April 2005, Special Educator e-Journal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

President’s Message-Dr. Roger Pierangelo

Article Submissions by NASET Members

• How Will the Paper Reduction Act Impact Special Education?

Legal Issues Corner

• U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment Policy
• Dispelling Myths about the Americans with Disabilities Act
• Summary of IDEA 2004–From the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability
• Updates from Wrightslaw.com—Questions and Answers
• IDEA 2004: IEP Team Members & IEP Team Attendance
• IDEA 2004: Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers

Update from the National Organization on Disability (N.O.D.)

• The Schiavo Case Has Many Rushing to Write Living Wills. Is This Good
• News for Disability Advocates?–Brewster Thackeray
• Survey Reveals Gaps in Emergency Preparedness for People with Disabilities
• Harkin Introduces Bill to Support Community-Based Services for Individuals with Disabilities
• Quadrapalegic Attorney Settles “Apprentice Lawsuit”
   

Update from the National Dissemination

Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities

• Who Has A Learning Disability, Anyway?
• Making the “No Child Left Behind Act” Work for Children Who Struggle to Learn
• A Guide to Education under the No Child Left Behind Act
• Homework Help

U.S. Department of Education News

• National Progress Being Made in Serving Students with Limited English Proficiency
• Spellings Urges House to Pass $56 Billion Education Budget
• Call for Presenters –U.S. Department of Education:  Teacher-to-Teacher Workshops, Summer 2005
• E-Learning Opportunities Now Available for Teachers
• Virtual Pre-K Makes Lessons Real

No Child Left Behind News

• State Legislators Offer Formula for Improving No Child Left Behind Act
• New report asks Congress and the administration to recognize special challenges to schools and students
• Tutor.com: Virtual Relief for Homework Headaches
• Close-Up:  No Child Left Behind—Improving Student Achievement Through Technology

National Institute of Health News

• Mothers’ Exposure to Air Pollutants Linked to Chromosome Damage in Babies
• Scientists Use Gene Therapy to Restore Hair Cells in Deaf Guinea Pigs
• National Center on Secondary Education and Transition E-News
• Calls for Participation–Nominees Sought for Coming Up Taller Awards
• Legislative Announcements
• President’s New High School Initiative, Other Proposed Programs Tackle Issues Important to Hispanics
• Quality Education Can Bring Opportunity for All, Secretary Spellings Says
• Navigating Medicare and Medicaid, 2005
• Que Ningún Niño se Quede Atrás: Una Guía Para los Padres
• Recursos en Español – Resources for Spanish Speakers
• Federal Grant Opportunities
• Additional Funding and Award Opportunities

Early Childhood News

• Rapid New Test Developed for Inherited Immune Deficiency

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth Update

• Education and Workforce Development Legislation Before the New Congress
• Call for 2005 New Freedom Initiative Award Nominations

Upcoming Events and Conferences

Job Opportunities Through NASET

Acknowledgements

Welcome To the April, 2005 edition of The NASET Special Educator e-Journal.  We hope the 2005 spring season is a happy, healthy, and productive one for all of you. 

The past few months have been extremely busy here at NASET.  As always, we are committed to making sure that you are kept up-to-date with all of the most current information in the field of special education.  As such, we have added, and continue to add, hundreds of new sites to the data base this year. 

Membership in NASET is skyrocketing. Every month, we exceed the previous month’s numbers of members who have joined our community of teaching professionals.  We thank all of you for referring your colleagues to us, as we have heard from many new members that their basis for joining was “through a friend with whom I teach.”

In January, we began the new NASET Teacher-to-Teacher Forum.   It’s doing very well but we need your input. Here, you can:

• Post new topics in the field of special education
• Reply to other peoples’ topics on special education
• Edit your posted messages  on special education issues 
• Receive email notification of replies to posted messages on special education topics and topics in special education that you specify
• Send private messages to other forum special education professionals who are Forum members 
• Enter special education events in the Forum calendar
• Set up a ‘buddy-list’ of other special education professionals/Forum members to quickly see which of your friends are currently online

To keep the NASET Teacher-to-Teacher Forum  fresh, we encourage you to visit it and always feel free to give us suggestions on ways in which we can improve not only the Forum but NASET as a community.   To learn more about the Teacher-to-Teacher Forum, click on the following link:  https://www.naset.org/543.0.html.

In this month’s edition of the e-journal, we are also fortunate that three of our own members submitted a wonderful paper/debate titled: How Will the Paper Reduction Act Impact Special Education? Submission of this article was by:

Lloyd J. Rekstad, M.A., a teacher of kindergarten-first grade, Mild to Moderate Special Day Class for San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, in Chino, CA.  Mr. Rekstad has taught special education for 7 years.

Elizabeth J. Snider, M. A.,  a Resource Specialist /Title One Coodinator at David Brown Middle School, Lake Elsinore, CA.  Mrs. Snider has taught special education for 15 years.

Lisa Tanner, M.A., a  teacher in the Walnut Valley Unified School District, Walnut, CA.  Mrs. Tanner has been a Middle School Special Day Class teacher for 9 years.

Finally, remember that NASET is your organization, and anything we can do to enhance your professional development, we will very seriously take into consideration.  We wish a very happy, safe, and healthy spring season (and for those of you in the Northeast, no more snow!!)

Sincerely,
Dr. Roger Pierangelo

To top

Introduction of Topic:

The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Section 609 is to provide an opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties that are directly associated with the requirements of this title, in order to increase the time and resources available for instructions and other activities aimed at improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities.  This debate will discuss the pros and cons of this section.

Special education, within the public school system, is emerging as a high profile issue of national importance.  Within the halls of the U.S. Congress, our legislators have debated what their role should be, in terms of providing guidance, direction and support, in order to improve educational results for children with disabilities by supporting system improvement activities.1 The result of this debate has been the passing of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.

One key component of this section is to streamline the documentation process, required of educators, in order to provide them with more freedom and energy to be able to use their time more profitably in training and resource development.  It is the wish of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, in the U.S. House of Representatives, to recognize the excessive burden of paperwork on professional educators from the IEP team.

Due to its very nature, documenting the progress of special education students is essential.  But, establishing an appropriate balance between concise, yet adequate documentation and burdensome documentation is not an easy task.  This difficult task is made even more complex when it is embarked upon by lawmakers in committee rooms and legislative hearing sessions, rather than by teachers in classrooms and administrators in collaboration with parents. 

Pro Argument:

It is essential that everyone understand the purpose and motivation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.  That purpose is: 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.2

An essential element of this improvement process is the ability to reduce the amount of necessary paperwork generated by service providers.  Section 609 Paperwork Reduction outlines the purpose of reducing the paperwork demands.  The purpose of this section is to provide an opportunity for States to identify ways to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties that are directly associated with the requirements of this title, in order to increase the time and resources available for instruction and other activities aimed at improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities.3

The goal of educators, parents, and lawmakers alike, is improved educational and functional results for more children who struggle with disabilities.  In spite of isolated controversies, the No Child Left Behind Act is proving to be successful across the nation.  Now, it is necessary to align the educational progress of our special education population more closely with the NCLB.  It is also recognized that paperwork must be reduced so that teachers can spend more time in the classrooms where they belong.4   Reducing the burdensome paperwork demands on educators, will go a long way in advancing this goal.

Often times, due to the excessive paperwork demands, teachers are spending their valuable time ensuring that every form is exactly correct and every “jot and tittle” are correct.  This, encumbrance does not produce one single trace of improved student performance.  What it does create, is an attitude of defensiveness and self-protectionism between parents and educators.

While attitudes cannot be legislated, the law also tries to reduce some of the adversarial tension that has built up between schools and parents in recent years by reducing paperwork, by providing alternatives to litigation and by eliminating some of the more trivial bureaucratic requirements.5 

Opponents raise the concern that reducing the paperwork requirements will create widespread abuse by educators, by not keeping parents as well informed of students’ progress, neglecting to inform parents of their rights, and incrementally shutting the parents out of the educational progress of their child.  This is an invalid argument.  It is true, that the annual IEP could be changed to become a triennial IEP.  However, this can only occur with the agreement of the parents.  So, they are, in fact, still integrally involved in the evaluation process.

While some fear that the modifications in this bill will lead to indiscriminant and unregulated disassembly of the special education system throughout our country, it must be remembered that the revisions introduced in this section, and the entire bill will be initially implemented in a 15 state pilot program.  These 15 states will be selected upon the basis of the strength of their proposal and the thoroughness of their methodology.  The approval will be made by the U.S. Department of Education.  The pilot program will be closely scrutinized and regulated, in order to provide legitimate data useful in considering future changes and refinement in the program.

Arguably, there may be some issues that will need to be clarified and re-visited. In reference to the streamlining the special education process in our country, the bold step taken by the U.S. Congress and the President, in passing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, has created a climate of openness and optimism amongst educators.  It is hoped that the resulting improvements, reflected in the educational progress of our special education students, will validate the dramatic change in direction.

Con Argument:

In theory, the concept of less paper work sounds appealing and special education teachers would jump at this chance to have more “quality” teaching time, but it is the “quality” that will be jeopardized if Section 609 Paperwork Reduction Act is approved and can actually weaken our IEP process.  Under the guise of paperwork reduction, proposals were introduced in the last Congress, and will be reintroduced in this Congress, which will dramatically weaken the IEP process as a means of insuring quality, planning, evaluation, and parent participation.  Some of the proposals being contemplated are:

          a)  reducing the requirement for IEP meetings from at least annually to at least every three    years.  This would have the effect of substantially reducing the timeliness and thoroughness of review and reduce the opportunities for automatic joint review and discussion between parents and school staff.

            b)   eliminating the requirement for short term objectives or benchmarks.  This would make the criteria for measuring a child’s progress far more general and less sensitive to the changes that occur during the year.  It would also make it harder for parents and teachers to pinpoint the specific skills that are to be addressed as building blocks in accomplishing long term goals and would make it harder for parents to obtain ongoing and accurate feedback about how a child was progressing in accomplishing the desired outcomes.
 
          c)  providing for IEP meetings only in response to key transitions, such as change from   elementary or middle school or upon request.  Again, this would put the burden on the parent to initiate the process if the parent felt that more frequent meetings were necessary and could lead to considerate delays in scheduling meetings when they are needed.

         d) potentially eliminating the need for all IEP members to be physically present at the IEP meeting, allowing those with relevant information to have their information shared by others.  This would drastically inhibit the ability of parents to gain information directly from those who have the most immediate knowledge.  It would also shift some of the discussion to preliminary meetings of the staff that do not include the parents, thereby weakening the ability of parents to participate fully and equally in the discussions.6

By reducing the IEP timeline from one to three years, we would be eliminating the very reason the IEP was put into place, educational programs that are uniquely tailored to that child’s changing needs.   Parents will still have the right to call an IEP, so the savvy parents will remain in the loop while the less savvy will or could fall through the gap.  The annual IEP is the only opportunity to gather in a group and this changes the dynamic between the teacher/parent/school, and the administrators, and general teachers will not necessarily be present if it’s considered an informal meeting.  This brings us back to, Is this in the best interest of the student?  Children change at such a rapid pace that crucial milestones that don’t necessarily “pop-up” between academic milestones could be missed.  There may be necessary changes in the IEP that happen before the three year meeting. Children are always experiencing changes in their life that may affect how they learn or new areas of struggles may surface which may require a change in their goals and objectives or benchmarks.  There is no guarantee in this proposal that there will be adequate safeguards to insure that a school district is held accountable for the progress of a child with a disability toward measurable IEP goals.7

A 3 year IEP cuts parents largely out of the process and avoids accountability for schools.  Progress reports and phone calls aren’t nearly enough to understand the day to day needs of their child and it keeps them uninformed as to any progress and gains that have been made.  Parents need to be respected as experts on the needs of their children and be part of any decision that affects their child’s education.  Where is the true interest of the child being taken into account?  Parents of students with disabilities at the Alliance’s Sixth National Conference, January 29-February 1, 2003 in Washington D.C., expressed strong concern about the Paper Reduction Act.  Concerns focused on potential loss of parental involvement and input for short-term goals.  Presenters emphasized the importance of the annual IEP process in setting or redirecting a course for student progress.8

This Reduction of Paperwork proposal is not reducing paperwork.  It’s only reducing the amount of time between communication with others.  Changes still need to be formally documented, parents still need written information and testing still needs to be done to ensure the child is progressing on a yearly basis.

Rebuttal to the PRO position:

The central theme of the proponent of the Paper Reduction Act places all of the responsibility squarely with the parents.  This does not marginalize the parent involvement, but it does reduce the very aspects of the IEP that make it a useful tool, collaboration and communication with the entire team.  Considering that many students have multiple complex needs, do we as educators really want to place the decision making on the parents?

The opposition feels that parents will stay involved as they deem necessary and will remain in close contact with the school and regularly monitor their child’s progress.  What about parents that are not as “engaged” or as savvy to the IEP process?  We cannot assume that all parents understand fully what they are agreeing to and that they have the knowledge and drive to initiate meetings or phone calls to follow up with their child’s progress.  We are not assuming that all parents are incapable of understanding this process and staying in contact, but rather showing them how important WE feel this process is on a yearly basis for all parties involved. 

Lastly, if a teacher’s role is not monitoring the students’ progress, then whose responsibility is it?  Are we suggesting that parents monitor educational advancement with reduced teacher/team contact and then take opportunities to call IEP’s in order to discuss the development of their child, when they deem necessary.

Rebuttal to the CON position:

It is clear, that the central theme of the opponents of the Paper Reduction Act, is that by going from annual IEP’s to triennial IEP’s, the parental involvement will be marginalized.  This is a baseless assumption.  Many of the opponents to the Paper Reduction Act are much too hasty to predict total disengagement of the parents in the process.  First of all, the provisions of the Act include the assurance that none of the Procedural Safeguards from Section 615 can be waived.  This is a significant safeguard and provides the parents with many safety provisions.
                                                                                                                                                                                                         In addition, the changes are going to be piloted in no more than 15 states, for a period of time, not to exceed 4 years.  This will provide ample time to evaluate and examine the effectiveness for the changes, without negatively impacting the rights of the students and parents involved.

There is not one line in the Act that could be interpreted as discouraging engaged parents from staying in close contact with the school, and regularly monitoring of their child’s progress.  The opposition is implying that the responsibility of monitoring the students’ progress, rests totally on the shoulder of the teachers.  They are “selling the parents short” in assuming that the parents will not be proactive and initiate meetings and take opportunities to call IEP’s in order to discuss the development of their student, when they deem necessary.

Conclusion:

It is widely recognized that the responsibility of providing adequate documentation for special education students can often become burdensome and tedious for the educational caregiver.    Therefore, it is fitting that this discussion receive national attention by our federal lawmakers, in an attempt to provide workable solutions that will be acceptable to all individuals concerned.  

 The goal of streamlining the process, while maintaining adequate communication, is difficult to achieve.  It cannot be denied that while the paperwork requirements may be reduced, the need to maintain strong and open communication amongst all parties concerned cannot be jeopardized.   Adequate written documentation takes time, but it does provide, at least some degree of verifiable accountability of all concerned.  That need for accountability will not be reduced, consequently some form of communication and verification will still be necessary. The educational success of the student must be the determining factor in all of these considerations.  So, this requires flexibility, creativity, and most of all trust, on the part of educators and parents, in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Whether or not Section 609 will reduce the amount of energy and efficacy required to satisfactorily oversee the progress of our special education students, remains to be seen.  The motivation is noble.  The proposed solutions appear reasonable.  The concerns are justifiable.  

In the end, meeting the needs of the student must always remain the central issue.  The success of this legislation will be determined by whether or not conscientious caregivers and concerned parents can satisfactorily communicate, in order to further the education of each special needs child.  Ultimately, whatever process is agreed upon, it will need to be built upon a strong foundation of mutual trust amongst all parties concerned, confident that we all strive to advance the success of our special education students.

Authors

Lloyd J. Rekstad, M.A. teaches kindergarten-first grade, Mild to Moderate Special Day Class for San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, in Chino, CA.  Mr. Rekstad has taught special education for 7 years.

Elizabeth J. Snider, M. A. is a Resource Specialist /Title One Coodinator at David Brown Middle School, Lake Elsinore, CA.  Mrs. Snider has taught special education for 15 years.

Lisa Tanner, M.A. teaches in the Walnut Valley Unified School District, Walnut, CA.  Mrs. Tanner has been a Middle School Special Day Class teacher for 9 years.

References:
1 https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:7:./temp/~c108gmayfN::
2 https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:7./temp/~c1081j50Mz:b0:
3 https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:7:/temp/~c1081j50Mz:e46933:
4 https://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/idea/jabconfstatement.html
5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/a61354-2004nov18html
6 https://www.ldonline.org/article.php?id+372&loc=9
7 https://www.jfanow.org/jfanow/archive.php?mode=A&id=1589
8 https://www.ldonline.org/id2/test/article.php?max=20&id=657&loc=48

To top

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment Policy–Dispelling Myths about the Americans with Disabilities Act

Fact: The ADA has resulted in a surprisingly small number of lawsuits-only about 650 nationwide in five years. That is tiny compared to 6 million businesses, 666,000 public and private employers, and 80,000 units of state and local governments that must comply.

Assumption: The ADA’s definition of disability is broad and vague and has resulted in “bizarre and arcane” discrimination claims that are wasting the time of the EEOC and the courts.

Fact: As with any new statute, there is a period during which employers and employees learn about their rights and obligations under the law. While individuals have the right to file charges, not all charges are meritorious. The job of the EEOC investigator is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Further, the flexibility provided by the ADA definition of “disability” means that there will be individuals who bring claims for conditions that do not satisfy the statutory standards, and the claim will be dismissed.

Assumption: The ADA forces business and government to spend lots of money hiring unqualified people with disabilities.

Fact: To be protected by the ADA an individual must be qualified. No unqualified job applicant or employee with a disability can claim employment discrimination under the ADA. Employees or job applicants must meet all the necessary requirements of the job and perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. No accommodation must be provided if it would result in an undue hardship on the employer.

Assumption: The ADA, along with other laws such as the FMLA and Workers’ Compensation, are squeezing out small businesses that cannot afford to hire human resource specialists to advise them regarding the complexities of these laws.

Fact: Truly small businesses, those with fewer than 15 employees, are not covered by the ADA. (The FMLA only applies to employers with 50 or more employees.) For employers who are covered, the ADA provides an undue hardship defense for reasonable accommodations that are unduly costly or burdensome. Smaller employers can more easily establish undue hardship because they have fewer resources.

Assumption: The ADA is being misused by people alleging mental and neurological impairments.

Fact: The ADA covers individuals with physical or mental impairments that substantially limit major life activities because individuals with such impairments have traditionally been subjected to pervasive employment discrimination. Just as the ADA excludes people with temporary physical problems, so does it exclude people with mild or short-term mental health problems. Neurological impairments are conditions or diseases involving the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, ganglia, nerves, and nerve centers. ADA charges indicate that there is significant discrimination against persons with neurological impairments. Psychiatric impairments involve a biological, social, or psychological dysfunction. Individuals with psychiatric disabilities have traditionally been subjected to discrimination, not because they are unable to successfully perform job duties, but because of myths, fears, and stereotypes associated with such impairments.

Assumption: The ADA is rigid and requires businesses to spend lots of money to make their existing facilities accessible.

Fact: The ADA is based on common sense. The law recognizes that altering existing structures is more costly than making new construction accessible. The law only requires that public accommodations (e.g., stores, banks, hotels, and restaurants) remove architectural barriers in existing facilities when it is “readily achievable” (i.e., it can be done “without much difficulty or expense”). Inexpensive, easy steps that can be taken include ramping one step, installing a bathroom grab bar, lowering a paper towel dispenser, rearranging furniture, installing offset hinges to widen a doorway, or painting new lines to create an accessible parking space.

Assumption: ADA requires that sign language interpreters be used in all situations involving persons who are deaf.

Fact: The ADA only requires that effective communication not exclude people with disabilities-which in many situations means providing written materials or exchanging notes. The law does not require any measure that would cause an undue financial or administrative hardship.

Assumption: The ADA requires extensive renovations of all state and local government buildings to make them accessible.

Fact: The ADA requires all government programs, not all government buildings, to be accessible. “Program accessibility” is a very flexible requirement and does not require a local government to do anything that would result in an undue financial or administrative burden. Local governments have been subject to this requirement for many years under Title 5 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Not every building, nor each part of every building needs to be accessible. Structural modifications are required only when there is no alternative available for providing program access. Let’s say a town library has an inaccessible second floor. No elevator is needed if it provides “program accessibility” for persons using wheelchairs by having staff retrieve books.

Assumption: Everyone claims to be covered under the ADA.

Fact: To be protected under the law, a person must have an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, must have a record of such an impairment, or must be regarded as having such an impairment. While people have the right to file charges, not all charges are meritorious. EEOC investigators are instructed to analyze whether a charging party has an ADA-protected disability. If an individual does not have a substantially limiting impairment (and does not allege “record of” or “regarded as” discrimination), the complaint is dismissed.

The information in this fact sheet came from the following sources: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Justice Department.

Summary of IDEA 2004–From the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability

After three years of intense debate and compromise, America’s federal statute governing special education has been revised, enacted and, for the most part, will take effect July 2005. Congress finished work on the revisions to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in late November, 2004, and President Bush signed the legislation, known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, on December 3, 2004.

A piece of civil rights legislation, the IDEA guarantees students with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment and authorizes appropriations of billions of dollars in funding to states and school districts to assist them in providing special education and related services.

The revisions of IDEA contained in the new law, Public Law 108-446, build on and more closely align IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act. They also modify important requirements around individualized student planning, transition, litigation, and due process protections, monitoring and enforcement, and federal funding. Below is a summary of some of the major provisions in the new law.

No Child Left Behind 

The new law contains provisions aimed at strengthening how special education students’ academic progress is measured.

The law promotes the use of universal design principles in both the delivery of instruction and the use of technology. The new law also requires quarterly reports to parents on their child’s progress toward meeting IEP goals, and how that progress is being measured.

Under the new law, alternate assessment scores are required to be counted when determining performance of a school district and state. In addition, the law requires individualized education programs to emphasize academic performance. Parents will be able to choose supplemental educational services, such as tutoring, for their children with disabilities when the student’s schools are in need of improvement under NCLB.

Special educators must prove competency in most core academic subjects they teach, unless they teach students with significant cognitive disabilities. The new law requires that special education teachers be certified as “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-06 school year, with the same definition of the term and deadline required for general education teachers under the NCLB (PL 107-110). The “highly qualified” teacher provisions take effect immediately as schools prepare to meet the NCLB requirement.

Additionally, paraprofessionals are now required to meet certain state-established personnel standards.

Individualized Education Programs 

The new law contains several important changes to the Individualized Education Program (IEP) requirements of IDEA.

Short-term goals no longer have to be part of the IEP except for students with significant disabilities. No short-term objectives are required for students who take regular assessments or an alternate assessment on grade level. For students taking tests based on alternate achievement standards, IEP short-term objectives are still required.

If changes to a students’ IEP are necessary after the annual IEP meeting for a school year, the parent and the school district may agree not to convene an IEP meeting to make the changes, but instead, may develop a written document to amend or modify the current IEP. Upon request, a parent is to be provided a revised copy of the IEP with the amendments incorporated.
A member of the IEP team is not required to attend all or part of the IEP meeting if, in writing, the parent, and the school agree that the team member’s attendance is not necessary.

In the case of a student with an IEP who transfers school districts within the same academic year within the same state, the new law requires the school district to provide the child with free appropriate public education (FAPE), including services comparable to those described in the previous IEP, in consultation with the parents until the school district adopts the previous IEP or develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP. For students transferring from one state to the other, the same rule holds but only until the school district conducts an evaluation, and develops a new IEP.

The new law creates an opportunity for up to 15 states to test the option of establishing a three-year IEP program for students of all ages. Parents in those states would still get the option to have a one-year IEP. This compromise will allow the selected states to receive waivers for certain federal and state paperwork requirements as long as they do not violate civil rights and procedural safeguards. States wishing to participate in the program will compete for the 15 slots for the paperwork reduction pilot programs. The Secretary of Education will announce the competitive opportunity, evaluate the proposals, and select the 15 states.

Transition

The new law contains the changes in the transition provisions.  IDEA has been amended to clarify that one of the primary purposes of the law is to ensure a free appropriate public education designed to meet each student’s unique needs and to “prepare them for further education, employment and independent living.”

The revisions to IDEA eliminate the references to transition activities beginning at age 14; now, all transition requirements are to be followed not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the student turns 16 years old.
The definition of “transition services” has been changed to emphasize that the services must be designed “within a results-oriented process,” which is “focused on improving the academic and functional achievement” of the student. “Vocational education” has been added to the list of potential services and the student’s “strengths” are to be taken into account as well as his or her preferences and interests when considering the student’s transition needs.

Schools are required to set clear and specific transition goals beyond secondary school. The student’s IEP is to include “appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based on age appropriate transition assessments” and describe the transition services, “including courses of study,” needed to reach his or her goals.

Schools are required to provide graduating high school students with disabilities a summary of their accomplishments and transition needs as they leave school.

At the end of the Congressional debate, one major transition-related provision was dropped from the bill that would have amended the Workforce Investment Act’s (WIA) Vocational Rehabilitation Act to authorize a very detailed transition program for the vocational rehabilitation system. Elimination of these transition provisions at the last minute of negotiations over IDEA sets the stage for a more systemic approach to transition during the Congressional deliberations on the yet-to-be-completed reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.

Overidentification 

The new law includes several provisions intended to reduce the over identification of children as disabled, including minority children.
Administrators must use new approaches to prevent over-identification or misidentification of students with disabilities. The new law permits all school districts to use up to 15 percent of their IDEA funds for so-called “pre-referral services” for children who may have problems in specific skills, such as reading, before they are identified as disabled and needing special education. It would require school districts with significant over identification of minority students as disabled to operate pre-referral programs.

As it relates to determining whether a student has a specific learning disability, the new law says that “…a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.” It goes on to say that “in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions” as a part of the required evaluation procedures.

Student Discipline

Probably the most controversial part of the IDEA reauthorization process, there are a number of significant changes to the discipline protections enacted in the IDEA amendments of 1997.

School personnel now have the authority to consider, on a “case by case basis,” unique circumstances when determining whether to order a change in placement for a student with a disability who violated a code of student conduct.

The length of time school personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative setting, without a hearing officer, has been changed from 45 days to 45 school days.

In addition, school personnel may now remove a student who “has inflicted serious bodily injury upon another person while at school, on school premises, or at a school function” to such an interim placement without a hearing officer ruling.

The criteria to be used in disciplinary action for determining whether a behavior is a manifestation of a student’s disability is:1) whether the conduct in question is caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the student’s disability; or 2) whether the conduct in question was the direct result of the school district’s failure to implement the student’s IEP.”

Due Process and Litigation

There are several important changes to the due process rights of families.
The new law allows complaints to be submitted no more than two years from the date a parent or agency knew or should have known about the issue that is the subject of the complaint, or within the timeline the state requires.

It also requires both parties submit a due process complaint notice before accessing a due process hearing. The law now allows for mediation to be requested prior to the filing of a complaint and strengthens the provisions for developing a written binding confidential agreement. And, the new law creates a new “resolution session” process as a means of dispute resolution.
The law maintains the right of parents and families to sue a district or state and collect attorney’s fees, but also allows a school district to collect reasonable attorney’s fees in egregious cases. A party bringing a civil action has 90 days from the date of the hearing officer’s decision to bring a civil action, or the time period allowed by the state law.

Monitoring and Compliance

States and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) must work together closely to enforce the law in a systematic way. The new law requires states to develop performance plans with measurable targets on such indicators as free appropriate public education (FAPE) and least restrictive environment (LRE). The new law specifically requires states to identify enforcement targets such as minority representation in special education and issues related to a FAPE. It also provides a structured timeline for ED to help states comply with the law, and increasingly severe sanctions if states continue to fail to do so.

The new law sets up specific timelines for ED to react to states’ noncompliance. While the sanctions for noncompliance focus on technical assistance, the secretary does have the authority to withhold funding whether partially or entirely.

The Secretary of Education will review the state performance plan annually and determine whether a state is in compliance, or needs “assistance,” “Intervention” or “substantial Intervention” in implementing the law. After two years of noncompliance, ED will continue to offer assistance through other federal agencies, professional development, and other resources from experts.

After three consecutive years of noncompliance, the Secretary of Education could require the state to develop a corrective action plan, enter into a compliance agreement, withhold partial or future funding or refer the matter to the Justice Department for appropriate enforcement action.

Funding

Although the new law stops short of guaranteeing that the federal government will pay 40 percent of the costs of special education, it authorizes significant additional spending that, if appropriated, will bring the federal contribution to special education to the 40 percent mark by 2011. Congress opted to address the funding issue through this “glide path” rather than making special education funding an entitlement or mandatory.
The new law also makes some changes to the funding formula. It provides formulas for determining the maximum amount a state can receive based on numerous factors, including the number of children receiving special education and related services aged 3-5 and 6-21; and average per pupil expenditure in the United States. It also provides a formula for allocating any increase in appropriations over the previous fiscal year, based on a state’s relative population of children aged 3-21 with disabilities and based on the relative population of children with disabilities who are living in poverty. No state’s allocation can be less than the previous year’s allocation.

The new law establishes risk pools for local education agencies to help pay for the education of high-need students and the unexpected enrollment of students with disabilities. Under this provision, states have the option to receive 10 percent of the amount of funds the state reserves for state-level activities. Any funds that a state does not use for the risk pool will be allocated to the local educational agencies in the next fiscal year. The law caps the amount of funds that may be used for administration at the fiscal year 2004 level and allows states to retain an increased potion for other required state level activities. This portion would be capped after two years.

The new law also authorizes local school districts to reduce local expenditures on certain programs below prior year’s levels, up to an amount equivalent to 50 percent of new federal special education funding each year, on a cumulative basis, as long as an equivalent amount of local funds is used for activities authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Except for some provisions related to “highly qualified” teachers mentioned earlier, the new law will be effective on July 1, 2005 and the U.S. Department of Education now begins the arduous process of developing implementing regulations.

To top

Wrightslaw.com, one of the world’s leading authorities in special education law, has granted NASET permission to place articles of interest in its e-journal for its members.  NASET thanks Wrightslaw.com for providing us with informative and practical information.

IDEA 2004: IEP Team Members & IEP Team Attendance. What are the new regulations under IDEA 2004?

According to IDEA 2004, Section 1414(d)(1)(B), the IEP team includes:

(i) the parents of a child with a disability;
(ii) not less than 1 regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment;

(iii) not less than 1 special education teacher, or where appropriate, not less than 1 special education provider of such child;
(iv) a representative of the local educational agency . . .

(v) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results . . .
(vi) at the discretion of the parent of the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and
(vii) whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.”

The authorization of any new law typically brings about a spate of interpretations and more questions. Certainly, IDEA 2004 will raise its fair share of questions. Self-styled experts may spread wrong interpretations, misinformation and deliberate disinformation. Do not rely on the opinions of others or advice you may find in articles or at training programs.
 
IDEA 2004 did add a new subsection about “IEP Team Attendance:”
(C) IEP TEAM ATTENDANCE –

(i) ATTENDANCE NOT NECESSARY – A member of the IEP Team shall not be required to attend an IEP meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent of a child with a disability and the local educational agency agree that the attendance of such member is not necessary because the member’s area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting.

(ii) EXCUSAL – A member of the IEP Team may be excused from attending an IEP meeting, in whole or in part, when the meeting involves a modification to or discussion of the member’s area of the curriculum or related services, if–

  (I) the parent and the local educational agency consent to the excusal; and
  (II) the member submits, in writing to the parent and the IEP Team, input into the development of the IEP prior to the meeting.

(iii) WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND CONSENT REQUIRED – A parent’s agreement under
clause (i) and consent under clause (ii) shall be in writing.

IDEA 2004: Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers

“I have an undergraduate and a master’s degree in special education. I hold certifications in LD, ED and MR. Do I meet the highly qualified teacher requirements in IDEA 2004?”
If you have a degree or degrees in special education, but not in the academic subjects you teach, you may not be highly qualified. If you teach core academic subjects, you must meet the following requirements to be highly qualified:
* You must have full state certification as a special education teacher or pass your State special education teacher licensing examination and hold a license to teach in the state.
* Your certification or license cannot be waived on an emergency, temporary, provisional basis.
* You must hold at least a bachelor’s degree.
* You must demonstrate subject matter competence in the academic subjects you teach.

Note: The highly qualified teacher requirements are somewhat different for new teachers and veteran teachers, and for elementary, middle school, and high school teachers.

How Can a Teacher Demonstrate Competence?

Your degrees are in “special education” which is not a core academic subject.

You may have taken enough courses in the academic subject(s) you teach to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements in your state.

States also have the option of developing a method by which current teachers can demonstrate competency in the subjects they teach. This method must be based on a “high objective uniform state standard of evaluation” (HOUSSE). In essence, these procedures must provide an objective way of determining if teachers have adequate subject matter knowledge in the subjects they teach. There are several requirements about these HOUSSE procedures that are too lengthy and detailed for this general article. (The publications listed at the end of this article will provide you with more information.)

Special Educators Who Do Not Provide Instruction

If you do not provide instruction in core academic subjects – English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, you do not have to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements.

To learn how the law affects you, download and read these publications from the U. S. Department of Education:

Toolkit for Teachers is designed to answer questions about the “highly qualified teacher” provisions, testing, reading, scientifically based research, English language learners, Reading First grants, and safe schools.
www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Non-Regulatory Guidance – While you may be tempted to pass on this publication from the U. S. Department of Education, we advise you to read it. It will answer many of your questions – it’s clearly written in a Q & A format.

www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.pdf

Improving Teacher Quality answers questions like these:

* Must special education teachers who teach core academic subjects be highly qualified? (Question C-26)

* What activities may special education teachers carry out if they are not highly qualified in the core academic content areas being taught?” (Question C-27)
* Must elementary school subject specialists be highly qualified in all subjects or just the subject they teach? (Question C-28)

* Do teachers who primarily teach English language learners need to meet the highly qualified requirements? (Question C-22)

* Do short- and long-term substitute teachers need to meet the highly qualified requirements? (Question C-24)

Important Definitions

The term “core academic subjects means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.”
These definitions are from IDEA 2004 –

(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS.–When used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary school special education teacher teaching in a State, such term means that–

(i) the teacher has obtained full State certification as a special education teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification), or passed the State special education teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in the State as a special education teacher, except that when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State’s public charter school law;
(ii) the teacher has not had special education certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis; and
(iii) the teacher holds at least a bachelor’s degree.

(C) SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS TEACHING TO ALTERNATE ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS.–When used with respect to a special education teacher who teaches core academic subjects exclusively to children who are assessed against alternate achievement standards established under the regulations promulgated under section 1111(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, such term means the teacher, whether new or not new to the profession, may either–

(i) meet the applicable requirements of section 9101 of such Act for any elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher who is new or not new to the profession; or

(ii) meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 9101(23) of such Act as applied to an elementary school teacher, or, in the case of instruction above the elementary level, has subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction being provided, as determined by the State, needed to effectively teach to those standards.

(D) SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS TEACHING MULTIPLE SUBJECTS.–When used with respect to a special education teacher who teaches 2 or more core academic subjects exclusively to children with disabilities, such term means that the teacher may either–

(i) meet the applicable requirements of section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for any elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher who is new or not new to the profession;

(ii) in the case of a teacher who is not new to the profession, demonstrate competence in all the core academic subjects in which the teacher teaches in the same manner as is required for an elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher who is not new to the profession under section 9101(23)(C)(ii) of such Act, which may include a single, high objective uniform State standard of evaluation covering multiple subjects; or

(iii) in the case of a new special education teacher who teaches multiple subjects and who is highly qualified in mathematics, language arts, or science, demonstrate competence in the other core academic subjects in which the teacher teaches in the same manner as is required for an elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher under section 9101(23)(C)(ii) of such Act, which may include a single, high objective uniform State standard of evaluation covering multiple subjects, not later than 2 years after the date of employment.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Burden of Proof Case

February 22, 2005: Today, the U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Brian Schaffer’s appeal of an adverse ruling from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This decision assigns the burden of proof to the party who initiates a special education due process hearing.

Split Among Circuits

In their decision in Weast v. Schaffer, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit wrote, “Other circuits are split – and splintered in reasoning – on this question. Three circuits assign the burden to the parents, and four (perhaps five) assign it to the school system.”

2-1 Decision
In their 2-1 decision issued on July 29, 2004, the majority held that:

“In sum, the IDEA does not allocate the burden of proof, and we see no reason to depart from the general rule that a party initiating a proceeding bears that burden. Congress was aware that school systems might have an advantage in administrative proceedings brought by parents to challenge IEPs. To avoid this problem, Congress provided a number of procedural safeguards for parents, but assignment of the burden of proof to school systems was not one of them. Because Congress took care in specifying specific procedural protections necessary to implement the policy goals of the Act, we decline to go further, at least insofar as the burden of proof is concerned. Accordingly, we hold that parents who challenge an IEP have the burden of proof in the administrative hearing. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Judge Luttig, in his dissent, wrote:

“I fear that, in reaching the contrary conclusion, the majority has been unduly influenced by the fact that the parents of the disabled student in this case have proven to be knowledgeable about the educational resources available to their son and sophisticated (if yet unsuccessful) in their pursuit of these resources. If so, it is regrettable. These parents are not typical, and any choice regarding the burden of proof should not be made in the belief that they are. For the vast majority of parents whose children require the benefits and protections provided in the IDEA, the specialized language and technical educational analysis with which they must familiarize themselves as a consequence of their child’s disability will likely be obscure, if not bewildering. By the same token, most of these parents will find the educational program proposed by the school district resistant to challenge: the school district will have better information about the resources available to it, as well as the benefit of its experience with other disabled children.

With the full mix of parents in mind, I believe that the proper course is to assign the burden of proof in due process hearings to the school district.”
“I respectfully dissent.”
In html: The decision in Weast v. Schaffer, 377 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2004) is available at:

https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/04/4th.schaffer.weast.md.htm

In PDF: The decision in Weast v. Schaffer is also available at:
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/04/4th.schaffer.weast.md.pdf

Petition for Certiorari

Brian Schaffer’s Petition for Certiorari, prepared by his attorney William Hurd, is available at: https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/05/ussupct.schaffer.petition.hurd.pdf
 

To top

The National Organization on Disability, one of the world’s leading authorities on individuals with disabilities, has granted NASET permission to place articles of interest in its e-journal for its members.  NASET thanks The National Organization on Disability, https://www.nod.org,  for providing us with informative and practical information.

The Schiavo Case Has Many Rushing to Write Living Wills. Is This Good News for Disability Advocates?–Brewster Thackeray

Among all the accomplishments by Christopher Reeve between his paralyzing 1995 horseback accident and his death last fall, one of the most subtle but impressive was his acknowledgement that there was a time he wanted to die. Faced with a physically restricted life, without the same independence, options, or opportunities that he had previously taken for granted, the man who had flown across movie screens in Superman’s cape thought he had met his Kryptonite. He didn’t want to be a burden to others, including his wife, Dana; but it was she who convinced him to give his new life a chance. He did, and came to find fulfillment and ways to live that helped millions of others.

Christopher Reeve’s conversion is not a unique one in the disability world. Many of my friends who have severe disabilities share stories of acquaintances and even strangers saying to them, “You’re so brave. I couldn’t live like you do.” Well, you have to be there to know. And most people with disabilities I’ve known (myself included), while we might not have chosen to have a disability, have learned from our experience how versatile and adaptable we can become. Some even wonder if their lives would have been less full had they not had a disability experience.

That is why I am concerned by polls that show a majority of Americans saying that if they were in the condition that Terri Schiavo has been for the past 15 years, they would rather die. This is significant, because one thing all sides have credited this case with is creating a groundswell of awareness of how important a living will can be.

While they might not want to be in Terri Schiavo’s shoes, where else would those surveyed draw the line? How specific will their living wills have to be? Clearly they aren’t needed by anyone who is of sound mind and able to communicate. But those who can’t communicate their wishes also can’t revise their living wills.

Terri Schiavo’s husband says she told him she didn’t want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents argue this is hearsay and in opposition to her Catholic faith. Assuming the conversation her husband cites occurred, what did Terri mean? Did she mean she didn’t want to be hooked up to machines that would feed her, and make her breathe, and make her heart beat? Would she have considered just a feeding tube to be unacceptable? Because the latter is all she requires; she breathes and her heart beats independently. Not being able to feed oneself is a dangerous litmus test, as many cognizant people with physical disabilities, to say nothing of all human babies, will starve without assistance.

Then there is the question of whether a person who leaves a living will would do so if they knew the method of their death. For instance, if Terri Schiavo were on a ventilator, removing it would end her life in minutes. But because she is only dependent on artificial methods for food and water, she will instead die of starvation and dehydration—if she is sentient in any way, this will be a horrific exit. It’s a fate too cruel to be wished upon any potentially sentient creature. At the time her tube was disconnected, Ms. Schiavo could have been an organ donor and saved other peoples’ lives; but if she dies of starvation, all of her organs will have failed. What if she had left a living will asking not to be sustained, yet also requesting to be an organ donor? How would that ethical quandary be resolved?

Healthy people fear disability. This is frustrating for the disability community, but it’s human nature. Just as it is human nature to fear aging. Think of the line from the Who song “My Generation”: “Hope I die before I get old.” Easy to say in one’s 20s; but Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey might not be thinking that from the perspective of being past middle age. It is important to understand that just like other parts of a person’s last wishes, desires expressed in a living will can change.

The good news is that the vast majority of people will never be in Terri Schiavo’s situation. But it never hurts to plan ahead, and the better informed people are when they do so, the more fully the potential value of human life, with a wide variety of disabilities, can be recognized. Ideally, that recognition will increase the respect for and fair treatment of all persons with disabilities, too.

Many say that if Terri Schiavo had left a living will, we’d never be in the legal and medical quandary that we are. That might be true, but it would have had to be a very specifically worded document to avoid ambiguity in this complex case. And any living wills her case inspires should be equally specific in their wording. The writers should be fully educated about the full range of situations where it could apply, options that will be available, and all of their implications.

Survey Reveals Gaps in Emergency Preparedness for People with Disabilities–Impact of National Efforts on States and Communities is Lagging

Washington, DC, – A nationwide survey by Harris Interactive, commissioned by the National Organization on Disability of emergency managers in states, and large, mid-size and small cities throughout the nation, has found that 69% said they had incorporated the needs of people with disabilities into their emergency plans. An additional 22% said they have a plan under development.

“There is both good and bad news,” said Alan Reich, President of the National Organization on Disability. “The good news is that planning is underway, and the emergency preparedness community recognizes that America’s 54 million citizens with disabilities comprise a critical population to be served. They are aware of our issues and are willing to address them. It is heartening that the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies are developing and initiating programs that are having a growing impact.”

The survey found that among those who currently have a preparedness plan in existence or under development, only 54% had plans for dealing with schools for students with disabilities; 50% did not have a special needs registry that includes people with disabilities; 59% did not have plans for pediatric populations; and 76% did not have a paid expert to deal with emergency preparedness for people with disabilities. Among all respondents, 39% had not purchased specialized equipment; 36% said no special training had been offered, and 73% said no funding had been received to address emergency planning for people with disabilities.

Additionally, among all respondents only 42% said they had a public awareness campaign directed at providing emergency information to people with disabilities – with only 16% of those with a campaign making the plan available in accessible formats (i.e. Braille, cassette, large type, etc.). The survey also indicated that small, and in some cases midsize, cities, include people with disabilities in their emergency plans to a lesser extent than do large cities do.

The study, commissioned by the National Organization on Disability through a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, was conducted to determine the degree to which jurisdictions had taken into account the needs of people with disabilities in their emergency planning and included people with disabilities themselves in the planning process.

Harkin Introduces Bill to Support Community-Based Services for Individuals with Disabilities–Legislation would allow individuals to receive care in their own homes and communities, rather than nursing homes

Washington, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today announced that he introduced the Money Follows the Person Act of 2005. The legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), would reimburse states for community based services for an individual currently living in a nursing home or similar facility.

“We have a Medicaid system in this country that is spending approximately two-thirds of its dollars on institutional care and approximately one-third on community services. This bill is an important step toward switching those numbers around,” said Harkin. “It is shameful that our federal dollars are being spent to segregate people, not integrate them.”

Under this legislation, the Medicaid money paid by states and the federal government would follow the person with a disability from an institution into the community. The Act would provide 100 percent federal reimbursement for the community services that an individual needs during the first year after they move out of a nursing home or similar facility. After that first year, the individual would remain in the community, and states would receive their regular Medicaid match for their services.

“This bill would allow people with disabilities to have choices that we all take for granted–to live with family and friends, not with strangers; to live in a neighborhood, not a nursing home or institution,” Harkin said. “Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus that Americans with disabilities should have an equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens.”

Quadrapalegic Attorney Settles “Apprentice Lawsuit”

Quadriplegic attorney James Schottel Jr. settled his lawsuit against the producers of NBC’s “The Apprentice” after they agreed to make clear that the show accepts applications from people with disabilities. Schottel claimed that the show’s online application was discriminatory in requiring that would-be contestants be in “excellent physical health”. 

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7141917/

To top

Update from the National

Dissemination Center for

Children and Youth with Disabilities

Who Has A Learning Disability, Anyway?

IDEA 2004 changes the way schools may make eligibility decisions for student being screened for learning disabilities. The National Association of School Psychologists has three online resources to help parents understand this change in the law.

New Directions in Identifying Learning Disabilities
www.teachersandfamilies.com/open/parent/idea1.cfm
These pages highlight the definition of learning disabilities, ways to identify students with learning disabilities, and what the changes in IDEA will mean for struggling students.

Learning Disabilities: A Primer For Parents About Identification
www.nasponline.org/premium-publications/cq325ldinsert.html
Here, you’ll find eligibility issues covered in more detail.

Response to Instruction in the Identification of Learning Disabilities: A Guide for School Teams
www.nasponline.org/premium-publications/cq325instruction.html
“Response to instruction” is one method that may be used with a struggling student to determine if he/she meets the criterion for having a learning disability. Read more at the link above.

For a historical look at this change, see Who is Learning Disabled?, from the American Psychological Association, online at:
www.apa.org/monitor/sep03/disabled.html

Making the “No Child Left Behind Act” Work for Children Who Struggle to Learn

Here is a guide to introduce parents to several key parts of NCLB that they can use as tools to improve educational services for their child. The 22-page document begins with an overview of the law. It then covers individual provisions of the law and ways that those provisions may help your child.

• Increased Focus on Reading
• Improved Opportunity to Learn
• Better-Trained Teachers
• School Accountability through Student Assessments
• Increased Parent Involvement
• Options for Students in Low-Performing Schools.

Making the “No Child Left Behind Act” Work for Children Who Struggle to Learn is the result of collaborative work between the National Center for Learning Disabilities and Schwab Learning. It’s available online at:
www.ld.org/NCLB/MakingNCLBwork.pdf

A Guide to Education under the No Child Left Behind Act

The Department of Education has developed another resource to help readers understand the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind gives a general overview of the provisions of the law. It also describes how education affects the economy, provides statistical information about education, and charts expenditures and achievements in education. The guide is available from Ed Pubs (1.877.433.7827, edpubs@inet.ed.gov, www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html). It’s also online at:
www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/index.html

Homework Help

LDOnline is presenting the first two installments in a series of articles for parents called Tool Kits for Parents. This series is designed to present parents with information that they might need to support their child at homework time.

Tool Kit for Parents: Being an Efficient Homework Helper is the first in the series. It provides a general introduction as well as strategies for increasing motivation.

www.ldonline.org/article.php?id=1040&loc=89
 Tool Kit for Parent: Making It Stick, Tips to Help Memory is the second in the series. This article provides a variety of memory enhancing techniques, as well as, ways that parents can help their child find ones that work for them.

www.ldonline.org/article.php?max=20&id=1087&loc=89

To top

National Progress Being Made in Serving Students with Limited English Proficiency

Thanks to No Child Left Behind, for the first time, all states have developed and implemented English language proficiency standards and annually assessed English language learners, according to a new report from the Department about the progress of serving these five million students in our schools.

“FY 2002-2004 Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of NCLB, Title III, the State Formula Grant Program” is the first in-depth report to Congress containing data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico concerning the English language acquisition and academic achievement of limited English proficient students (LEPs) since NCLB was enacted. (English language learners or ELLs are also known as limited English proficient or LEP students.)

Prior to the implementation of NCLB in 2002, few states had developed these standards that now help teachers measure each student’s progress in learning English. Currently, all states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have established English language proficiency standards that are linked to state academic content standards in English in reading/language arts and mathematics.

“States have made significant progress toward implementing new Title III English language acquisition requirements in a very short period of time,” said Secretary Margaret Spellings. “When President Bush envisioned helping all children in America who had previously been left behind, he knew that our English language learners faced some of the greatest challenges. That’s why he made sure that the federal government played a vital role in ensuring their educational success, while at the same time, allowing the states the flexibility required to implement the Title III LEP language instruction programs effectively.”

With the $477 million distributed through the Title III State Formula Grant program in FY 2003, states served more than four million LEP students. Based on the most currently available data from the states, there are approximately 5.1 million LEP students nationwide. Title III services reach approximately 80 percent of these students. Before NCLB, only approximately 15 percent of these students were being served through federal LEP programs nationwide. The change from competitive program grants to state formula grants means that many more LEP students are now being served.

“NCLB reflects a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the federal government and the states with regard to the education of LEP students,” said Kathleen Leos, associate assistant deputy secretary of the Office of English Language Acquisition. “As a result, we are no longer funding programs, we are funding children.”

States that receive Title III grants must also reserve up to 15 percent of their award for subgrants to local education agencies that have experienced a significant increase in the number of immigrant children and youths enrolled in schools.

Important data provided by the states about programs and participants in the 2003-04 school year indicate that:

 51 of 52 state education agencies (includes D.C. and Puerto Rico) reported serving a total of 4,042,428 LEP students through 4,867 Title III formula subgrants to districts [local education agencies (LEAs)];
 45 of 52 state education agencies (includes D.C. and Puerto Rico) reported funding 1,389 additional subgrants to LEAs that experienced significant increases in the number of immigrant children and youths;
 All 52 state education agencies (includes D.C. and Puerto Rico) reported that out of a total of 1,218,238 immigrant children and youths, 827,638 were served by Title III;
 51 state education agencies reported that 316,273 certified or licensed teachers were working in language instruction programs specially designed for ELLs;
 All state education agencies reported using at least one type of English language instruction program offered through Title III, with 40 states using some type of a bilingual program in addition to their English as a second language (ESL) programs;
 36 states, D.C. or Puerto Rico reported that 385,794 students transitioned out of language instruction programs into mainstream classrooms in 2002-03. In 2003-04, 44 states reported 447,905 students transitioned out of such programs.

“The No Child Left Behind changes for LEP students are making a big difference in the way our school systems view these children,” added Spellings. “Because their achievement and progress must be carefully monitored and reported, there is more attention being placed upon their learning and ultimate success. We cannot afford to leave any group of children behind.”

“No Child Left Behind has had a profound impact on the lives of these children and their families,” said Leos. “Parents are getting more information about the progress of their children, and the law requires that they be notified in a language that they understand. They also have more options as to what program is best for their child. Recent studies have shown that most immigrant parents want their children to learn English, and this report shows us that these dreams are, in fact, being fulfilled.”

Students are first identified as LEP by a state-approved English language proficiency assessment and then are recommended for placement in a language education program. The goal of these programs is that LEP students acquire English to allow them to achieve in academic content areas such as reading/language arts and mathematics in English at the same level of academic success established by the state for all students. Title III does not endorse or promote any specific type of language education program for LEP students, and states have the choice to use ESL or bilingual programs. Title III does require, however, that any language programs and professional development be scientifically based and effective.

States are also expected to provide professional development activities to assist personnel in meeting certification requirements for teaching LEP children. All 52 states require that all teachers of LEP students meet language fluency requirements.

Within the U.S. Department of Education, Title III is administered by the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA).
The text of the report is available online at:

 https://www.ncela.gwu.edu/oela/biennial05/index.htm. It can also be ordered by calling toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs (1-877-433-7827) or 1-877-576-7734 (TTY/TDD); via e-mail at edpubs@inet.ed.gov; or via the Internet at www.edpubs.org. You can also fax a request to 301-470-1244.

Spellings Urges House to Pass $56 Billion Education Budget

President’s budget expands the promise of No Child Left Behind, promotes fiscal discipline and makes higher education more affordable, Spellings says U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings today strongly emphasized the need to bring accountability for results to the nation’s high schools, and urged the U.S. House of Representatives to approve President Bush’s proposed $56 billion FY 2006 budget for the Education Department, including the president’s $1.24 billion High School Intervention initiative.

“The facts are hard to dispute: Our 15-year-olds are below average internationally in mathematics literacy and problem solving; just 18 out of 100 students enter college and graduate on time; and about two-thirds of students leave high school unprepared,” Secretary Spellings said, citing studies that reflect ominously on America’s high school student achievement during testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

“All this is set against a backdrop in which 80 percent of the fastest-growing jobs will require some post-secondary education,” Spellings said. “It is imperative that we give our high school students the tools to succeed in the 21st century economy.”

Secretary Spellings noted that the president’s High School Intervention initiative will ensure that students graduate from high school with the skills they need to succeed in higher education and the workforce, and emphasized that under the president’s plan, states and school districts—not the federal government—would design interventions that best meet their local needs.

In addition, the President’s proposed budget would provide $250 million to measure high school students’ achievement annually so that schools can be accountable for results.

“As we have learned, what gets measured gets done,” Secretary Spellings said.

The President’s proposed budget also includes $200 million for the Striving Readers program—a $175 million increase over 2005—and $120 million for a new Secondary Education Mathematics initiative.

Spellings also heralded the success of the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, and said the president’s budget continues the “solid progress” begun three years ago when a bipartisan Congress passed the law. She noted the administration’s commitment to teachers and said the budget includes a $500 million Teacher Incentive Fund to reward educators that show outstanding academic progress and to attract more of them to serve in challenging schools. Another $45 million would be invested in programs to encourage students to take more challenging coursework.

“Today, across the country, test scores are rising, schools are improving and the achievement gap is beginning to close for our youngest learners,” Spellings said. “We must stay the course.”

The proposed 2006 budget provides $13.3 billion—a $603 million increase or five percent more than last year—for Title I grants to help disadvantaged students. Title I funding has increased by 52 percent since President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law.

President Bush also has proposed $11.1 billion—a $508 million increase—in special education grants, which is 75 percent higher than five years ago.
For higher education, Secretary Spellings told the committee that President Bush’s makes college affordability a priority. Specifically, the budget would increase Pell Grants by $100 for each of the next five years and make them available year-round so that students could learn on their own timetable.
To encourage more students to enter the critical fields of math and science—especially poor and minority students—a new Presidential Math-Science Scholars Program would be established. It would award up to $5,000 each to low-income college students pursuing degrees in these demanding and in-demand fields.

In addition, a new $125 million Community College Access Grants Fund would support dual-enrollment credit transfers for high school students taking college-level courses.

“With this budget’s passage, student financial assistance will have risen from $48 billion to $78 billion during this administration,” Spellings said.
Secretary Spellings also highlighted the fiscal discipline that the budget exhibits.

“We are committed to working with Congress to achieve these savings,” she said. “Given the fiscal realities, we must target our resources wisely—toward flexibility and results.”

The common thread among all of the president’s education priorities, she said, is “aligning needs with results.”

“It will not always be easy to find common budgetary ground given our nation’s fiscal realities and wartime footing,” Secretary Spellings said. “But I am here to listen to your priorities. The president has made tough choices. We know you will too. And we want to work with you to make the very best choices for America’s students.”
 

Call for Presenters –U.S. Department of Education:  Teacher-to-Teacher Workshops, Summer 2005

The U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative is accepting applications from educators who would like to make a presentation on the use of research-based instructional practices at our 2005 summer workshops.  The Department is looking for elementary and high school educators who work directly with students (or their teachers), who have evidence they are raising student achievement or are having a positive impact on teaching, and who are dynamic and engaging presenters able to clearly show participants what they are doing and why it is working.  The Department wants to highlight educators, including special educators and related services providers and English as a second language educators, who believe that all children can achieve at high levels and have evidence that shows they know how to make that happen. This is part of the mission of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

In order to participate, presenters must meet three requirements:  (1) If you work directly with students, you must be “highly qualified” as defined by the state in which you teach and be prepared to submit proof of this; (2) your complete proposal, which includes your final presentation and handouts, must be submitted by April 11, 2005; and (3) you must commit to attending a two-day training session and all six workshops (the workshop schedule is posted on the Web site noted below).  Presenters may be asked to present their session more than once during the workshops and will be compensated for their work and travel. 

If you are interested in being a presenter, visit our Web site at:

https://www.ed.gov/teacherinitiative for detailed information on how to apply.
General registration for participants will be announced soon.  Sign up for the Teacher Updates listserv at https://www.teacherquality.us to receive the notice for open registration

E-Learning Opportunities Now Available for Teachers
 
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) is pleased to announce that thousands of teachers have now viewed its new Teacher-to-Teacher free online professional development sessions, which focus on improving teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills in reading, math and science.  
 
The Department is continuing to work to support teachers by seeking state approval of these free, online professional development sessions.  So far Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas have agreed to accept these e-learning sessions as credit toward teacher re-licensure.  Arkansas, California, Colorado, Vermont and Wisconsin teachers need approval at the local level to receive credit.  Many teachers are also using these sessions to earn credit or points to meet their state’s High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) to become highly qualified.

Fifteen sessions are currently available online (www.ed.gov/teacherinitiative). 

Virtual Pre-K Makes Lessons Real

In the world of computers and high-tech gadgets the word “virtual” is most often defined as “existing in effect though not in actual fact.”  Chicago Public Schools has discovered a way to make “virtual” become real through lesson plans that are available online, on videotape, or on CD. These lessons are designed for teachers, parents, and day-care providers to use when teaching preschool children.

“Virtual Pre-K”(VPK) is a teacher-created instructional tool focused on engaging preschool children in learning about themselves and the world around them. The lessons span three domains: the classroom, the home, and the community, so that classroom curriculum is integrated with home and community activities.  

Designed and created for low-income families by the Chicago Public Schools and its Office of Early Childhood Education, Virtual Pre-K is a bilingual system in English and Spanish with tips on how to make learning come to life through hands-on activities. Teachers and day-care providers can use the video lessons in the classroom or other learning settings, and parents can use the supplemental lessons at home. Two themes in the series, All About Me and Taking Care of Me, create an educational framework to help build early literacy, math, social studies, and science skills. In addition, all lessons can be easily adapted for students with special needs. 

In the classroom, teachers select a VPK lesson that relates to a current topic and plan a learning activity using the VPK Teacher’s Manual. At home, parents obtain “activity recipes” online that can be printed out to include in a “recipe box.” Each recipe corresponds to a lesson used in the classroom.  
For example, Virtual Pre-K has a unit called “Fun with Fruits and Vegetables.” Lessons on the video, CD, or web demonstrate to the teacher how to plant and grow vegetables from seeds and involve the children in the process. Using the same technology, parents are shown how to make a fruit and vegetable “Rainbow Salad” with the children. Then, VPK walks the parents through teaching “How Things Grow” in gardens and parks in the city or on a farm in the country.  

The community domain of the program, called “Out and About,” also links to an up-to-date calendar that informs participants of preschool-appropriate events happening around their community. Parents are encouraged to connect lessons learned at school and at home with real-world experiences at public parks, theatres, museums, and other places.  

In addition, parents can access other features on the colorful and easy-to-navigate Virtual Pre-K website. Friendly, illustrated characters lead visitors to links such as “the idea exchange” where discussion boards and live chat sessions are moderated by other parents and teaching professionals at Chicago Public Schools. Parents can track their child’s progress in Virtual Pre-K by following a trail of stars to a personalized “Success Chart” and by writing their own notes and observations online. VPK’s technology offers parents numerous benefits, not just for their children, but also for themselves. They can use the CD-ROM and website to develop their own computer literacy skills, and they can learn about other parenting resources on the Internet.
Alicia Narvaez, the Virtual Pre-K Director in Chicago, states, “We want to encourage the use of technology especially for parents who may not be used to computers. Surveys on our website show the demographics of our users, who are incredibly diverse both ethnically and economically. We wanted to create a program that would reach a diverse audience.”

During 2001, VPK’s first year, 4,000 teachers, administrators, parents, and others received training on the VPK model. Now, Virtual Pre-K materials are available for loan in Chicago preschool classrooms and in public libraries. Free computer access is provided at these locations and at designated VPK training sites around Chicago, making it easier for more parents to utilize the “high-tech” portion of the program.

The success of the program in Chicago has spurred the launch of the “Virtual Pre-K National Network,” an alliance of school districts and agencies created to improve parent involvement, children’s school readiness, and early education in general.   During the 2003-04 school year, a spin-off project was formed, the VPK Model Classroom Initiative, which consisted of 22 Chicago early childhood teachers who met bi-monthly to plan and discuss VPK implementation in their classrooms. In June 2003 the Dallas Independent School District became the first national partner in the network. This school year, five California counties (San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and Orange) and the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) formed Virtual Pre-K Southern California. In each location, VPK is not only aligned with state standards, but also with the preschool curricula and goals of each unique locale.

The effectiveness of the program is measured through traditional and online surveys and through tracking by teachers and parents. Currently, the University of Chicago is working on an assessment of the first three years of Virtual Pre-K’s implementation and student performance.  

More than 300 Chicago public school classrooms have adopted VPK and over 53,000 individuals have visited the website. Narvaez comments, “We [have a] 90 percent adoption rate of the program in our [Chicago preschool] classrooms,” which is significant, considering that Chicago teachers are voluntarily using Virtual Pre-K as an instructional resource.

Surveys conducted by Virtual Pre-K reveal that 57 percent of its website users are parents, who are anxious for more resources. With this information in mind, VPK is developing a “Virtual Kindergarten,” with 10 lessons and a website that targets skills and concepts specific to kindergarten learners. This initiative is designed with the idea that the VPK model can grow with parents and children.

To top

No Child Left Behind News

State Legislators Offer Formula for Improving No Child Left Behind Act–New report asks Congress and the administration to recognize special challenges to schools and students

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Granting states flexibility to meet the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act will result in stronger democracy and strengthen the nation’s economic future, according to a bipartisan review of the law.
A special task force of the National Conference of State Legislatures today released the results of a 10-month study that identified specific areas of the act that need to be changed if states are to guarantee that young people will learn at their full potential.

“Our bipartisan review shows that in order to reach the No Child Left Behind Act’s lofty expectations, changes need to be made in the law’s foundation,” said NCSL President John Hurson, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates. “We extend our hand to the White House and Congress and believe they will find this exhaustive, bipartisan, earnest and impartial review of the No Child Left Behind Act an opportunity to close the achievement gap in America’s schools and improve education opportunities for all students.”
https://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2005/pr050223.htm

Tutor.com: Virtual Relief for Homework Headaches

The school day has ended. Students across the country pull out their homework, but as many of them begin, they encounter some difficulty. The assignments are challenging, and the students do not understand the concepts required to complete them. Parents want to help, but most of them cannot remember the last time they had to multiply fractions, solve for “x,” or write a complex thesis statement. Thousands of children and their families have found a solution to this problem with Tutor.com.
Tutor.com provides one-on-one learning and information services to people in the United States and internationally. Using Internet technology, Tutor.com links students and other information-seekers to professional librarians and subject-area experts.

Tutor.com is also an approved provider of supplemental educational services in 25 states across the country. “Supplemental educational services” under No Child Left Behind are free tutoring and other academic assistance available for low-income children who attend Title I schools that have been designated by the state as in need of improvement for two years or more. This tutoring may be offered in math, reading/language arts, and other core subjects, before or after school, on weekends, or in the summer.

Live Homework Help, the company’s flagship and most popular program, was introduced to libraries in 2001. This service provides one-on-one assistance in math, science, social studies, and English to students in 4th through 12th grade, and is available seven days a week from 2:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. Eastern time. If students have questions about writing scientific hypotheses or solving geometry problems, they can log onto the Internet from their home or library computers, link to the Live Homework Help website via the Tutor.com homepage, and immediately connect with live tutors who can walk them through the process of finding answers.

Tutors with Live Homework Help are often certified teachers, retired teachers, professors, and graduate school students. In order to apply, potential tutors must submit three teaching or tutoring samples. Once hired, all tutors complete a rigorous training and certification program that includes technology education, training in online tutoring etiquette, mock tutoring sessions, and professional development seminars, similar to those for schoolteachers, to improve the tutors’ instructional skills in the online environment. Many tutors specialize in honors-level or Advanced Placement courses. Every tutor also undergoes a full background check. As tutors continue with the program, they meet with mentors who assess their work at regular intervals. Mentors must have been with the program for at least one year, have high tutee ratings, and must be recommended by other senior tutors.  

Although students who use Live Homework Help are primarily in the elementary through high school grade levels, college freshmen are allowed to log-in to the site as well. According to George Cigale, founder and CEO of Tutor.com, “Students need help during the after school hours even if during the day they’re in a classroom with the best teacher in the world…” He notes the program is simple to use and that “kids don’t need any [computer] training.” Of course, students with low levels of literacy would need extra help and guidance with content from an adult.

To start a session, a student must enter his username and password, then select a subject and grade level. Once the student accesses the program, he is immediately connected to a tutor who has been selected for him based on his tutoring needs in an “Online Classroom.”  In this virtual classroom, the student and tutor can chat in an informal style akin to instant messaging. Their discussion and any work that they complete are posted on an interactive “whiteboard,” which they both can view and modify. The student and tutor can access a number of computer drawing and mathematical tools, which makes graphs and diagrams easier for the pair to visualize and work on together. If a student needs help researching a report, the tutor can lead a session where the pair can co-browse the Internet. 

Parents are encouraged to monitor their children’s online activity and share their children’s tutoring experience with teachers. Parents and students who wish to customize their one-on-one tutoring sessions may schedule specific times to work with the same tutor. Tutor.com provides a “Tutor Profile” webpage, which contains all tutors’ educational histories, their schedules, listings of subjects that they are certified to tutor, and statements that explain their individual tutoring styles, interests, and reasons for tutoring. Previous tutees can rate the tutors with a maximum of five stars, and these ratings are also posted with each profile.  

In many areas of the country there is no charge to use Live Homework Help, because the library covers the cost. Students need only an Internet-enabled computer and a library card, which they use to log-in to the site. There is a flat-rate fee to subscribe in other areas, while some parents may choose to hire tutors at hourly rates for private, online instruction in any of the Homework Help subjects. Students who use Tutor.com as a supplemental educational services provider may access the system through computers at school or an after school program.  

The Virtual Reference Toolkit is another Tutor.com service. This program gives reference and search assistance to library patrons even if they are not at the library. Users can connect to the Virtual Reference Toolkit from any Internet-capable computer and can interact with a library aide or a member of the Tutor.com reference staff. This service enables libraries to extend the personalized services traditionally offered only at the physical reference desk, and can be particularly helpful if a student is doing a research paper or looking for primary source information. Both Live Homework Help and the Virtual Reference Toolkit are available in Spanish.

Tutor.com currently serves over 4,600 academic, public, military, and special libraries throughout the world. The program primarily works with libraries, but it also serves after school organizations and schools. Live Homework Help assisted nearly 270,000 students in 2004, and 94 percent reported in post-session surveys that they benefited from the service and would recommend it to a friend.

As mentioned previously, Tutor.com is an approved SES provider in 25 states. The U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) also funds a new initiative from the Michigan Community College Association (MICA), which is bringing the Virtual Reference Toolkit to 18 publicly funded colleges in the state.

Close-Up:  No Child Left Behind—Improving Student Achievement Through Technology

The technology that has so dramatically changed the world outside the classroom is now changing the environment within it. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Education, at least 15 states provide some form of virtual schooling to supplement regular classes or to provide for special needs students, and about 25 percent of all public schools now offer some type of e-learning or online instruction.

Toward a Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today’s Students Are Revolutionizing Expectations examines the state of educational technology and offers recommendations for maximizing its contribution to improving education. It also focuses on the role of the No Child Left Behind Act in bridging the “digital disconnect” between Internet-savvy students and their schools in order to align technology with improved learning.

The 68-page report, which serves as the Department’s National Education Technology Plan, details seven major steps, which address: leadership; funding; teacher training; the development of e-learning and virtual schools; greater access to broadband communications; the transition from print to digital media; and the integration of data systems, such as technology-based assessments of student performance.

In addition, the report also profiles a sample of pioneering schools and school districts across the country—in Alaska, California, Florida, Missouri and Virginia—along with state initiatives—in Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia—that have successfully enriched students’ learning experiences through multimedia, simulations and interactive software.

For a copy of Toward a Golden Age in American Education, visit www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/plan.html or call 1-877-4ED-PUBS, while supplies last.

To top

Mothers’ Exposure to Air Pollutants Linked to Chromosome Damage in Babies

A new study of 60 newborns in New York City reveals that exposure of expectant mothers to combustion-related urban air pollution may alter the structure of babies’ chromosomes while in the womb. While previous experiments have linked such genetic alterations to an increased risk of leukemia and other cancers, much larger studies would be required to determine the precise increase in risk as these children reach adulthood.

The air pollutants considered in this study include emissions from cars, trucks, bus engines, residential heating, power generation and tobacco smoking. These pollutants can cross the placenta and reach the fetus.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other private foundations. The research was conducted by scientists from the Columbia University Center for Children’s Environmental Health. Study results will be published in the February issue of “Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention”, and are available online at https://cebp.aacrjournals.org.

“This is the first study to show that environmental exposures to specific combustion pollutants during pregnancy can result in chromosomal abnormalities in fetal tissues,” said Kenneth Olden, Ph.D., the director of NIEHS. “These findings may lead to new approaches for the prevention of
certain cancers.”

Researchers monitored exposure to airborne pollutants, known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), among non-smoking African-American and Dominican mothers residing in three low-income neighborhoods of New York City — Harlem, Washington Heights and the South Bronx.

“Although the study was conducted in Manhattan neighborhoods, exhaust pollutants are prevalent in all urban areas, and therefore the study results are relevant to populations in other urban areas,” said Dr. Frederica P. Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health and senior author of the study.

Exposure to combustion pollutants was assessed through personal questionnaires and portable air monitors worn by the mothers during the third trimester of their pregnancies. Researchers then calculated the concentration of air pollution to which each pregnant woman and her baby were exposed. Study participants exposed to air pollution levels below the average were designated as having “low exposure,” while those exposed to pollution levels above the average were designated as having “high exposure.”

“We observed 4.7 chromosome abnormalities per thousand white blood cells in newborns from mothers in the low exposure group, and 7.2 abnormalities per thousand white blood cells in newborns from the high exposure mothers,” said Perera. “In particular, stable alterations were increased, which are of greatest concern for potential risk of cancer, since cells with this type of abnormality can persist in the body for long periods of time.”

Chromosomal abnormalities were measured in umbilical cord blood by a “chromosome painting” technique called fluorescence “in situ” hybridization, one that enabled researchers to observe the structural changes within the chromosome. Chromosomes are the threadlike packages in the nucleus of the cell that contain the cell’s genetic information.

“This evidence that air pollutants can alter chromosomes “in utero” is troubling since other studies have validated this type of genetic alteration as a biomarker of cancer risk,” said Perera. “While we can’t estimate the precise increase in cancer risk, these findings underscore the need for policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels to take appropriate steps to protect children from these avoidable exposures.”

Previous studies conducted by Perera and colleagues showed that combustion-related air pollutants significantly reduce fetal growth, which may affect cognitive development during childhood.

The study is part of a broader, multi-year research project, “The Mothers & Children Study in New York City,” started in 1998, which examines the health effects of exposure of pregnant women and babies to air pollutants from vehicle exhaust, the commercial burning of fuels, and tobacco smoking, as well as from residential use of pesticides and allergens.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is a federal agency that conducts and funds basic research on the health effects of exposure to environmental agents.

For more information, please contact John Peterson, public affairs specialist with the NIEHS Office of Communications, at (919) 541-7860, or call Heather Ross, senior media specialist with the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, at (212) 576-2700, ext. 243.

Scientists Use Gene Therapy to Restore Hair Cells in Deaf Guinea Pigs

Researchers supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders successfully used gene therapy to grow new hair cells and restore hearing in deaf guinea pigs. This is the first time researchers have been able to restore structural and functional levels to auditory hair cells in live adult mammals. Scientists at the University of Michigan’s Medical School inserted a gene called Atoh1, a key regulator of hair cell development into non-sensory epithelial cells that were in the inner ears of adult guinea pigs whose original hair cells were destroyed by exposure to ototoxic drugs. An adenoviral vector was used to deliver the Atoh1 gene into the left ears of ten guinea pigs whose hair cells had been destroyed; deaf guinea pigs that were not administered the gene served as matched controls, and the animals right ears served as an additional control.

 Eight weeks after treatment they found new hair cells in the ears treated with Atoh, and auditory testing confirmed that the generation of hair cells coincided with restoration of auditory threshold levels. The researchers caution that restoring auditory threshold levels is not the same as restoring normal hearing and it will be several years before Atoh1 gene therapy will be ready to test in humans. This study is an important advance in hearing research, and the findings bring scientists one step further in the search for new ways to treat hearing loss that affects approximately 28 million Americans.

To top

Calls for Participation–Nominees Sought for Coming Up Taller Awards

The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, in partnership with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, The National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, invites nominations for the 2005 Coming Up Taller Awards. The Awards recognize and support outstanding community arts and humanities programs that celebrate the creativity of America’s young people and provide them learning opportunities and chances to contribute to their communities. Each year, ten awards of $10,000 each are presented to Coming Up Taller Awards honorees. Nomination deadline: March 24, 2005.
https://www.cominguptaller.org/

President’s New High School Initiative, Other Proposed Programs Tackle Issues Important to Hispanics

President Bush’s new High School Initiative has the potential to do more to curtail the high dropout rate among Hispanics and other minorities than any other federal initiative in history, senior Department of Education officials said during a recent press briefing for Hispanic journalists. Available in Spanish.
https://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/02/02232005a.html

Quality Education Can Bring Opportunity for All, Secretary Spellings Says

In a recent address, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings declared that a quality  education is worth fighting for; observed that the No Child Left Behind Act and UNESCO’s Education For All initiative share complementary goals, including special attention for students once ignored and left behind; and claimed that quality, access, and scientifically-based research are keys to educational success for all students.
https://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/02/02282005.html

 
Navigating Medicare and Medicaid, 2005: A Resource Guide for People with Disabilities, Their Families, and Their Advocates (February 2005)–(Guide)

This guide from the Kaiser Family Foundation explains the critical role Medicare and Medicaid have come to play in the lives and the futures of roughly 20 million children, adults, and seniors with disabilities and gives people with disabilities new information to help them get the most from these programs.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/7240.cfm

Que Ningún Niño se Quede Atrás: Una Guía Para los Padres  No Child Left Behind: A Parent¹s Guide in Spanish (2003)–(Guide)

“No Child Left Behind (NCLB): A Parents¹ Guide” from the U.S. Department of Education is now available on the Web in Spanish. It summarizes NCLB, answers questions about the law, and explains what it means for parents.
https://www.ed.gov/espanol/parents/academic/involve/nclbguide/

Recursos en Español – Resources for Spanish Speakers from the U.S. Department of Education–(Web Page)

The U.S. Department of Education has updated its resources for Spanish speakers. Links include Noticias del Departamento; Para los estudiantes que están aprendiendo el inglés; Para los estudiantes con discapacidades; Que Ningún Niño se Quede Atrás; Servicios Educativos Suplementarios; Ayuda económica para estudiantes; Preguntas y respuestas frecuentes sobre educación; Publicaciones y materials; Sitios adicionales; and Margaret Spellings, Secretaria de Educación.
https://www.ed.gov/espanol/bienvenidos/es/

Forecast of Funding Opportunities under Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs for Fiscal Year 2005

This document lists virtually all programs and competitions under which the U.S. Department of Education has invited or expects to invite applications for new awards for fiscal year 2005 and provides actual or estimated deadlines for the transmittal of applications under these programs. The lists are in the form of charts organized according to the Department¹s principal program offices and include programs and competitions previously announced as well as those to be announced at a later date.
https://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/find/edlite-forecast.html

FY 2005 Discretionary Grant Application Packages

This site, from the Department of Education, provides information on grant competitions that are currently open.
https://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/

FY 2005 OJJDP Tribal Youth Program Mental Health Initiative Grant

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is offering $1 million in discretionary funding for eligible Native American tribes to provide substance abuse and mental health prevention/intervention services to American Indian/Alaska Native youth who are involved in or at risk of becoming involved in tribal and/or State juvenile justice systems. Application deadline: April 7, 2005.
https://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/DOJ/HQ/OJP/DOJ-GRANTS-022205-002/listing
.html

FY 2005 OJJDP Tribal Youth Program Grant

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Tribal Youth Program will appropriate $10 million to support and enhance tribal efforts to prevent and control delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system for American Indian/Alaska Native youth. Application deadline: March 31, 2005.
https://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/DOJ/HQ/OJP/DOJ-GRANTS-022205-001/listing.html

The Corporation for National and Community Service Grants–(Program Funding)

The Corporation for National and Community Service offers $5.1 million in grant funds to support partnerships to engage people with disabilities in national and community service. The competition is open to public and private non-profit organizations, including educational institutions, with experience working with disabled persons; that intend to operate projects in at least three states; and will focus on the areas of engaging disabled veterans in service to their communities or assisting young people with disabilities in the transition from school to adult life. Application deadline: April 12, 2005.
https://www.nationalservice.org/funding_initiatives/

First Amendment Schools–(Program Funding)

First Amendment Schools, a national initiative designed to transform how schools teach and practice the rights and responsibilities of citizenship that frame civic life in our democracy, will select five Project Schools for the 2005-2006 school year to receive a $10,000 grant subject to review and renewal for the 2006-2007 school year. Schools may apply individually, or school pathways‹i.e. one high school, one feeder middle school, and one feeder elementary school‹may apply for a joint grant. Schools with different multiyear configurations may apply. Application deadline: April 29, 2005.
https://www.firstamendmentschools.org/news/event.aspx?id=14866

Horace Mann Companies Funding for Educators–(Teacher Scholarship)

The Horace Mann Companies, a national insurance company focusing on educators’ financial needs, will offer scholarships totaling $30,000 to help educators continue their education. This year’s program will offer 36 awards, including one $5,000 award payable over four years, 15 $1,000 awards payable over two years, and 20 one-time $500 awards. Eligible applicants must be educators employed by a U.S. public or private school district or public or private college/university with a minimum of two years’ teaching experience and be planning to take classes at a two- or four-year accredited college or university. Application deadline: May 14, 2005.
https://www.horacemann.com/edscholarship/

MetLife Foundation Bridge Builders¹ Grants–(Program Funding)

The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) invites proposals from public middle and high schools which serve large numbers of low-income students and underrepresented minorities (greater than 40% of student body) and who want to strengthen ties between their schools and their students’ neighborhoods and communities. Principals are invited to submit a proposal that will build bridges between their school faculty and the surrounding community. $5,000 grants to implement these proposals will be awarded to 25 schools and five exemplary programs will be highlighted at the 2007 NASSP National Convention. Application deadline: April 16, 2005.
https://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=568&DID=48228

Student Video Discovery Awards–(Student Scholarship)

The 2005 ³Student Video Discovery Awards² from eSchoolNews are designed to recognize and honor excellence in student video production. The winning student video producers will receive national recognition and bring technology to their schools’ video programs. A panel of experts in
journalism and video production will select three teams of finalists at each of three educational levels: high school, community college, and university institutions. Student video teams will be honored during an awards ceremony at the National Education Computing Conference on June 27-29, 2005 in Philadelphia. Entry submission deadline: April 8, 2005.
https://www.eschoolnews.com/vda/

To top

Rapid New Test Developed for Inherited Immune Deficiency–Newborn Screening Could Detect Bubble Boy Illness Early, Save Lives

Bethesda, MD — Researchers at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have developed a new laboratory method that rapidly identifies babies born with inherited forms of severe immune deficiency. The new genetic test, which still must be validated before widespread use, could someday be added to the panel of tests that already screen newborns for a variety of disorders.

The test identifies babies born with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency, or SCID, an illness in which the infant fails to develop a normal immune system. SCID babies can be infected by a wide range of viruses, bacteria and fungi that are normally controlled by a healthy baby’s immune system.  If undetected and untreated, SCID typically leads to death before the baby’s
first birthday.

Developed in the NHGRI Division of Intramural Research (DIR), the new test can use the same dried blood samples already collected from newborns and would provide the first accurate, high-throughout screen for immune deficiencies. Prior efforts to identify this disorder by counting white blood cells in newborns proved unreliable and expensive.

“This new laboratory technique is an excellent example of how increasingly sophisticated genetic tools can be applied to important public health problems,” said NHGRI Scientific Director Eric D. Green, M.D., Ph.D. “Here we have a chance to catch an illness early when treatment is most effective. This new approach provides a rapid, accurate indication of a possible immune problem immediately after birth while the infant is protected by the mother’s antibodies still circulating in the baby’s blood.”

If SCID is diagnosed in time, there are effective treatments. One form of the disease can be treated with an injectable medication. All forms of the disorder can be cured through the transplantation of bone marrow if a matching donor can be identified.   And finally, SCID may be treated through human gene therapy in which a normal copy of the defective gene may be inserted into the patient’s own blood-forming cells. The first gene therapy experiments in history were carried out at NIH in 1990 in two young Ohio girls with SCID. The patients are alive, continue to do well and are involved in ongoing research at NHGRI.

The sooner a child is diagnosed, the sooner treatment can begin and the more likely it is to be effective.

“Too many babies are diagnosed too late,” said Jennifer M. Puck, M.D., chief of NHGRI’s Genetics and Molecular Biology Branch. “And some babies develop fatal infections before their condition is recognized. Recent research shows that bone marrow transplants in the first three months of life work better than transplants at a later age.   So it is critical to identify affected
children immediately after birth. Since the babies lack overt clinical symptoms for some time, a molecular test is a good approach.”

The newly developed screening tool exploits a detailed understanding of the maturation of T cells, one of the essential types of white blood cells that make up the immune system. Without a sufficient number of normal T cells, the immune system doesn’t work, just as when the AIDS virus wipes out the same population of immune cells. During normal development, an individual T cell rearranges the gene that produces a so-called antigen receptor on the surface of the cell.  The antigen receptor allows the T cell to identify an infectious agent and launch a defensive attack to kill the invader.

While rearranging the receptor gene, the maturing T cell produces a bit of leftover genetic material that forms a ring structure within the cell. Using a quantitative laboratory technique that measures the number of these rings within a blood sample, Dr. Puck’s group was able to differentiate normal infants from those with SCID.  In dried blood samples from healthy babies, the team was able to detect an average of 1,000 of these genetic rings; children with SCID had 30 or fewer.  “That’s a big difference,” she said.

The development of the new test is described in the February issue of “The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology”. Although the availability of the test raises the question of whether states should begin using it on all newborns, Dr. Puck concluded that the new test is not quite ready for widespread use. It must first be validated.

“Our false positive rate was about 1.5 percent, which is too high to be practical for screening,” Dr. Puck said. A baby with a positive test would need to be evaluated to see if he or she was actually sick; a false positive rate of 1.5 percent would mean three out of every 200 newborns would need further testing.  “That would be a lot of babies going back to the doctor and a lot of worried parents. We are now working on ways to decrease the number of false positives.”

To validate the test, Dr. Puck’s group is collaborating with the newborn screening laboratory of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in Baltimore. The Maryland state lab is supplying some 5,000 blood samples already collected on newborns for the NHGRI lab to test. Although these samples are likely to be normal, they will be used to refine the laboratory procedures and establish quality control. Once the high-throughput screening approach has been validated with this large set of existing samples from Maryland, the NHGRI lab plans to begin prospectively testing newborns from the state.  Other state testing laboratories also have expressed interest in participating in the prospective studies.

Although considered a rare disease, SCID is best known to the public from media accounts — and a made-for-TV movie starring John Travolta – about David, the Bubble Boy, a Texas boy who spent his entire life in a germ-free environment, ultimately dying after a failed bone marrow transplant in early adolescence. No one knows exactly how many babies are born with SCID. Current estimates suggest that 1 in every 50,000 to 100,000 births may be affected, indicating SCID may be about as common as some of the inherited illnesses for which states currently screen all newborns. Experts suspect that many children with SCID die from infections before being diagnosed, so
the true incidence of the disease may be even higher. Newborn screening may reveal the true incidence.

Because the new test is still experimental, it is not available to the general public and the cost has yet to be determined.

NHGRI is one of the 27 institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health, which is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The NHGRI Division of Intramural Research develops and implements technology to understand, diagnose and treat genomic and genetic diseases. Additional information about NHGRI can be found at www.genome.gov.

This NIH News Release is available online at: https://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2005/nhgri-22.htm.
 

To top

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth Update

Education and Workforce Development Legislation Before the New Congress

The new 109th Congress has begun work on the reauthorization of a number of key workforce and education pieces of legislation. These include the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) (H.R. 27 and S.9); the Higher Education Act (H.R. 117); the Welfare Reform /Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (H.R. 240 and S. 6); and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (H.R. 366 and S. 250).

Action has begun on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), with the House of Representatives already approving the legislation (H.R. 27). The Senate (S. 9) has also introduced its bill, with action expected to begin in March.

Currently in WIA, in order to be eligible for youth services, the young person must be low-income. The Senate bill proposes elimination of the income eligibility requirement for out–of-school youth except for high school graduates and pregnant and parenting youth. The House bill removes the income eligibility for out-of-school youth.

The reauthorization bills shift the priority of service from serving youth primarily in-school to primarily out-of-school youth. Current law requires that not less then 30 percent of funds be used to serve out-of-school youth. The House bill would cap spending on youth who are in-school youth at 30 percent and the Senate bill would cap spending for in-school youth at 60 percent.

While the House bill raises the age of eligibility for the formula program from 14-21 to 16-24, the Senate bill keeps the age of eligibility requirements for in-school youth at 14-21, changes out-of-school age eligibility to 16-21, and establishes age eligibility of 14-21 for national challenge grants.

Both make youth councils which are deemed mandatory under current law optional. In addition both the House and Senate bills create new Challenge Grants to assist youth in acquiring the skills, credentials and employment experience that are necessary to succeed in the labor market. While under S. 9, the Challenge Grants would be funded in accordance with current law, therefore guaranteeing that funds would not come to the Challenge Grants at the expense of cuts to the youth formula, the House bill would fund the Challenge Grant Program by a 25 percent cut to the youth formula.

WIA also covers adult basic education programs and the vocational rehabilitation programs. Among the changes being proposed in Rehabilitation Act, which is part of WIA is adding a definition of students with disabilities and transition services that would be available to students with disabilities when funding reaches a certain level. The House bill adds requirements that the plans prepared by states address assessment of the transition services provided through the VR system and how those services are coordinated with those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Also to be included in the state plan is the strategies the state will use to address the needs identified in the assessment of transitions services. The Senate bill requires the Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) for students with disabilities must describe student’s projected post-school employment outcome; and include the specific transition services (including, as appropriate, work experience and mentoring activities) needed to achieve the student’s employment outcome or projected employment outcome
The House bill would change the appointment of the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), who is now appointed by the President, to a Director appointed by the Secretary of Education.
Legislation can be found at https://thomas.loc.gov/.

Call for 2005 New Freedom Initiative Award Nominations

Non-profits, small businesses, corporations and individuals that have demonstrated exemplary and innovative efforts in advancing the employment and workplace environment of people with disabilities are eligible for the 2005 Secretary of Labor’s New Freedom Initiative Award.
The Award recognizes public-private partnerships and programs that have had a positive impact on the employment of people with disabilities through access to assistive technologies, the use of innovative training, and hiring and retention techniques. It also recognizes organizations, businesses or individuals who develop comprehensive strategies to enhance the ability of Americans with disabilities to enter and advance within the workforce of the 21st Century.

Additional information on the award and specific nomination criteria are available at https://www.dol.gov/odep/regs/fedreg/notices/2005002498.htm or in the February 10, 2005 Federal Register. The information is also available by calling the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), Education and Outreach Section, at (202) 693-7880. The deadline for receipt of nominations is May 27, 2005.

To top

April, 2005

2005 ASCD Annual Conference and Exhibit Show–Voices of Education: Unleashing the Power, Passion, and Promise
Dates: April 2–4, 2005
Location: Orange County Convention Center, West Building Orlando, FL
Sponsor: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
Contact: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
1703 N. Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
(800) 933-2723 (ASCD)
(703) 578-9600 (then press 2)
Web: www.ascd.org/cms/index.cfm?TheViewID=446
 
DSS Policy: Accommodating Students With Disabilities With Off-Campus Placements: Who and How?
Dates: April 5, 2005
Location: Audio
Sponsor: Thompson Publishing Group Inc.
Contact: (800) 925-1878
Web: www.thompsoninteractive.com/dss.asp
 
Abstract: Dr. Jane Jarrow, President of Disability Access Information and Support (DAIS) and presenter who has traveled extensively presenting workshops and training sessions about the legal and educational mandates surrounding the participation of persons with disabilities in postsecondary settings, will be the primary speaker at each one of the five conferences. She will be joined for each audio conference by one of these colleagues in the field: *The Director of Disability Support Services at Rice University & former President of AHEAD in Texas, Jean Ashmore *The Director of Disability Services at the University of Colorado (Retired), Ruth Fink *The Director of Services for Students with Disabilities at the University of Michigan & former President of AHEAD, Sam Goodin *The ADA Coordinator for The Ohio State University, Scott Lissner
 
2005 Council for Exceptional Children Convention and Expo
Dates: April 6-9, 2005
Location: The Baltimore Convention Center Baltimore, MD
Sponsor: Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
Contact: Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300
Arlington, VA 22201-5704
(703) 264-9454; (888) 232-7733
(703) 264-1637 (FAX)
E-Mail: victore@cec.sped.org
Web: www.cec.sped.org
 
Abstract: Special Features for 2005 include: *Meet the Experts *Patch Adams – CEC’s 2005 keynote speaker *Gaynell Colburn – The Teacher of the Year Luncheon’s keynote speaker. *Pre-convention workshops – where you gain understanding of special education teaching issues and strategies *700+ Professional Development Sessions *Strands – A way to get your questions answered by experts in the field *Networking Events – Meet colleagues as you explore Baltimore
 
 
2005 National CASA Association Conference–Growing a Better Tomorrow for Every Child
Dates: April 16-19, 2005
Location: Hyatt Regency Hotel Atlanta, GA
Sponsor: National CASA Association
Contact: National CASA Association
Attn: Sandy Elfers
100 W. Harrison
North Tower, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98133-9009
(800) 628-3233, Ext. 262
(206) 270-0078 (FAX)
Web: www.casanet.org/conference/
 
Abstract: The National CASA Association 24th Annual Conference provides an opportunity to join consultants, legal and social service professionals as well as representatives of the entire CASA/GAL network. Through education, training, brainstorming, participants will discover new ideas and solutions for helping children.
 
Literacy Changes Lives–National Conference on Family Literacy
Dates: April 25-27, 2005
Location: Galt House Hotel and Suites Louisville, KY
Sponsor: National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL)
Contact: National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL)
325 West Main Street, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40202-4237
(502) 584-1133
E-mail: conference@famlit.org
Web: www.famlit.org/Conference/index.cfm
 
Abstract: Each spring, NCFL presents the national conference on family literacy. Drawing approximately two thousand professionals from the literacy, research and policy fields, the National Conference on Family Literacy is a professional development opportunity.
 
International Meeting on Inuit and Native American Child Health: Innovations in Clinical Care and Research and 17th Annual Indian Health Service Research Conference

Dates: April 29-May 1, 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Sponsor: American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society, in cooperation with the Indian Health Service
Contact: National Headquarters:
American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest Point Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1098
(847) 434-4000
(847) 434-8000 (FAX)
Web: www.aap.org/nach
 
Abstract: The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society, in cooperation with the Indian Health Service is sponsoring the first ever International Meeting on Inuit and Native American Child Health. Pediatricians, family physicians, residents, other health care professionals, clinical researchers, state and federal public health employees, child advocates, and other professionals and family representatives dedicated to working with First Nations, Inuit, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) children should attend. Participants will have the opportunity to share ideas on culturally effective health care delivery models, present research findings, and dialogue about strategies to improve the health of First Nations, Inuit, and AI/AN children and communities.
 
 

MAY, 2005
 
YAI/National Institute for People with Disabilities Network’s 26th Annual International Conference on Developmental and Learning Disabilities
Dates: May 9-13, 2005
Location: Crowne Plaza Manhattan Hotel New York City, NY
Sponsor: YAI/National Institute for People with Disabilities Network
Contact: Tina Sobel at (212) 273-66457 or
Aimee Horowitz at (212) 273-6255
(212) 629-4113 (FAX)
E-mail: tsobel@yai.org
or
E-mail: ahorowitz@yai.org
Web: www.yai.org
 
Abstract: This five-day conference will feature more than 300 speakers from throughout the United States and abroad. More than 150 seminars and workshops will focus on key issues, including: Advocacy/Self-Advocacy, Aging and Dementia, Challenging Behaviors, Clinical Issues, Day Services, Early Childhood, Employment Training and Placement, Family Support Services, Health Care, Management, Psychopharmacology for Non-Medical Staff, Recreation and Leisure, Residential Services, Sexuality and Social Skills, Special Education, Staff Training, Technology, Transitional Services, Workforce Issues. A separate social work conference, focusing on research, practices and new developments in the field, also will be held at the Crowne Plaza from May 9-11.
 
Head Start: The Nation’s Pride–32nd Annual Training Conference
Dates: May 24-27, 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Sponsor: National Head Start Association (NHSA)
Contact: National Head Start Association (NHSA)
1651 Prince Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 739-0875
(703) 739-0878 (FAX)
(703) 739-0879 (NHSA Hotline)
Web: www.nhsa.org
 
Abstract: The National Head Start Association is a private not-for-profit membership organization dedicated exclusively to meeting the needs of Head Start children and their families. It represents more than 900,000 children, 190,000 staff and 2,500 Head Start programs in the United States. The Association provides support for the entire Head Start community by advocating for policies that strengthen services to Head Start children and their families; by providing extensive training and professional development to Head Start staff; and by developing and disseminating research, information, and resources that enrich Head Start program delivery. Head Start provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families. More than 21 million pre-school aged children have benefited from Head Start.
 
 
JUNE, 2005

Ninth International Conference on Post-Polio Health and Ventilator-Assisted Living: Strategies for Living Well
Dates: June 2-4, 2005
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Sponsor: Post-Polio Health International
Contact: Post-Polio Health International
Including International Ventilator Users Network
4207 Lindell Blvd., #110
Saint Louis, MO 63108-2915
(314) 534-0475
(314) 534-5070 (FAX)
E-mail: info@post-polio.org
Web: www.post-polio.org
 
Abstract: Purpose and goals of presentations are intended to … 1. Promote greater understanding of and opportunities for healthy living by people with disabilities, specifically the survivors of polio and those who use mechanical ventilation. 2. Promote greater awareness of the power of self-help and of the independent living philosophy. 3. Propose solutions to major issues facing people with disabilities. 4. Report on the latest research, programs and developments related to post-poliomyelitis and other neuromuscular respiratory conditions. 5. Facilitate enhanced interaction between people with disabilities and health care professionals.
 
 
14th International Scientific Congress CNIC 2005: 40 Years at the Service of Science and Technology
Dates: June 27-30, 2005
Location: Havana, Cuba
Sponsor: National Center for Scientific Research
Contact: Mrs. Violeta Rodriguez Oramas
Specialist in Related Exhibitions
Havana International Conference Center
(537) 208 4398
(537) 202 8382 (FAX)
E-mail: violeta@palco.cu
Abstract: Every five years, the National Center for Scientific Research holds its International Scientific Congress in the framework of its anniversaries. The meeting has the aim to allow a gathering as well as a scientific-technical exchange among a number of national and international specialists in their research fields. Besides, it offers an excellent opportunity for showing new products and technologies from the medical, pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries. Topics include: NEUROSCIENCES 2005. Neurophysics, Cognitive Neurosciences Neurolinguistics, Neural Origin Disabilities, Schizophrenia, Autism, Hearing Losses and Phonoaudiology, Senile Dementia, Learning Problems and Behavioral Problems, Neural Plasticity and Molecular Neurobiology.
 

To top

Job Opportunities Through NASET

Location: MA, RI, NY, NJ, CT, &  PA

Job Category: Special Education Teacher – Elementary & Secondary

Title: Special Education Teachers Wanted Grades Pre-K-12

EXPERIENCED EDUCATORS WANTED!!! 150+ public charter schools in MA, RI, NY, NJ, CT and PA seek experienced – licensed preferred where applicable – candidates for the following positions: school site leaders/administrators; general education teachers (pre-K-12); secondary math and science teachers; teacher assistants; special education coordinators/teachers; Title I coordinators/teachers; bilingual/ESL teachers; school psychologists and social workers; and business managers (finance/accounting backgrounds required). The 3rd Annual NE Regional Charter School Career Fair is Scheduled for Saturday April 16th, 2005 – 10:30 AM to 3:00 PM. For more details see our website(www.charterschooljobs.com).

To apply, register for the 3rd Annual NE Regional Charter School Career Fair at  www.charterschooljobs.com.

Job Location: MA, RI, NY, NJ, CT, & PA

Contact: Leslie Talbot

Agency: K12connect, Inc.

Phone:  646-546-5377

Fax:  646-349-2389

Email:  ltalbot@k12connect.com

Home Page:  www.charterschooljobs.com

Location: Palo Alto, California

Job Category: Special Education Teacher – Elementary & Secondary

Title: Interim Program Specialist Division/Dept

Mission Statement: To make a measurable difference in the lives of children who face behavioral and developmental challenges.

Position Summary: The Program Specialist oversees each classroom’s curriculum, material selection, instructional methodology and assessment procedures.  The Program Specialist also ensures that all teachers are trained and prepared for IEP and parent meetings.  Meet weekly with teachers and teaching assistants for additional training and supervision.

Position Description:

• Provide regular support, guidance and supervision for all classrooms teaching staff, paying particular attention to those teachers who have students with complex and/or severe learning challenges.
• Oversee and monitor instructional material purchases to ensure appropriateness and need.
• Oversee execution of school’s formal educational testing program, including but not limited to, academic testing, intake, triennial and STAR testing.
• Serve as primary supervisor to all teachers and teaching assistants and perform annual performance reviews.
• Train teaching staff in recognizing, selecting materials, instructing and assessing students with learning disabilities at all age levels and across subject areas.
• Serve as administrator for EBC School’s non-contentious IEP meetings.
• Monitor each classroom’s choice of content and specific skill development to ensure that essential skills and grade level content are being presented.
• Attend all assigned classroom team meetings and planning meetings to stay apprised of treatment protocols/emergent team and student issues, etc.
• Meet on a regular basis with School Director
• Post weekly schedule outside office maintaining regular school hours.
• Attend all school staff meetings, case reviews, operations, and parent meetings.
• Assist in interviewing candidates for teaching and teaching assistant positions.
• Help to plan educational in-services.
• Attendance and punctuality are of the essence.
• Performs other related duties as required and assigned.
• Ensure that school policies and procedures are carried out.
• Ensure that CA Educational Code is adhered to
• Adheres to CHC Employee Handbook.
• Adheres to the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law.
• Protects the confidentiality of client/student and families

Job Requirements:

• Has taught for a minimum of 3 years working in a school setting with children who have serious emotional disturbances and/or learning disabilities. • Advanced training in assessment and instructional principles used with children who exhibit specific learning disabilities preferred.

• Knowledge of and classroom teaching experience with children who have serious emotional disturbances and learning disabilities.
• Ability to work on an inter-disciplinary team.
• Knowledge of basic computer skills in order to communicate via email and prepare documents on a word processor.

• Ability to undergo training and implementation of Handle with Care physical restraint procedure.
• Ability to stand and sit for extended periods of time for instruction and supervision.
• Ability to work certain evenings for scheduled events such as Open House, Achievement Night, and Talent Show.
• Ability to attend staff training, IEP’s that may occur in early morning or evening hours.
• Valid CA driving license.

Educational Requirements: Candidate must possess Masters in Special Education and have a valid California teaching credential.

Job Location: Palo Alto, California

Contact: Karen Breslow

School: Esther B. Clark School 

Phone:  650-322-3065

Fax:  650-322-4329

Email: QNguyen@chconline.org

Home Page: www.chconline.org

Location: Palo Alto, California

Job Category: Special Education Teacher – Elementary & Secondary

Title: Computer Lab Teacher

Mission Statement: To make a measurable difference in the lives of children who face behavioral and developmental challenges.

Position Summary:An employee in this role supports the Esther B. Clark School by teaching of technology skills and managing the production of any school publications, including but not limited to newspapers and the annual yearbook.

Position Description:

• Developing, Teaching, and Adapting Technology Curriculum
• Adapt technology curriculum into core lesson plans and deliver these lessons to students through the course of a year-round school calendar. 
• Assess student knowledge and understanding through tests and surveys. 
• Encourage student development of skills in the use of instructional technology resources.
• Integrate lessons with key skills from previous classes to develop students’ ability to meet core technology standards and scaffold learning.  
• Archive on CD-rom students’ work, assignments, and test resoults periodically throughout the school year.
• Training, Modeling and Assisting Teachers in integrating technology in the classroom to improve student achievement.
• Coordinate and/or provide training and support to school staff in network and software use.C
• Collaborate with teaching staff to develop curriculum materials and specific lesson plans that integrate technology.
• Conduct staff development in the areas of technology integration, the California Computer/Technology Skills Curriculum and the California Technology Competencies for Educators.
• Model effective use of technology in the classroom for teachers.
• Develop a technology resource center containing hardware, software, courseware, and instructional support materials such as books, periodicals, and video-tapes to support school staff in integrating technology in the classroom.
• Assist educators in the use of computer software tools such as word processing, PowerPoint, data bases and spreadsheets as part of their instruction and records management.
• Provide inservice training and retraining of educators in activity-oriented, hands-on programs that will improve the quality of application of technology to instruction and instructional management.  Ongoing training, support and resources necessary to assist teachers in the integration of the use of assessments, examples of successful curriculum and activities used in other schools, management models for the technology and strategies to encourage teachers new to the use of technology.
• Follow a plan for professional development and actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.
• Facilitate staff participation in the evaluation and selections of new software, hardware and materials to support instructional objectives.
• Planning and Facilitating Information Access and Delivery
• Implement best practices related to technology use in the school program based on research, pilot programs and state/national standards.
• Work with the School Director and School Operations Team in the selection of resources that are compatible with the school technology infrastructure.
• Assist with planning the design of the technology infrastructure so that information resources are continually available to the school community.
• Adhere to and communicates copyright as well as other laws and guidelines pertaining to the distribution and ethical use of all resources.
• Planning and Facilitating Program Administration
• Provides leadership and collaborates with school staff (including Occupational Therapist, Speech Therapist, Art Therapist, Music Therapist) to develop and implement, and update a school instructional technology plan addressing both group and individual student needs.
• Collaborates with teaching staff and students to evaluate and select resources addressing curricular needs and IEP goals.
• Leads in the ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructional technology curriculum.

Job Requirements:

• Working knowledge of CA state curriculum standards
• Working knowledge of curriculum and alignment of Computer Lab
• Instruction with state standards.
• Experience in providing training for adults
• Demonstrated ability to establish and maintain professional working relationships with staff.
• Organizational and leadership skills.
• Strong verbal and written communication skills.
  Ability to work with students with special needs and staff in a creative, flexible, and productive manner.
• Current CA teacher credential or emergency credential eligible.
• Experience in developing and implementing curricula that incorporate technology.
• Ability to adapt curriculum to meet the individual needs of students.
• Knowledge of special education.
• Experience with PC and Apple computers and knowledge of educational software.
• Ability to troubleshoot hardware and software.
• Ability to develop and manage web sites.
• Three years of teaching or educational software development experience.
• Successful completion of Handle With Care Training.
• Ability to operate computer equipment, moving and lifting computer equipment and related peripherals. 

Educational Requirements: Bachelor of humanities, education, or computer science required. Masters degree in educational technology or user interface design preferred. Two years experience in teaching special needs students preferable.

Job Location: Palo Alto, California

Contact: Karen Breslow

School: Esther B. Clark School 

Phone:  650-322-3065

Fax:  650-322-4329

Email: QNguyen@chconline.org

Home Page: www.chconline.org

Location:

Bloomfield, NJ

Job Category:

Special Education Teacher – Elementary
 
Title:

TEACHER OF THE HANDICAPPED

Position Description:

Private, non-profit day school for behaviorally disabled students, ages 5-21, is seeking energetic, enthusiastic individuals to join our caring, compassionate & dedicated team. Teachers provide academic & social skills instruction in small classes of approx. six students. Certified Teacher of the Handicapped required. Staff development training provided. Exciting opportunity for professional growth. Competitive salary and excellent benefits package offered. Mail or fax resume with cover letter to: Clara Litovsky, M.A., Chief School Administrator Child Development Center 60 West Street Bloomfield, NJ 07003 Fax #: 973-680-9650 AA/EOE

Job Location:Bloomfield, NJ

Contact: Clara Litovsky

School:  Child Development Center

Address: 60 West Street
City:  Bloomfield  State: NY Zip Code:  07003

Phone: 973-429-8110  Ext. 41

Fax:  973-680-9650

Email: micheles@thecdcnj.org

Home Page: www.thecdcnj.org

Location:

Washington, D.C.

Job Category:

Special Education Teacher – Elementary
 

Title:

Special Education Teachers Grades Pre K thru 12 Wanted!!!

Position Description:

56 DC Public Charter Schools seeking candidates to fill special education teaching positions for grades pre-K through 12. Experienced candidates preferred. To learn more about these and other positions, we invite you to attend the DC Public Charter Schools Job Fair on Saturday March 19, 2005 between 10:30am to 2:30pm at Howard University Blackburn Center. To apply, register for the fair or for more information visit: www.charterschooljobs.com .

Job Location:Washington, DC

Contact:Leslie Talbot

Agency: K12connect, Inc.

Address: 2214 8th Ave Suite 102

City:  New YorkState:  NY Zip Code:  10026

Phone: 646-546-5377 

Fax:  646-349-2389 

Email: ltalbot@k12connect.com

Home Page: www.charterschooljobs.com

Location:

Virginia

Job Category:

Special Education Teacher 

 
Title:
Special Education Teacher

 
Position Description:

Join a team of professionals dedicated to helping at-risk youth to improve their future.

Timber Ridge School is a 12 month residential treatment center licensed and fully approved by the Virginia Dept. of Education for adolescent boys experiencing emotional difficulties and/or learning disabilities. We are located in the beautiful Appalachian Mountains NW of Winchester, VA.

Responsibilities: Teach all subjects to middle school and high school students. Plans, develops, implements and evaluates a program of instruction to include the development of an individualized educational program, selection of instructional materials, classroom management, and progress evaluations. Advises residential staff with regard to individual student learning needs and methods or techniques to meet those needs. Participates in the overall assessment of each student’s needs, program, and progress.

Requires: Certification or ability for certification in Virginia. Successful candidate will have or agree to gain endorsement in special education (Ed or LD). Experience in teaching preferred. Teachers without Special Education endorsement but willing to pursue endorsement are encouraged to apply. Primary hours are 8:30am – 4:00pm Mon-Fri.

Salary Range: Starting salary $34,094 – $44,066 (based upon experience, certification and endorsement). Salary range to $58,321. Excellent benefits package and outstanding leave plan. Tobacco and drug free environment EOE.

Contact:Cindy Marino

School:  Timber Ridge School

Address: PO Box 3160

City: Winchester  State: VirginiaZip Code: 22604

Phone: 540-888-3456 Ext. 220 

Fax:  540-888-4513 

Email: marino@trschool.org

School Home Page: www.timber-ridge-school.org 

Location:

California

Job Category:

Special Education Teacher – Secondary

 
Title:
Special Education Teacher

 
Position Description:

Olive Crest’s Therapeutic Education Center has an immediate opening at our Non-Pulic School in Perris, CA. The teacher is responsible for classroom management and for the physical, psychological and social well-being of the students. The teacher is also responsible to carry out instruction for students according to each student’s IEP. A California Special Education Teaching Credential or Emergency Credential are required for this full time position. Benefits are available after the first 90 days of full time employment. To apply for this position, please contact Stacy Brooks at stacy-brooks@olivecrest.org. You may also fax a resume to 714-972-8952 for consideration.

Contact:Stacy Brooks

School: Olive Crest – Therapeutic Education Center

Address: 2130 E. Fourth St #200

City:  Santa Ana State:  CaliforniaZip Code:  92705

Phone: 714-543-5437 

Fax: 714-972-8952 

Email: stacy-brooks@olivecrest.org

School Home Page: www.olivecrest.org

Location:

California

Job Category:
Special Education Teacher – Secondary

 
Title:
Probationary Jr./Sr. High School Special Education Resource Teacher for 2005-2006 SchoolYear
 

Position Description:

Under the direction of the principal or designee, provide instruction, assessment and program planning for special education students; monitor and evaluate student progress and behavior, research, obtain and provide instructional materials for special education services; serve as an informational resource for students, parents, district personnel and community organizations.
 
Contact:Grace  Carcerano

School District: Calistoga Joint Unified School District

Address:1520 Lake Street

City:  Calistoga    State:  CaliforniaZip Code:  94515

Phone:  707-942-4703 

Fax: 707-942-6589 

Email:  carceranog@calistoga.k12.ca.us

School District Home Page:  www.calistoga.k12.ca.us

To top

“Portions of this e-mail newsletter were excerpted from:

• Committee on Education and the Workforce
• FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
• The National Center on Secondary Education and Transition
• The National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
• The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities
• The National Institute of Health
• The National Organization on Disability
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
• U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
• U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Office of Special Education
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Wrightslaw.com

The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this month’s e-Journal

To top