Talk:Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] The items in the following list are proposed:

To-do list for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • Add points of view reflecting criticism of the Act to comply with WP:NPOV.
    • Flesh out Criticisms section.
    • Add citations for Criticisms section.
    • Review structure and flow of sections and subsections of entire article. Could definitely be improved.
    • Distinguish between the Act and the regulations adopted thereunder and state statutes and regulations adopted for the purposes of obtaining funding
    • Add references to coverage of the debates in those states that have considered rejecting IDEA funding
    • Cover the attempt by DOE to force legislatures to amend state statutes because a state executive accepted federal IDEA funding.
    • Correct the statement at the beginning of the article that states, "The IDEA is considered to be a civil rights law. However, states are not required to participate. As an incentive and to assist states in complying with its requirements, IDEA makes funds available to states that adopt at least the minimum policies and procedures specified in the IDEA regarding the education of children with disabilities." The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), while a civil rights law, requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs. The state is provided an incentive per federal funding; however, the federal courts will still enforce this law as they will any other federal civil rights law.

    There should be more info on the affects it has on several states

    [edit] Stub section for Procedural Safeguards added

    My thinking is to add subsections for each element of the procedural safeguards. At some point, it may be appropriate to provide a summary on this page and break out the details in its own article (see Wikipedia:Summary style for more information about this information structure). Best, Rosmoran 13:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Criticisms section

    I added this section in response to a (well-deserved) NPOV message someone posted. There are probably more topics that could be added to give the article a more balanced approach, but this is the only one I can think of at the moment.

    One thing I need some feedback on before going further with the section: A lot of the criticism of IDEA isn't necessarily criticism of the statute itself, but rather with the implementation of the statute.

    Should the section be restricted to criticism of the law and regulations only? I can't decide.

    Best, Rosmoran 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Clarification request on NetBuoy's edits of lead section

    Hi, Netbuoy.

    I'm delighted to have found another Wikipedian interested in contributing to the topic. My text can always be improved, and I appreciate having someone to collaborate with.

    I'm wasn't aware of some of the issues you are raising. So I can educate myself, could you point me to one or more websites where I can get more information about these topics? I'm familiar with the .gov sites and a number of parent advocacy sites, but it seems like you have a handle on this from a completely different angle.

    Best, Rosmoran 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] My revised text for lead, written before NetBuoy's edits

    Hi,

    I'd like to hang on to my tentative text edits of the lead section, so I'm placing them here.

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal statute that guarantees a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, to all children with disabilities. Originally passed in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), the IDEA provides funds to assist states in complying with its requirements. FAPE is a protected right in all 50 states and U.S. territories for children age birth through 21 (up to age 22. The due process procedures built into IDEA help to protect the rights of students with disabilities and their parents.

    [edit] Article Issues

    I appreciate the work that has gone into this article, but as someone who has practiced law in this area for quite some time I am concerned that portions of the article are beginning to look like DOE propaganda while other portions are technically inaccurate.

    The reasons I offered my changes with respect to the lead paragraph have largely to do with the fact that so many people are so terribly confused about the IDEA and other federal education Acts. Education in this country is a matter reserved to the states. The federal government has attempted to make policy in this arena by offering states revenue streams in exchange for state adoption of policy consistent with federal standards. Unfortunately, and in many ways aided and abetted by DOE, the critical distinctions have been lost on the public and many state bureaucracies.

    The IDEA does not effect states except as states adopt state law or regulation for the purpose of accessing the funds made available for meeting federal policy requirements. Specifically, the IDEA DOES NOT govern "how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities." While the following paragraph notes that states do not have to participate, the lead paragraph is still, on its own, inaccurate. Any state can provide early intervention, special education, related services or anything else the state wishes to provide without regard to the IDEA, and in many cases such states would be better off for that effort, as opposed to trying to play games with USDOE as far as arcane technicalities.

    At one time adopting policy that met or exceeded federal policy guidelines seemed easy enough to do (though actual compliance is simply a joke), but now that DOE has acted to chill parent rights under the IDEA and otherwise retreat in certain areas it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine what is a service floor as opposed to a service ceiling. In many respect IDEA has to be viewed as no longer being an Act for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, as many provisions are now intended to in fact reduce the rights of disabled individuals either from the law as previously stated or as compared to existing state law (which arguably could afford the individual greater rights than contained in the statement of federal policy.)

    I would be happy to continue to add and/or amend the article, but the process becomes problematic as recent argument of a student's contribution to his schools wikipedia page evidenced. I strongly believe in differentiating between opinion and statement of fact supported by citation and will be happy to add cites as time allows, but it is difficult to add cites to text when the text is being deleted ;=} The other caveat is that citation to USDOE material continues to be problematic in that USDOE publications, including "studies", are so terribly flawed. Having been involved in monitoring processes and having obtained Secretarial Review while that process was still available I have to note that USDOE and states are heavily invested in in making it look like the IDEA has been a great success. It is therefore difficult to obtain any impartial research (although a number of education texts have now published such conclusions and I will try to pull some of them as time allows in the next few days.)


    Net-buoy 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

    Net-buoy,
    I haven't looked at this article in a few months, or I would have responded to you sooner.
    I hope you will continue to collaborate on this article. I think you're right in many respects, though there may be other aspects of the statute and related case law to be considered. (I don't think I've deleted any of your text, but I could be mistaken.)
    Part of the skew may be my attempt to be objective --- as the parent of 2 children supposedly being served under IDEA, I don't look at IDEA, the DOE, OSEP, or any state or local education agency through rose colored glasses. The laws and their implementation (or the lack thereof) have not served my children well, so I've worked hard to approach the subject objectively. I may have leaned too far in the opposite direction.
    It would be great to have an attorney who practices law in this area to participate. Please come back!
    Best, Rosmoran (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Revert of added citation

    Hi,

    I removed citation newly added to the following sentence in the Background section:

    Many states had laws that explicitly excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school, including children who were blind, deaf, and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded."

    I removed it for a couple of reasons: the cited source was not where I got the information (I'm the one who added it to the article); the added citation was from a British journal and the information in the article is specific to the U.S.; the British article cited was published in 1969, and the EHA statute (which this statement refers back to) was passed in 1975.

    I added a second reference to the actual source of the material, currently listed as footnote [4]. You will notice that this source is the same as the source cited in footnote [5]. I was taught that, when citing a single source for multiple contiguous sentences or paragraphs, you provide the citation after the last statement obtained from that source. However, this sentence has been tagged at least a couple of times as needing a citation despite my explanation that there is only one citation required because the sentences come from the same source. Hopefully having both sentences explicitly cited will make the source of the material sufficiently clear.

    I hope this explanation is coherent. If not, point out where the confusion is and I'll try again.

    In the interest of completeness, the source for both of the sentences is as follows:

    Back to School on Civil Rights: Advancing the Federal Commitment to Leave No Child Behind," a report published by the National Council on Disability on January 25, 2000.

    Best, Rosmoran 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)