AUGUST 24, 2004
OCLB SPECIAL EDUCATION PRIMER:
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Introduction

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) creates the right for students who have disabilities to receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). IDEA delivers the student's right to FAPE by developing and implementing individualized education programs (IEPs). The IEP - IDEA's centerpiece -- defines and drives the special education process.

We often describe IDEA as a civil rights law which clarifies for all time that students with disabilities have the same fundamental right to a free education that is extended to all children who do not have identifiable disabilities. Indeed, IDEA was passed to open all public schools to students who have disabilities. But it is easy to concentrate too much attention on IDEA's civil rights image and concentrate too little on how IDEA's promised civil rights are delivered to the individual student.

Think of an IEP as a contract. The IEP is the physical piece of paper that promises FAPE (a free appropriate public education) to individual students who have disabilities. Whatever happens with the IDEA reauthorization process, the IEP will continue to describe a specific student's program. The IEP contract will:

" Identify student strengths and needs;
" State individualized educational objectives;
" Describe educational services and programs to be delivered to the student; and
" Specify how the service delivery will be monitored and evaluated.

These statements admittedly are very broad. But keep in mind how laws are developed and implemented. Congress states IDEA's legal requirements in a format deliberately intended to give wide latitude to the United States Department of Education and individual states in determining how to make IDEA work down on the street.

When Congress decides to change how it views IEPs and the process used to develop them, it creates a ripple effect that ultimately can have a huge impact on an individual's right to receive FAPE. Parents and advocates for America's 6.5 million students who have disabilities have expressed significant concern with proposed IDEA amendments changing IEP requirements, as those amendments change what goes into the special education contract for each individual child. Changing the contract (IEP) changes the rights of the parties too. We are right to be worried.

Congress is proposing to change both what is on the IEP and how IEPs are developed. It stands to reason that if Congressional changes to the IEP itself impact the individual child's IEP, then changing the way IEPs are developed will also change what the individual child's IEP looks like. We discuss both aspects of the IEP, the contract itself, and the way it is developed.

We begin by restating what we have said so often in our Home pages. The administration of the IEP process and the bulk of the knowledge supporting development of strong IEPs both rest in the hands of the school professionals and administrators. Parents already feel like they are at a disadvantage. Our biggest fear is that provisions intended by Congress to be options available to parents and schools will be presented to parents by schools as requirements or mandates. Changing provisions that regulate the IEP development process and what goes into the IEP contract naturally creates further anxiety for parents. We necessarily reference these realities when evaluating proposed amendments.

The House and Senate have proposed different changes. In this article and those that follow we refer to proposed House changes by using the House bill number, H.R.1350. We refer to proposed Senate changes by using the Senate bill number, S.1248.

The IEP Development Process
Congress has proposed several significant changes to the IEP development process, including the following amendments:

Who must attend IEPs (excused absences): All the right people must be at the IEP development table to be sure that a student's total programming needs are met. The IEP development participants must both know the child and know the potential programs and services that will best meet the child's needs. It is not enough just to have teachers present who know the special education side. General education teachers also are vital to the process because they can help anticipate needs and services that permit the student to receive her or his education in the most inclusive environments. If Congress changes the provisions regulating who must attend IEPs, it will change the viewpoints that go into creating the IEP.

Present law lists those professionals who must attend IEP Team meetings (see 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B)). Congress is not proposing to change the team list, but rather to create the ability for certain required attendees to be excused. Present law does not provide a mechanism to "excuse" participants from attending the meetings. The House and Senate propose to permit absences if:

" The parents and educational agency both agree that the member's attendance is not necessary [both bills];

" The absent member's input is received prior to the meeting9 both bills);

" The parents' consent is in writing (S.1240).

Our biggest fear about proposals that permit schools and parents to excuse people from attending meetings or to waive the performance of other IDEA provisions is that parents might not receive enough information or be well enough informed to knowingly exercise the excuse or waiver. Any change in IDEA that permits parents to excuse attendance or waive school performance should include provisions and strategies designed to ensure that the parents' decision is well informed and voluntary.

We note, too, that IDEA '97 does not preclude or proscribe agreements between parents and school districts permitting certain mandated IEP Team members to attend only parts of IEP Team meetings or to miss them altogether with the parents' consent. We know it happens throughout the country. This give and take has been developing throughout the nearly 30-year history of special education law.

We believe it most important that parents have access to materials, training and advice to help them understand and exercise their power to make sure that ALL of the necessary IEP Team members are present at team meetings when needed or desired by the parents. It is not enough just to say that all members should attend, or even that they all must attend, if the parents do not have the ability to compel specific persons to attend. Similarly, the school should not be permitted to hold an IEP meeting at a time or place at which the parents cannot attend if the parents have expressed a clear intent to attend.

Alternative methods of IEP Team participation: IDEA '97 does not contain language addressing alternative methods of participating in IEP Team meetings. Both the House and the Senate have added similar provisions permitting parents and school officials to allow IEP team members to participate in meetings via technological devices such as videophones and conference calls. S.1248's proposal applies to IEP Team meetings to develop or modify IEPs generally, while H.R.1350 includes language that also would permit alternate participation methods in IEP Team meetings involving disciplinary, interim alternative placement or other administrative issues.

We believe, as above, that use of alternative methods that have been approved by the parties should be allowed as long as the parents are permitted - but not forced - to use the methods themselves. Again, parents must have access to timely information and advice that will help them understand and process requests for alternative IEP Team participation methods. We also believe that personal attendance should be favored and stressed over electronic attendance. We think, too, that physical attendance should be required when the meeting is called for disciplinary, administrative or other exigent purposes.

How often IEP Team meetings must be held (3-year IEPs): IDEA '97 requires annual IEPs. The House and Senate both propose to create multi-year IEP options that can be offered to parents and implemented with the parents' consent.

H.R.1350 proposes that multi-year IEPs be permitted subject to the following conditions:

" Parents must consent;

" Cannot run for more than three years;

" Should coincide with "natural transition points for the child" (defined as preschool to elementary school, elementary grades to junior high/middle school, middle/junior high school to high school and high school to post-secondary activities);

" Must include "measurable goals" statement; and

" Must include "measurable annual goals for determining progress;"

During the off-transition years of a 3-year IEP, the IEP Team would be required to conduct annual reviews to determine:

" The child's current levels of progress;
" Whether the child's annual goals are being achieved; and
" What, if any, changes must be made in the IEP to enable the child to continue to meet annual IEP goals.

The Senate-passed amendments offering 3-year IEPs are available only to students aged 18 and older, and require:

" Parental consent when appropriate;
" Measurable goals that enable "progress in the general education curriculum" and that "meet the child's transitional and postsecondary needs" related to the child's disability; and
" Annual goals to measure progress toward meeting the postsecondary goals.

S.1248 requires the IEP team to conduct an annual review of the same factors required by the House bill.

Both the House and Senate versions permit conducting annual reviews of the 3-year IEPs using existing law requirements that allow consideration of other factors in addition to the factors listed above (see 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(4)).

We generally do not support 3-year IEPs because the needs of a child with disabilities, particularly one with severe disabilities, can span many learning categories (academic, social, developmental, etc.) and environments. Selecting effective and realistic individualized goals is already a challenge. We think that 3-year IEPs invite IEP teams to develop generic, non-specific goals, and we fear that interim progress meetings will not effectively encourage mid-IEP troubleshooting and adjustment to the degree that Congress might suggest. We can even foresee some circumstances in which 3-year IEPs will greatly reduce parent-school involvement and interaction.

How IEPs can be modified during the year: IDEA '97 requires that the IEP Team meet in order to amend or modify a student's IEP. The meeting is required even if all team members, including the parents, agree that a specific change is needed. The House and Senate both propose similar amendments permitting the IEP Team to forego reconvening the IEP Team to amend the IEP if the parent and school agree to the proposed change and develop a written agreement stating the modification.

We believe that written IEP modifications without reconvening IEP Team meetings have happened with varying frequency throughout the country. We do not believe the practice is as prevalent as the practices of excusing IEP Team members from meeting attendance or permitting electronic participation.

There may be any number of reasons why an IEP should or could be changed in the middle of an IEP year, including positive or negative changes in a student's awareness, ability or comprehension. It might become clear while measuring progress on short-term objectives or benchmarks that a student either already has mastered or may not be able to master an objective within the year. The need for supports, aids or services might increase or abate.

Some changes might be minor enough that written modifications could be used to accomplish the change without requiring a full IEP Team meeting. But other mid-IEP changes might be more drastic and require full IEP Team meetings. These amendments would include changes in placement, the addition or deletion of various therapeutic services, reduction of general education time or limitation of contact with peers. These changes should not be permitted absent a full IEP Team decision.

We believe the first priority in changing IEPs via the written amendment process must be to preserve parental input at all levels. We believe the parental right to call for a new IEP or to access the due process system must remain constant, even where the IEP change at issue had initially received the parents' written consent as per the current Congressional amendments. We also assert that, as with the issues above, parents must have access to meaningful information and counsel so that their consent to proposed mid-year IEP modifications is knowing and voluntary.

IEP DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY

We are not opposed to changes in the IEP development process that provide parents and schools with the joint opportunity to eliminate procedurally unnecessary steps when appropriate in their cases. We acknowledge that the proposed amendments have already found their way into practice. But the proposed changes cannot be approved without recognizing and planning for the possibility that they will be misused or abused by school officials to the parents' detriment. We suggest two strategies that reduce the possibility of misuse or abuse:

" Strengthen parent information materials and access to competent advice so that parents can exercise effective, informed consent when asked to waive or permit electronic IEP Team member participation or the written mid-year modification of an IEP.

" Maintain or strengthen the parents' right to challenge waivers permitted by the amendments and exercised by the parents if the parents subsequently assert that their agreement was coerced, involuntary or misinformed.

We remain opposed to 3-year IEPs at the present time because the needs of students with disabilities are great and the present opportunities to address those needs often remain inadequate. Our objection would become greater should short-term objectives or benchmarks be removed from the IEP.


IEP Primer Part 2:

OCLB SPECIAL EDUCATION PRIMER
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS: WHAT GOES ON THE IEP

Introduction

The last section of the OCLB Special Education Primer discussed how an Individualized Education Program [IEP] is developed and how reauthorization would change that process. This section discusses a key change that would be made in what an IEP contains. We also briefly discuss two Senate provisions addressing positive behavior support and assistive technology.

We have described the IEP as a contract; a physical piece of paper that promises FAPE (a free appropriate public education) to individual students who have disabilities and describes the students' programs. The IEP contract:

" Identifies student strengths and needs;
" States individualized educational objectives;
" Describes educational services and programs to be delivered to the student; and
" Specifies how the service delivery will be monitored and evaluated.

The House and Senate have proposed one significant change to the IEP contract  eliminating short term objectives and benchmarks. Today's primer discusses that proposed change. Again, we refer to proposed House changes by using the House bill number, H.R.1350. We refer to proposed Senate changes by using the Senate bill number, S.1248.

Short-Term Goals and Objectives -- The Current IEP

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that all IEPs include "a statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives, related to &" educational and disability-related needs.

Parents like short-term goals and objectives (STOs) for a number of reasons. First, many students receiving IDEA services have developmental, educational or skill-based delays that lag behind age or grade-level expectations. These delays cross all domains including academic, behavior, social skills, activities of daily living, speech, language, occupational and physical therapy, etc. STOs allow parents, teachers and school support personnel to focus on a student's specific needs across those domains. STOs help parents and school personnel to focus on, understand and define those student issues that are unique to the child and that usually exist outside the conventional academic focal area. They also let the involved parties tailor the size of the STO to the child's base needs.

Second, STOs permit parents, teachers and school support staff to clearly define expected progress or outcomes that should result from school intervention. Clearly stated STOs provide a meaningful opportunity to reasonably and rationally understand how well and how rapidly a student is acquiring and maintaining skills. Well-written STOs help ground parents and professionals in the reality of the student, rather than in generic expectations of so-called typical students at that age or grade level.

Third, properly written STOs can be easily measured and modified across domains. Suppose that a student's IEP goal is that she or he will greet fellow students every morning during circle time. The teacher can easily monitor this social goal. Once this goal is attained, new social goals can be created.

Fourth, STOs, being unique to the student, are not as likely to get lost in the shuffle as might more generic or long term goals that correlate to grade or age-based expectations. STOs invite and in some instances even drive parental and professional attention to performance detail.

Finally, STOs provide accountability in the most positive sense of the word. They let parents and professionals know in fairly short order what is or is not working for the student. They can change techniques or strategies that are not working, or modify the STOs to more accurately reflect student performance. STOs let the student, parents and school test the viability and success of the goal and the student. Well written STOs also help mark the longer road of growth and development and help keep things headed in the correct direction.

These positive aspects help explain why so many parents, teachers and educators have opposed eliminating STOs from the IEP.

Proposed House and Senate Amendments

The House and Senate both change current language to new language requiring the IEP to contain "a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to &"

H.R.1350 phases in the transition from STOs to "academic and functional goals" by 2005-2006 and continues the use of STOs for children who "take alternate (sic) assessments aligned to alternate (sic) achievement standards &" S.1248 contains no phase-in language, nor does it preserve STOs for any children.

There is no clarity or well-defined expectation from the phrase "academic and functional goals." The amendments take the certainty of expectation and accountability that follow the many years of using and interpreting the phrase "benchmarks or short-term objectives" and replace them with the certainty of ambiguity, confusion and diminished accountability.

Parents of children who receive special education services greatly fear that the No Child Left Behind law will encourage and even force schools to abandon individual goals and objectives in favor of group or aggregate objectives that can be tested and measured on a wider scale. The reauthorization amendments appear to do just that.

Those who support eliminating the use of STOs on IEPs claim that the change will reduce paperwork and improve the focus on teaching. For them the problem is not in the statement of the long term goal. It is in the time and effort it takes to create and measure the intermediate or short-term steps that take the student from his or her present level of performance to the end goal.

From our perspective those claims are specious. Americans expect our children to enter school in Kindergarten without knowing how to read, and graduate from high school being excellent readers. We do not, however, leave the process of learning to read up to chance or fate. Instead we have designed programs and plans to guide the student through the reading education process and have built in stages along the way to test how we are doing and how the students are doing. The general educational curriculum is nothing more than compounded short-term educational benchmarks and objectives.

The same process holds true for children who have disabilities. For nearly 30 years, IEPs and the IEP Team process, using STOs and benchmarks, have done for these students the same services that the educational curricula developers and educators have done for the broader student population. Eliminating STOs now will neither reduce nor eliminate the need to create and monitor the steps taken to deliver the student to the broader long-term goal.

In a similar vein, the core educational curricula - again expressed in progressive steps -- permits moderately uniform evaluation of student performance across the country. No Child Left Behind, when reduced to its lowest measuring common denominator, does nothing more than to require nationwide normative educational expectations and the testing whether individual schools are meeting those expectations. The clear objective of this measurement requirement is accountability.

No similar system exists within the special education community for the multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted needs of individual students across academic, developmental or skill-based domains. STOs and benchmarks fill in those gaps on an individualized basis. They provide for individual development what general curricula and No Child Left Behind provide across general education. Stated differently, No Child Left Behind now provides the accountability for general educational curricula that STOs and benchmarks have provided for individualized special education programming for nearly 30 years.

Improving the Use of STOs and Benchmarks in IEPs

We do not disagree that the use of STOs can become a burden on an IEP team and the educational team that must implement the IEP. We have seen IEPs that we think clearly state too many STOs. The mere number of them overwhelms the educational team. Everyone feels the burden is too heavy.

But parents often feel that they must get everything in writing. They have been told by schools, advocates and publications that a goal or objective, however stated or defined, must be on the IEP in writing in order for the parents to enforce the IEP. When relationships between schools and parents become stressed, the pressure on the parents to get it all in writing is increased.

In these circumstances it is not the use of STOs, per se, that creates the overbearing IEP or the overburdened education team. It is the tension between the parties and the breakdown of [or failure to create] the parent-professional partnership. The strain is going to exist and the problematic effect is going to continue whether or not STOs are used.

We believe that the vast majority of the parents of this nation's 6.5 million children with disabilities and the schools that educate them find STOs to be the best, most effective tool for developing individualized services tailored to the student's needs. In those relatively rare cases where the number of STOs explode on an IEP, we suggest that Congress direct more effective resources for families and educators to use to enhance partnering skills and opportunities rather than eliminating STOs, which are the most effective and best understood measure of accountability within the special education setting.

Promoting Positive Behavior Support

IDEA '97 requires that an IEP Team "consider, when appropriate" behavioral interventions and strategies including positive behavior support [PBS] when a student's behavior impedes her or his ability, or the ability of other students to learn at school. The mandate here is on giving consideration to positive behavior supports.

S.1248 changes the emphasis from "consider" to "provide," thereby mandating the development of PBS programs, rather than their mere consideration. H.R.1350 maintains the "consider" language found in present law.

We find the Senate proposal to be proactive and positive. We believe it far better for IEP Teams to put PBS programs in place before problems arise rather than waiting for and reacting to the behavior challenges once they do occur. Putting PBS into the IEP - or into a separate but equally enforceable behavior team component - aligns behavior expectations and concerns with carefully crafted STOs, thereby increasing the likelihood that the student and her or his peers will have maximum opportunity to learn in the classroom setting. We support the Senate's efforts here.

Promoting Assistive Technology Skills and Devices

S.1248 inserts a new phrase requiring that IEP Teams "consider, when appropriate, instructional services related to functional performance skills, orientation and mobility, and skills in the use of assistive technology devices, including low vision devices." IDEA '97 does not have any similar provision.

We understand that this new provision is designed to focus greater IEP Team attention on the availability and use of alternative methods of information processing, mobility, etc. We have seen huge technical gains in the 30 years since special education law first became a reality. This provision encourages IEP Teams to discuss technological support in developing the IEP. We support this effort.

IEP DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY

The IEP contract should contain provisions which the parties can easily interpret and implement. Short-term objectives and benchmarks remain the most effective tool to use to merge expectations with accountability. Developing IEP STOs can be problematic in tense relationships. Parents and schools will be better served if additional partnership-building and dispute resolution resources are directed to those relatively rare cases where the parties' tensions are expressed in complex or voluminous STOs. The fact that some IEP Teams propound complex or voluminous STOs does not justify eliminating the widely accepted and understood use of STOs on IEPs. For most students they work well and should not be disturbed.

OCLB SPECIAL EDUCATION PRIMER

INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS: WHAT NEXT?

Introduction

Our most recent section of the OCLB Special Education Primer discussed Congress' reauthorization amendments proposing elimination of short-term objectives and benchmarks from the Individualized Education Program (IEP). We also briefly discussed two Senate provisions on positive behavior support and assistive technology.

This Primer chapter summarizes our concerns about the IEP process and proposes amendments that we think will improve the IEP development process and the effectiveness of the IEP for individual students. We offer our proposed changes with the caveat that we have not "vetted" them in advance with any friends or parent organizations. We offer them only as food for thought, realizing that conceptualization almost always is dramatically different from implementation. We also note that our objections to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] amendments contained in H.R.1350 and S.1248 reflect our belief that they weaken IDEA, rather than any belief that IDEA is perfect and should never be changed.

Summary of Concerns: IEP Development and Content

There is a natural tension in the parent/teacher relationship across grades, across states and across socioeconomic lines. The tension exists whether or not the student in the equation has a disability. But the existence of a disability can compound the natural tension, especially when the subject of discussion is the child's IEP.

The IEP is the contract that parents use to define and enforce their children's rights to receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). It is not surprising that most parents are apprehensive about the IEP process. The schools control the IEP development process. IEP meetings are adjourned if key school personnel cannot attend. If parents cannot attend, the meetings often go on as planned. If disputes arise during the meeting that cannot be resolved immediately, the school personnel can leave the table and the meeting is over. If parents leave the meeting, it goes on without them.

School personnel possess the academic and administrative expertise to manage and sometimes even manipulate the conduct of IEP Team meetings. They have open access to seasoned special education legal counsel both before and during meetings to be sure the school position is protected throughout the process. Parents often have no academic or administrative savvy, let alone any access to competent counsel. They feel they have no choice but to listen to the school and hope that the programs recommended by the schools meet their children's needs.

Schools get the IEP programs, services and placements they want on the IEP. When is the last time a school went to due process because the parents changed program items or placement on an IEP over the school's objection? It almost never happens because the balance of power in IEP development favors schools rather than parents.

We parents do ourselves and school personnel no favors if we deny the natural existence of this tension in the parent/school relationship or remain silent when proposed IDEA changes further threaten our children's rights. We have fought against H.R.1350 and S.1248 because we believe the proposed changes will hurt our children.

But we do not oppose constructive, positive changes to IDEA that will improve educational opportunities for and services to our children. We want our children and the educators who teach them to achieve great success. We would strongly support any IDEA amendments that would make that success more likely and more readily achievable.

Guiding Principles on Amending The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

OCLB has developed a list of guiding principles to help us to evaluate the policy issues naturally present in proposed IDEA amendments. We want to be sure that we uphold our core beliefs about what special education law should mean for and provide to our children when we support or oppose IDEA amendments.

Since May, 2003 Our Children Left Behind has stated its objections to proposed House and Senate amendments in direct terms. For example, we have opposed eliminating short-term objectives [STOs]. We believe that STOs are vital to IEPs because they best define the focus of immediate educational activities and provide the strongest and most reliable form of accountability.

But our objections to proposed IDEA amendments also stem from policy concerns. For example, we cannot support amendments that further tip the balance of power toward school districts and away from parents. Eliminating STOs eliminates a measure of accountability (a functional issue for us), which thereby tips the balance of power more toward schools and away from parents and students (a policy issue for us).

When we evaluate proposed amendments we do so with two test questions. The first question is whether the amendment achieves a positive outcome for children who have disabilities. In the case of STOs, does eliminating STOs help children? The second question is whether the amendment maintains or strengthens the current IDEA '97 rights of the child and parent as measured by the following guiding principles. Does the proposed amendment:

Preserve or enhance fundamental due process rights for students and parents as they exist in IDEA '97;

Preserve or enhance data collection and other accountability measures that provide meaningful indicators of how particular programs and strategies are working for individual students;

Preserve or enhance for students and parents the participatory and procedural rights in the IEP development process that exist in IDEA '97;

Promote IDEA educational opportunities for parents as part of the amendment implementation process;

Increase opportunities for students with disabilities to receive educational services in fully inclusive settings;

Promote school-wide and community-wide recognition and awareness of disability issues;

Strengthen the principle that needs-based services required by IDEA are provided to equalize educational opportunity for students with disabilities; and

Foster the development and strengthening of the parent-professional partnership.

These guiding principles apply to all IDEA amendments and not just those which amend the IEP development, content or implementation process. All IDEA amendments must remain faithful to the values and concepts that drove the initial development and passage of special education law over 30 years ago.

Take the proposed elimination of STOs as an example. We cannot support eliminating STOs because this amendment would violate our guiding principle that all amendments should "preserve or enhance & accountability measures &." In fact, we believe that eliminating STOs would reduce accountability rather than preserving it, thereby tipping the power balance away from parents and toward schools.

Improving IEP Development, Content and Implementation

We OCLB members have brainstormed over the past week. Here are some of the ideas we came up with that we believe would strengthen the IEP development and implementation process. We are stating the proposals in their rawest form, with the intent that they provoke discussion of positive IDEA amendments to come.

IEP Development Process  How and By Whom IEPs are Created

-- Include siblings and classmates as IEP Team members.

-- Standardize definitions and forms across service areas so that community mental health, medical and social service forms can be used in IEP development.

-- Ask parents for available IEP meeting dates/times first, and then fit educators into the stated time slots.

-- Add the building administrator to IEP Team.

-- Require a person with the authority to commit district resources to attend IEP Team meetings.

-- Create and Use IEP forms that track IEP development process in sequence and assure that placement and Least Restrictive Environment considerations occur only after all other needs, goals and objectives, services, supports and program activities have been determined.

-- Permit parents to prepare and attach parent reports or addendums to the IEP, to be given the same weight as reports prepared and included in the IEP by educators and service providers.

-- Require that outside reports, opinions and diagnoses be given equal weight to school-prepared reports and opinions.

IEP Program Components: Required IEP Content and Considerations

-- Require IEP to state teaching methodology.

-- Require IEP to state financial responsibility of non-school payers [community mental health; insurance; Medicaid; etc.].

-- Prepare behavior programs with primary objective being to keep the child in school.

-- Expand access to and availability of extra-curricular activities.

-- Start transition planning earlier than age 14.

-- Mandate self-determination as primary transition objective.

-- Require and teach self advocacy skills and self-determination as part of transition plan.

-- Require or promote more community involvement and mentoring as part of transition plan.

-- Strengthen governmental and community involvement components including voting rights, economic support to community sponsors and mentors, etc.

IEP Implementation and Support

-- Mandate that IEP program requirements trump or preempt district employment or service contracts or agreements existing outside the IEP process.

-- Permit parent-initiated amendment of IEPs by written agreement without need to reconvene IEP Team meeting.

-- Add results-oriented checkpoints/quality assurance measurements to evaluation process, including the name or job position of the district employee accountable for meeting the IEP requirement.

-- Provide that parents are informed of and permitted to attend all district trainings and workshops provided to educators and other school staff on IDEA related subjects and activities.

Conclusion

We parents are not averse to IDEA amendments. Parents and educators must work together to produce changes in the development and content of IEPs. Indeed, we must do so if we are to improve educational opportunities for 6.5 million children who have disabilities. These changes must be reasoned and consistent with the concepts and principles that led to the initial development and implementation of special education law. We do not want any children left behind. We stand ready to work in good faith with educators and Congress to improve our children's education. We also welcome your comments.

Tricia & Calvin Luker, today's parentvolunteer@ourchildrenleftbehind.com

©2004 Our Children Left Behind.

Our Children Left Behind [OCLB] was created and is owned/operated by parent volunteers (Shari Krishnan, Tricia & Calvin Luker, Sandy Strassman Alperstein, and Debi Lewis). Permission to forward, copy, and/or post this article is granted provided that it is unedited and attributed to the author(s) and www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com. For more about OCLB or to share information, please contact parentvolunteer@ourchildrenleftbehind.com.