Is Your Center Obligated to Follow the Requirements of IDEA 2004?

Most Job Corps Centers are not obligated by the regulations of the Individual’s with Disabilities Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004); however, some centers have entered into partnership agreements or have met specific state and/or local requirements that do require them to fulfill the requirements of IDEA 2004.

Generally speaking, if a center has a student enrolled in a

• “public” secondary school that is overseen by a Local Education Authority (LEA),
• “public” charter school
• “public” or “private” school that is a recipient of Department of Education funds

then the center is most likely required to fulfill the obligations of IDEA 2004.

If center management is unsure as to whether their center falls under the requirements of IDEA, they should contact the organization or entity that they have partnered with or who has granted them the ability to issue high school diplomas.  The partnering or oversight agency should be able to provide them with this information.  If center management remains unsure about whether their center falls under IDEA requirements or not, then they should contact their regional program manager for assistance.

History of IDEA

1975 - Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142)

Prior to 1975, children and youth with disabilities and their families had few rights with regard to their educational settings or opportunities.  In 1975, Public Law 94-142, The Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act, was enacted guaranteeing a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country.

Public Law 94-142 was a response to Congressional concern for two groups of children: the more than 1 million children with disabilities who were excluded entirely from the education system and the children with disabilities who had only limited access to the education system and were therefore denied an appropriate education. This latter group comprised more than half of all children with disabilities who were living in the United States at that time. These issues of improved access became guiding principles for further advances in educating children with disabilities over the last quarter of the 20th Century.

There were four primary purposes of the law.  These purposes articulated a compelling national mission to improve access to education for children with disabilities.

• "to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them…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…are protected"
• "to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities"
• "to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities"

In specifying that all students with disabilities have the right to a free, appropriate public education, schools were directed to develop an individualized education Plan (IEP) for each student with a disability. IEPs were required to be developed based upon a comprehensive assessment by a multidisciplinary team.  Goals and objectives were to be specified by this team as well as plans for implementing the instructional program and how and when progress toward accomplishment of the objectives would be evaluated.

1983 - Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983¹

In 1983, through the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983 (EHA) (P.L. 98-199), Congress amended, or changed, the law to expand incentives for preschool special education programs, early intervention, and transition programs. All programs under EHA became the responsibility of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), which by this time had replaced the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (BEH).

1986 - Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-457)²

In 1986, EHA was again amended through P.L. 99-457, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986. One of the important outcomes of these amendments was that the age of eligibility for special education and related services for all children with disabilities was lowered to three, a change to be implemented by school year 1991-1992. The law also established the Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Program (Part H). As specified by law, this program is directed to the needs of children, from birth to their third birthday, who need early intervention services.

1990 - Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-476)³

In 1990, Congress passed the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-476). The new amendments resulted in some significant changes. For example, the name of the law, the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Many of the discretionary programs authorized under the law were expanded.

The creation of some new discretionary programs included:

• special programs on transition
• a new program to improve services for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance
• a research and information dissemination program on attention deficit disorder

New definitions added to the law that must be included in the child’s IEP:

• transition services
• assistive technology services

New related services included under the new law:

• rehabilitation counseling
• social work services

Additionally the services and rights under this law were expanded to more fully include children with autism and traumatic brain injury.

1997 - Individual’s with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA ‘97)

The 1997 Amendments to IDEA articulated a new challenge to improve results for these children with disabilities and their families and to make schools safe and orderly environments that are conducive to learning (Senate Report, 1997).  The following changes were enacted:

IEP

• an expansion of the core IEP team must include both a special-education teacher and a general education teacher
• students with disabilities are to be included in state and district wide assessments
• states must report on the performance and progress of all students, including students with disabilities
• the IEP team must decide whether the student will take the test with or without accommodations or take an alternative assessment

Discipline

• when a student with a disability exhibits problem behavior that interferes with his or her learning or that of others, the individualized education program (IEP) team shall "consider, when appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior"

2004 - Individual’s with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA 2004 or more commonly referenced as IDEA 2004)⁴

IDEA 2004 was authorized to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living, The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law on Dec. 3, 2004. The provisions of the act became effective on July 1, 2005, with the exception of some of the elements pertaining to the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” that took effect upon the signing of the act.

IDEA 2004 Changes Specific to IEPs:

Revises language regarding members of the IEP team.  The term “IEP team” means a group of individuals composed of:

• The parents of a child with a disability;
  • Not less than one regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);
  • Not less than one special education teacher, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of such child;
  • A representative of the local education agency (LEA) who is: qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the LEA;
  • An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described above;
  • At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and
  • Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.

Identifies when IEP team meeting attendance is not necessary.

• A member of the IEP team shall not be required to attend an IEP meeting, in whole or in part, if the parent of a child with a disability and the LEA agree that the attendance of such member is not necessary because the member’s area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in the meeting.  A parent’s agreement shall be in writing.  [614(d)(1)(C)(i), (iii)]

Authorizes excusals from IEP meetings.

• A member of the IEP team may be excused from attending an IEP meeting, in whole or in part, when the meeting involves a modification to or discussion of the member’s area of the curriculum or related services if:
  • The parent and the LEA consent to the excusal; and
  • The member submits, in writing to the parent and the team, input into the development of the IEP prior to the meeting.
  • The parent’s consent shall be in writing. 

Adds new provisions for making changes to the IEP.

• In making changes to a child's IEP after the annual IEP meeting for a school year, the parent of a child with a disability and the LEA may agree not to convene an IEP meeting for the purposes of making such changes and, instead, may develop a written document to amend or modify the child's current IEP. 
• Changes to the IEP may be made either by the entire IEP team or, as provided in Section 614(d)(3)(D), by amending the IEP rather than by redrafting the entire IEP. Upon request, a parent shall be provided with a revised copy of the IEP with the amendments incorporated. 

Encourages consolidation of IEP meetings.

• To the extent possible, the LEA shall encourage the consolidation of reevaluation meetings and other IEP team meetings for the child. 

Authorizes alternative means of meeting participation.

• When conducting IEP team meetings and placement meetings pursuant to Sections 614, 615(e), and 615(f)(1)(B), and carrying out administrative matters under Section 615 (such as scheduling, exchange of witness lists and status conferences), the parent of a child with a disability and an LEA may agree to use alternative means of meeting participation, such as video conferences and conference calls. 

Changes provisions regarding present levels of educational performance, short-term objectives or benchmarks, and annual goals.

• The IEP must include:
• A statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance; including, for children who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards, a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives; and
• A statement of measurable annual goals, including both academic and functional goals.

Changes provisions regarding assessments.

• The IEP must include a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on state and district-wide assessments.  If the IEP team determines that the child shall take an alternate assessment on a particular state or district-wide assessment of student achievement, the IEP must include a statement of why the child cannot participate in the regular assessment and why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child. 
• Revises requirements for measuring progress and reporting progress to parents.
• The IEP must include a description of how the child's progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured; and when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards) will be provided.

Changes provisions regarding the statement of services.

• The IEP must include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child.

Changes the secondary transition requirements.

• Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child is 16, and updated annually thereafter, (note: eliminates age 14 requirements) the IEP must include:
  • Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and
  • The transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals.

Adds requirements for children with disabilities transferring school districts within a state and between states.

• Within-state transfers:  In the case of a child with a disability who transfers school districts within the same academic year, who enrolls in a new school, and who had an IEP that was in effect in the same state, the local education agency (LEA) shall provide such child with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), including services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents, until such time as the LEA adopts the previously held IEP or develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP that is consistent with federal and state law.
• Between-state transfers:  In the case of a child with a disability who transfers school districts within the same academic year, who enrolls in a new school, and who had an IEP that was in effect in another state, the new LEA must provide such child with FAPE, including services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents, until such time as the LEA conducts an evaluation pursuant to IDEA requirements at Section 614(a)(1), if determined to be necessary by such agency, and develops a new IEP, if appropriate, that is consistent with federal and state law. 
• Transmittal of records:  To facilitate the transition for a child described above, the new school in which the child enrolls shall take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the child’s records, including the IEP and supporting documents and any other records relating to the provision of special education or related services to the child, from the previous school in which the child was enrolled, pursuant to 34 CFR Section 99.31(a)(2); and the previous school in which the child was enrolled shall take reasonable steps to promptly respond to such request from the new school.

Adds a rule of construction

• Nothing in Section 614 shall be construed to require: 
  • that additional information be included in a child’s IEP beyond what is explicitly required in Section 614; or
  • the IEP team to include information under one component of a child’s IEP that is already contained under another component of such IEP. 
     

Footnotes:
1 NICHCY, http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/outprint/nd15txt.htm, Retrieved 9/2006.

2 NICHCY, http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/outprint/nd15txt.htm, Retrieved 9/2006.

3 NICHCY, http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/outprint/nd15txt.htm, Retrieved 9/2006.

4 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html#tools, Retrieved 9/2006.

IDEA Timeline

1975-PL 94-142
1983-PL94-142 Amendments
(PL 98-199)
1986-PL94-142 Amendments
(PL 99-457)
1990-PL94-142 Amendments
(PL 101-476)
1997-IDEA of 1997
2004-IDEA 2004