December 18, 2008 Pamela Ptacek SELPA Directors SELPAs I, II, III, IV & VII

1. IDEA What Does it Mean for Inclusion? Natural Environments/ LRE for ALL Children and the State Performance Plan (SPP) December 18, 2008 Pamela Ptacek SELPA Directors SELPAs I, II, III, IV & VII

2. Six Principles of the IDEA • Free and appropriate public education. • Child find (including assessment). • Individualized Education Program/ Individualized Family Service Plan. • Least restrictive environment. • Parent participation in decision making. • Due process (mediation/hearing).

3. Natural Environments Part C of IDEA states that early intervention services, "to the maximum extent appropriate, are provided in natural environments, including the home, and community settings in which children without disabilities participate; and are provided in conformity with an individualized family service plan adopted in accordance with section 636" [Sec. 632(4) (G),(H)].

4. Natural Environments (Cont) The legislation provides the opportunity for services in other settings when the parents and the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) team determine that a child’s needs cannot be satisfactorily met in a "natural environment" as defined above. The federal law states:

5. Natural Environments (Cont) To the maximum extent appropriate, early intervention services are provided in natural environments; and The provision of early intervention services for any infant or toddler with a disability occurs in a setting other than a natural environment that is most appropriate, as determined by the parent and the individualized family service plan team, only when early intervention cannot be achieved satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural environment [IDEA 2004 §635 (a)(16)(A),(B)].

6. Natural Environments (Cont) While the IFSP team is required to justify why services may need to be provided in settings other than a natural environment, the team should not feel compelled to provide an undue burden of justification, as this would violate the spirit of the requirement that the IFSP be based on the individual needs of the child. (Sec. 303.340) (ASHA)

7. Natural Environments (Cont) The concept of "natural environments" as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1997; 2004) has created confusion regarding the appropriate settings for services for families and their infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing.

8. What Are Natural Environments for Deaf or Hard of Hearing Infants and Toddlers? Natural environments for infants and toddlers, who are deaf or hard of hearing, and their families should be places where all have full access to language and communication through visual, auditory, and/or tactile communication systems specific to that child and family.

9. Natural Environments for Deaf or Hard of Hearing Infants (Cont) The Joint Committee of ASHA and CED believes that natural environments for infants and toddlers, who are deaf or hard of hearing, are environments that include family members and caregivers, are develop-mentally appropriate, and provide direct communication with adults and peers through one or more fully accessible natural languages (e.g., American Sign Language, spoken English, or Spanish).

10. Natural Environments for Deaf or Hard of Hearing Infants (Cont) Natural environments include the home, child care center, school, or other setting where the child's language(s) and communication modality are used by fluent adult users and where peers are using and/or acquiring the same languages through similar modalities.

11. Natural Environments for Deaf or Hard of Hearing Infants (Cont) Natural environments should be easily accessible to families and provide opportunities for families to meet with professionals, who are knowledgeable about language and communication development in children with a hearing loss, and to interact with other families who have similarly developing children, whether hearing, deaf, or hard of hearing.

12. When Determining the Setting for Services for Families and their Young Children: • Consider home, community, and program settings (including center- based programs) that provide full support for language and communication development for the child and family. • Base recommendations on a comprehensive assessment of the child and the family’s priorities, resources, and concerns. • Provide families with comprehensive information about all programs and providers.

13. When Determining the Setting for Services for Families and their Young Children (Cont) • Encourage families to visit all programs providing services to young children with hearing loss and their families. • Support families in selecting the programs, providers, settings. And services that best meet the needs of the child and family. • Recommend program and services that employ qualified providers, who are fluent users of the language(s) and communication modality or modalities of the child.

14. Least Restrictive Environment The placement of students with disabilities ages three through 21 in appropriate settings has been an integral to Part B of the IDEA since its enactment. Three basic principles are included in the federal mandate. These are: • Placement is based on the student 's individualized education program; • Placement is in the least restrictive environment; and • A continuum of alternative placement options is available to all students with disabilities.

15. LRE (Cont) Of these principles, the requirement to place students in the least restrictive environment has raised the most questions and generated the most discussion. Although this requirement has been included in Part B of the IDEA since 1975, consistent understanding and direction have emerged more recently through federal court decisions, the amendments of IDEA 2004 and the final federal regulations that were published in 2007.

16. Nonacademic Services Districts must take steps, including the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the IEP Team, to provide nonacademic and extracurricular activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in those activities. (e.g. counseling, athletics, recreation, clubs, etc.) CFR 300.107(b)

17. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with their typically developing peers. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only if the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

18. Determining Educational Placement The placement decision is made by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options, and is made in conformity with the LRE provisions of the IDEA.

19. Determining Educational Placement (Cont) • The child’s placement : • Is determined at least annually; • Is based on the child’s IEP; and • Is as close as possible to the child’s home; • Unless the IEP of the child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if not nondisabled.

20. Determining Educational Placement (Cont) • In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services that he or she needs; and • A child with a disability is not removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum. CFR Sec. 300.116

21. LRE for A Child is an IEP Team Decision If the IEP team agrees that the student should receive all or part of the special education services outside the regular classroom, opportunities for participation in programs with typically developing peers in academic or nonacademic activities must be considered and included in the IEP as appropriate.

22. LRE for A Child is an IEP Team Decision The requirements for placement in the LRE and the same decision-making process also apply when considering placement for a preschool age child with disabilities.

23. LRE for A Child is an IEP Team Decision (Cont) • However, many school districts do not operate preschool programs for typically developing children and the law does not require districts to establish such preschool programs to meet the requirements for placing a preschooler with disabilities in the LRE. • This perceived inconsistency has raised many questions regarding a practical approach to addressing this issue.

24. LRE for A Child is an IEP Team Decision (Cont) • As with any student with a disability, the determination of whether a placement is more or less restrictive is based on the opportunity to be educated and interact with typically developing peers. • For school age students with disabilities, this placement is in the regular education class operated by the district of residence.

25. LRE for A Child is an IEP Team Decision (Cont) • In the case of a preschooler with disabilities, there may be no comparable option because the district does not operate a preschool program for typically developing children. • Therefore, it is important to note that for preschoolers with disabilities, placement in a regular preschool program in another district or in a privately operated program in the local community is a less restrictive placement option than the district's self-contained preschool disabled classroom.

26. IT’S THE LAW! School districts must ensure to the maximum extent appropriate that students with disabilities ages three through 21 are educated with nondisabled children and participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities with nondisabled children.

27. Case Law and LRE Rachel Holland vs. Sacramento Unified School District 9th Circuit 1994 The 4 Prongs of the Decision • Educational Benefits • Non Academic Benefits • Effect on the Teacher and Children in the Regular Class • Cost

28. Case Law (Cont) • Educational Benefit The district court found that Rachel received substantial benefits in regular education and that all of her IEP goals could be implemented in a regular classroom with some modification to the curriculum and with the assistance of a part-time aide.

29. Case Law (Cont) • Nonacademic Benefits The district court next found that the non-academic benefits to Rachel, also weighed in favor of placing her in a regular classroom. The court noted that the Hollands' evidence indicated that Rachel had developed her social and communications skills as well as her self-confidence from placement in a regular class, while the District's evidence tended to show that Rachel was not learning from exposure to other children and that she was isolated from her classmates.

30. Case Law (Cont) • Effect on the Teacher and Children in the Regular Class • The court looked at two aspects: (1) whether there was detriment because the child was disruptive, distracting or unruly, and (2) whether the child would take up so much of the teacher's time that the other students would suffer from lack of attention. The witnesses of both parties agreed that Rachel followed directions and was well-behaved and not a distraction in class.

31. Case Law (Cont) • Cost Finally, the district court found that the District had not offered any persuasive or credible evidence to support its claim that educating Rachel in a regular classroom, with appropriate services, would be significantly more expensive than educating her in the District's proposed setting.

32. State Performance Plan Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) SPP Indicator 7: Preschool Assessment Percent of preschool children with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who demonstrate improved; • Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); • Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and • Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)).

33. State Performance Plan (Cont) Indicator 1: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner.

34. State Performance Plan (Cont) Indicator 3: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate: • Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships; • Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication; and • Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

35. State Performance Plan (Cont) Indicator 4: Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family: • Know their rights; • Effectively communicate their children’s needs; and • Help their children develop and learn.

36. State Performance Plan (Cont) Indicator 7: Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline.

37. State Performance Plan (Cont) Indicator 8: Percent of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support the child’s transition to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third birthday including: • IFSPs with transition steps and services • Notification to LEA, if child is potentially eligible under Part B; and • Transition conference, if child potentially eligible for Part B.

38. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!