ACCD, realizing our civil rights protections were being gutted, demanded HEW issue the regulations unchanged by April 4, or action would occur. I think this was brilliant, because rather than waiting until watered-down regulations were issued publicly and then responding, issue by issue, this meant the government would have to respond to the demonstrators. Additionally, it was not that easy to organize people, particularly people with physical disabilities, in those days, due to lack of transit, support services and so on.
A sit in meant people would go and stay, until the issue was resolved definitively. The San Francisco federal building sit in, the only one that endured, lasted 28 days and was critical in forcing the signing of the regulations almost unchanged.
It began with a rally outside the federal building, then we marched inside where between 1 and people would remain until the end. The composition of the sit in represented the spectrum of the disability community with participation from people with a wide variety of disabilities, from different racial, social and economic backgrounds, and ages from adults to kids with disabilities and their parents.
We all felt that we were acting on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people who were not able to participate, people all over the country who were institutionalized or stuck in other dependency situations. We set up committees to take on different tasks such as rally speakers, media, fund-raising, medics, monitors, publicity, and outreach. The outreach committee was very successful in garnering broad community support: from churches, unions, civil rights organizations, gay groups, elected politicians, radical parties and others.
The work of that committee proved to be invaluable once we were inside the building. Those organizations built support rallies outside the building and the breath of the support made it more difficult to move against us. The International Association of Machinists facilitated our sending a delegation to Washington. Politicians sent mattresses and a shower hose to attach to the sink.
Glide Memorial Church and the Black Panther party sent many delicious meals that nourished us between days of coffee and doughnuts.
The other committees also continued inside the building. The media committee met regularly to review the coverage and discuss how to make our purpose more clear, how to use the press to get particular issues across. It directed reporters to appropriate spokespeople, called news conferences and so on. The committees had a great deal of work to do and kept many people involved.
This was good, because the conditions were physically grueling, sleeping sometimes three or four hours a night on the floor and everyone was under stress about their families, jobs, our health, the fact that we were all filthy and so on. All the participants met daily to make tactical decisions. These were flowing, creative meetings but they often went on for hours, which meant very little sleep. Related services: A plan typically does not provide for individualized instruction.
But in some cases, students may get related services through a plan, like occupational therapy or counseling services. Modifications: Though rare, plans can provide modifications.
These modifications change what a student is taught or is expected to learn. For example, students might get fewer homework assignments or they may be graded in a different way than their classmates. They may be expected to learn less material—or material that is less complex.
These teams go by different names at different schools. Your school might call it the team, MTSS team, student assistance team, or school resource team. But most schools invite families to participate in the process and attend meetings.
As a general education teacher, you have two responsibilities when it comes to plans: to know which accommodations the student needs to use in your classroom and to make sure these accommodations are available to be used.
You may already have some of these supports built in for all students, especially if you use essential practices like Universal Design for Learning. Having data can help support discussions about what needs to be changed and why. Section of the U. Rehabilitation Act of is designed to help parents of students with physical or mental impairments in public schools, or publicly funded private schools, work with educators to design customized educational plans.
These plans legally ensure that students will be treated fairly at school. To help students with disabilities succeed in school, teachers may need to modify the classroom environment, adjust their teaching strategies, or make other adjustments. Other tasks include assessing students' progress and communicating effectively with parents. Students can qualify for plans if they have physical or mental impairments that affect or limit any of their abilities to:. The goal of plans is for students to be educated in regular classrooms along with the services, accommodations, or educational aids they might need.
If students with these plans can't achieve satisfactory academic success, as is determined by the school, then alternative settings in the school or private or residential programs can be considered.
A plan is different from an individualized education program IEP. The tests and other evaluation materials must be validated for the specific purpose for which they are used and appropriately administered by trained personnel. At the elementary and secondary education level, the amount of information required is determined by the multi-disciplinary committee gathered to evaluate the student. The committee should include persons knowledgeable about the student, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options.
The committee members must determine if they have enough information to make a knowledgeable decision as to whether or not the student has a disability. The information obtained from all such sources must be documented and all significant factors related to the student's learning process must be considered.
These sources and factors may include aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social and cultural background, and adaptive behavior.
In evaluating a student suspected of having a disability, it is unacceptable to rely on presumptions and stereotypes regarding persons with disabilities or classes of such persons. Compliance with the IDEA regarding the group of persons present when an evaluation or placement decision is made is satisfactory under Section What process should a school district use to identify students eligible for services under Section ?
Is it the same process as that employed in identifying students eligible for services under the IDEA? School districts may use the same process to evaluate the needs of students under Section as they use to evaluate the needs of students under the IDEA. If school districts choose to adopt a separate process for evaluating the needs of students under Section , they must follow the requirements for evaluation specified in the Section regulatory provision at 34 C.
May school districts consider "mitigating measures" used by a student in determining whether the student has a disability under Section ?
As of January 1, , school districts, in determining whether a student has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that student in a major life activity, must not consider the ameliorating effects of any mitigating measures that student is using.
This is a change from prior law. In the Amendments Act see FAQ 1 , however, Congress specified that the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures must not be considered in determining if a person is an individual with a disability.
Congress created one exception to the mitigating measures analysis. The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining if an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Does OCR endorse a single formula or scale that measures substantial limitation? The determination of substantial limitation must be made on a case-by-case basis with respect to each individual student. Are there any impairments which automatically mean that a student has a disability under Section ?
An impairment in and of itself is not a disability. The impairment must substantially limit one or more major life activities in order to be considered a disability under Section Can a medical diagnosis suffice as an evaluation for the purpose of providing FAPE? A physician's medical diagnosis may be considered among other sources in evaluating a student with an impairment or believed to have an impairment which substantially limits a major life activity.
Other sources to be considered, along with the medical diagnosis, include aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social and cultural background, and adaptive behavior. As noted in FAQ 22, the Section regulations require school districts to draw upon a variety of sources in interpreting evaluation data and making placement decisions.
Does a medical diagnosis of an illness automatically mean a student can receive services under Section ? A medical diagnosis of an illness does not automatically mean a student can receive services under Section The illness must cause a substantial limitation on the student's ability to learn or another major life activity.
For example, a student who has a physical or mental impairment would not be considered a student in need of services under Section if the impairment does not in any way limit the student's ability to learn or other major life activity, or only results in some minor limitation in that regard. How should a recipient school district handle an outside independent evaluation?
Do all data brought to a multi-disciplinary committee need to be considered and given equal weight? The results of an outside independent evaluation may be one of many sources to consider. Multi-disciplinary committees must draw from a variety of sources in the evaluation process so that the possibility of error is minimized. All significant factors related to the subject student's learning process must be considered. These sources and factors include aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social and cultural background, and adaptive behavior, among others.
Information from all sources must be documented and considered by knowledgeable committee members. The weight of the information is determined by the committee given the student's individual circumstances. What should a recipient school district do if a parent refuses to consent to an initial evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEA , but demands a Section plan for a student without further evaluation?
A school district must evaluate a student prior to providing services under Section Section requires informed parental permission for initial evaluations. If a parent refuses consent for an initial evaluation and a recipient school district suspects a student has a disability, the IDEA and Section provide that school districts may use due process hearing procedures to seek to override the parents' denial of consent.
Who in the evaluation process makes the ultimate decision regarding a student's eligibility for services under Section ? If a parent disagrees with the determination, he or she may request a due process hearing. Once a student is identified as eligible for services under Section , is there an annual or triennial review requirement? If so, what is the appropriate process to be used? Or is it appropriate to keep the same Section plan in place indefinitely after a student has been identified?
Periodic re-evaluation is required. This may be conducted in accordance with the IDEA regulations, which require re-evaluation at three-year intervals unless the parent and public agency agree that re-evaluation is unnecessary or more frequently if conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or teacher requests a re-evaluation, but not more than once a year unless the parent and public agency agree otherwise. How often should it be done?
Section specifies that re-evaluations in accordance with the IDEA is one means of compliance with Section
0コメント