Archived Information

SECTION I

CONTEXT/ENVIRONMENT

Modules

1\. Overview of the IDEA Amendments of 1997

2\. State Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities

Overview of the IDEA Amendments of 1997[^1]

Purpose: To present a review of changes in IDEA resulting from the 1997
amendments to the law that were enacted to help ensure better results
for students with disabilities and their families.

In June 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was
amended by Public Law 105-17, the IDEA Amendments of 1997. This is the
fifth set of amendments to the Act. Over the years, IDEA has fostered
significant changes in the lives of children with disabilities and their
families and in the roles of schools and teachers in the education of
children with disabilities.

The basic tenets of IDEA have remained intact since the original passage
of the law in 1975. However, each set of amendments has strengthened the
original law. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 retain much of the previous
version of the law but had some important revisions. This module does
not attempt to provide a detailed explanation of all the changes to the
Act; rather, it provides an overview of some areas in which the
legislation has changed.

Many of the other modules in this annual report also provide specific
information on the changes in the law. The complete text of the revised
law can be obtained on-line at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA
(case sensitive) or www.lrp.com/ed.

The Six Principles of IDEA

One way to conceptualize IDEA is to define six principles that provide
the framework around which education services are designed and provided
to students with disabilities. They are:

free appropriate public education (FAPE);

appropriate evaluation;

individualized education program (IEP);

least restrictive environment (LRE);

parent and student participation in decision making; and

procedural safeguards.

The changes in the law will be examined within the framework of these
six guiding principles.

FAPE

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 retain the original provisions of FAPE but
added two new provisions. Thus, the law still requires that students
with disabilities have available to them a "free appropriate public
education," meaning special education and related services that:

"(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and
direction, and without charge;

\(B\) meet the standards of the State educational agency;

\(C\) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school
education in the State involved; and

\(D\) are provided in conformity with the individualized education
program required under section 614(d)." (§602(8))

The law now also specifically requires that FAPE must be made available
to children who are suspended or expelled. State educational agencies
(SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) are responsible for
ensuring that a student's IEP with its goals and objectives continues to
be implemented in the least restrictive environment even though the
child has been removed from the school. (A further review of the new
discipline requirements is given in the procedural safeguards section of
this overview.)

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 also place limitations on the States'
obligation to serve students with disabilities in prison. Federal law
does not require States to provide FAPE to individuals ages 18 through
21 who, before their incarceration in an adult correctional facility,
were not considered as having a disability\--that is, they had not been
identified as having a disability under IDEA or did not have an IEP in
place prior to incarceration.

Definitions Included in FAPE. Key terms in the FAPE provision are
"special education and related services." The IDEA Amendments of 1997
maintain the definition of special education. The definition of related
services was also virtually unchanged; however, "orientation and
mobility services" was added to the nonexhaustive statutory list of
related services. Orientation and mobility services are designed to aid
students who are blind or have other visual impairments.

FAPE and the General Curriculum. What determines an appropriate
education was emphasized in the IDEA Amendments of 1997. The language
requiring an evaluation was strengthened (see "Appropriate Evaluation"
in this module), and evaluations must include information relevant to a
student's participation in the general curriculum (§614(b)(2)).

Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) and State
Improvement Plans (SIPs). The providers of services under IDEA must be
effectively prepared in their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The IDEA
Amendments of 1997 include a new competitive grant provision\--the State
Improvement Grants (SIGs). The majority of these grant funds must be
spent for personnel development. To compete for an SIG, a State must
submit a State Improvement Plan. A State's CSPD must be designed to
ensure an adequate supply of qualified special education, general
education, and related services personnel that meets the requirements
for a SIP relating to personnel development in subsections (b)(2)(B) and
(c)(3)(D) of Section 653 of the Act. In addition, capacity-building is
now promoted at the local level. Adoption of promising practices is
actively conducted through the SIPs and through subgrants to LEAs for
capacity building and improvement (§611(f)(4)).

The new law added provisions to the CSPD, including:

a State must have in effect a CSPD that meets the requirements of the
SIP; and

personnel must meet the requirements specified in the State's SIP.

The SIP is a powerful tool for States to use to improve their systems
and to equip staff with the necessary knowledge to improve results for
students with disabilities. Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, to the
maximum extent possible, the SIP must be integrated with State plans
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as appropriate. SIGs are awarded on a
competitive basis after peer review, and the IDEA Amendments of 1997 set
guidelines on how the funds may be used.

Professional Standards. Prior to the IDEA Amendments of 1997, each State
was required to (a) ensure that personnel were appropriately and
adequately trained; (b) establish and maintain professional standards
that its personnel had to meet; and (c) specify the steps that it
intended to take to retrain or hire personnel who did meet State
standards, when current personnel did not meet the highest State
standard for a specific profession or discipline. The IDEA Amendments of
1997 add two new provisions:

States may allow the use of paraprofessionals and assistants to assist
in the provision of special education and related services under certain
conditions. Paraprofessionals and assistants must be appropriately
trained and supervised.

States may adopt a policy that requires LEAs to make an ongoing good
faith effort to recruit and hire appropriately and adequately trained
personnel to provide special education and related services. Such a
policy may include that where there are shortages of qualified
personnel, the recruitment and hiring of the most qualified persons
available is allowed, provided that those persons who are hired are
making satisfactory progress toward completing applicable course work
and will in 3 years complete the courses to meet State standards.

Appropriate Evaluation

As in previous versions of the law, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 require
that before a student can receive special education and related services
for the first time, he or she must receive a "full and individual
initial evaluation." The law also requires:

parental consent for the initial evaluation;

a nondiscriminatory evaluation;

evaluation by a team in all areas of suspected disability;

not using any single procedure to determine that a child is a child with
a disability or to determine the child's educational program;

testing in the native language or mode of communication of the child,
unless it is clearly not feasible to do so; and

that LEAs conduct reevaluations for each child with a disability if
"conditions warrant a reevaluation or if the child's parents or teacher
requests a reevaluation, but at least once every 3 years . . . ."
(§614(a)(2)(A)).

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 amend certain aspects of the evaluation
process and moved all of the provisions related to evaluation and
reevaluation to one place in the law. (See Section 614) The changes in
the evaluation provisions are described below.

The Part B definition of a child with a disability was expanded to
include, at the discretion of the SEA and LEA, children between the ages
of 3 and 9 who are\--

"(i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and as
measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or
more of the following areas: physical development, cognitive
development, communication development, social or emotional development,
or adaptive development; and

\(ii\) who, by reasons thereof, needs special education and related
services." (§602(3))

Previously, use of the term developmental disabilities was limited to
children ages birth through 5. According to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources Report, "use of 'developmental delay' as part of a
unified approach will allow the special education and related services
to be directly related to the child's needs and prevent locking the
child into an eligibility category which may be inappropriate or
incorrect . . . ." (pp. 6-7)

Other changes to the evaluation provisions include codification of the
policy that assessment tools and strategies provide information that is
instructionally useful, emphasis on participation in the general
curriculum, and reduction of the paperwork burden.

The evaluation process has also been strengthened. The law now requires
that a parent be included as part of the team that determines
eligibility. Specifically, the evaluation process includes collecting
"information provided by the parent" (§614(b)(2)(A)), reviewing existing
evaluation data, including "evaluations and information provided by
parents" (§614(c)(1)(A)), and requires that the "determination of
whether the child is a 'child with a disability' . . . shall be made by
a team of qualified professionals and the parent of the child . . . ."
(§614(b)(4)(A))

Inclusion in State and Districtwide Assessment.[^2] One of the
far-reaching changes to IDEA is its alignment with recent educational
reform legislation, including The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the
Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), and the School to Work
Opportunities Act. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 require that:

"(A) IN GENERAL.\--Children with disabilities are included in general
and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations,
where necessary. As appropriate, the State or local educational
agency\--

\(i\) develops guidelines for the participation of children with
disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot
participate in State and district-wide assessment programs; and

\(ii\) develops and, beginning no later than July 1, 2000, conducts
those alternate assessments.

\(B\) REPORTS.\--The State educational agency makes available to the
public, and reports to the public with the same frequency and in the
same detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children, the
following:

\(i\) the number of children with disabilities participating in regular
assessments.

\(ii\) the number of those children participating in alternate
assessments.

(iii)(I) The performance of those children on regular assessments
(beginning no later than July 1, 1998) and on alternate assessments (no
later than July 1, 2000), if doing so would be statistically sound and
would not result in the disclosure of performance results identifiable
to individual children.

\(II\) Data relating to the performance of children described under
subclause (I) shall be disaggregated\--(aa) for assessments conducted
after July 1, 1998; and (bb) for assessments conducted before July 1,
1998, if the State is required to disaggregate such data prior to July 1
1998." (§612(a)(17))

Performance Goals and Indicators.[^3] In addition to requiring that
States include students with disabilities in assessment procedures, the
IDEA Amendments of 1997 require States to establish performance goals
for children with disabilities and to establish performance indicators
to judge their progress toward these goals. States had until July 1,
1998, to establish:

appropriate performance goals for students with disabilities that "are
consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and
standards for children established by the State;" and

"performance indicators the State will use to assess progress toward
achieving those goals that, at a minimum, address the performance of
children with disabilities on assessments, drop-out rates, and
graduation rates." (§612(a)(16))

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

IDEA requires that an IEP be written for each student with a disability
receiving special education and related services. The IDEA Amendments of
1997 incorporate some new requirements pertaining to IEPs and move all
provisions related to the IEP to Section 614(d). These went into effect
on July 1, 1998.

The section begins by defining the term "Individualized Education
Program":

"The term 'individualized education program' or 'IEP' means a written
statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed,
and revised in accordance with this section. . . ." (§614(d)(1)(A))

Below is a summary of the provisions that modified the IEP in the IDEA
Amendments of 1997.

Statement of the Child's Present Levels of Educational Performance. The
IEP must state how the child with a disability is currently doing at
school, emphasizing the child's strengths and weaknesses and areas that
need to be addressed. The information is drawn from recent evaluations,
observations, and inputs from parents and school personnel. A new area
of emphasis in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 is "how the child's
disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general
curriculum." (§614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I))

Statement of Measurable Annual Goals, Including Benchmarks or Short-Term
Objectives. This section focuses on the IEP team's recommended
educational goals that are appropriate for the student. The goals must
be annual and measurable and include benchmarks or short-term
objectives, and relate to "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 meeting each of the child's
other educational needs that result from the child's disability . . . ."
(§614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) and (II))

Statement of Special Education and Related Services. Given the child's
strengths, needs, and annual goals, the IEP considers the special
education and related services necessary to accomplish those goals.
Again, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 emphasize services necessary to
enable the child to be part of the general curriculum. In fact, the IEP
must include "an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child
will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class . .
. ." (§614(d)(1)(A)(iv)) Also, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 include a
definition of "Supplementary Aids and Services." "Supplementary aids and
services" means "aids, services, and other supports that are provided in
regular education classes or other education-related settings to enable
children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to
the maximum extent appropriate in accordance with section 612(a)(5)
\[The 1997 Amendments, provision on LRE\]." (§602(29))

Statement of Any Individual Modifications in the Administration of State
or Districtwide Assessment of Student Achievement.[^4] The IDEA
Amendments of 1997 require that students with disabilities be included
in the assessment process. Modifications or adaptations must be given
where appropriate. If the IEP team determines that a child will not
participate in a particular State or local assessment, or any part of
that assessment, then a statement of "why that assessment is not
appropriate for the child and how that child will be assessed" must be
included. (§614(d)(1)(A)(v)(II)(aa) and (bb))

Dates, Frequency, Location, and Duration of Services. Each student's IEP
must include when the student's special education and related services
will begin, how long they will go on (duration), how often they will be
provided (frequency), and where they will take place (location). The
location provision is new in the IDEA Amendments of 1997.
(§614(d)(1)(A)(vi))

Transition Services. The requirement to provide youth with disabilities
transition services was retained from the prior law. However, two new
requirements were added. First, IEPs must include,

"beginning at age 14, and updated annually, a statement of the
transition service needs of the child under the applicable components of
the child's IEP that focuses on the child's course of study (such as
participation in advanced-placement courses or a vocational education
program)." (§614(d)(1)(A)(vii)(I))

This requirement was designed to augment the existing requirement which
states:

"beginning at age 16 (or younger, if determined appropriate by the IEP
team), a statement of needed transition services for the child,
including, when appropriate, a statement of the interagency
responsibilities or any needed linkages . . . ."
(§614(d)(1)(A)(vii)(II))

The second addition is that IEPs must include,

"beginning at least one year before the child reaches the age of
majority under State law, a statement that the child has been informed
of his or her rights under this title, if any, that will transfer to the
child on the age of reaching majority . . . ." (§614(d)(1)(A)(vii)(III))

Developing the IEP. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 maintain essentially the
same process for developing an IEP. However, the new legislation
increases the role general educators play on the IEP team, and related
service personnel are specifically mentioned as being part of the IEP
team, where appropriate, and at the discretion of the parent or school.
New language was also added with regard to the responsibilities of the
IEP team. Specifically, the law charged the IEP team to consider: (a)
the strengths of the child and the concerns of the parents for enhancing
the education of their child and (b) the results of the initial
evaluation or most recent evaluation of the child. (§614(d)(3)(A))

In the process of developing the IEP, the IEP team must also consider
"special factors," including:

"(i) in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning
or that of others, consider where appropriate, strategies, including
positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address
that behavior;

\(ii\) in the case of a child with limited English proficiency, consider
the language needs of the child as such needs relate to the child's IEP;

\(iii\) in the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired,
provide for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless the IEP
Team determines, after an evaluation of the child's reading and writing
skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media (including an
evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in Braille or the
use of Braille) that instruction in Braille is not appropriate for the
child;

\(iv\) consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of
a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language
and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication with
peers and professional personnel in the child's language and
communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including
opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and
communication mode; and

\(v\) consider whether the child requires assistive technology devices
and services." (§614(d)(3)(B))

Reviewing and Revising the IEP. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 emphasize
that the IEP is to be reviewed annually or more frequently if needed to
determine if goals are being met. The IEP must be revised, as
appropriate, to address "any lack of expected progress toward the annual
goals and in the general curriculum, where appropriate; the results of
any reevaluation conducted under \[§614\]; information about the child
provided to, or by, the parents . . . ; the child's anticipated needs;
or other matters." (§614(d)(4)(A)) Also, as appropriate the regular
education teacher must participate in the review and revision of the
IEP. (§614(d)(4)(B))

Least Restrictive Environment

Since 1975, all eligible students must receive FAPE in the least
restrictive environment possible. This means that the child must receive
an appropriate education designed to meet his or her needs while being
educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate.
Specifically, the law requires each State to ensure that:

"\[t\]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,
including children in public or private institutions or other care
facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special
classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when
the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot
be achieved satisfactorily." (§612(a)(5)(A)).

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 add two new provisions to strengthen this
commitment:

"(i) IN GENERAL.\--If the State uses a funding mechanism by which the
State distributes State funds on the basis of the type of setting in
which a child is served, the funding mechanism does not result in
placements that violate the requirements of subparagraph (A).

\(ii\) ASSURANCE.\--If the State does not have policies and procedures
to ensure compliance with clause (i), the State shall provide an
assurance that it will revise the funding mechanism as soon as feasible
to ensure that such mechanism does not result in such placements."
(§612(a)(5)(B))

These new provisions require that States do not set up funding
mechanisms that violate the LRE requirement and that if a State has in
place funding mechanisms that are in violation, they be revised as soon
as possible. Furthermore, as described in the IEP section, supplementary
aids and services were defined, as well as other components, such as
student involvement in the general curriculum, the participation of
students in State and districtwide assessment programs, and performance
goals and indicators.

When students with disabilities are educated in the general education
classroom, the possibility exists that a nondisabled child might benefit
from the special education being provided to a child with a disability.
In the past, schools were required to keep track of these incidental
benefits. The new provision states:

"(4) PERMISSIVE USE OF FUNDS.\--Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A) or
section 612(a)(18)(B) (related to commingled funds), funds provided to
the local educational agency under this part may be used for the
following activities:

\(A\) SERVICES AND AIDS THAT ALSO BENEFIT NONDISABLED CHILDREN.\--For
the costs of special education and related services and supplementary
aids and services provided in a regular class or other education-related
setting to a child with a disability in accordance with the
individualized education program of the child, even if one or more
nondisabled children benefit from such services." (§613(a)(4))

Parent and Student Participation

IDEA strongly encouraged the participation of and communication among
all parties who have a vested interest in the education of students with
disabilities. On the one hand, parents have always been important
players in the special education process, and their involvement is
crucial to successful results for students. On the other hand, the
language inviting student participation has become stronger with the
past two reauthorizations of IDEA, particularly in the area of
transition.

Previous versions of IDEA stipulated that:

Public agencies must notify parents when they propose or refuse to
initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of the child, or the provision of FAPE to the child.

Parents have the right to inspect and review any education records
relating to their child that the public agency collects, maintains, or
uses. In addition, they have the right to inspect and review all
educational records with respect to the identification, evaluation, and
educational placement of the child, and the provision of FAPE to the
child.

Parental consent is required before a child may be evaluated for the
first time.

Parents have the right to obtain an independent educational evaluation
(IEE) of their child; under certain circumstances, this IEE may be at
public expense. If the parents obtain an IEE at private expense, results
of the evaluation must be considered by the public agency in any
decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child.

Parents are members of the team that develops their child's IEP.

Parental consent is required for a child's initial special educational
placement.

Parents have the right to challenge or appeal any decision related to
the identification, evaluation, or placement of their child, or the
provision of FAPE to their child.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 define "parent" and provide procedural
safeguards for infants, toddlers, and children so that they continue to
receive services under the Act if the parent is unable to be located.

The definition of parent as it appears in the IDEA Amendments of 1997
is:

"The term 'parent'\--

\(A\) includes a legal guardian; and

\(B\) except as used in sections 615(b)(2) and 639(a)(5), includes an
individual assigned under either of those sections to be a surrogate
parent." (§602(19)).

Section 615(b) states the procedural safeguards established for Part B;
Section 615(b)(2) requires "procedures to protect the rights of the
child whenever the parents of the child are not known, the agency
cannot, after reasonable efforts, locate the parents, or the child is a
ward of the State, including the assignment of an individual (who shall
not be an employee of the State educational agency, the local
educational agency, or any other agency that is involved in the
education or care of the child) to act as a surrogate for the parents .
. . ."

Section 639(a) states the procedural safeguards established for Part C;
Section 639(a)(5) requires

"\[p\]rocedures to protect the rights of the infant or toddler whenever
the parents of the infant or toddler are not known or cannot be found or
the infant or toddler is a ward of the State, including the assignment
of an individual (who shall not be an employee of the State lead agency
or other State agency, and who shall not be any person, or any employee
of a person, providing early intervention services to the infant or
toddler or any family member of the infant or toddler) to act as a
surrogate for the parents."

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 also add several new requirements in terms
of parental involvement in their child's education. The following
section contains verbatim text from the IDEA Amendments of 1997 related
to parental rights and responsibilities.

Notification to the Public Agency by Parents Regarding Private School
Placement. "LIMITATION ON REIMBURSEMENT.\--The cost of reimbursement
described in clause (ii) \[regarding reimbursement for private school
placement\] may be reduced or denied if\--(aa) at the most recent IEP
meeting that the parents attended prior to the removal of the child from
the public school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they
were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a
free appropriate public education to their child, including stating
their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private
school at public expense; or (bb) 10 business days (including any
holidays that occur on a business day) prior to the removal of the child
from the public school, the parents did not give written notice to the
public agency of the information described in division (aa); (II) if,
prior to the parents' removal of the child from the public school, the
public agency informed the parents, through the notice requirements
described in section 615(b)(7), of its intent to evaluate the child
(including a statement of the purpose of the evaluation that was
appropriate and reasonable), but the parents did not make the child
available for such evaluation; or (III) upon a judicial finding of
unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents."
(§612(a)(10)(C)(iii))

"EXCEPTION.\--Notwithstanding the notice requirement in clause (iii)(I),
the cost of reimbursement may not be reduced or denied for failure to
provide such notice if\--(I) the parent is illiterate and cannot write
in English; (II) compliance with clause (iii)(I) would likely result in
physical or emotional harm to the child; (III) the school prevented the
parent from providing such notice; or (IV) the parents had not received
notice, pursuant to section 615, of the notice requirement in clause
(iii)(I)." (§612 (a)(10)(C)(iv))

Input During Evaluation. "CONDUCT OF EVALUATION.\--In conducting the
evaluation, the local educational agency shall\--(A) use a variety of
assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional and
developmental information, including information provided by the parent,
that may assist in determining whether the child is a child with a
disability and the content of the child's individualized education
program, including information related to enabling the child to be
involved in and progress in the general curriculum or, for preschool
children, to participate in appropriate activities . . . ." (§614(b)(2))

Eligibility. "DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.\--Upon completion of
administration of tests and other evaluation materials\--(A) the
determination of whether the child is a child with a disability as
defined in section 602(3) shall be made by a team of qualified
professionals and the parent of the child in accordance with paragraph
(5); and (B) a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of
determination of eligibility will be given to the parent." (§614(b)(4))

"SPECIAL RULE FOR ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION.\--In making a determination
of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined
to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such
determination is lack of instruction in reading or math or limited
English proficiency." (§614(b)(5))

Reevaluation. "PARENTAL CONSENT.\--Each local educational agency shall
obtain informed parental consent, in accordance with subsection
(a)(1)(C), prior to conducting any reevaluation of a child with a
disability, except that such informed parent consent need not be
obtained if the local educational agency can demonstrate that it had
taken reasonable measures to obtain such consent and the child's parent
has failed to respond." (§614(c)(3))

Receiving Progress Reports and Revising the IEP. The IEP must contain "a
statement of\-- . . . (II) how the child's parents will be regularly
informed (by such means as periodic report cards), at least as often as
parents are informed of their nondisabled children's progress, of\--(aa)
their child's progress toward the annual goals . . . ; and (bb) the
extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the child to
achieve the goals by the end of the year." (§614(d)(1)(A)(viii))

Regarding the revision of IEPs, the LEA must "ensure that, subject to
subparagraph (B), the IEP Team\--(i) reviews the child's IEP
periodically, but not less than annually to determine whether the annual
goals for the child are being achieved; and (ii) revises the IEP as
appropriate to address\--(I) any lack of expected progress toward the
annual goals and in the general curriculum, where appropriate; (II) the
results of any reevaluation conducted under this section; (III)
information about the child provided to, or by, the parents, as
described in subsection (c)(1)(B); (IV) the child's anticipated needs;
or (V) other matters." (§614(d)(4))

Placement. "EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.\--Each local educational agency or
State educational agency shall ensure that the parents of each child
with a disability are members of any group that makes decisions on the
educational placement of their child." (§614(f))

Participation in All Meetings. The procedural safeguards under Part B of
the IDEA Amendments of 1997 require:

"an opportunity for the parents of a child with a disability . . . to
participate in meetings with respect to identification, evaluation, and
educational placement of a child, and the provision of a free
appropriate public education to such child . . . ." (§615(b)(1))

Notification by Parents of Their Intent To File a Complaint. Any SEA,
State agency, or LEA that receives Part B funds must institute
"procedures that require the parent of a child with a disability, or the
attorney representing the child, to provide notice (which shall remain
confidential)\--(A) to the State educational agency or local educational
agency, as the case may be, in the complaint filed under paragraph (6);
and (B) that shall include\--(i) the name of the child, the address of
the residence of the child, and the name of the school the child is
attending; (ii) a description of the nature of the problem of the child
relating to such proposed initiation or change, including facts relating
to such problem; and (iii) a proposed resolution of the problem to the
extent known and available to the parents at the time; . . ."
(§615(b)(7))

Parent Involvement in Policy Making. Parents were also encouraged in
many other ways in the legislation to be involved as partners with
educators and policy makers. This included involvement at the national,
State, and local levels.

At the national level, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 require the
Department of Education to involve parents in activities related to the
funding of grants in the areas of coordinated research, technical
assistance, support and dissemination of information. Parents of
children with disabilities must be included in the development of the
comprehensive plan of activities for research grants, membership in the
standing panel of experts to evaluate applications for grants and
cooperative agreements, and membership in the peer review panels for
particular competitions.

At the State level, parents are to be involved at two levels. First,
they must be invited to participate on the State advisory panel that is
set up "for the purpose of providing policy guidance with respect to
special education and related services for children with disabilities in
the State." (§612(a)(21)) In fact, "the majority of members of the panel
shall be individuals with disabilities or parents of children with
disabilities." (§612(a)(21)(C)) Second, they must be invited partners
with the SEA in developing and implementing the State program
improvement grants. (§652(b))

Parents are also to be involved in decision making at the local level.
Specifically, they are to be involved in school-based improvement plans
that the LEAs may submit. These improvement plans are designed "to
permit a public school within the jurisdiction of the local education
agency to design, implement, and evaluate a school-based improvement
plan . . . that is designed to improve educational and transitional
results for all children with disabilities . . . in that public school."
(§613(g)(1)) Membership of this panel must reflect the diversity of the
community in which the public school is located and must include parents
of children with disabilities who attend the school.

Students as Partners in Their Education. The law acknowledges that if
students are to develop into independent, productive adults and become
increasingly responsible for their behaviors and accomplishments, they
need to acquire the skills that promote decision making. Therefore, new
provisions (discussed in the IEP section of this module) regarding
transition were added to the law.

Procedural Safeguards

The procedural safeguards were designed to protect the rights of parents
and their children with disabilities, as well as give families and
schools a mechanism for resolving disputes. Some of the safeguards
remain essentially unchanged, while others have been revised or newly
added. The following safeguards have remained intact:

access to educational records: parents have the right to inspect and
review all of their child's educational records;

parents' right to obtain an IEE of their child;

parents' right to request a due process hearing on any matter with
respect to the identification, evaluation, or placement of their child,
or the provision of FAPE;

parents' right to have a due process hearing conducted by an impartial
hearing officer;

parents' right to appeal the initial hearing decision to the SEA, if the
SEA did not conduct the hearing; and

parents' right to bring civil action in an appropriate State or Federal
court to appeal a final hearing decision.

Several procedures were modified and others were added. These will be
discussed in the remainder of this section.

Prior Written Notice and the Procedural Safeguard Notice. Before the
IDEA Amendments of 1997, prior written notice of procedural safeguards
had to be given to parents before a public agency (a) proposed to
initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of the child, or the provision of FAPE to the child or (b)
refused to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or
educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE (34 CFR
§300.505(a)(1)). The IDEA Amendments of 1997 changed this approach to
informing parents of the procedural safeguards by trying to simplify the
process. Now the full explanation of the law's procedural safeguards is
provided via the "procedural safeguards notice" when:

the child is initially referred for evaluation;

parents are notified of an IEP meeting;

the agency proposes to reevaluate the child; and

upon registration of a due process complaint. (§615(d)(1))

At other times, parents are reminded of the availability of procedural
safeguards through a document called "prior written notice." Prior
written notice is to be given whenever the public agency proposes or
refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or
educational placement of the child, or the provision of FAPE to the
child, and includes: "(1) a description of the action proposed or
refused by the agency; (2) an explanation of why the agency proposes or
refuses to take the action; (3) a description of any other options that
the agency considered and the reasons why those options were rejected;
(4) a description of each evaluation procedure, test, record, or report
the agency used as a basis for the proposed or refused action; (5) a
description of any other factors that are relevant to the agency's
proposal or refusal; (6) a statement that the parents of a child with a
disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of this part
and, if this notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, the means
by which a copy of the description of the procedural safeguards can be
obtained; and (7) sources for parents to obtain assistance in
understanding the provisions of this part." (§615(c))

Mediation. Prior legislation permitted mediation to be used to resolve
conflicts between schools and parents of a child with a disability. The
IDEA Amendments of 1997 outline States' obligations for creating a
mediation process in which parents and LEAs may voluntarily participate.
States must ensure that the mediation process is voluntary on the part
of parties, and that it is not used to deny or delay a parent's right to
a due process hearing or to deny any other rights afforded under Part B
of IDEA. Mediation must be conducted by a qualified and impartial
mediator who is trained in effective mediation techniques. A list of
qualified mediators knowledgeable in laws and regulations relating to
the provision of special education and related services must be
maintained by the State, and the State must bear the cost of the
mediation process. (§615(e))

Discipline. Specific requirements were added to the law regarding the
discipline of children with disabilities. These requirements were based
on a number of factors, including court cases, OSEP memoranda, and
findings from OCR.

One of the basic tenets of the original law has become known as the
"stay put" policy. This provision has served to prevent public agencies
from unilaterally removing a child with a disability from his or her
current educational placement and placing the child in another setting
during administrative proceedings. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 carry
forward this provision by stating:

"Except as provided in subsection (k)(7) \[placement during appeals\],
during the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this
section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents
otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational
placement of such child . . . ." (§615(j))

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 add explicit new requirements regarding the
discipline of students with disabilities who:

violate a school rule or code of conduct subject to disciplinary action;

carry a weapon to school or a school function under the jurisdiction of
an SEA or LEA;

knowingly possess or use illegal drugs or sell or solicit the sale of a
controlled substance while at school or school function under the
jurisdiction of an SEA or LEA; and

if left in their current educational placement, are substantially likely
to injure themselves or others.

Section 615(k) of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 divides the disciplinary
process into 10 subsections. The following paragraphs briefly outline
these disciplinary requirements.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 clarify the authority of school personnel to
take disciplinary action, including ordering a change in placement for a
child with a disability\--

"(i) to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another
setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 school days (to the extent
such alternatives would be applied to children without disabilities);
and

\(ii\) to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for the
same amount of time that a child without a disability would be subject
to discipline, but for not more than 45 days if\--

\(I\) the child carries a weapon to school or a school function . . . ;
or

\(II\) the child knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs or sells or
solicits the sale of a controlled substance while at school or a school
function . . . ." (§615(k)(1)(A))

Either before or not later than 10 days after taking the disciplinary
action mentioned above, if the LEA did not conduct a functional
behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan for
the child before the behavior that resulted in the suspension, the
agency must convene an IEP meeting to develop an assessment plan to
address the behavior. If the child already has a behavioral assessment
plan, the IEP team must review the plan and modify it as necessary.
(§615(k)(1)(B))

The law expanded the authority of the hearing officer to place the child
in an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for not more
than 45 days. The hearing officer must determine that the public agency
has demonstrated that maintaining the child in the current placement is
substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. In so
determining, the hearing officer must consider the appropriateness of
the current placement and whether the public agency has made a
reasonable effort to minimize the risk of harm in the current placement,
including the use of supplementary aids and services. (§615(k)(2))

Both of these new provisions refer to placing the child with a
disability in a setting which will enable the child to continue to
participate in the general curriculum and to continue to receive
services and modifications described in the child's IEP and enable the
child to meet the goals of the IEP. The placement must be determined by
the IEP team. (§615(k)(3))

The relationship between the child's disability and the misconduct must
be determined through a "manifestation determination review." The IEP
team may determine that the behavior was not a manifestation of the
child's disability. To consider the behavior subject to the disciplinary
action, all relevant information, including evaluation and diagnostic
results, including other relevant information supplied by the parents of
the child, observations of the child, and the child's IEP placement must
be reviewed in relation to the behavior subject to the disciplinary
action. The IEP team must determine that the child's IEP and placement
were appropriate and the supplementary aids and services and the
behavior intervention strategies were provided consistent with the
child's IEP and placement, the child's disability did not impair the
ability of the child to understand the impact and consequences of the
behavior subject to disciplinary action, and the child's disability did
not impair the ability of the child to control the behavior.
(§615(k)(4)(C))

Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, if it is determined that the
misconduct was not a manifestation of the child's disability, the
relevant disciplinary procedures applicable to children without
disabilities may be applied to the child in the same manner in which
they would be applied to children without disabilities. However, schools
must continue to provide FAPE to children with disabilities who have
been suspended or expelled from school. (§615(k)(5)(A))

Parents have the right to appeal manifestation determinations. During
the appeal, the "stay put" provision determines the child's placement
during the appeal process. The LEA may request an expedited hearing if
the school personnel maintain that it is dangerous for the child to be
in the current placement. (§615(k)(6) and (7))

Also under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, a child who has not yet been
found eligible for special education and who has violated any rule or
code of conduct could assert the protections of the Act if the LEA had
knowledge that the child had a disability before the behavior occurred.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 include a set of criteria to determine
whether the LEA knew if the child had a disability. If the LEA did not
have knowledge that a child has a disability, then the child may be
subject to the same disciplinary actions as children without
disabilities. However, if a request is made for an evaluation of a child
during the time that the child is subjected to disciplinary measures,
the evaluation must be conducted in an expedited manner. (§615(k)(8)(C))

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 make it clear that agencies are not
prohibited from reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability
to the appropriate authorities. Similarly, the law does not prevent
State and judicial authorities from exercising their responsibilities.
(§615(k)(9))

Finally, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 provide definitions for controlled
substances, illegal drugs, substantial evidence, and weapons. These
definitions are critical to the interpretation and implementation of
these new provisions. (§615(k)(10))

Attorneys' Fees

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 clarify circumstances under which attorneys'
fees can be collected and ensures that a fair cost standard is imposed.
The legislation prohibits attorneys' fees and related costs for (a) an
IEP meeting, except if ordered by an administrative proceeding or
judicial action, or (b) at the discretion of the State for a mediation
that is conducted prior to filing a complaint. The legislation also
outlines certain circumstances when attorneys' fees must be reduced.
(§615(i)(3))

Conclusions

Historically, IDEA has been a strong civil rights statute. As shown
throughout this module, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 build upon previous
versions of IDEA to provide children with disabilities and their
families with a comprehensive set of rights and responsibilities. The
new law also strengthens the responsibilities of SEAs and LEAs. IDEA
tries to balance parental rights and educational agencies'
responsibilities. It is hoped that this balance will be achieved through
technical assistance to States, increased involvement of families, and
OSEP's oversight of implementation of the law.

References

Committee on Labor and Human Resources. (1997). Report (to accompany S.
717). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA),
P.L. 105-17. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

State Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities[^5]

Purpose: To present an overview of accountability issues, particularly
as they relate to State systems for addressing the needs of students
with disabilities.

Over the past several years, Federal, State, and district policy makers
have promoted a system of standards-based reform[^6] in which special
education has played a limited role (Goertz & Friedman, 1996). On the
State level, standards-based reform emerged in the 1990s as a system to
address policy fragmentation generated by a series of conflicting,
State-initiated reforms (Smith & O'Day, 1991). Standards-based reform
posits that "State government is to set system and student goals for the
State, coordinate these long-term instructional goals across various
State policies, and hold schools and school districts accountable for
meeting these goals" (Smith & O'Day, as cited in Center for Policy
Research, 1996, p. 4).

Most broadly, accountability is defined as "a systematic method to
assure those inside and outside the educational system that schools and
students are moving toward desired goals" (Brauen, O'Reilly, & Moore,
1994, p. 2). Accountability may be defined at two levels\--systems-level
accountability and student-level accountability. Traditionally,
systems-level accountability has focused on input and process indicators
of schooling and program improvement. In many States, this type of
accountability is called school accreditation, or the program review
process. With standards-based reform, accountability has been expanded
to include evaluation of student results as well. Student results
typically are measured in terms of assessment results. Hence, three
elements for systems-level accountability are: inputs, processes, and
aggregate student results. Student-level accountability may include
individual graduation and promotion requirements.

This module focuses only on systems-level accountability. The remainder
of the module reviews changes in the State education accountability
systems and issues associated with including students with disabilities
in general education accountability.[^7] The module ends with summary
findings relevant to families and children, educators, and policy makers
at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Importance

Including students with disabilities in accountability systems is
important for several reasons. First, many educators and advocates
contend that general educators do not feel accountable for the
performance of students with disabilities (Elliott & Thurlow, 1997;
Roach & Raber, 1997; Schnorr, 1990). Second, including students with
disabilities in the general accountability program is a key vehicle for
including students with disabilities in standards-based reforms. In
addition, advocates support the inclusion of students with disabilities
in all facets of the general school system, including the accountability
system (NASBE, 1992; NASDSE, 1994). Finally, Federal legislation
requires that students with disabilities be included in all aspects of
standards-based reform (The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1993; the
Improving America's Schools Act, 1994; and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997). Despite this rationale,
however, special education has played a limited role in creating
standards-based reform policy (Goertz & Friedman, 1996), and students
with disabilities are often excluded from the general curriculum, State
and district assessments, and accountability systems (Elliott & Thurlow,
1997; Roach & Raber, 1997).

Traditional General Education Accountability

The traditional model for general education accountability is based
largely on inputs to the system, such as the number of books in the
library, the square footage allocation per student in a school, and the
number and age of the textbooks that a district uses. These
input-oriented accountability systems are variously called
accreditation, school improvement reviews, accountability reports,
profiles, and district composite reports. Some of these reviews are
completed by State department of education staff in conjunction with
district and school officials. In other instances, independent
accrediting bodies work in conjunction with the State to conduct
accreditation reviews. In addition to accounting for specific inputs,
many systems review components of the education enterprise to determine
if programs are being implemented with integrity and within the spirit
of the policy that created them. Examples include the curriculum review
cycle and long-range facilities planning in a district. The focus of
these reviews is on the processes of and inputs to education; the unit
of analysis is typically the school building or district.

Coupled with this type of accountability review are compliance reviews
for specific categorical programs funded by either the Federal or State
government. Compliance review, or monitoring, takes the specific program
as the unit of analysis. Like accreditation, it is based largely on the
process of delivering a particular program (such as compensatory
education or bilingual education) to a particular student population,
school, or district. As such, program compliance also relies on the
inputs to the system.

Traditional Special Education Accountability

Traditionally, accountability in special education has been focused on
compliance. Until the mid-1990s, the focus was on ensuring that
districts were undertaking the appropriate procedures prescribed by
Federal and State law in a timely fashion. Child count has also been
used as an accountability measure in special education because much of
special education's Federal and State funding is based on the number of
students eligible to receive services under the program (Elliott &
Thurlow, 1997). In addition, one of the mandates of IDEA is "child
find," the requirement for districts to locate students who may be in
need of special education services. Reviewing the child count for
special education is a way to evaluate the districts' and States'
fulfillment of that requirement. Also, the courts and/or hearing process
have become a mechanism for special education accountability at the
district and State levels.

Accountability Reform

General education accountability systems have been changing in three
ways: (1) in substance, (2) in form, and (3) in implementation.

Substance

This is a shift from emphasis on the inputs to and processes of
instruction to the results of the educational system. However, it is
important to note that although States have added an emphasis on student
achievement, or in some instances weighted student achievement more
heavily in their accountability systems, with few exceptions States have
generally maintained the input and program improvement elements of their
systems (Roach & Raber, 1997).

Form

States are adding sections to their accountability systems that describe
student results, such as district or school report cards, or requiring
districts to report State assessment results as part of a larger
comprehensive report of the district. States are implementing processes
that require districts to describe how they will help students meet
State-established standards. As a result, some States have been adding
elements of strategic planning to their accountability systems. Some
States are expanding their accountability systems to hold the school
accountable where they formerly may have placed accountability at the
district or student level.

Implementation

For many States, the emphasis has shifted in accountability programs
from procedural compliance to program improvement and technical
assistance (MacDonald, as cited in Schrag, 1996). To accomplish this,
accountability in some States is changing from an episodic to an ongoing
process. States are also coordinating monitoring across several
programs. Thus, monitoring for special education programs is conducted
on the same cycle as monitoring for bilingual education or Title I
programs. Additionally, some States are integrating their accountability
systems to include students with diverse needs.

The primary way that students with disabilities are included in the new
general education accountability systems is through the inclusion of
their test scores in school and district reports. Advocates have been
working aggressively over the past several years to ensure that as many
students as appropriate are included in State or district standardized
testing. Yet, research shows that the extent to which students with
disabilities are included in assessments varies based on factors such as
State policies and guidelines, the type of assessments given and
accommodations available, how test scores are reported, and the
consequences attached to the testing reports (Roach & Raber, 1997).
Revised State assessment and accountability policies in some States, as
well as the recently amended IDEA, require that students with
disabilities be included in the testing process and that the scores be
reported in the State's accountability system (Elliott & Thurlow, 1997).

Issues Associated with Including Students with Disabilities in General
Education Accountability

In the tracking of 12 State accountability systems, and a more in-depth
study of 4 of those State accountability systems, the following issues
emerged (Roach, Goertz, & Dailey, 1997):

Limited time. Under a coordinated model, special education compliance
monitors must conduct a full special education compliance review while
also participating in team compliance activities. State monitoring staff
have expressed concerns that they simply do not have enough time to
attend to both activities.

Non-coordinated and duplicative monitoring. Although all of the four
States that were studied in depth reported coordinating or consolidating
their special education compliance monitoring with general education
monitoring, districts did not necessarily perceive it that way.
Respondents in some study districts reported that although State
monitors arrived in the district at the same time, they monitored their
own programs and asked district and school staff duplicative questions.
In some study districts, respondents reported that programs were
monitored at different times, although the State reported a coordinated
accountability system.

Individual entitlement versus group accountability on common standards.
In our sample, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Texas, Florida, and
Colorado were placing greater emphasis on student outcomes in their
accountability systems (Roach, Goertz, & Dailey, 1997). If the new
accountability systems are based primarily on student achievement of
common standards, special educators and advocates worry that attention
to the individualization of special education will be lost. This can
have two consequences. First, educators may drop some of the
individualization associated with special education as they focus more
on group accountability. Second, because the focus is on group
accountability in general education, accountability for student results
in special education may never develop.

General accountability systems must include students with disabilities
in their assessments. Because student assessment results are the
linchpin of new accountability systems, States that have inadequately
included students with disabilities in their testing programs are ill
prepared to include these students in their accountability programs.
States must develop methods for including all students in their
assessment system under the new requirements of the IDEA Amendments of
1997.

Poor achievement is masked if data are not collected and reported in
sufficient detail. State accountability systems that rely on student
assessments typically collect data only on district- or building-level
performance. What is reported is often an average test score of the
student population as a whole. In these instances, the outstanding
performance of some students can counterbalance the poor performance of
other students so that the average score of the total school population
seems adequate. This is a concern for tracking any student population in
State accountability systems, including students with disabilities.

State compliance staff feel pulled by Federal compliance requirements.
Special education compliance items reflect Federal compliance
requirements that are primarily process-oriented (Elliott & Thurlow,
1997). As States develop accountability systems that focus on program
improvement, special education staff perceive that they are torn between
satisfying Federal procedural compliance items and fully participating
in the comprehensive, performance-oriented State accountability programs
and coordinated strategic planning. State monitors feel that they are
put in the position of asking local officials to focus on program inputs
and special education as a separate system and, simultaneously, to focus
on program improvement of a unified system (Roach & Raber, 1997).

Implications

Based on recent work done at the National Association of State Boards of
Education (NASBE), and changes taking place in State accountability
systems in recent years, several points should be noted.

Respondents at the district level valued the utility of process-oriented
special education monitoring based on the extent to which they believed
process monitoring leads to better student results. Guaranteeing the
right to access programs, some believe, naturally leads to student
achievement. For others, as with general education accountability
reform, guaranteeing access to the system does not necessarily translate
to improved student results. They believe it is necessary to focus on
student results in order to improve student achievement.

States continue to struggle with establishing the correct mix of
emphasis on accountability for process versus accountability for student
results. Even with the shift in emphasis toward student results, States
continue to monitor program elements and input variables with an eye
toward program improvement.

Shifting accountability to focus on whether students are meeting the new
standards involves shifting the orientation of accountability from
inputs or processes to results and "raising the bar" on expectations for
students with disabilities.

Including students with disabilities in the general State accountability
system extends their franchise in the general system but at no point
exonerates a State from ensuring individual protections promulgated by
IDEA. General and special education accountability systems are not
mutually exclusive.

Summary

Including students with disabilities in State accountability systems is
part of a general education reform movement that emphasizes end results
rather than educational processes. IDEA and other legislative acts
mandate that students with disabilities be reported in State assessment
results and thereby become part of the State's accountability system.
Issues surrounding the inclusion of students with disabilities in
accountability systems include time constraints on State monitoring
activities, performance masking related to the reporting of averages of
scores at the district or school level, and lack of existing systems or
alternative assessments at the State level.

References

Brauen, M.L., O'Reilly, F., & Moore, M. (1994). Issues and options in
outcomes-based accountability for students with disabilities. Rockville,
MD: Westat.

Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special
Education Reform. (1996, June). Standards-based school reform and
students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of
State Boards of Education.

Elliott, J., & Thurlow, M. (1997, March). Opening the door to
educational reform: Understanding educational assessment and
accountability. Boston: The Federation for Children with Special Needs.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, P.L. 103-227. 20 U.S.C. § 5801
et seq.

Goertz, M., & Friedman, D. (1996, March). State reform and students with
disabilities: A preliminary analysis. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy
Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform, National
Association of State Boards of Education.

Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA), P.L. 103-382. 20 U.S.C.
§ 6301 et seq.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992, October).
Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1994,
December). Goals 2000: Impacting students with disabilities policy forum
report. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Roach, V., Goertz, M., & Dailey, D. (1997). State accountability systems
and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of
State Boards of Education.

Roach, V., & Raber, S. (1997, June). State educational reforms: District
response and the implications for special education. A cross-site
analysis based on four case studies. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy
Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform, National
Association of State Boards of Education.

Schnorr, R. (1990). "Peter? He comes and goes. . .": First graders'
perspective on a part-time mainstream student. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(4), 231-240.

Schrag, J. (1996, October). Organizational change within state education
agencies: Impact on management and leadership in special education.
Final Report of Project FORUM. Alexandria, VA: National Association of
State Boards of Education.

Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman &
B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: 1990 yearbook
of the Politics of Education Association. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

[^1]: This module is, in part, based on an Office of Special Education
    Programs (OSEP)-sponsored project from the National Information
    Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY) and the
    Federal Resource Center for Special Education (FRC). Information
    from a two-volume notebook of training materials titled The
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997:
    Curriculum and Overheads was used to write this module.

[^2]: For in-depth discussions of the changes in law related to the
    inclusion of students with disabilities in the assessment process,
    please see in Section I the module titled "State Accountability
    Systems and Students with Disabilities," and in Section IV the
    modules titled "Standards-Based Reform and Students with
    Disabilities" and "Developing Alternate Assessments for Students
    with Disabilities."

[^3]: Section IV contains a module titled "Performance Indicators for
    Parts B, C, and D." This module gives a detailed description of
    OSEP's response to the Government Performance and Results Act of
    1993 (GPRA).

[^4]: For more on this topic, please see the modules titled "State
    Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities" in Section I
    and "Standards-Based Reform and Students with Disabilities" and
    "Developing Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities" in
    Section IV of this report.

[^5]: This module reports, in part, work conducted by Virginia Roach,
    Ed.D., at the Center for Policy Research, one of several research
    centers funded by OSEP.

[^6]: More information related to standards-based reform can be found in
    two modules in the Results section: "Standards-Based Reform and
    Students with Disabilities" and "Developing Alternate Assessments
    for Students with Disabilities."

[^7]: Please see the 19th Annual Report, pages III-9 through III-22, for
    an in-depth discussion on the educational reform activities related
    to the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide
    assessments.