Talk:Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

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

message: I added this section in response to a (well-deserved) NPOV message someone posted. There are probably more topics that could be added to give the article a more balanced approach, but this is the only one I can think of at the moment.
One thing I need some feedback on before going further with the section: A lot of the criticism of IDEA isn't necessarily criticism of the statute itself, but rather with the implementation of the statute.
Should the section be restricted to criticism of the law and regulations only? I can't decide.
Best,
Rosmoran 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the Criticisms section, however, I think the first Taxpayer Criticism is a bit offensive. Specifically the fact that "educational" is in quotes. Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.98.198 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section

message: Hi, Netbuoy.
I'm delighted to have found another Wikipedian interested in contributing to the topic. My text can always be improved, and I appreciate having someone to collaborate with.
I'm wasn't aware of some of the issues you are raising. So I can educate myself, could you point me to one or more websites where I can get more information about these topics? I'm familiar with the .gov sites and a number of parent advocacy sites, but it seems like you have a handle on this from a completely different angle.
Best,
Rosmoran 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request on NetBuoy's edits of lead section 

message: Hi,
I removed citation newly added to the following sentence in the Background section:
:Many states had laws that explicitly excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school, including children who were blind, deaf, and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded."
I removed it for a couple of reasons: the cited source was not where I got the information (I'm the one who added it to the article); the added citation was from a British journal and the information in the article is specific to the U.S.; the British article cited was published in 1969, and the EHA statute (which this statement refers back to) was passed in 1975.
I added a second reference to the actual source of the material, currently listed as footnote [4]. You will notice that this source is the same as the source cited in footnote [5]. I was taught that, when citing a single source for multiple contiguous sentences or paragraphs, you provide the citation after the last statement obtained from that source. However, this sentence has been tagged at least a couple of times as needing a citation despite my explanation that there is only one citation required because the sentences come from the same source. Hopefully having both sentences explicitly cited will make the source of the material sufficiently clear.
I hope this explanation is coherent. If not, point out where the confusion is and I'll try again.
In the interest of completeness, the source for both of the sentences is as follows:
Back to School on Civil Rights: Advancing the Federal Commitment to Leave No Child Behind," a report published by the National Council on Disability on January 25, 2000.
Best, Rosmoran 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of added citation 

message: I'm not sure about this reversion. The IDE-improvementA of 2004 might well be called IDEIA. Does anyone know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the new name.  I see an article move coming. 174.23.193.91 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDEA and IDEiA 

message: I don't think "Many states are still resistant to educating special needs children appropriately even though they continue to accept federal funding. The federal and state enforcement agencies do not use strong enforcement methods or penalties." is an appropriate thing to put, especially in the background section of the article, especially without any citations. Anyone else see that as unreasonable? 74.215.100.230 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree. It sounds like the sort of thing that's written by a parent who wants a gold-plated special ed program, when the law actually requires much less (for good or ill). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I don't think that it says that anywhere in the act. The exact wording of step two of wthe Rowley test can be found at 458 US 202, but there is a ton of case law saying something like "reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits." "Results in" is incorrect, misleading, and far too strong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.220.240 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Results in educational benefit" versus "Reasonably calculated" 

message: http://nclid.unco.edu/Resources/IDEA_Progress.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.49.26 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The only evidence of that document's existence I can find is in mirrors of this article. The claim that it is supporting - "Many of these children lived at state institutions where they received limited or no educational or rehabilitation services." is however a fairly "common knowlege" one so finding another source to support it should be quite easy. Roger (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 6 link is broken 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202938/http://nclid.unco.edu/Resources/IDEA_Progress.pdf to http://nclid.unco.edu/Resources/IDEA_Progress.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709195624/http://nhedlaw.com/special%20education%20and%20standards.doc to http://www.nhedlaw.com/special%20education%20and%20standards.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007204732/http://ldanatl.org/aboutld/professionals/guidelines.asp to http://www.ldanatl.org/aboutld/professionals/guidelines.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415163832/http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Individual_Family/ to http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Individual_Family/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126185015/http://www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/itca_capta_survey_results_2008.pdf to http://www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/itca_capta_survey_results_2008.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407032803/http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/index.html to http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911232205/http://www.nichcy.org/ to http://www.nichcy.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified