1 / 39

LEGAL ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT

LEGAL ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT. CHAPTER TWO. CHAPTER OBJECTIVES. The basic problems with respect to discrimination in special education The landmark court cases in special education Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act P.L. 93-380: The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act

paul
Télécharger la présentation

LEGAL ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LEGAL ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT CHAPTER TWO

  2. CHAPTER OBJECTIVES • The basic problems with respect to discrimination in special education • The landmark court cases in special education • Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act • P.L. 93-380: The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act • P.L. 94-142: The Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act • The procedural safeguards under P.L. 94-142

  3. CHAPTER OBJECTIVES • P.L. 98-524: The Vocational Education Act of 1984- the Perkins Act • P.L. 99-457: Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 • P.L. 105-17: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA ’97) • P.L. 101-336: The Americans with Disabilities Act • The role of state and federal government in establishing and implementing laws pertaining to special education.

  4. Prior to 1975 The two types of discrimination most evident were: • The exclusion of students with disabilities altogether from school. • The classification of students with disabilities when, in actuality, no disability was present.

  5. LANDMARK COURT CASES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

  6. BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION of TOPEKA, KANSAS- 1954 The court ruled that it was illegal practice under the Fourteenth Amendment to arbitrarily discriminate against any group of people. It then applied this principle to the schooling of children.

  7. HOBSON v. HANSEN- 1967 Court declared D.C. school system’s tracking system invalid, but allowed for special classes providing testing procedures were rigorous and that testing was frequent.

  8. DIANA v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION- 1970 California was mandated to correct bias in assessment procedures. • If a student’s primary language was not English… • Culturally unfair items… • Intelligence tests had to be developed…

  9. PARC v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA- 1972 Court ratified a consent agreement assuring that schools may not exclude students who have been classified with MR. The court mandated that all students must be provided with a free public education.

  10. WYATT v. STICKNEY- 1972 Court ruled that MR students in state institutions had a constitutional right to treatment.

  11. GUADALUPE v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL- 1972 Court agreement stipulated that children could not be placed in educable mentally retarded classes unless they scored lower that two standard deviations below the population mean on approved IQ test. Also stipulated that other assessment procedures must be used and parental permission must be obtained.

  12. MILLS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA- 1972 Set further guidelines for federal legislation, including the rights of students with disabilities to have free public education, due process protection, and required services regardless of the school district’s financial capability.

  13. PASE (Parents in Action on Special Education) v. JOSEPH P. HANNON- 1980 Only 9 of 488 test questions found on an IQ test in question were found to be racially biased. IQ tests were found not to be discriminatory. As a result, the use of intelligence tests were deemed acceptable in psychoeducational assessment as long as they follow other federal laws.

  14. LUKE S. and HANS S. v. NIX et al. – 1982 Court deemed limited 60 day evaluation period in Louisiana was not appropriate, and a greater prereferral assessment should be done before a referral is made.

  15. BOARD of EDUCATION OF HENDRICK HUDSON SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ROWLEY- 1982 Court determined that Amy Rowley was receiving an “appropriate” education. Schools do not have to provide the “best” education or even one to “maximize” a student’s potential. Programs need to be designed to enable the unique needs of the individual student, and the student needs to be making progress.

  16. JOSE P. v. AMBACH- 1983 Court informed New York City defendants that all evaluations must be “timely evaluations.” From the time of referral to evaluation there can be a maximum of 30 days elapse.

  17. LARRY P. v. RILES- 1984 IQ tests used for placing African American students in special education as MR were found to be discriminatory in 3 ways: • IQ tests measure achievement rather than ability. • IQ tests distribute the population in accordance to bell curve. • IQ tests lead to classification of more African American students than white students.

  18. GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF NAACP v. STATE OF GEORGIA- 1984 Court did not find evidence of differential treatment of black and white students. Overrepresentation of black children in classes for the mentally retarded by itself was not sufficient to prove discrimination.

  19. DANIEL R. R. v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION- 1989 • One of the leading cases opening the door to increased inclusion of children with disabilities in regular education classes • Noted that schools need not modify the program “beyond recognition” • Also looks at whether it is appropriate for the child to be in regular education

  20. GERSTMEYER v. HOWARD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS- 1994 Howard School District was sued (and lost) for the costs of private education and tutoring caused by their delay in evaluating a student in a timely manner.

  21. THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL LAGISLATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

  22. Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act • Civil rights law enacted in 1973 • Created to prevent discrimination against all individuals with disabilities in programs that receive federal funds. • 504 ensures students of equal opportunity to all school activities. • Plays a special role in assessment.

  23. P.L. 93-380:The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) • Often referred to as the “Buckley Amendment” • Gives parents of students under 18, and students over 18, the right to examine records kept in the student’s personal file. • Passed in 1974 to cover students, including those in postsecondary education

  24. P.L. 94-142:The Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act (EHA) • Before any evaluations, testing, and placement can be done, there must be parental informed consent. • All students in special education must be placed in the least restrictive environment. • All students in special education must have an individualized education program (IEP). • The evaluation for placement in special education must be nondiscriminatory.

  25. P.L. 94-142:The Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act (EHA) • The individual is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. • Tests must be given and reports must be written in the native language. • Parents are entitled to due process. • Zero rejects for all students.

  26. P.L. 98-524:The Vocational Education Act of 1984- The Perkins Act States that individuals who are members of special populations must be provided with equal access to recruitment, enrollment, and placement activities in vocational education.

  27. P.L. 99-457:Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 Congress amends the Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act to expand incentives for preschool education programs, early intervention, and transition programs.

  28. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act- P.L. 101-476“IDEA of 1990” • The IDEA amendment to P.L. 99-457 requires a timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation, including assessment activities related to the child and the child’s play. • A new program was established to help states develop and implement programs for early intervention services.

  29. The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (IDEA ’97) • Adding significantly to the provisions for very young children with disabilities and for students preparing to leave secondary school. • Adding two new categories in special education- autism and traumatic brain injury • Removing the term “handicapped” from the law and substituting the preferred term “disability” • Mandating transition services no later than the age of 16 years of age

  30. The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (IDEA ’97) • Requiring further public commenting on defining attention deficit disorder in the law. • Stating that states can be sued in federal courts for violating the laws. • Strengthened the least restrictive environment mandate • Strengthened parents’ roles further

  31. The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (IDEA ’97) • Added related services to the types of services to be provided for transition services. • Strengthened the obligations of other agencies to provide services to students while they are still in school. • Emphasized assistive technology • Expands the number of members of the IEP team.

  32. The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (IDEA ’97) • Gives school authorities several options in disciplining a student with a disability. • Changed Part H, serving young children, to Part C • Children and youth receiving special education have the right to receive the related services necessary to benefit from special education instruction.

  33. P.L. 101-336The Americans with Disabilities Act • Protects all individuals with disabilities from discrimination and requires most employers to make reasonable accommodations for them. • Plays a very important role in transitional services for students with disabilities. • Significant in making sure that all school buildings are accessible to people with disabilities.

  34. State Laws Relating to Students with Disabilities • State constitutions and laws may go beyond what is provided in the federal law, as long as there is no conflict between them. • Most laws providing for public education are generally state and local rather than federal.

  35. CHAPTER OBJECTIVES • The basic problems with respect to discrimination in special education • The landmark court cases in special education • Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act • P.L. 93-380: The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act • P.L. 94-142: The Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act • The procedural safeguards under P.L. 94-142

  36. Chapter 2 • PL 108-446 IDEA 2004 – Aligns with NCLB • HQT in special education content areas • Increased accountability • Increased access to general education curriculum

  37. Chapter 2 • NCLB – PL 107-110 • Supports efforts in early literacy programming • More info to parents about child’s progress & HQT status of teachers & school report cards • Effective research-based practices • Greater flexibility for states

  38. CHAPTER OBJECTIVES • P.L. 98-524: The Vocational Education Act of 1984- the Perkins Act • P.L. 99-457: Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 • P.L. 105-17: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA ’97) • P.L. 101-336: The Americans with Disabilities Act • The role of state and federal government in establishing and implementing laws pertaining to special education.

  39. THE END

More Related