Policy Improvement Recommendation Plan
Transition outcomes for youth with learning disabilities who are served by special education are poor. In comparison, their same-aged peers are more likely to be employed and less likely to struggle with poverty and homelessness following graduation. The learning disabled student is less likely to be enrolled in postsecondary education or training (Courtney & Dworsky, 2005; Johnson, Stodden, Emmanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002). Because of these consistently poor outcomes, policymakers have increasingly have focused on creating policies to address these differences.
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) into law. This law reauthorized and amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On August 3, 2006, the United States Department of Education issued the regulations implementing the IDEIA 2004. These changes, added to the mandates of the IDEA, require that special education teachers and administrators know and understand their duties and obligations under the law. This paper will provide readers with an overview of the requirements of IDEA and recommendations for policy improvements to be presented to our State Senator following the agreement and endorsement of colleges.
In assessing this policy we consider the policy life cycle provided by Fowler, (2009) that includes planning, implementation process, and evaluation process. During the evaluation process, goals are determined; indicators and data collection instruments are selected; data is collected, analyzed, and summarized. The evaluation process culminates in a written evaluation report (Fowler, 2009).
Existing Policy
IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA, the federal law that mandates special education services for children with disabilities, from birth to age 21. IDEA provides specific direction to state education agencies and other public agencies in the provision of these services. Part C of IDEA addresses early intervention services for children under the age of 3. Part B of IDEA governs special education services for children ages three – twenty one, providing them with their right to a free public education. IDEA addresses a broad array of services, ranging from teacher qualification to state to federal data reporting. IDEA requires that children receiving special education services through public schools have an IEP, which is a detailed plan for the child’s yearly educational goals completed by his or her teacher, family, and other concerned individuals, such as social workers or vocational counselors. Once a child reaches the age of 16, IDEA mandates that transition be part of the IEP plan (Hill, 2009).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 continues the federal commitment to support for youth with disabilities through special education services. The rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and students, can be identified in the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). One of the main purposes of the Act is to guarantee that a free and appropriate education is available for all Learning Disabled students.
With the implementation of the policy of inclusion for learning disabled students in accordance with IDEA, a community of inclusion concept must be considered. For this concept of "community" to be successful ensuring that the needs of the Learning Disabled students are met within the regular education environment, all talents, gifts, and strengths found within the student(s) abilities must be recognized, encouraged, and utilized to the fullest extent possible (Carter, Ditchman & Sun, 2010).
Recommendations for consideration of policy improvement would include the enhancement of accountability measures and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders in the development and provision of services. IDEA includes strict accountability measures that states must adhere to remain eligible to receive funding their services, including the collection of data and performance measures on the outcomes of their funded services. One way to improve the accountability measures would be including language calling for the creation of state level interagency databases, which would allow more accurate data sharing among the multiple service providers. This could take the form of state interagency electronic data sharing, so that records would be able to seamlessly to follow youth from one location or service system to another (Van Wingerden et al., 2002).
IDEA is explicit in its expectation that states will involve key stakeholders in their state planning process for the services mandated by the law (Wright & Wright, 2006). There are also other opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of services for youth. For example, IDEA funds discretionary grants and personnel improvement grants for states beyond the mandated formula grants (Wright & Wright, 2006). IDEA does not specifically mandate that these stakeholder groups include people from special education or child welfare, respectively. Federal policy could address this issue by mandating the involvement of key stakeholders in the development of policy improvements, if they were in the area of personnel training (e.g., Title IV-E Child Welfare funding) or state service improvement.
Conclusion
It is clear that, despite a substantial federal commitment to transition, outcomes for youth transitioning from special education are quite poor. Transition is a complex process, involving many systems and levels of agency, which can make it difficult to point to a single intervention, or even level of intervention that will bring about the changes that are necessary.
The federal policies that mandate transition services to youth with disabilities could be amended to more completely address the needs of youth. Recommendations in changes to the accountability measures, and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders and service providers in the development and provision of services are two areas that positive changes will enhance the effectiveness of the policy.
References
Carter, E.K., Ditchman, N., and Sun, Y., (2010). Summer employment and community
experiences of transition age youth with severe disabilities. Report Exceptional
Children, Winter Issue
Courtney, M., & Dworsky, A. (2005). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of
former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for
Children.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hill, K. (2009) Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999: what are the policy implications for youth with
disabilities transitioning from foster care? CHILD WELFARE, 88(2): 5-
23 (23 ref)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C § 1400, et. seq.(2004).
Johnson, D., Stodden, R., Emmanuel, E., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current
challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells
us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519–531.
Van Wingerden, C., Emerson, J., & Ichikawa D. (2002). Education issue brief:
Improving special education for children with disabilities in foster care. Casey
Family Programs: Seattle.
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004. Harbor House Law
Press:Hartfield, VA.
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) into law. This law reauthorized and amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On August 3, 2006, the United States Department of Education issued the regulations implementing the IDEIA 2004. These changes, added to the mandates of the IDEA, require that special education teachers and administrators know and understand their duties and obligations under the law. This paper will provide readers with an overview of the requirements of IDEA and recommendations for policy improvements to be presented to our State Senator following the agreement and endorsement of colleges.
In assessing this policy we consider the policy life cycle provided by Fowler, (2009) that includes planning, implementation process, and evaluation process. During the evaluation process, goals are determined; indicators and data collection instruments are selected; data is collected, analyzed, and summarized. The evaluation process culminates in a written evaluation report (Fowler, 2009).
Existing Policy
IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA, the federal law that mandates special education services for children with disabilities, from birth to age 21. IDEA provides specific direction to state education agencies and other public agencies in the provision of these services. Part C of IDEA addresses early intervention services for children under the age of 3. Part B of IDEA governs special education services for children ages three – twenty one, providing them with their right to a free public education. IDEA addresses a broad array of services, ranging from teacher qualification to state to federal data reporting. IDEA requires that children receiving special education services through public schools have an IEP, which is a detailed plan for the child’s yearly educational goals completed by his or her teacher, family, and other concerned individuals, such as social workers or vocational counselors. Once a child reaches the age of 16, IDEA mandates that transition be part of the IEP plan (Hill, 2009).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 continues the federal commitment to support for youth with disabilities through special education services. The rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and students, can be identified in the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). One of the main purposes of the Act is to guarantee that a free and appropriate education is available for all Learning Disabled students.
With the implementation of the policy of inclusion for learning disabled students in accordance with IDEA, a community of inclusion concept must be considered. For this concept of "community" to be successful ensuring that the needs of the Learning Disabled students are met within the regular education environment, all talents, gifts, and strengths found within the student(s) abilities must be recognized, encouraged, and utilized to the fullest extent possible (Carter, Ditchman & Sun, 2010).
Recommendations for consideration of policy improvement would include the enhancement of accountability measures and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders in the development and provision of services. IDEA includes strict accountability measures that states must adhere to remain eligible to receive funding their services, including the collection of data and performance measures on the outcomes of their funded services. One way to improve the accountability measures would be including language calling for the creation of state level interagency databases, which would allow more accurate data sharing among the multiple service providers. This could take the form of state interagency electronic data sharing, so that records would be able to seamlessly to follow youth from one location or service system to another (Van Wingerden et al., 2002).
IDEA is explicit in its expectation that states will involve key stakeholders in their state planning process for the services mandated by the law (Wright & Wright, 2006). There are also other opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of services for youth. For example, IDEA funds discretionary grants and personnel improvement grants for states beyond the mandated formula grants (Wright & Wright, 2006). IDEA does not specifically mandate that these stakeholder groups include people from special education or child welfare, respectively. Federal policy could address this issue by mandating the involvement of key stakeholders in the development of policy improvements, if they were in the area of personnel training (e.g., Title IV-E Child Welfare funding) or state service improvement.
Conclusion
It is clear that, despite a substantial federal commitment to transition, outcomes for youth transitioning from special education are quite poor. Transition is a complex process, involving many systems and levels of agency, which can make it difficult to point to a single intervention, or even level of intervention that will bring about the changes that are necessary.
The federal policies that mandate transition services to youth with disabilities could be amended to more completely address the needs of youth. Recommendations in changes to the accountability measures, and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders and service providers in the development and provision of services are two areas that positive changes will enhance the effectiveness of the policy.
References
Carter, E.K., Ditchman, N., and Sun, Y., (2010). Summer employment and community
experiences of transition age youth with severe disabilities. Report Exceptional
Children, Winter Issue
Courtney, M., & Dworsky, A. (2005). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of
former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for
Children.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hill, K. (2009) Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999: what are the policy implications for youth with
disabilities transitioning from foster care? CHILD WELFARE, 88(2): 5-
23 (23 ref)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C § 1400, et. seq.(2004).
Johnson, D., Stodden, R., Emmanuel, E., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current
challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells
us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519–531.
Van Wingerden, C., Emerson, J., & Ichikawa D. (2002). Education issue brief:
Improving special education for children with disabilities in foster care. Casey
Family Programs: Seattle.
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004. Harbor House Law
Press:Hartfield, VA.
No comments:
Post a Comment