Investigating and Evaluating Current Practices

of IDEA Compliance & Inclusion

Assuring NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

or creating MCLB (More Children Left Behind)?

Table of Contents

Bernadette Harris
University of North Florida
Graduate School
I. Introduction
July 2009
II. Brief history of IDEA and Inclusion
 III. Federal statutes implicating classrooms

IV. Supreme Court cases for Noncompliance

V. Findings and Recommendations

VI. Appendix II: Literature

I. Introduction

The school where I am currently employed is a small private Catholic school in

downtown Jacksonville. Unlike most Catholic schools, our student body consists of a 100%

African American student population of very low SES. The school has been in operation for 88

years, and receives 85% of its funding from charitable donations. Although our student body is

100% African American, only 4 out of 15 faculty members are of that heritage. The principal,

Elise Kennedy, has been at our school for 30 years, 20 of which have been as the principal. She

has completed part, but not all, of her Master’s in Educational Leadership. She attended college

in Florida, and her entire career in education has predominantly been at our school.

Although our school has benefited from state-provided Title I pull-out services for some

of our students for more than a decade, we have just begun accepting students on McKay

scholarships, with I.E.P.’s. Therefore, I decided, with the help of our school superintendent, Pat

Tierney to investigate closely the legal requirements attached to educating students with special

needs, as well as litigation that has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court for schools, teachers
and districts’ negligence in adhering to these requirements. On the following pages, I will

attempt to convey my findings with regard to where I believe some of the “holes” exist in our

current system, as well as my suggestions for filling them.

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM:

From my superintendent’s perspective, the problem involved in accepting students with

special needs and I.E.P.’s is deciding whether or not our school has the resources to meet their

needs. We do offer minimal pull-out services in small group settings for children who are

struggling to stay at grade level in the classroom, but we do not staff any special education

experts or full time teachers who are certified in ESE.

In my opinion, the problem is larger than just knowing whether or not we can meet the

students’ needs. The basic problem that I have identified in my study is multi-faceted. The

predominant part of the problem is lack of education and training on the part of the schools,

districts and educators. Most ESE students in classrooms in America today are not in self-

contained environments. Instead, IDEA law demands that most ESE students remain in the

“least restrictive environment” or mainstream classroom, otherwise known as “inclusion”. They

receive modifications and accommodations to the mainstream curriculum according to Individual

Education Plans designed by a child study team. In our school, we do not staff a psychologist,

which is a very integral part of a child study team involved in the evaluation of students with

special needs. Therefore, students coming to us with I.E.P.’s would have to revert to their prior

public school’s child study team to reevaluate and make changes to the I.E.P. annually, based on

recommendations and observations from our school’s teachers and guidance counselor, and the

parents.

This is a minor inconvenience more than a problem. The major problem lies in the fact

that none of our regular education classroom teachers have completed any coursework or

specialized training in working with ESE students. Our university programs did not include
special education courses, which seem very necessary with the demands of inclusion. Teachers

in regular education classrooms have not been taught how to identify special needs, make

recommendations for services, or implement and follow modification and accommodation

guidelines as addressed in student I.E.P.’s. In addition, most have not been informed of the legal

ramifications they face if they are found to have been negligent in following these plans.

PROCEDURE:

1) To begin my study, I read several pieces of literature regarding I.D.E.A. law, including

the various liabilities schools, districts and teachers face with regard to violating or neglecting

their duty under IDEA. In my observations and research, it is my contention that lack of

education and training of regular classroom teachers, as well as school administrators and other

members of a prospective child study team contributes to the overwhelming occurrence of IDEA

noncompliance.

2) After examining literature, my next step was to complete five case briefs regarding

litigation over noncompliance with I.D.E.A. law. The summation of the five cases is described

herein under CASE LAW.

3) My third step in my study was to attend a child study meeting that involved a student’s

parents who had been requesting the school district to evaluate their child for special services

and implement either a 504 plan or I.E.P. for him, based on his diagnosed A.D.H.D. for

approximately two years. I was able to attend the meeting at the parents’ invitation as an

interested party. During the meeting, I asked the school psychologist several questions to

address why the school had neglected to bring in the child study team, after having the student’s

psychological evaluation from a private physician for 12 months. According to the Florida

constitution, and I.D.E.A., a school has no more than 30 days to bring together the child study

team to design an I.E.P. for a student once their psychological evaluation has been completed. In

addition, I observed several violations of Section 504 and I.D.E.A. during the meeting. For
instance, according to the I.D.E.A. additions of 2004, teachers must attend the I.E.P/ 504

meeting, unless being granted a special exception, which has to go through specific processes.

One teacher out of the six who taught the student this year was present. One attended for five

minutes, and excused herself stating that she didn’t see the need for her to be there and left. The

student’s file was displaced, with part of his psych evaluation in one folder, and the other pages

in a completely different file. The school psychologist, who had worked for Duval County

Public Schools for over 15 years, stated that a 504 Plan and an I.E.P. were identical. This is not

true, as I.E.P.’s fall under exceptional education and carry many more available services for the

student, including the family’s ability to exercise their use of the McKay Scholarship, which the

psychologist claimed to have never heard of, although he has been involved in writing I.E.P.’s in

Duval County for 15 years! At the close of the meeting, a cursory 504 Plan was put into place

and entered into the computer system. Within the first month of the next school year, the child

study team has promised to begin the process for having the student complete the remaining

steps necessary to qualify him for an I.E.P., which will then replace the current 504 Plan.

4) My fourth step in this study is to create a portfolio to present to the University of North

Florida’s Dean of the College of Education, as well as the Chair for curriculum of undergraduate

degrees in education. In this portfolio, I will demonstrate my findings and the need for the

university to revisit its current catalog requirements for graduation with a Bachelor of Arts in

Elementary Education degree. Currently, there is only one course addressing social and

psychological needs of ESE students. This one course is a very recent addition to the core

requisites, as it was not required when I completed my B.A.E. at UNF in 2007. Based on all of

the amendments and additions to I.D.E.A. since 2004, it hardly seems sufficient to only include

one special education course to prepare teachers who will have as much as 30% of their

classroom populated with students with special needs, since we are legally bound to provide the

least restrictive environment for educating special needs students. The determination for most
ESE students of least restrictive environment has been found to be the mainstream regular

education classroom, under the provisions of “inclusion.”

5) My final step in conducting my project is to present to my school and

district my findings and recommendations for professional development of all faculty

throughout the district who are involved with working with ESE students, especially

those required to follow I.E.P.’s and 504 Plans in the classroom. It is my goal to ensure

that all members of our school board and faculty are well versed in the legal liability that

we are under, even though we are a private school district. Unlike most mandates that we

are relieved of under contractual vs. state law, I.D.E.A. law pertains to private as well as

public institutions of education.

In the interest of taking a look at today’s elementary and secondary classroom through

the best practices and legal lens, this project was commenced with a vision of reform and fine

tuning for the educators of the twenty-first century. Specifically, the area of focus is inclusion

classrooms and what they mean for us as educators, under the guidelines of IDEA law.

At the onset of this project, my expectation was to find a well structured and clearly

defined set of parameters framing the way classrooms implement inclusion with efficiency and

consistency, to ensure they are the facilitators of NCLB, providing the best possible education in

the least restrictive environment for students with special needs. What I found instead were

glaring inconsistencies and patterns of gross negligence, inferior practices bred from lack of

training and professional development, as well as the absence of a well defined model of

bringing to fruition the very tenet upon which IDEA is based. In the pages that follow, it is my

hope to provide a framework for understanding the need for reform and revision within the

education system at all levels if true strides in learning and inclusion are ever to be made, and if

the courts in America are ever to cease being inundated with noncompliance litigation.
 My research was conducted at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville, and within

the Duval County school system, under the direct supervision of my professor of public school

law. My contact information is listed below, should you have any further questions or comments

regarding the findings and recommendations of the study.

Bernadette Harris, M.ed student

1250 Brookwood Forest Blvd #7104
Jacksonville, FL 32225-9093
(904) 525-3601; N00030904@unf.edu

II. Brief History of IDEA & Inclusion

IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Amendment was modified most

recently in 1997, and brings with it two very basic educational requirements for students with

disabilities: the child must receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least

restrictive environment. The least restrictive environment is, according to Wright (2006), “the

one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children together with

children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child

were not disabled. The IDEA statute and implementing regulations emphasize the requirement

to educate children with disabilities in regular classes with their nondisabled peers."

The blending of the disabled and nondisabled students into the mainstream classroom, as

opposed to the former practice of self-contained ESE (Exceptional Student Education)

classrooms, is where we have coined the term “inclusion.”

As part of the inclusion model, IDEA statutes mandate that Individualized Education

Plans (IEP’s) designed by the school or district’s child study team, must be created and

implemented for each child receiving special education services inside or outside of the
mainstream classroom. The guidelines for the creation, implementation, review and

modification of said IEP’s are clearly defined in IDEA’s statute (Wright, 2006).

III. IDEA Statutes Implicating Classrooms

According to Section 1414 of I.D.E.A., schools are required to complete an initial

evaluation for eligibility within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent.

According to Wright (2006), “Accordingly, Sec. 300.347(a)(1)(2) of IDEA requires that

each child’s IEP include: A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or

short-term objectives related to--(i) Meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s

disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and (ii)

meeting each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. Thus,

the IEP team for each child with a disability must make an individualized determination

regarding (1) how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and what

needs that result from the child’s disability must be met to facilitate that participation; (2)

whether the child has any other educational needs resulting from his or her disability that also

must be met; and (3) what special education and other services and supports must be described in

the child’s IEP to address both sets of needs (consistent with Sec. 300.347(a)).”
 As described in this brief section of the additions to I.D.E.A. brought forth in 1997, the

regular classroom teacher requires significant preparation in identifying needs and monitoring

progress, as well as recommending further intervention for students.”(Wright 2006, p.25)

In the appendix of this portfolio, an in-depth description of the literature review exists,

containing significant evidence of the inferiority of the preparation of the current inclusion

classroom teacher, both educationally and legally.

Most of our current university programs preparing educators to enter the mainstream

classroom include only one, if any, required courses in special education, and no coursework in

special education or public education law, rendering graduates unprepared for the duties of IDEA

and inclusion.

IV. Supreme Court Cases for Noncompliance

1. Whitehead v. School Board of Hillsborough County, 918 F. Supp. 1515, 24 IDELR

21, (M.D. FL 1996)
Facts: School district of Hillsborough County, Florida held an “unwritten policy” of not
writing or implementing student IEP’s. The Whiteheads’ son required an IEP for speech
and language, and the district refused to comply. The courts found the district failed to
provide FAPE for the student, according to IDEA.
Holding: The courts issued an injunction, and the district continued to refuse compliance,
which ended in them being fined $600,000.

2. Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983

Facts: The Concord School in Massachusetts refused to comply with implementing an
IEP for a student with developmental delays and ADHD.
Holding: The parents were awarded compensatory damages.

3. Doe v. Withers, 20 IDELR 422

Facts: Mr. & Mrs. Doe of Taylor County, West Virginia sued the teacher, principal,
superintendent and school board for failing to follow modifications outlined in their son’s
IEP by refusing to make testing accommodations.
Holding: The courts found the teacher, principal, superintendent and school board to be
in violation of Section 504 of the Students with Disabilities Act. They awarded the
following damages to the Doe’s:
$30,000 against the teacher
$10,000 against the principal
$10,000 against the superintendent
$10,000 against the school board
4. Knable V. Bexley City School District, Columbus Ohio No. 96-01159
Facts: The Knables sued the school district, its superintendent and the board of
education of Ohio for violating IDEA by failing to create an IEP for their son who had
ADHD and ODD. Instead, the school kept seeking outside placement for the student
until the family eventually complied and transferred him.
Holding: The courts found that the school district, superintendent and BOE violated the
student’s right to FAPE, as well as the “stay put clause” of IDEA. The parents were
awarded $80 for an undefined and indefinite period of time, to compensate for fees
incurred with transferring the student to a private school. The funding is to continue until
the student no longer requires services.

5. Reid V. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516

Facts: The Reids sued the District of Columbia school district for violation of their son’s
rights to FAPE under IDEA by discontinuing their son’s IEP outside of the guidelines set
forth in IDEA. The hearing officer made an independent decision, without consulting the
members of the child study team or parents, to discontinue the student’s IEP.
Holding: The courts found in favor of the Reids and awarded an indefinite amount of
compensatory damages, to cover educational costs for the student for as long as the costs
are incurred.

6. Oberti V. Board of Education of Clementon School District 995 F2D 1204

Facts: Board of Education of Clementon refused to place a student with Down’s
Syndrome in the mainstream classroom. The student’s parents sued the district for
violation of the mainstream inclusion provision of IDEA.
Holding: Courts ruled in favor of the student to be placed in inclusion.

7. Florence County School District v. Carter 510 U.S. 7, 114 S. Ct.361

Facts: Parents sued school district for reimbursement of private school tuition and
educational services when they removed their child from the district’s school for failing
to provide FAPE for the student under IDEA.
Holding: Court ruled in favor of the student and parents, and district had to pay private
school tuition for the student.

8. Honig v. Doe 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592

Facts: School removed a disabled child from inclusion class due to disruptive/
dangerous conduct. The parents sued for violation of the stay put clause of IDEA.
Holding: Courts ruled in favor of the student and school was mandated to return the
student to his mainstream class.

CASE LAW

According to I.D.E.A., a school, teacher or district’s refusal to implement or negligence

in following any portion of a student’s I.E.P. is grounds for suit at both the state and civil level.

Included in this is the ability for suit for compensatory damages, which can be attached to any or
all of the parties involved! Case law excerpts from my study will demonstrate many instances

where such noncompliance issues made their way to the Supreme Court for resolution, and were

not found in favor of the school boards, districts or individual schools or teachers. In addition, a

school or district can lose its federal funding if they continually are found to be in violation of

I.D.E.A. or Section 504 Americans with Disabilities Act of the Civil Rights Amendment, which

provides for a similar individualized objective plan for students, including accommodations and

modifications, but with less additional ESE services afforded the student.

Under IDEA, one might safely assume that at the district level, little question would exist

as to the legal requirements of providing FAPE to ESE students, with regard to implementing

Individualized Education Plans. However, in Hillsborough County, FL in 1996, (918 F. Supp.

1515, 24 IDELR 21) the Supreme Court had to intervene on behalf of the Whitehead family,

whose child needed an IEP and despite court injunctions, the district refused to write them! It

was district policy not to create Individual Education Plans for ESE students! That “policy” cost

Hillsborough County $600,000 in damages!

In the case of Doe V. Withers in West Virginia, a high school teacher blatantly refused to

make accommodations outlined in the student’s IEP, which allowed for the student to receive all

tests orally. Despite many requests and demands by the school’s ESE coordinator, the teacher

continued to refuse to comply. The student’s family received $60,000 in compensatory damages,

$30,000 of which was charged to the teacher. Certainly if this teacher had received adequate

training in his legal expectations with regard to ESE inclusion, he would not have refused to

comply with the IEP.

In Knable V. Bexley, Columbus Ohio No. 96-01159, the Bexley County School Board,

superintendent and school principal were found to be negligent in failing to implement an IEP

for a student with ADHD, ODD and dyslexia. Instead, the school continually pushed for the

removal of the student and his transfer to a school outside their district. Under IDEA, they were
obligated to implement an IEP and provide all necessary services for the student’s academic

success. In the end, the district was required to pay $80 per day for each day the student

continued to receive educational services at a private school the parents eventually transferred

the student to.

In Reid V. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, the school district committed repeated

violations of IDEA over the course of a four year period. The district initially refused to provide

an evaluation of the student, later refused to retain or create an IEP for the same student despite

his medical diagnosis of multiple disabilities, and later refused to modify the student’s IEP to

accommodate the additional special needs the student was found to have. In addition, a hearings

officer violated the student’s due process rights by making an independent determination with

regard to the student’s continued services. The district was ordered to pay a continual and

undetermined amount of compensatory damages for as long as the services continued to be

needed.

Again, the violation in these cases took place at the district level, which I found to be

consistently alarming. Given the evidence of repeated cases of district negligence, it is fair to

assume that school board representatives and superintendents are either not amply educated as to

their legal obligations under IDEA, or that the systems in place for the evaluation,

recommendation and implementation of student services under IDEA are inefficient and in need

of restructuring.

LITERATURE ANALYSIS AND STATUTORY PERSPECTIVE

According to Wright (2006), “Accordingly, Sec. 300.347(a)(1)(2) of IDEA requires that

each child’s IEP include: A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or

short-term objectives related to--(i) Meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s

disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and (ii)

meeting each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. Thus,
the IEP team for each child with a disability must make an individualized determination

regarding (1) how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and what

needs that result from the child’s disability must be met to facilitate that participation; (2)

whether the child has any other educational needs resulting from his or her disability that also

must be met; and (3) what special education and other services and supports must be described in

the child’s IEP to address both sets of needs (consistent with Sec. 300.347(a)).”

Implementing and designing an IEP according to the aforementioned guidelines is a

delicate procedure requiring highly qualified and specially trained individuals. These are the

school psychologist, guidance counselor, ESE specialist/ standards coach, as well as the

classroom teacher and parents. Two of the members of this team, the parent and the classroom

teacher, however, are not highly qualified in ESE! An alarming citation in the determinations is

“whether the child has any other educational needs.” Determining whether a student requires

more services and has “other” needs is a vague and ongoing process. Can a regular classroom

teacher who has not been trained in special education be expected to be qualified to make that

determination? Whether the teacher is able to determine special needs or not, under IDEA

he/she is liable for neglecting to identify and recommend them!

As Wright has cited, regular classroom teachers require preparation. However, in our

current universities and school systems, they are not receiving it. During my undergraduate

studies at the University of North Florida, I was never introduced to IEP’s or 504 Plans. Special

education coursework was not part of the core curriculum for the B.A.E. program in 2007. Since

then, UNF has added only one special education class to the undergraduate core curriculum.

One course is highly unlikely to adequately prepare teachers to efficiently service students with

IEP’s in their classrooms.

In addition, according to Section 1414 of I.D.E.A., schools are required to complete an

initial evaluation for eligibility within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent. After
witnessing the failure to execute this policy at the middle school involved in Andrew’s IEP, it is

safe to say that our schools do not have adequate procedures in place to safeguard the

compliance with this section of the law. Clearly, if a student’s evaluation can be neglected for an

entire school year before being evaluated, the school and district in question ( in this case a

magnet school in Duval County, FL) need to revisit and revise the handling of such paperwork to

ensure the eligibility evaluation deadline is met. .

According to Wright (2006, p. 26) experts in the field of educating children with

disabilities believe that the majority of children identified with specific learning disabilities “are

victims of poor teaching.” Wright’s experts contend that almost ALL children could learn to

read efficiently, but many do not receive appropriate instruction because teachers are not

adequately prepared to teach them! This statement affirms my contention that a single course in

special education is insufficient to prepare educators to teach ESE students literacy, math, social

and organizational skills. Many students on IEP’s and 504 Plans do not receive any of their

instruction from special education teachers under the current system of inclusion.

In a research study conducted at a neuropsychiatry clinic in Toronto (Capano,

Minden, Chen, Schachar, & Ickowicz 2008), approximately 450 ADHD students between the

ages of 7 and 12 were tested using a battery of methods, including parent and teacher interviews,

standardized intelligence tests and psychological testing for learning disabilities. The results

confirmed that the prevalence of mathematical learning disability is present in 20% of children

with ADHD, which is three times the prevalence in the general population. Without specified

training in identifying math learning disabilities, as well as methodology including specific

strategies for teaching ADHD children with and without math learning disabilities, the regular

education teacher is hardly adequately prepared to provide the best possible education for

children who fit into this population. The most alarming facet of this study is that ADHD
students, along with many others with “minor” disabilities make up the majority of students in

inclusion classrooms across the United States.

In another study in southwestern England, 81 primary and secondary school teachers

were analyzed as to their effectiveness and self-efficacy in teaching students in an inclusion

setting. According to Avrimides et al (2000), there was a significant and measurable difference

in the academic progress as well as teacher attitude towards ESE inclusion students between

teachers who had received professional development at the university level in preparing them to

meet IEP requirements and those that did not. Most of the teachers that took part in the study

who had not received adequate education and training in dealing with special needs students had

negative attitudes and predispositions regarding those students, as well as poorer results in

educating them in the inclusion classroom.

In a similar study conducted at Kent University, teachers nominated students to prompts

corresponding with their attitudes with respect to concern, indifference and rejection, which

correlated strongly to the degree of disability in the students. A Chi-square analysis of the data

was used to evaluate the level of instructional tolerance and differential expectations according

to the level of student disability. According to Clark (2001), the results confirmed the theory that

students with mild or “hidden” disabilities were “overrepresented” in the teacher rejection

prompt. The results indicated that teachers tend to form different attitudes and expectations of

their inclusion students based on the “obviousness” of their disabilities. Cook contends that,

based on the consistent findings of this study, a preponderance of teachers have ‘given up’ on

students with mild or hidden disabilities, due to lack of expertise in identifying and addressing

these disabilities. An example that comes to mind of a minor or hidden disability is that of

ADHD or SID. These are both sometimes harder to identify and diagnose in students, and

without specific training in instructional strategies to obtain academic success in these students,

many teachers become frustrated and provide minimal teaching to them. Many of these students
come with 504 plans and IEP’s in place; some of which are designed effectively, and many of

which are in need of revision. However, the teacher is not likely to recommend revisions or

additional services for the child if he/she is not trained or educated as to the types of services and

pedagogy that are most effective for these students’ success. Herein we fail as an educational

system, in my opinion, to provide FAPE for these students, making less than adequate

accommodations or modifications, and providing less than acceptable opportunities for them to

reach their academic potential!

V. Findings & Recommendations

My findings with regard to the recurring theme of noncompliance with IDEA litigation

are consistent. In as much as numerous Supreme Court cases have been heard and decided

against multiple school districts and teachers across the United States, a localized system for

ensuring compliance within individual districts is currently weak if not nonexistent.

The cases listed above represent only a fraction of Supreme Court litigation regarding

noncompliance and negligence with regard to IDEA. As expressed throughout the literature

review presented in the Appendix of this portfolio, there is a profound lack of educator

preparation at the classroom, school, district and school board level in our current system in the

United States. Universities are not adequately preparing teachers and administrators for the

duties and obligations they face under IDEA through current core requirements for these degrees.

Consequently, the teachers in the mainstream classroom who hold primary if not sole

responsibility for educating students with special needs are falling short in providing FAPE for

these students. The training needed to identify special needs, make recommendations for
services, assist in the designing of IEP’s and implementing the necessary modifications and

accommodations to the student’s curriculum is not being provided in our current standard

undergraduate or graduate programs in regular education or administration.

Within the schools and districts, efficient systems have not been put into place to ensure

that sensitive documentation receives diligent processing, or that students are being evaluated

and IEP’s created within the time constraints outlined by IDEA. Some teachers, schools and

districts are deliberately avoiding conducting the steps required of them in instituting services for

students with special needs. Instead, they are stalling, attempting to remove the students from

their schools, and in many cases completely neglecting the needs of students, even after being

provided with medical and psychological reports, as well as court orders and injunctions.

Here, as well as in the attached appendix, I am recommending the following revisions to

our current failing system of complying with IDEA law:

A. Each state must address in its constitution procedural outlines for school districts to

follow in the evaluation of students with special needs for services. In these procedural

outlines, provisions must be made and consequences for failing to make provisions

clearly defined.

B. Each state university, under the guidance of certified special education specialists, needs

to revise the core curriculum requirements for a Bachelor’s degree in education, as well

as a Master’s degree in Educational Leadership, to include coursework that will

effectively prepare graduates for the task of working within the inclusion classroom.

Accreditation guidelines for university programs should be reviewed and adjusted to

ensure that teacher preparation programs include adequate and sufficient coursework and

field experiences to prepare classroom teachers and future administrators, guidance

 counselors and school psychologists for the task of efficiently designing, implementing,

modifying and recommending student IEP’s and 504 Plans.

C. Each school board must design and implement a stringent Improvement Plan for

compliance with IDEA. The plan must include such components as mandatory

procedures for the handling of student psychological evaluations, the setting up of initial

and follow-up IEP and 504 meetings, monitoring of student progress according to IEP /

504 Plans, and accountability of all interested parties within the school who are involved

in the handling of these processes.

D. At the school level, each administrator must appoint a coordinator to monitor and account

for compliance with all IDEA requirements. This monitoring should include frequent

regular observations of inclusion classrooms, monitoring of student CUM folders,

psychological and medical reports and evaluations, time constraints of initial evaluations

of students for services, processes and follow through on recommendations of students

requiring special services, and accountability for all school professionals involved in the

implementation of IEP’s and 504 Plans.

E. School and district level professional development for teachers and administrators

already working with students with special needs must be mandated and made available.

Most educators currently working in the system have students with special needs in their

mainstream classrooms and do not have the necessary training or education to properly

identify needs, make recommendations for services or effectively and implicitly

implement all modifications and accommodations outlined in student IEP’s and 504

plans.

(See appendix for more detailed examples of needs.)

VI. Appendix
References:

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P.,Burden,R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’

Attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special education needs
in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational
Psychology 20,2.

Capano, L.,Minden, D., Chen, S., Schachar, R.J. & Ickowicz, A.(2008). Mathematical
learning disorder in school-age children with attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 53,6.

Cook, Bryan. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included

Students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education 34,4.

Miranda, A., Soriano, M., Fernandez, I., & Melia, A.(2008). Emotional & behavioral problems
of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: impact of age and learning
disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology 31,4.

Wright, P.W.D. & Wright, P.D. (2006). Special Education Law. Hartfield, VA: Harbor
House Law Press.

IEP meeting attended: James Weldon Johnson Middle School Child Study Team
James Weldon Middle School
1840 West 9th Street
Jacksonville, FL 32209