Investigating And Evaluating Current Practices

Investigating and Evaluating Current Practices of IDEA Compliance & Inclusion Assuring NCLB (No Child Left Behind) or creating MCLB (More Children Left Behind)?

Table of Contents

Bernadette Harris University of North Florida Graduate School

I.

July 2009

II.

Introduction

Brief history of IDEA and Inclusion

III. IV.

Federal statutes implicating classrooms Supreme Court cases for Noncompliance V.

Findings and Recommendations VI.

Appendix II: Literature

I.

Introduction

The school where I am currently employed is a small private Catholic school in downtown Jacksonville. Unlike most Catholic schools, our student body consists of a 100% African American student population of very low SES. The school has been in operation for 88 years, and receives 85% of its funding from charitable donations. Although our student body is 100% African American, only 4 out of 15 faculty members are of that heritage. The principal, Elise Kennedy, has been at our school for 30 years, 20 of which have been as the principal. She has completed part, but not all, of her Master’s in Educational Leadership. She attended college in Florida, and her entire career in education has predominantly been at our school. Although our school has benefited from state-provided Title I pull-out services for some of our students for more than a decade, we have just begun accepting students on McKay scholarships, with I.E.P.’s. Therefore, I decided, with the help of our school superintendent, Pat Tierney to investigate closely the legal requirements attached to educating students with special needs, as well as litigation that has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court for schools, teachers

and districts’ negligence in adhering to these requirements. On the following pages, I will attempt to convey my findings with regard to where I believe some of the “holes” exist in our current system, as well as my suggestions for filling them. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM: From my superintendent’s perspective, the problem involved in accepting students with special needs and I.E.P.’s is deciding whether or not our school has the resources to meet their needs. We do offer minimal pull-out services in small group settings for children who are struggling to stay at grade level in the classroom, but we do not staff any special education experts or full time teachers who are certified in ESE. In my opinion, the problem is larger than just knowing whether or not we can meet the students’ needs. The basic problem that I have identified in my study is multi-faceted. The predominant part of the problem is lack of education and training on the part of the schools, districts and educators. Most ESE students in classrooms in America today are not in selfcontained environments. Instead, IDEA law demands that most ESE students remain in the “least restrictive environment” or mainstream classroom, otherwise known as “inclusion”. They receive modifications and accommodations to the mainstream curriculum according to Individual Education Plans designed by a child study team. In our school, we do not staff a psychologist, which is a very integral part of a child study team involved in the evaluation of students with special needs. Therefore, students coming to us with I.E.P.’s would have to revert to their prior public school’s child study team to reevaluate and make changes to the I.E.P. annually, based on recommendations and observations from our school’s teachers and guidance counselor, and the parents. This is a minor inconvenience more than a problem. The major problem lies in the fact that none of our regular education classroom teachers have completed any coursework or specialized training in working with ESE students. Our university programs did not include

special education courses, which seem very necessary with the demands of inclusion. Teachers in regular education classrooms have not been taught how to identify special needs, make recommendations for services, or implement and follow modification and accommodation guidelines as addressed in student I.E.P.’s. In addition, most have not been informed of the legal ramifications they face if they are found to have been negligent in following these plans. PROCEDURE: 1)

To begin my study, I read several pieces of literature regarding I.D.E.A. law, including

the various liabilities schools, districts and teachers face with regard to violating or neglecting their duty under IDEA. In my observations and research, it is my contention that lack of education and training of regular classroom teachers, as well as school administrators and other members of a prospective child study team contributes to the overwhelming occurrence of IDEA noncompliance. 2)

After examining literature, my next step was to complete five case briefs regarding

litigation over noncompliance with I.D.E.A. law. The summation of the five cases is described herein under CASE LAW. 3) My third step in my study was to attend a child study meeting that involved a student’s parents who had been requesting the school district to evaluate their child for special services and implement either a 504 plan or I.E.P. for him, based on his diagnosed A.D.H.D. for approximately two years. I was able to attend the meeting at the parents’ invitation as an interested party. During the meeting, I asked the school psychologist several questions to address why the school had neglected to bring in the child study team, after having the student’s psychological evaluation from a private physician for 12 months. According to the Florida constitution, and I.D.E.A., a school has no more than 30 days to bring together the child study team to design an I.E.P. for a student once their psychological evaluation has been completed. In addition, I observed several violations of Section 504 and I.D.E.A. during the meeting. For

instance, according to the I.D.E.A. additions of 2004, teachers must attend the I.E.P/ 504 meeting, unless being granted a special exception, which has to go through specific processes. One teacher out of the six who taught the student this year was present. One attended for five minutes, and excused herself stating that she didn’t see the need for her to be there and left. The student’s file was displaced, with part of his psych evaluation in one folder, and the other pages in a completely different file. The school psychologist, who had worked for Duval County Public Schools for over 15 years, stated that a 504 Plan and an I.E.P. were identical. This is not true, as I.E.P.’s fall under exceptional education and carry many more available services for the student, including the family’s ability to exercise their use of the McKay Scholarship, which the psychologist claimed to have never heard of, although he has been involved in writing I.E.P.’s in Duval County for 15 years! At the close of the meeting, a cursory 504 Plan was put into place and entered into the computer system. Within the first month of the next school year, the child study team has promised to begin the process for having the student complete the remaining steps necessary to qualify him for an I.E.P., which will then replace the current 504 Plan. 4)

My fourth step in this study is to create a portfolio to present to the University of North

Florida’s Dean of the College of Education, as well as the Chair for curriculum of undergraduate degrees in education. In this portfolio, I will demonstrate my findings and the need for the university to revisit its current catalog requirements for graduation with a Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education degree. Currently, there is only one course addressing social and psychological needs of ESE students. This one course is a very recent addition to the core requisites, as it was not required when I completed my B.A.E. at UNF in 2007. Based on all of the amendments and additions to I.D.E.A. since 2004, it hardly seems sufficient to only include one special education course to prepare teachers who will have as much as 30% of their classroom populated with students with special needs, since we are legally bound to provide the least restrictive environment for educating special needs students. The determination for most

ESE students of least restrictive environment has been found to be the mainstream regular education classroom, under the provisions of “inclusion.” 5) My final step in conducting my project is to present to my school and district my findings and recommendations for professional development of all faculty throughout the district who are involved with working with ESE students, especially those required to follow I.E.P.’s and 504 Plans in the classroom. It is my goal to ensure that all members of our school board and faculty are well versed in the legal liability that we are under, even though we are a private school district. Unlike most mandates that we are relieved of under contractual vs. state law, I.D.E.A. law pertains to private as well as public institutions of education.

In the interest of taking a look at today’s elementary and secondary classroom through the best practices and legal lens, this project was commenced with a vision of reform and fine tuning for the educators of the twenty-first century. Specifically, the area of focus is inclusion classrooms and what they mean for us as educators, under the guidelines of IDEA law. At the onset of this project, my expectation was to find a well structured and clearly defined set of parameters framing the way classrooms implement inclusion with efficiency and consistency, to ensure they are the facilitators of NCLB, providing the best possible education in the least restrictive environment for students with special needs. What I found instead were glaring inconsistencies and patterns of gross negligence, inferior practices bred from lack of training and professional development, as well as the absence of a well defined model of bringing to fruition the very tenet upon which IDEA is based. In the pages that follow, it is my hope to provide a framework for understanding the need for reform and revision within the education system at all levels if true strides in learning and inclusion are ever to be made, and if the courts in America are ever to cease being inundated with noncompliance litigation.

My research was conducted at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville, and within the Duval County school system, under the direct supervision of my professor of public school law. My contact information is listed below, should you have any further questions or comments regarding the findings and recommendations of the study. Bernadette Harris, M.ed student 1250 Brookwood Forest Blvd #7104 Jacksonville, FL 32225-9093 (904) 525-3601; [email protected]

II. Brief History of IDEA & Inclusion IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Amendment was modified most recently in 1997, and brings with it two very basic educational requirements for students with disabilities: the child must receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. The least restrictive environment is, according to Wright (2006), “the one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child were not disabled. The IDEA statute and implementing regulations emphasize the requirement to educate children with disabilities in regular classes with their nondisabled peers." The blending of the disabled and nondisabled students into the mainstream classroom, as opposed to the former practice of self-contained ESE (Exceptional Student Education) classrooms, is where we have coined the term “inclusion.” As part of the inclusion model, IDEA statutes mandate that Individualized Education Plans (IEP’s) designed by the school or district’s child study team, must be created and implemented for each child receiving special education services inside or outside of the

mainstream classroom. The guidelines for the creation, implementation, review and modification of said IEP’s are clearly defined in IDEA’s statute (Wright, 2006).

III. IDEA Statutes Implicating Classrooms According to Section 1414 of I.D.E.A., schools are required to complete an initial evaluation for eligibility within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent. According to Wright (2006), “Accordingly, Sec. 300.347(a)(1)(2) of IDEA requires that each child’s IEP include: A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives related to--(i) Meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and (ii) meeting each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. Thus, the IEP team for each child with a disability must make an individualized determination regarding (1) how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and what needs that result from the child’s disability must be met to facilitate that participation; (2) whether the child has any other educational needs resulting from his or her disability that also must be met; and (3) what special education and other services and supports must be described in the child’s IEP to address both sets of needs (consistent with Sec. 300.347(a)).”

As described in this brief section of the additions to I.D.E.A. brought forth in 1997, the regular classroom teacher requires significant preparation in identifying needs and monitoring progress, as well as recommending further intervention for students.”(Wright 2006, p.25) In the appendix of this portfolio, an in-depth description of the literature review exists, containing significant evidence of the inferiority of the preparation of the current inclusion classroom teacher, both educationally and legally. Most of our current university programs preparing educators to enter the mainstream classroom include only one, if any, required courses in special education, and no coursework in special education or public education law, rendering graduates unprepared for the duties of IDEA and inclusion.

IV. Supreme Court Cases for Noncompliance 1.

Whitehead v. School Board of Hillsborough County, 918 F. Supp. 1515, 24 IDELR 21, (M.D. FL 1996) Facts: School district of Hillsborough County, Florida held an “unwritten policy” of not writing or implementing student IEP’s. The Whiteheads’ son required an IEP for speech and language, and the district refused to comply. The courts found the district failed to provide FAPE for the student, according to IDEA. Holding: The courts issued an injunction, and the district continued to refuse compliance, which ended in them being fined $600,000.

2.

Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983 Facts: The Concord School in Massachusetts refused to comply with implementing an IEP for a student with developmental delays and ADHD. Holding: The parents were awarded compensatory damages.

3.

Doe v. Withers, 20 IDELR 422 Facts: Mr. & Mrs. Doe of Taylor County, West Virginia sued the teacher, principal, superintendent and school board for failing to follow modifications outlined in their son’s IEP by refusing to make testing accommodations. Holding: The courts found the teacher, principal, superintendent and school board to be in violation of Section 504 of the Students with Disabilities Act. They awarded the following damages to the Doe’s: $30,000 against the teacher $10,000 against the principal $10,000 against the superintendent $10,000 against the school board

4.

Knable V. Bexley City School District, Columbus Ohio No. 96-01159 Facts: The Knables sued the school district, its superintendent and the board of education of Ohio for violating IDEA by failing to create an IEP for their son who had ADHD and ODD. Instead, the school kept seeking outside placement for the student until the family eventually complied and transferred him. Holding: The courts found that the school district, superintendent and BOE violated the student’s right to FAPE, as well as the “stay put clause” of IDEA. The parents were awarded $80 for an undefined and indefinite period of time, to compensate for fees incurred with transferring the student to a private school. The funding is to continue until the student no longer requires services.

5.

Reid V. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 Facts: The Reids sued the District of Columbia school district for violation of their son’s rights to FAPE under IDEA by discontinuing their son’s IEP outside of the guidelines set forth in IDEA. The hearing officer made an independent decision, without consulting the members of the child study team or parents, to discontinue the student’s IEP. Holding: The courts found in favor of the Reids and awarded an indefinite amount of compensatory damages, to cover educational costs for the student for as long as the costs are incurred.

6.

Oberti V. Board of Education of Clementon School District 995 F2D 1204 Facts: Board of Education of Clementon refused to place a student with Down’s Syndrome in the mainstream classroom. The student’s parents sued the district for violation of the mainstream inclusion provision of IDEA. Holding: Courts ruled in favor of the student to be placed in inclusion.

7.

Florence County School District v. Carter 510 U.S. 7, 114 S. Ct.361 Facts: Parents sued school district for reimbursement of private school tuition and educational services when they removed their child from the district’s school for failing to provide FAPE for the student under IDEA. Holding: Court ruled in favor of the student and parents, and district had to pay private school tuition for the student.

8.

Honig v. Doe 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592 Facts: School removed a disabled child from inclusion class due to disruptive/ dangerous conduct. The parents sued for violation of the stay put clause of IDEA. Holding: Courts ruled in favor of the student and school was mandated to return the student to his mainstream class.

CASE LAW According to I.D.E.A., a school, teacher or district’s refusal to implement or negligence in following any portion of a student’s I.E.P. is grounds for suit at both the state and civil level. Included in this is the ability for suit for compensatory damages, which can be attached to any or

all of the parties involved! Case law excerpts from my study will demonstrate many instances where such noncompliance issues made their way to the Supreme Court for resolution, and were not found in favor of the school boards, districts or individual schools or teachers. In addition, a school or district can lose its federal funding if they continually are found to be in violation of I.D.E.A. or Section 504 Americans with Disabilities Act of the Civil Rights Amendment, which provides for a similar individualized objective plan for students, including accommodations and modifications, but with less additional ESE services afforded the student. Under IDEA, one might safely assume that at the district level, little question would exist as to the legal requirements of providing FAPE to ESE students, with regard to implementing Individualized Education Plans. However, in Hillsborough County, FL in 1996, (918 F. Supp. 1515, 24 IDELR 21) the Supreme Court had to intervene on behalf of the Whitehead family, whose child needed an IEP and despite court injunctions, the district refused to write them! It was district policy not to create Individual Education Plans for ESE students! That “policy” cost Hillsborough County $600,000 in damages! In the case of Doe V. Withers in West Virginia, a high school teacher blatantly refused to make accommodations outlined in the student’s IEP, which allowed for the student to receive all tests orally. Despite many requests and demands by the school’s ESE coordinator, the teacher continued to refuse to comply. The student’s family received $60,000 in compensatory damages, $30,000 of which was charged to the teacher. Certainly if this teacher had received adequate training in his legal expectations with regard to ESE inclusion, he would not have refused to comply with the IEP. In Knable V. Bexley, Columbus Ohio No. 96-01159, the Bexley County School Board, superintendent and school principal were found to be negligent in failing to implement an IEP for a student with ADHD, ODD and dyslexia. Instead, the school continually pushed for the removal of the student and his transfer to a school outside their district. Under IDEA, they were

obligated to implement an IEP and provide all necessary services for the student’s academic success. In the end, the district was required to pay $80 per day for each day the student continued to receive educational services at a private school the parents eventually transferred the student to. In Reid V. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, the school district committed repeated violations of IDEA over the course of a four year period. The district initially refused to provide an evaluation of the student, later refused to retain or create an IEP for the same student despite his medical diagnosis of multiple disabilities, and later refused to modify the student’s IEP to accommodate the additional special needs the student was found to have. In addition, a hearings officer violated the student’s due process rights by making an independent determination with regard to the student’s continued services. The district was ordered to pay a continual and undetermined amount of compensatory damages for as long as the services continued to be needed. Again, the violation in these cases took place at the district level, which I found to be consistently alarming. Given the evidence of repeated cases of district negligence, it is fair to assume that school board representatives and superintendents are either not amply educated as to their legal obligations under IDEA, or that the systems in place for the evaluation, recommendation and implementation of student services under IDEA are inefficient and in need of restructuring. LITERATURE ANALYSIS AND STATUTORY PERSPECTIVE According to Wright (2006), “Accordingly, Sec. 300.347(a)(1)(2) of IDEA requires that each child’s IEP include: A statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives related to--(i) Meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and (ii) meeting each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. Thus,

the IEP team for each child with a disability must make an individualized determination regarding (1) how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and what needs that result from the child’s disability must be met to facilitate that participation; (2) whether the child has any other educational needs resulting from his or her disability that also must be met; and (3) what special education and other services and supports must be described in the child’s IEP to address both sets of needs (consistent with Sec. 300.347(a)).” Implementing and designing an IEP according to the aforementioned guidelines is a delicate procedure requiring highly qualified and specially trained individuals. These are the school psychologist, guidance counselor, ESE specialist/ standards coach, as well as the classroom teacher and parents. Two of the members of this team, the parent and the classroom teacher, however, are not highly qualified in ESE! An alarming citation in the determinations is “whether the child has any other educational needs.” Determining whether a student requires more services and has “other” needs is a vague and ongoing process. Can a regular classroom teacher who has not been trained in special education be expected to be qualified to make that determination? Whether the teacher is able to determine special needs or not, under IDEA he/she is liable for neglecting to identify and recommend them! As Wright has cited, regular classroom teachers require preparation. However, in our current universities and school systems, they are not receiving it. During my undergraduate studies at the University of North Florida, I was never introduced to IEP’s or 504 Plans. Special education coursework was not part of the core curriculum for the B.A.E. program in 2007. Since then, UNF has added only one special education class to the undergraduate core curriculum. One course is highly unlikely to adequately prepare teachers to efficiently service students with IEP’s in their classrooms. In addition, according to Section 1414 of I.D.E.A., schools are required to complete an initial evaluation for eligibility within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent. After

witnessing the failure to execute this policy at the middle school involved in Andrew’s IEP, it is safe to say that our schools do not have adequate procedures in place to safeguard the compliance with this section of the law. Clearly, if a student’s evaluation can be neglected for an entire school year before being evaluated, the school and district in question ( in this case a magnet school in Duval County, FL) need to revisit and revise the handling of such paperwork to ensure the eligibility evaluation deadline is met.

.

According to Wright (2006, p. 26) experts in the field of educating children with disabilities believe that the majority of children identified with specific learning disabilities “are victims of poor teaching.” Wright’s experts contend that almost ALL children could learn to read efficiently, but many do not receive appropriate instruction because teachers are not adequately prepared to teach them! This statement affirms my contention that a single course in special education is insufficient to prepare educators to teach ESE students literacy, math, social and organizational skills. Many students on IEP’s and 504 Plans do not receive any of their instruction from special education teachers under the current system of inclusion. In a research study conducted at a neuropsychiatry clinic in Toronto (Capano, Minden, Chen, Schachar, & Ickowicz 2008), approximately 450 ADHD students between the ages of 7 and 12 were tested using a battery of methods, including parent and teacher interviews, standardized intelligence tests and psychological testing for learning disabilities. The results confirmed that the prevalence of mathematical learning disability is present in 20% of children with ADHD, which is three times the prevalence in the general population. Without specified training in identifying math learning disabilities, as well as methodology including specific strategies for teaching ADHD children with and without math learning disabilities, the regular education teacher is hardly adequately prepared to provide the best possible education for children who fit into this population. The most alarming facet of this study is that ADHD

students, along with many others with “minor” disabilities make up the majority of students in inclusion classrooms across the United States. In another study in southwestern England, 81 primary and secondary school teachers were analyzed as to their effectiveness and self-efficacy in teaching students in an inclusion setting. According to Avrimides et al (2000), there was a significant and measurable difference in the academic progress as well as teacher attitude towards ESE inclusion students between teachers who had received professional development at the university level in preparing them to meet IEP requirements and those that did not. Most of the teachers that took part in the study who had not received adequate education and training in dealing with special needs students had negative attitudes and predispositions regarding those students, as well as poorer results in educating them in the inclusion classroom. In a similar study conducted at Kent University, teachers nominated students to prompts corresponding with their attitudes with respect to concern, indifference and rejection, which correlated strongly to the degree of disability in the students. A Chi-square analysis of the data was used to evaluate the level of instructional tolerance and differential expectations according to the level of student disability. According to Clark (2001), the results confirmed the theory that students with mild or “hidden” disabilities were “overrepresented” in the teacher rejection prompt. The results indicated that teachers tend to form different attitudes and expectations of their inclusion students based on the “obviousness” of their disabilities. Cook contends that, based on the consistent findings of this study, a preponderance of teachers have ‘given up’ on students with mild or hidden disabilities, due to lack of expertise in identifying and addressing these disabilities. An example that comes to mind of a minor or hidden disability is that of ADHD or SID. These are both sometimes harder to identify and diagnose in students, and without specific training in instructional strategies to obtain academic success in these students, many teachers become frustrated and provide minimal teaching to them. Many of these students

come with 504 plans and IEP’s in place; some of which are designed effectively, and many of which are in need of revision. However, the teacher is not likely to recommend revisions or additional services for the child if he/she is not trained or educated as to the types of services and pedagogy that are most effective for these students’ success. Herein we fail as an educational system, in my opinion, to provide FAPE for these students, making less than adequate accommodations or modifications, and providing less than acceptable opportunities for them to reach their academic potential!

V. Findings & Recommendations My findings with regard to the recurring theme of noncompliance with IDEA litigation are consistent. In as much as numerous Supreme Court cases have been heard and decided against multiple school districts and teachers across the United States, a localized system for ensuring compliance within individual districts is currently weak if not nonexistent. The cases listed above represent only a fraction of Supreme Court litigation regarding noncompliance and negligence with regard to IDEA. As expressed throughout the literature review presented in the Appendix of this portfolio, there is a profound lack of educator preparation at the classroom, school, district and school board level in our current system in the United States. Universities are not adequately preparing teachers and administrators for the duties and obligations they face under IDEA through current core requirements for these degrees. Consequently, the teachers in the mainstream classroom who hold primary if not sole responsibility for educating students with special needs are falling short in providing FAPE for these students. The training needed to identify special needs, make recommendations for

services, assist in the designing of IEP’s and implementing the necessary modifications and accommodations to the student’s curriculum is not being provided in our current standard undergraduate or graduate programs in regular education or administration. Within the schools and districts, efficient systems have not been put into place to ensure that sensitive documentation receives diligent processing, or that students are being evaluated and IEP’s created within the time constraints outlined by IDEA. Some teachers, schools and districts are deliberately avoiding conducting the steps required of them in instituting services for students with special needs. Instead, they are stalling, attempting to remove the students from their schools, and in many cases completely neglecting the needs of students, even after being provided with medical and psychological reports, as well as court orders and injunctions. Here, as well as in the attached appendix, I am recommending the following revisions to our current failing system of complying with IDEA law:

A. Each state must address in its constitution procedural outlines for school districts to follow in the evaluation of students with special needs for services. In these procedural outlines, provisions must be made and consequences for failing to make provisions clearly defined. B. Each state university, under the guidance of certified special education specialists, needs to revise the core curriculum requirements for a Bachelor’s degree in education, as well as a Master’s degree in Educational Leadership, to include coursework that will effectively prepare graduates for the task of working within the inclusion classroom. Accreditation guidelines for university programs should be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that teacher preparation programs include adequate and sufficient coursework and field experiences to prepare classroom teachers and future administrators, guidance

counselors and school psychologists for the task of efficiently designing, implementing, modifying and recommending student IEP’s and 504 Plans. C. Each school board must design and implement a stringent Improvement Plan for compliance with IDEA. The plan must include such components as mandatory procedures for the handling of student psychological evaluations, the setting up of initial and follow-up IEP and 504 meetings, monitoring of student progress according to IEP / 504 Plans, and accountability of all interested parties within the school who are involved in the handling of these processes. D. At the school level, each administrator must appoint a coordinator to monitor and account for compliance with all IDEA requirements. This monitoring should include frequent regular observations of inclusion classrooms, monitoring of student CUM folders, psychological and medical reports and evaluations, time constraints of initial evaluations of students for services, processes and follow through on recommendations of students requiring special services, and accountability for all school professionals involved in the implementation of IEP’s and 504 Plans. E. School and district level professional development for teachers and administrators already working with students with special needs must be mandated and made available. Most educators currently working in the system have students with special needs in their mainstream classrooms and do not have the necessary training or education to properly identify needs, make recommendations for services or effectively and implicitly implement all modifications and accommodations outlined in student IEP’s and 504 plans. (See appendix for more detailed examples of needs.)

VI. Appendix

References: Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P.,Burden,R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ Attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special education needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology 20,2. Capano, L.,Minden, D., Chen, S., Schachar, R.J. & Ickowicz, A.(2008). Mathematical learning disorder in school-age children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 53,6. Cook, Bryan. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included Students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education 34,4. Miranda, A., Soriano, M., Fernandez, I., & Melia, A.(2008). Emotional & behavioral problems of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: impact of age and learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology 31,4. Wright, P.W.D. & Wright, P.D. (2006). Special Education Law. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press. IEP meeting attended: James Weldon Johnson Middle School Child Study Team James Weldon Middle School 1840 West 9th Street Jacksonville, FL 32209