Talk:Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 June 2020 and 2 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jweed1214.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The items in the following list are proposed:[edit]

There should be more info on the affects it has on several states

Stub section for Procedural Safeguards added[edit]

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)[reply]

Criticisms section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clarification request on NetBuoy's edits of lead section[edit]

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)[reply]

My revised text for lead, written before NetBuoy's edits[edit]

Hi,

I'd like to hang on to my tentative text edits of the lead section, so I'm placing them here.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal statute that guarantees a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, to all children with disabilities. Originally passed in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), the IDEA provides funds to assist states in complying with its requirements. FAPE is a protected right in all 50 states and U.S. territories for children age birth through 21 (up to age 22. The due process procedures built into IDEA help to protect the rights of students with disabilities and their parents.

Article Issues[edit]

Hi, thank you for this article. I appreciate it.

The opening section refers to 1970 - 1990. I believe this should read "1975-1990" as the original "handicapped children" act appears to have been passed in 1975, and "1975" is consistently used throughout the body of the text.

This is my first Wikipedia edit, so please advise me on how to improve or correct my edits.

Thank you

Rorojoe (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate the work that has gone into this article, but as someone who has practiced law in this area for quite some time I am concerned that portions of the article are beginning to look like DOE propaganda while other portions are technically inaccurate.

The reasons I offered my changes with respect to the lead paragraph have largely to do with the fact that so many people are so terribly confused about the IDEA and other federal education Acts. Education in this country is a matter reserved to the states. The federal government has attempted to make policy in this arena by offering states revenue streams in exchange for state adoption of policy consistent with federal standards. Unfortunately, and in many ways aided and abetted by DOE, the critical distinctions have been lost on the public and many state bureaucracies.

The IDEA does not effect states except as states adopt state law or regulation for the purpose of accessing the funds made available for meeting federal policy requirements. Specifically, the IDEA DOES NOT govern "how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities." While the following paragraph notes that states do not have to participate, the lead paragraph is still, on its own, inaccurate. Any state can provide early intervention, special education, related services or anything else the state wishes to provide without regard to the IDEA, and in many cases such states would be better off for that effort, as opposed to trying to play games with USDOE as far as arcane technicalities.

At one time adopting policy that met or exceeded federal policy guidelines seemed easy enough to do (though actual compliance is simply a joke), but now that DOE has acted to chill parent rights under the IDEA and otherwise retreat in certain areas it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine what is a service floor as opposed to a service ceiling. In many respect IDEA has to be viewed as no longer being an Act for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, as many provisions are now intended to in fact reduce the rights of disabled individuals either from the law as previously stated or as compared to existing state law (which arguably could afford the individual greater rights than contained in the statement of federal policy.)

I would be happy to continue to add and/or amend the article, but the process becomes problematic as recent argument of a student's contribution to his schools wikipedia page evidenced. I strongly believe in differentiating between opinion and statement of fact supported by citation and will be happy to add cites as time allows, but it is difficult to add cites to text when the text is being deleted ;=} The other caveat is that citation to USDOE material continues to be problematic in that USDOE publications, including "studies", are so terribly flawed. Having been involved in monitoring processes and having obtained Secretarial Review while that process was still available I have to note that USDOE and states are heavily invested in in making it look like the IDEA has been a great success. It is therefore difficult to obtain any impartial research (although a number of education texts have now published such conclusions and I will try to pull some of them as time allows in the next few days.)


Net-buoy 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Net-buoy,
I haven't looked at this article in a few months, or I would have responded to you sooner.
I hope you will continue to collaborate on this article. I think you're right in many respects, though there may be other aspects of the statute and related case law to be considered. (I don't think I've deleted any of your text, but I could be mistaken.)
Part of the skew may be my attempt to be objective --- as the parent of 2 children supposedly being served under IDEA, I don't look at IDEA, the DOE, OSEP, or any state or local education agency through rose colored glasses. The laws and their implementation (or the lack thereof) have not served my children well, so I've worked hard to approach the subject objectively. I may have leaned too far in the opposite direction.
It would be great to have an attorney who practices law in this area to participate. Please come back!
Best, Rosmoran (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ros,

Sorry I have not responded sooner. I will try to continue to contribute, but would prefer to restate much of the article to make it clearer that IDEA, just as NCLB, does not directly impact states or districts....

Perhaps what I will do is provide some suggestions in this page and see if you can live with them.... Net-buoy (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back here in the real world, IDEA does directly impact states and districts. Once you've signed up for the money, you are actually bound to its terms. What you mean, I think, is that IDEA is technically optional, even though every single state, and therefore every single public school district, has agreed to it. Saying that IDEA doesn't directly impact us is like saying that the United States isn't directly impacted by any treaty that it's signed, on the grounds that we didn't have to sign it, and that we could often, with sufficient notice, get out of it.
Looking at your older comments: the other difficulty with some of these studies is the "compared to what" issue. Compared to, say, 1935, disabled children are vastly better served, and the existence of IDEA had a significant and measurable impact there, especially in states that don't have separate protective laws. But at this point, if IDEA was repealed, I'm not sure that students would necessarily be hurt. Perhaps the very most disabled children -- those whose IEPs say things like "will spend the entire year learning to press a single, large, ergonomically simplified buzzer for communication" -- would be placed in daycare instead of school. But that's the one-in-ten-thousand level of disability. The majority of kids with IEPs have moderate ADD or dyslexia, and I don't think that our approach to these kids would change if IDEA didn't exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of added citation[edit]

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)[reply]

IDEA and IDEiA[edit]

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)[reply]

It looks like the new name. [1] I see an article move coming. 174.23.193.91 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overall this article seems to have huge NPOV problems. To me it reads like the work of a parent fighting for and promoting greater public accommodation for their child. Not even in the controversy section is the impact on non-disabled classmates mentioned. The issue of teachers needing to prepare two (or more) appropriate lesson plans is also hardly hinted at. No research backing is provided on positive outcomes nor unintended negative consequences. In short it reads much like a slick sales brochure. BryceN (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Results in educational benefit" versus "Reasonably calculated"[edit]

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)[reply]

Citation 6 link is broken[edit]

http://nclid.unco.edu/Resources/IDEA_Progress.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.49.26 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act&oldid=1218295719"