In the 30 years since the establishment of federal law mandating special education, the voices of school personnel (special education teachers, speech and language pathologists, and school psychologists) charged with implementing these laws and regulations have been largely silent in the national research. Yet, these front line school district personnel serve as “intermediaries” and have responsibility to implement special education policy. This is an exploratory study that provided a forum for rural special education teachers, speech and language pathologists, and school psychologists to share their experiences and ideas regarding implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) prior to the reauthorization in 2004. Recommendations regarding practice, research, and policy in the administration of rural special education programs are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adler,M., & Ziglio,E. (Eds.) (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
2.
Algozzine,B., Christenson,S., & Ysseldyke,J. E.(1992). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process.Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19–23.
3.
Apling,R. N., & Jones,N. L. (January 5, 2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Analysis of changes made by P.L. 108–446. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
4.
Ash v. Lake Oswego 766 F. Supp. 852 (D. Or. 1991).
5.
Bailey,K. (1997). Method of social research (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
6.
Barnett v. Fairfax County School Board EHLR 441:633 (E.D. Va. 1989).
7.
Barrick,S. W. & Enell,N. C. (1980). Paperwork systems in special education: Analysis and critique. ERIC Document ED195 063.
Beattie v. Board of Education, 172 N.W. 153 (Wis. 1919).
10.
Behrmann,J. (1993). Including everyone.The Executive Educator, 16–20.
11.
Berg,B. L. (1995). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
12.
Billingsley,B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature.Journal of Special Education, 24, 137–174.
13.
Billingsley,B. S., Gersten,R., Gillman,J., & Morvant,M.(1995, May). Working conditions: Administrative support (Working Paper #5). Paper presented at the National Dissemination Forum: Special Education Teacher Satisfaction, Retention, and Attrition, Washington, DC.
14.
Billingsley,B. S., & Tomchin,E. M.(1992). Four beginning LD teachers: What their experiences suggest for trainers and employers.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 104–112.
15.
Bogdan,R. C., & Biklen,S. K.(1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
Brownell,M. T., & Smith,S. W.(1993). Understanding special education teacher attrition: A conceptual model and implications for teacher educators.Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 270–282.
17.
Buck,G., Morsink,C., Griffn,C., Hines,T., & Lenk,L.(1992). Preservice training: The role of field-based experiences in the preparation of effective special educators.Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 108–123.
18.
Butera,G., McMullen,L, & Henderson,J.(1997). IEPs, student with behavior problems and school discipline policies: A collision course. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 103).
19.
Chambers,J. G., & Hartman,W. T.(1983). Special education policies. In Chambers,J.G. & HartmanW. T. (Eds.), Special education policies: Their history, implementation, and finance. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
20.
Cremins,J.J. (1983). Legal and political issues in special education.Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
21.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education. EHLR 441: 443 (5th Cir. 1989).
22.
Drew P. v. Clarke County School District 676 F. Supp. 1559 (M.D. Ga.1989).
23.
Fowler,F. C. (2000). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
24.
Geis v. Board of Education 774 f.2d. 575 (3d Cir. 1985).
25.
Goodman,J. F., & Bond,L.(1993). The individualized education program: A retrospective critique.The Journal of Special Education, 26, 408–422.
Heumann,J. E. (1993). Oberti decision is core of the ED's inclusion position.The Special Educator, 18, 86.
28.
House Committee on Education and Labor. (1989). Hearing on EHA Discretionary Programs Reauthorization: Hearing before the subcommittee on select education of the House Committee on Education and Labor (statement of Ginger Greaves, Chair of the Federal Legislative Committee, IMPACT-HI).Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
Huefner,D. S. (2000). The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under the IDEA ‘97.The Journal of Special Education, 33, 195–204.
30.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (1990).
31.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (1997).
32.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Amendments of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (2004).
33.
Kavale,K. A. & Forness,S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate.Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279–96.
34.
Lofland,J. & Lofland,L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Maloney,M. H. (1993). The seven deadly sins: Common mistakes which can lead to due process hearings. InProceedings of the 14th National Institute on Legal Issues of Education Individuals with Disabilities. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
Mattison,D. A. (1994). An overview in the development of procedural safeguards.In Proceedings of the 15th National Institute on Legal Issues of Education Individuals with Disabilities. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
39.
McLaughlin,M. J., Smith-Davis,J., & Burke,P. J.(1986). Personnel to educate the handicapped in America: A status report. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
40.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866. (D.D.C. 1972).
41.
Morse,J. M. (1998). Designing funded qualitative research. In Denzin,N.K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquire (pp. 56–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
National Council on Disability. (January 25, 2000). Back to school on civil rights: Advancing the federal commitment to leave no child behind. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
Newcomer,J. R. & Zirkel,P. A. (1999). An analysis of judicial outcomes of special education cases.Exceptional Children, 65, 469–480.
44.
Oberti v. Board of Education of Borough of Clementon School District 19 IDELR 908 (3d Cir. 1993).
45.
OSEP Policy Letter, 21 IDELR 563 (OSEP 1994).
46.
Osborne,A. G. (1994). The IDEAs least restrictive environment mandate: Legal implications.Exceptional Children, 61, 6–14.
47.
Osborne,A. G. (1995). Procedural due process rights for parents under the IDEA.Preventing School Failure, 39, 22–26.
48.
Patton,M. (1995). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
Rosenberg,M. S., & Rock,E. E.(1994). Alternative certification in special education: Efficacy of a collaborative field-based teacher preparation program.Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 141–153.
50.
Rothstein,L. F. (2000). Special Education Law (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
51.
Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. 20 IDELR 812 (9th Cir. 1994).
52.
Salant,P., & Dillman,D. A.(1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
53.
Siegel,L. M. (1994). Least restrictive environment: The paradox of inclusion.Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
54.
Silver,S. (October 1986). Compliance with PL 94–142 mandates: Implications for teacher training programs. Bellingham, WA: National Rural and Small Schools Consortium. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED280 631).
55.
Smith,S. W. (1989). Analysis of individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities in public school self-contained and resource room settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
56.
Smith,S. W. (1990). Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in special education—From intent to acquiescence.Exceptional Children, 57, 6–14.
57.
Strauss,A. & Corbin,J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
58.
Turnbull,H. R.III. (1999). Free Appropriate Public Education: The Law and Children with Disabilities (5th ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company
59.
Tweedie,J. (1983). The politics of legalization of special education reform. In Chambers,J.G. & HartmanW. T. (Eds.), Special education policies: Their history, implementation, and finance. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
60.
U. S. Department of Education. (1995). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
61.
U. S. Department of Education. (1997). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Washington, DC: Author.
62.
U. S. Department of Education. (1998). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
63.
U. S. Department of Education. (2000). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
64.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (June 24, 1999). Individuals with disabilities education act: Final regulations. Washington, DC: Author.
65.
Williams, Letter to, 18 IDELR 534 (OSEP 1991).
66.
Williams, Letter to, 20 IDELR 1210 (OSEP 1993).
67.
Winzer,M. A. (1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
68.
Yell,M. L. (1998). The Law and Special Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
69.
Yell,M. L., Rogers,D., & Rogers,E. L.(1998). The legal history of special education: What a long, strange trip it's been!Remedial and Special Education, 19, 219–228.
70.
Yell,M. L. & Drasgow,E. (1999). A legal analysis of inclusion.Preventing School Failure, 43, 118–23.
71.
Zettel,J. J., & Ballard,J.(1982). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94–142): Its history, origins, and concepts. In JosephBallard, BruceA. Ramirez, and FrederickJ. Weintraub (Eds.), Special education in America: Its legal and governmental foundations. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
