DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of IDEA Reauthorization, December 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of IDEA Reauthorization, December 2004 Summary of IDEA Reauthorization, December 2004 Background on IDEA and how it helps children with epilepsy IDEA is the federal law that promises a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to more than over 6.7 million children with special needs. IDEA supports early intervention and preschool services to young children with disabilities, as well as special services such as occupational or speech therapy, and assistive technology. It also supports essential research and professional development programs. To qualify for protection under IDEA, a child must have a disability that adversely affects his or her ability to learn. Disabilities may include health impairments such as epilepsy, as well as traumatic brain injuries, learning disabilities, mental retardation and autism. For a child with epilepsy, commonly requested services include: health services (such as administration of medication in the event of a status seizure), specialized recreation services (for a child with uncontrolled seizures), counseling (to compensate for the social adjustment aspects of epilepsy) and other non-instructional services. Specialized instruction may also be necessary to compensate for accompanying learning disabilities or other cognitive impairments resulting from frequent losses of consciousness or other impairment of attention or learning ability. The New IDEA IDEA was last authorized in 1997, and it was up for reauthorization this year. The House of Representatives passed its bill in April of 2003, while the Senate passed its version in May of 2004. In early fall, both sides appointed its conferees to the conference committee and began negotiations in October 2004 on a compromise bill. On November, 19, 2004, after nearly two years of debate, Congress passed H.R. 1350, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. The House passed IDEA 397 to 3, and the Senate approved it by voice vote. President Bush signed IDEA into law on December 3, 2004. Most provisions will go into effect in July 2005. The bill encourages mediation in disputes between parents and schools, and it allows states and districts to recover attorneys’ fees if a parent’s complaint is deemed frivolous. The new law will also require schools to assess if a student’s negative behaviors are the direct result of their disability before having the authority to expel or discipline the child. In addition, IDEA brings the requirements of No Child Left Behind Act by establishing greater qualifications and subsequent training for special educators. Funding: Congress will cover as much as 40% of the additional cost of educating children with special needs. It now pays less than 19%, and states and school districts must make up the difference with their own funds. The FY 05 appropriations bill includes a $607 million increase for Part B (which is $415 million below the President’s request.) All of other IDEA programs were level funded with the exception of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination program under Part D which received a $1 million dollar decrease. The Part D research and innovation program received a $5.6 million increase, and is now housed within the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (Although IDEA is still not fully-funded, this is a step in the right direction.) Breakdown of Key Sections of Bill Discipline (Sec. 615) Child’s negative behavior must be determined to have been ‘caused by’; or “had a direct and substantial relationship” to the child’s disability; or was a “direct result” of the school’s failure to implement the IEP.” If “serious bodily injury” has occurred, and it cannot be proven to be a result of the above reasons the school will now have the right to remove a student to an alternative educational setting. (This provision is not as protective as current law, but this language is better than language the proposed House bill originally contained. Schools will have to consider a child’s disability before disciplinary action is taken.) Functional Behavioral Assessment (Sec 615) All students who are removed from the school setting for behavior will receive, as appropriate, a functional behavioral assessment, behavioral intervention services and modifications that are designed to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur. Attorney’s Fees (Sec. 615) It will now be possible for a school district to collect attorney fees (if the school is the prevailing party) from the parent if the court believes that the “parent’s complaint or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” (This is another area of the new IDEA that the wording is up to interpretation.) Mediation (Sec. 615) Mediation may be used at any time for any matter, even when a due process complaint has not been filed first. Mediation agreements are legally binding and enforceable in state or federal court. (This provision is positive, because current law requires a complaint to be filed first, and now mediation may be used without this step having occurred.) Paperwork Reduction (Sec. 609) 15 states will be a part of a pilot program that will reduce IEP paperwork to allow for teachers to have more instructional time. (This provision may be a good one, if school’s can find positive ways to cut paperwork, ie: creating an electronic version of the student’s IEP that can be updated, instead of 50 pages of handwritten documents.) Three-year IEP (Sec. 614) The 3 year IEP is also pilot program of 15 states. At the individual student level, consent of the parent is required before the school may skip the annual IEP. (This provision is of concern because some parents may not be properly notified, or language barriers might be an obstacle in understanding that they can still request an annual IEP vs. the 3-year IEP for their child.) Links: www.thomas.loc.gov/ (To look up H.R. 1350) www.cec.sped.org (Council for Exceptional Children website, contains section by section breakdown of bill) www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041203-6.html ( President Bush’s statement on IDEA) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2017 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Annual Report Table of Contents the Michael J
    Roadmaps for Progress 2017 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Annual Report Table of Contents The Michael J. Fox Foundation is dedicated to finding a cure for 2 A Note from Michael Parkinson’s disease through an 4 Annual Letter from the CEO and the Co-Founder aggressively funded research agenda 6 Roadmaps for Progress and to ensuring the development of 8 2017 in Photos improved therapies for those living 10 2017 Donor Listing 16 Legacy Circle with Parkinson’s today. 18 Industry Partners 26 Corporate Gifts 32 Tributees 36 Recurring Gifts 39 Team Fox 40 Team Fox Lifetime MVPs 46 The MJFF Signature Series 47 Team Fox in Photos 48 Financial Highlights 54 Credits 55 Boards and Councils Milestone Markers Throughout the book, look for stories of some of the dedicated Michael J. Fox Foundation community members whose generosity and collaboration are moving us forward. 1 The Michael J. Fox Foundation 2017 Annual Report “What matters most isn’t getting diagnosed with Parkinson’s, it’s A Note from what you do next. Michael J. Fox The choices we make after we’re diagnosed Dear Friend, can open doors to One of the great gifts of my life is that I've been in a position to take my experience with Parkinson's and combine it with the perspectives and expertise of others to accelerate possibilities you’d improved treatments and a cure. never imagine.’’ In 2017, thanks to your generosity and fierce belief in our shared mission, we moved closer to this goal than ever before. For helping us put breakthroughs within reach — thank you.
    [Show full text]
  • Mustang Daily, May 26, 1995
    CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY SAN LUIS OBISPO M u s t a n g D a i i y MAY 26, 1995 VOLUME UX, No. 131 FRIDAY Drummer boy ASI members who ditch meetings 'V f' " ' Í’* »' ■ may lose perks ■iè 4' ■ rf' ^ * By Jason D. Plenions In the past, members were Daily Staff Wiitei still required by ASI bylaws to attend the official meetings, but ASI will make it tougher for there was no requirement to at­ its board members to use their tend the workshops. perks next year. 1 màt In the ASI Board of Director’s meeting on Wednesday — the last of the year — the board "This is a good bill. ASI ■■■ ■ : ■<■.< '■■■ ■■ - passed a bill requiring its mem­ bers to be in “good standing” to needs its members to be .J."-:- receive free admission to some present to function well, ASI-sponsored events, including •t* ' ’ i i ’ 1, ' mm and this bill should encour­ - - v'V the Cal Poly Rodeo. u According to the bill, its pur­ age th a t/ pose is to increase attendance by board members to various workshops and general meetings. Steve McShane Workshops are desigpied to provide an arena of discussion College of Agriculture rep. for board members to educate themselves on proposed legisla­ tion, and are considered volun­ “This is a good bill,” said tary. Steve McShane, a College of # The “good standing” require­ Agriculture representative. “ASI ment will be met by a member needs its members to be present whose attendance record shows to function well, and this bill they have attended at least 60 should encourage that.” percent of all meetings, accord­ Some, however, feel the bill ing to the bill.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Panel Systems Catalog
    Table of Contents Page Title Page Number Terms and Conditions 3 - 4 Specifications 5 2.0 and SB3 Panel System Options 16 - 17 Wood Finish Options 18 Standard Textile Options 19 2.0 Paneling System Fabric Panel with Wooden Top Cap 6 - 7 Fabric Posts and Wooden End Caps 8 - 9 SB3 Paneling System Fabric Panel with Wooden Top Cap 10 - 11 Fabric Posts with Wooden Top Cap 12 - 13 Wooden Posts 14 - 15 revision 1.0 - 12/2/2020 Terms and Conditions 1. Terms of Payment ∙Qualified Customers will have Net 30 days from date of order completion, and a 1% discount if paid within 10 days of the invoice date. ∙Customers lacking credentials may be required down payment or deposit in full prior to production. ∙Finance charges of 2% will be applied to each invoice past 30 days. ∙Terms of payment will apply unless modified in writing by Custom Office Design, Inc. 2. Pricing ∙All pricing is premised on product that is made available for will call to the buyer pre-assembled and unpackaged from our base of operations in Auburn, WA. ∙Prices subject to change without notice. Price lists noting latest date supersedes all previously published price lists. Pricing does not include A. Delivery, Installation, or Freight-handling charges. B. Product Packaging, or Crating charges. C. Custom Product Detail upcharge. D. Special-Order/Non-standard Laminate, Fabric, Staining and/or Labor upcharge. E. On-site service charges. F. Federal, state or local taxes. 3. Ordering A. All orders must be made in writing and accompanied with a corresponding purchase order.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
    Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 9 February 2016 HC 795 © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us via isc.independent.gov.uk/contact Print ISBN 9781474127714 Web ISBN 9781474127721 ID 26011601 02/16 53894 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP (Chair) The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP The Rt. Hon. Fiona Mactaggart MP The Rt. Hon. George Howarth MP The Rt. Hon. Angus Robertson MP The Rt. Hon. the Lord Janvrin GCB GCVO QSO The Rt.
    [Show full text]
  • 5115-S.E Hbr Aph 21
    HOUSE BILL REPORT ESSB 5115 As Passed House - Amended: April 5, 2021 Title: An act relating to establishing health emergency labor standards. Brief Description: Establishing health emergency labor standards. Sponsors: Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce & Tribal Affairs (originally sponsored by Senators Keiser, Liias, Conway, Kuderer, Lovelett, Nguyen, Salomon, Stanford and Wilson, C.). Brief History: Committee Activity: Labor & Workplace Standards: 3/12/21, 3/24/21 [DPA]. Floor Activity: Passed House: 4/5/21, 68-30. Brief Summary of Engrossed Substitute Bill (As Amended By House) • Creates an occupational disease presumption, for the purposes of workers' compensation, for frontline employees during a public health emergency. • Requires certain employers to notify the Department of Labor and Industries when 10 or more employees have tested positive for the infectious disease during a public health emergency. • Requires employers to provide written notice to employees of potential exposure to the infectious disease during a public health emergency. • Prohibits discrimination against high-risk employees who seek accommodations or use leave options. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR & WORKPLACE STANDARDS This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. House Bill Report - 1 - ESSB 5115 Majority Report: Do pass as amended. Signed by 6 members: Representatives Sells, Chair; Berry, Vice Chair; Hoff, Ranking Minority Member; Bronoske, Harris and Ortiz- Self. Minority Report: Without recommendation. Signed by 1 member: Representative Mosbrucker, Assistant Ranking Minority Member. Staff: Trudes Tango (786-7384). Background: Workers' Compensation. Workers who are injured in the course of employment or who are affected by an occupational disease are entitled to workers' compensation benefits, which may include medical, temporary time-loss, and other benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Birth of the Bill of Rights by Robert Allen Rutland
    19561 BOOK REVIEWS The Birth of the Bill of Rights. By Robert Allen Rutland. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955. Pp. 243. $5.00. The federal Bill of Rights is one of the most cherished documents in our national hagiography. Its clauses have been invoked by contending parties in every crisis of our history. Every sort of minority interest has sought se- curity in its generous phrases. Its meaning has long been the subject of in- tense controversy among lawyers and judges. The judicial gloss upon its words and phrases has attained enormous proportions. Yet in spite of all this, surprisingly little scholarly work has been done on the history of the Bill of Rights.1 The interest of American historians in constitutional history, once so pronounced, seems to have spent itself. Such newer pastures as those of in- tellectual and business history appear to be greener. It is a long time since our historians have produced a significant new work in the field of constitu- tional history. Political scientists and legal scholars are gradually moving in to fill the vacuum.2 We have had, of course, a number of historical studies of particular aspects of civil liberties,3 but we have never had a thorough, criti- cal, substantial, scholarly study of the origins of the American Bill of Rights. In fact, Rutland's treatise, The Birth of the Bill of Rights, is, to my knowl- edge, the first book-length study by a historical scholar ever written on the subject. While Rutland should be given credit for making the attempt, his book does not by any means fill this gap in historical scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • August 2013 Issue
    Journal of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions The Sphere August, 2013 August 2013 LAFCo Report Card – Are We Meeting the Legislative Intent? BY BEVERLY BURR, BURR CONSULTING (LOU ANN TEXEIRA, CONTRA COSTA LAFCO, CONTRIBUTOR) ANNUAL The 2001 CKH Act brought a new Looking strictly by the numbers, CONFERENCE requirement to LAFCos of LAFCos have certainly succeeded EDITION conducting municipal service reviews on the knowledge front. A review (MSRs). Twelve years have passed of the LAFCo websites shows that 2013 Report to the as LAFCos have busily worked on half of the LAFCos have completed Membership MSRs. Excellent timing for asking at least one cycle of MSRs and SOI the big questions: how well have we updates for all cities and special Thoughts on LAFCo LAFCos done in meeting the districts under their jurisdiction. Golden Anniversary from legislative intent behind the MSR Another 19 percent of LAFCos the Founding Fathers of requirement? What barriers and have nearly completed their first LAFCo constraints are we facing in the cycle, typically with a few MSRs or implementation? SOI updates yet to complete. A quarter of the LAFCos are partly The Future of The Commission on Local done with their first cycle; mostly Annexations and Governance for the 21st Century and LAFCos with relatively small the Little Hoover Commission laid Incorporations budgets, these have prioritized the groundwork for the MSR review of cities and districts requirement in the late 1990s. Three Message from the Chair: providing “backbone” services like over-arching objectives they CALAFCO fire protection and water. The envisioned were: remains strong status at the remainder could not be Knowledge – enhancing LAFCo readily discerned from their Remembering a Friend: legitimacy, power and wisdom by respective websites.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inefficiency of Splitting the Bill*
    The Economic Journal, 114 (April), 265–280. Ó Royal Economic Society 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. THE INEFFICIENCY OF SPLITTING THE BILL* Uri Gneezy, Ernan Haruvy and Hadas Yafe When agents are ascribed selfish motives, economic theory points to grave inefficiencies resulting from externalities. We study a restaurant setting in which groups of diners are faced with different ways of paying the bill. The two main manipulations are splitting the bill between the diners and having each pay individually. We find that subjects consume more when the cost is split, resulting in a substantial loss of efficiency. Diners prefer the individual pay to the inefficient split-bill method. When forced to play according to a less preferred set of rules, they minimise their individual losses by taking advantage of others. Economic theory is unambiguous in its prediction that if externalities exist, out- comes are likely to be inefficient when agents selfishly maximise. The literature on externalities, as well as its derivatives in public goods, tragedy of the commons and moral hazard studies, has shown that externalities lead to inefficient levels of production and consumption. This result depends crucially on the general assumption taken by such studies that human agents maximise selfish payoffs without regard for others. With the emergence of behavioural economics, economists have come to question whether people actually ignore costs imposed on others when reaching economic decisions. If altruism is common, the various proposals in the literature to solve externality problems may be unnecessary or even harmful.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of the New York Civil Liberties Union Before the NEW
    One Whitehall Street New York, NY 10004 212-607-3300 www.nyclu.org Testimony of the New York Civil Liberties Union before THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL regarding Interactions between Police Officers and Civilians during Recent Protests Wednesday, June 17, 2020 The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) respectfully submits the following testimony regarding interactions between police officers and civilians during the recent protests across our state. The NYCLU, the New York State affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan organization with eight offices throughout the state and over 180,000 members and supporters. The NYCLU defends and promotes the fundamental principles and values embodied in the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, and the New York Constitution, including the right of every New Yorker to enjoy life, liberty, and equal protection under law. The law enforcement response to protesters outraged by the killing of George Floyd and demanding justice for Black lives made one thing abundantly clear: governments throughout New York rely on heavily militarized law enforcement agencies to manage and respond to protest. And in turn, the appearance and behavior of these armed officers – predictably and by design – has spread not “public safety,” but terror, escalation, and violence. This is a systemic failure of our democracy – and underscores the very reasons why New Yorkers do, and must, remain in the streets demanding justice. The violence that New Yorkers have witnessed in recent weeks was overwhelmingly carried out by police officers and directed against the public. From the many documented incidents of excessive force, to the arrests of journalists, interrogations of protesters’ political beliefs, and the contempt with which officers attempted to evade accountability by concealing their identifying information, the actions of police departments across New York the demonstrate the need for independent oversight and investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Women's Wrongs and the Bill of 'Rights': a Bicentennial Perspective
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1992 The Politics of Women's Wrongs and the Bill of 'Rights': A Bicentennial Perspective Mary E. Becker Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary E. Becker, "The Politics of Women's Wrongs and the Bill of 'Rights': A Bicentennial Perspective," 59 University of Chicago Law Review 453 (1992). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Politics of Women's Wrongs and the Bill of "Rights": A Bicentennial Perspective Mary E. Beckert The language of the Bill of Rights is almost entirely gender neutral and its provisions have always applied to some women.' But free white men of property designed the Bill of Rights in a political process from which they excluded most Americans and all women. Not surprisingly, the Bill of Rights served and serves the interests of such men better than the interests of others. Legal constitutional literature, whether from the right or the left, tends to be celebratory rather than critical. But in looking back on the Bill of Rights during this bicentennial year, women and many men outside the propertied white male class should be ambivalent. In this Article, I assess the Bill of Rights from the per- t Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Division of the Budget April 13, 2021 the Honorable Rick Billinger, Chairperson Senate Committee on Ways and Means Statehouse, R
    Division of the Budget Landon State Office Building Phone: (785) 296-2436 900 SW Jackson Street, Room 504 [email protected] Topeka, KS 66612 Division of the Budget http://budget.kansas.gov Adam Proffitt, Director Laura Kelly, Governor April 13, 2021 The Honorable Rick Billinger, Chairperson Senate Committee on Ways and Means Statehouse, Room 545-S Topeka, Kansas 66612 Dear Senator Billinger: SUBJECT: Fiscal Note for SB 289 by Senate Committee on Ways and Means In accordance with KSA 75-3715a, the following fiscal note concerning SB 289 is respectfully submitted to your committee. SB 289 would enact the Frontline Service Pay Act. The bill would establish the COVID- 19 Frontline Service Fund within the Department of Commerce. The bill specifies that during FY 2021 and FY 2022, the Director of the Budget would determine the amount of monies received by the state from the Federal Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, public law 116-260, and any other federal law that appropriates funding to Kansas for coronavirus relief aid that are identified as funds that may be expended at the discretion of the state. The Director of the Budget would certify the amount to the Director of Accounts and Reports. If the amount certified is greater than $50.0 million, the Director of Accounts and Reports would transfer $50.0 million of that amount from the identified federal funds to the COVID-19 Frontline Service Fund. The transferred funds would be distributed to eligible employers as determined by the Department of Commerce. Upon receipt of the certification, the Governor may determine an additional amount of monies greater than $50.0 million received by the state from the Federal Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, public law 116-260, and any other federal law that appropriates funding to Kansas for coronavirus relief aid that are identified as funds that may be expended at the discretion of the state to be transferred to the COVID-19 Frontline Service Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislative Process in Texas the Legislative Process in Texas
    The Legislative Process in Texas The Legislative Process in Texas Published by the Texas Legislative Council February 2021 Texas Legislative Council Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Joint Chair Speaker Dade Phelan, Joint Chair Jeff Archer, Executive Director The mission of the Texas Legislative Council is to provide professional, nonpartisan service and support to the Texas Legislature and legislative agencies. In every area of responsibility, we strive for quality and efficiency. During previous legislative sessions, the information in this publication was published as part of the Guide to Texas Legislative Information. Copies of this publication have been distributed in compliance with the state depository law (Subchapter G, Chapter 441, Government Code) and are available for public use through the Texas State Publications Depository Program at the Texas State Library and other state depository libraries. This publication can be found at https://www.tlc.texas.gov/publications. Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from the council: By mail: P.O. Box 12128, Austin, TX 78711-2128 By phone: (512) 463-1144 By e-mail: [email protected] By online request form (legislative offices only): https://bilreq/House.aspx If you have questions or comments regarding this publication, please contact Kellie Smith by phone at (512) 463-1155 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Table of Contents HOW A BILL ORIGINATES. .1 INTRODUCING A BILL . 1 THE ROLE OF COMMITTEES. .2 REFERRAL TO A COMMITTEE. 2 COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS . .3 HOUSE CALENDARS AND LIST OF ITEMS ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION. 4 SENATE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS AND INTENT CALENDAR.
    [Show full text]