FAPE • Services for students removed from school • Accountability for student progress • Positive behavior interventions • Unilateral removal by school officials for weapons and drugs • More emphasis on parent participation

  37. What is least restrictive environment?

  38. Least Restrictive Environment • To the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities are educated with those who are not disabled. • Removal from regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with supplementary aids/services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

  39. Placement • Determined annually, based on IEP • As close as possible to student’s home • Continuum of alternative placements • Consideration of harmful effects on the child/quality of services • Not removed solely because of needed modification in general curriculum

  40. Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. Of Educ.874 F2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989) Two-pronged approach to determine whether an IEP places a student in the least restrictive environment: • Consider whether education in the general education classroom with supplementary services can be achieved satisfactorily • If not, determine whether the student is included to the maximum extent appropriate

  41. Requirements added: IDEA 97 Access to the general curriculum added to IEP: • Statement of present levels of educational performance, including effect of disability on involvement and progress in the general curriculum • Statement of measurable annual goals to enable the student to progress in the general curriculum

  42. Requirements addedIDEA 2004 • Began to align IDEA with ESEA • Assessment for all students • Special education teachers must be highly qualified • School wide programs • Special rule for eligibility determination

  43. IDEA 2004 • Changed eligibility for SLD • Provide a special rule for eligibility determination.A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability under 34 CFR Part 300 if the determinant factor for that determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA);lack of appropriate instruction in math; or limited English proficiency.[34 CFR 300.306(b)(1)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(5)]

  44. IDEA 2004 • Discipline • Added unilateral removal for “serious bodily injury” • Changed definition of manifestation – “caused by or direct/substantial relationship to the disability • Disproportionality • Race/ethnicity identification • Suspension • Coordinated Early Intervening Services • Funding

  45. What are procedural safeguards?

  46. Procedural Safeguards • Prior written notice • Independent Educational Evaluation • Surrogate parent • Complaints • Due process hearings • Mediation • Access to records • Discipline • Unilateral placement by parents • Civil actions/attorney fees

  47. Resources • U.S. Dept. of Educ. IDEA Resources • • LRP Publications • • Thompson Publishing • • Wrightslaw •

  48. Sandra McQuain, Ed.D. Assistant Director Office of Special Programs (304) 558-2696

  49. Break15:00 minutes GO

  50. Special Education Finance Dr. Sandra McQuain Assistant Director Office of Special Programs Targeted Programs Fiscal Data