Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2012-3
Complacency With Access and the Aggregate? Affirming an Individual Determination of Educational Benefit Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
Although some legal scholars argue that the progression of Congressional intent in laws for children with disabilities reflects a mission to raise the educational standards and their achievement levels, other insist that many students are not realizing equal educational opportunity and not receiving educational benefit. This article proposes that the alignment of the Individuals with disabilities Education Act (IDEA) with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act may implicate a student’s right to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and cautions against complacency with mere access to the general curriculum and a satisfaction with aggregate accountability of outcome. An analysis of litigation from circuit courts is presented to confirm individual benefit as the legal standard of appropriateness, and the duties of IEP teams to monitoring individual progress on IEP goals are defined. Two recommendations for the reauthorization of both the NCLB Act and the IDEA are proposed.
AlbertoP. A.TroutmanA. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
2.
AndradeH. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(4), 13-18
3.
Alex R. v. Forrestville Valley Community Unit School District 221, 375 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2004).
4.
Alta Loma Elementary School, 102 LRP 31876 (SEA CA 2002).
5.
AronL. (2005). Too much or not enough: How have the circuit courts defined a free appropriate public education after Rowley?Suffolk University Law Review, 39, 1-6.
6.
BabinJ. K. (2000). Adequate special education: Do California schools meet the test? San Diego Law Review, 37, 211-290.
7.
BucariaR. (2007). Expanding the definition of FAPE under NCLB. Journal of Legal and Family Studies, 10237-10242.
8.
Black River Falls School district, 40 IDELR 163 (SEA WI 2004).
9.
BlauA. (2007). The IDEA and the right to an “appropriate” education. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal,1-19.
10.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176 (1982).
11.
Bradley v. Arkansas Department of Education, 443 F.3d 965, 974 (8th Cir. 2006).
12.
BreslinM. A. (2009). No Child Left Behind and the inherent conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Leaving special education students further behind. Albany Government Law Review, 2,653-676.
13.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
14.
CarnineD.GranzinA. (2001). Setting learning expectations for students with disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 466-472.
15.
ChafouleasS. M.ChristT. J.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2009). Generalizability and dependability of scaling gradients on Direct Behavior Ratings (DBRs). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69,157-173.
16.
ChafouleasS. M.ChristT.Riley-TillmanT. C.BrieschA. M.ChaneseJ. (2007). Generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Ratings to measure social behavior or preschoolers. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 63-79.
17.
ConsiglioA. (2009). Nervous laughter and the high cost of equality: Renewing “no Child Left Behind” will safeguard a vibrant federalism and a path toward educational excellence. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal,365-397.
18.
CopelandS. R.CosbeyJ. (2009). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(34), 214-227.
19.
CraparoT. (2003) Remembering the “individuals” of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 6, 467-523.
20.
CroftM. (2008). Modified assessments and No Child Left Behind: Beneficial to students with disabilities but potential problems in implementation. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 11, 513-539.
21.
Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997).
22.
DalyE. J.MartensB. K.BarnettD.WittJ. C.OlsonS. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 562-581.
23.
DanielP. (2008). “Some benefit” or “maximum benefit”: Does the No Child Left Behind Act render greater educational entitlement to students with disabilities?Journal of Law and Education, 37,347-242.
24.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d (5th Cir. 1989).
25.
Deal v. Hamilton County Department of Education, 258 F. Appx. 863 (6th Cir. 2008).
26.
Del Norte County Unified School District, 33 IDELR 50 (SEA CA 2000).
27.
Devine v. Indian River County School Board, 249 F.3d 289 [34 IDELR 203 (11th. Cir. 2001).
28.
EckesS. E.SwandoJ. (2009). Special education subgroups under NCLB: Issues to consider. Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2479-2504.
29.
EckremJ. O.McArthurE. J. (2001). Is the Rowley standard dead? From access to results. U. C. Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 5,199-217.
30.
31.
Escambia County Public School System, 42 IDELR 248 (SEA Al 2004).
32.
EtscheidtS. K. (2006). Progress monitoring: Legal issues and recommendations for IEP teams. Teaching Exceptional Children38(3), 56-60.
33.
FabianoG. A.VujnovicR. K.PelhamW. E.WaschbuschD. A.MassettiG. M.. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 219-239.
34.
FairbanksS.SugaiG.GuardingD.LathropM. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 288-310.
35.
Federal Register, March12, 1999, Volume 64 Number 48, pp.12555-12604.
36.
Fort Zumwalt School District v. Clynes, 119 F.3d 607 (8th Circuit 1997).
37.
FrazorE. G. (2006). No Child Left Behind in need of a new IDEA: A flexible approach to alternative assessment requirements. Golden Gate University Law Review, 36,157-184.
38.
FuchsD.FuchsL. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.
39.
GardaR. A. (2004). Untangling eligibility requirements under the Individuals with disabilities Education Act. Missouri Law Review, 69, 441-512.
40.
GleckelE. K.KoretzE. S. (2008). Collaborative individualized education process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
41.
GordonS. (2006). Making sense of the inclusion debate under IDEA. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 189-225.
42.
GreenfieldR.RinaldiC.ProctorC. P.CardarelliA. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of a response to intervention (RTI)reform effort in an urban elementary school: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 47-63.
43.
GreshamF. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(4), 328-345.
44.
Hall v. Vance County Board of Education, 774 F.2d 629 (4th Cir. 1985).
45.
HarryB.KlingnerJ. (2007). Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 16-21.
46.
HeiseM. (2007). The unintended legal and policy consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act. Nebraska law Review, 86, 119-141.
47.
Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2000).
48.
HuefnerD. S. (2008). Updating the FAPE standard under IDEA. Journal of Law & Education, 37, 367-379.
49.
Hunter v. District of Columbia, 51 IDELR 34 (D.D.C. 2008).
50.
In re: D.F. (SEA IA 2010).
51.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (1997).
52.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
53.
JacksonL. B.RyndakD. L.WehmeyerM. L. (2008-2009). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33-34(4), 175-196.
54.
JamesR. R. (2009). How to mend a broken act: Recapturing those left behind by No Child left Behind. Gonzaga Law Review, 45,683-711.
55.
J. L. v. Mercer Island School District, 575 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2009).
56.
JohnsonS. F. (2003). ReexaminingRowley: A new focus in special education law. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal,561-582.
57.
KauffmanJ. M.KonoldT. R. (2007). Making sense in education: Pretense (including No Child Left Behind) and realities in rhetoric and policy about schools and schooling. Exceptionality, 15(2), 75-96.
58.
KazdinA. E. (2001). Behavior modification in applied settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
59.
KeeleC. E. (2004). Is the No Child Left Behind Act the right answer for children with disabilities?UMKC Law Review, 72,1111-1136.
60.
KerrM. M.NelsonC. M. (2003). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
61.
KickertzA. (2007). Amending theRowley test to clarify the inclusion debate. Western New England Law Review, 29,733-751.
62.
Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Cooperative School District, 592. F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 2010).
63.
MarstonD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 539-545.
64.
MayK. (2009). By reason thereof: Causation and eligibility under the Individuals with disabilities Education Act. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal,172-195.
65.
MeadJ. F.PaigeM. A. (2008). Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson v. Rowley: An examination of it precedential impact. Journal of Law & Education, 37, 329-345.
66.
Metz-TopodasM. (2006). Testing – the tension between the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Temple Law Review, 79,1387-1436.
67.
Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
68.
Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education, 103 F.3d 1114 (2nd Cir. 1997).
69.
M. S. v. Fairfax County Board of Education, 553 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2009).
70.
National Council on Disability (2000). Back to school on civil rights. Washington, D.C.: Author.
71.
N. B. v. Hellgate Elementary School District, 541 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2008).
72.
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
73.
NistL.JosephL. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. The School Psychology Review, 37(3), 294-308.
74.
No Child Left Behind Act (2001). 20 U.S.C. § 6301> et seq. (2002).
75.
Oberti v. Board of Education, 789 F. Supp. 1322 (D.N.J. 1992).
76.
Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993).
77.
’Toole v. Olathe District Schools Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, 144 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1998).
78.
OwenA. S. (2010). Leaving behind a good idea: How No Child Left Behind fails to incorporate the individualized spirit of the IDEA. George Washington Law Review, 78, 405-437.
79.
PearceL. R. (2009). Helping children with emotional difficulties: A response to intervention investigation. The Rural Educator, 30(2), 34-46.
80.
PeckA.ScarpatiS. (2005). Instruction and assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(4), 7.
81.
PembertonJ. B. (2003). Communicating academic progress as an integral part of assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 16-20.
82.
Pennsbury School District, 102 LRP 10466 (SEA PA 2000).
83.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
84.
PinderK. A. (2008). Using federal law to prescribe pedagogy: Lessons learned from the scientifically-based research requirements of No Child Left Behind. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 6,47-83.
85.
PlainM. R. (2004). Results above rights? The No Child Left Behind Act’s insidious effect on students with disabilities. Roger Williams University Law Review, 10,249-278.
Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171(3rd Cir. 1988).
88.
QuadeC. K. (2001). A crystal clear idea: the court confounds the clarity ofRowley and contorts congressional intent. Hamline Journal of Public Policy, 23,37-72.
89.
ReichbachA. M. (2004). The power behind the promise: Enforcing No Child left Behind to improve education. Boston College Law Review, 45,667-704.
90.
RentschlerT. (2006). No Child Left Behind: Admirable goals, disastrous outcomes. Wiedner Law Review, 12,637-663.
91.
ReschlyD. J. (2004). Commentary: Paradigm shift, outcomes criteria, and behavioral interventions: foundations for the future of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 408-416.
92.
ReschlyD. J. (2007). Teacher quality for multitiered intervention. Washington, D.C.: National comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
93.
Rio Rancho Public Schools, 40 IDELR 140 (SEA NM 2003).
94.
RobertsM. (2009). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Why considering individuals one at a time creates untenable situations for students and educators. UCLA Law Review, 55, 1041-1094.
95.
Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).
96.
Ridgewood Board of Education v. N. E., 172 F.3d 238 (3rd Cir. 1999).
97.
RyanJ. E. (2004). The perverse incentive of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University Law Review, 79,932-989.
98.
RyndakD. L.MooreM. A.OrlandoA. M.DelanoM. (2008-2009). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 199-213.
99.
Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).
100.
SailorW., (2009). Access to the general curriculum: Systems change or tinker some more?Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 249-257.
101.
ScheuermannB. K.HallJ. a. (2008). Positive behavioral supports for the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
102.
School Board of Collier County v. K. C., 285 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2002).
103.
SeligmannT. J. (2005). Rowleycomes home to roost: Judicial review of autism special education disputes. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 9, 217-288.
104.
Senate Report 94-168 (1975). Education for All Handicapped Children Act: Calendar No. 162. Washington, D. C.: Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
105.
ShindelC. L. (2004). One standard fits all? Defining achievement standards for students with cognitive disabilities within the No Child Left Behind Act’s standardized framework. Journal of Law and Policy, 12, 1025-1088.
106.
ShinnM. (2007). Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and determining eligibility within response to intervention: Research on educational need and benefit from academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 601-617.
107.
Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P. S., 381 F.3d 194 (3rd Circuit 2004).
108.
Sioux City Community School District v. Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, 103 LRP 37969 (SEA IA 2003).
109.
StoneC. A.DoaneJ. a. (2001). The potential for empirically based estimates of expected progress for students with learning disabilities: Legal and conceptual issues. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 473-486.
110.
SugaiG.HornerR. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4), 223-237.
111.
T. R. v. Kingwood Township Board of Education, 205 F.3d 572 (3rd Cir. 2000).
112.
U. S. Department of Education (2002). President’s commission on excellence in special education report: A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
113.
UmbreitJ.FerroJ. B.LiaupsinC. J.LaneK. L. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based intervention. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
114.
UmpsteadR. R. (2009). Current issues in public policy: Special education assessment policy under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy, 7,145-185.
115.
VannestK. J.MahadevanL.MasonB. A.Temple-HarveyK. K. (2009). Educator and administrator perceptions of the impact of No Child Left Behind on Special Populations. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 148-159.
116.
VaughnS.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432-444.
117.
VolpeR. J.DiPernaJ. C.HintzeJ. M.ShapiroE. S. (2005). Observing students in classroom settings: A review of seven coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 34(4), 454-474.
118.
Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119 (2nd Circuit 1998).
119.
WankerW. P.ChristieK. (2005). State implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 57-72.
120.
WeberM. C.MawdsleyR.RedfieldS. (2007). Special education law: Cases and materials. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
121.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD.AgranM. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(4), 327-342.
122.
WenkartR. D. (2000). TheRowley standard; A circuit by circuit review of how Rowley has been interpreted. West’s Education Law Reporter, 1-30.
123.
West Des Moines Community School District and Heartland Area Education Agency, 36 IDELR 222 (SEA IA 2002).
124.
WheelerJ. J.RicheyD. D. (2005). Behavior management: Principles and practices of positive behavior supports. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
125.
WolfeJ. A. (2002) A search for the best IDEA: Balancing the conflicting provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Vanderbilt Law Review,1627-1658.
126.
YellM. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
127.
YoungerR. R. (2007). The rationales of striking rights: Influences of the No Child Left Behind Act. Arkansas Law Review, 60,735-772.
128.
ZirkelP. A. (2008). Have the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act razed Rowley and raised the substantive standard for “free appropriate public education?Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 8, 396-402.
