C H A N G I N G T H E L A N G U AG E O F T H E I D E A

OUR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES: PROVIDING WHAT IS BEST FOR

THEM

HISTORY

• Before 1975, most children with disabilities did not have the right to a free public education (FAPE). However, this changed when the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was implemented in 1975. The goal of this act was to provide,

• “a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities.”

HISTORY

• This act was renamed in 1991 and became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. • At this time, legislators also amended the act with

the purpose of including children beginning at age 3. However, the overall ideals of this act did not change with its new name and amendments.

THE ROWLEY STANDARD

• In 1982, Board of Education v. Rowley went before the United States Supreme Court as one of the first cases brought under the IDEA. The Rowley Standard arose from this case and was provided by Justice Rehnquist when he stated that,

• “if personalized instruction is being provided with sufficient supportive services to permit the child to benefit from the instruction, and the other items on the definitional checklist are satisfied, the child is receiving a “free appropriate public education” as defined by the Act.”

• This standard continues to apply to children with disabilities in public schools, today.

FAPE

• "IDEA does not require your school district to provide the very best education for your child, the school district needs to only provide an appropriate education."• “Unfortunately, the concept of FAPE is vague and

often results in IEP conflicts. As a parent, keep in mind that what is appropriate for one child may not be deemed appropriate for another. The IEP team is responsible for determining what is appropriate on a case by case basis.”

OUR CHILDREN DESERVE BETTER

• http://www.11alive.com/news/article/235549/3/Disabled-student-sidelined-during-choir-performance

THE VEHICLE

• H.R. 4136: IDEA Full Funding Act• Mr. Van Hollen (for himself, Mr. McKinley, Mr.

Walz, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Huffman, and Mr. Reichert) introduced the following bill• Referred to the Committee on Education and

the Workforce

MY PROPOSAL

• (2) Amount• With respect to each subparagraph of paragraph (1), the

amount determined under this paragraph is the product of—• (A) the total number of children with disabilities in all States

who—• (i) received special education and related services during the

last school year that concluded before the first day of the fiscal year for which the determination is made; and

• (ii) were aged—• (I) 3 through 5 (with respect to the States that were eligible

for grants under section 619); and• (II) 6 through 21; and• (B) the average per-pupil expenditure in public elementary

schools and secondary schools in the United States.

MY PROPOSAL

• “(C) These funds should be appropriated to provide the services necessary to deliver the BEST education for children with disabilities.

MY PROPOSAL

• If the language the were included in this bill, the next step would be to propose the change in the actual language of the IDEA.

POLICY PARAMOUR

• SPONSOR: Chris Van Hollen Jr. • Representative for Maryland's 8th congressional

district• PARTY: Democrat• Mr. Van Hollen believes in the need for fundingfor special education and has been fighting foradditional funding for many years.

POLICY PARAMOUR

• U.S. Congressman John Kline,• Minnesota’s 2nd District • Chairman of the House Education Committee“Education advocates,Congress, and the Obama administration needto put special education funding first, Mr. Kline said inan interview following a roundtable in his district on The issue.”

OTHER POLICY PARAMOURS

• Mr. McKinley (R-WV), • Mr. Walz (D-MN), • Mr. Gibson (R-NY), • Mr. Huffman (D-CA) • Mr. Reichert (R-WA) • Co-sponsors who introduced the IDEA Full Funding

Act (H.R. 4136), CEC-endorsed legislation.

STAKEHOLDERS

Governmental• The Obama administration• U.S. Department of Education-Arne Duncan: Secretary of

Education• OSEP (Office of Special Education Programs)• OCR (Office of Civil Rights)

• Public Schools

Non-Governmental• CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES • Parents of Children with Disabilities• Superintendents, Principals• Teachers• Center for Exceptional Children• National Public Education Support Fund

MARKETING & MESSAGING

Only the BEST for our children with disabilities!

MARKETING AND MESSAGING

• Personal Stories from parents with children with disabilities in public schools

• Stories from teachers who understand how important the best education is for children with disabilities (special education teachers)

REFERENCES

• http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/04/02/27speced.h33.html• https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/

hr4136/text• http://idea.ed.gov/• http://www.cec.sped.org/• http://www.npesf.org/• http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/

index.html• http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/

index.html