Inclusion Evolution

Empowering Individuals with Down Syndrome at School and Work

My Love-Hate Relationship with the “I” in IEP

by

Federal law and evidence-based research supports full inclusion with individualized support for students with Down syndrome. Still, a recent study by the federal government found that less than half of students labeled as Intellectually Disabled are included with their typical peers for most of their school day (read the report here).

Many blame the lack of federal funding to implement the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the failure to include our children properly. The feds promised they would fund 40% of the IDEA budget, but they’ve only ever funded up to 17%. Others place blame on a culture of segregation in schools. Still others blame some teachers, administrators, and even parents for not holding high expectations for our children. To some degree, it’s true that all of these factors are part of the problem.

But another surprising roadblock to full inclusion is the “I” in IEP.

The bedrock of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the “Individualized” Education Plan (IEP). Your child’s IEP should be a roadmap to inclusion in the general education classroom with their typical peers. It’s a detailed plan that should be reasonably calculated to plan for your child’s potential growth, and ensure they have access to the general education curriculum with needed supports.

Read Related Post: 7 Essential Research Studies to Win the Fight for Inclusion

In most ways, the “I” in IEP is a good thing. All children learn differently, even those within the Down syndrome community. All our children deserve to be individually served and supported. The “I” in IEP can also be used against our children too. How many of you have heard school personnel tell us that our child with Down syndrome would receive a more “individualized” education in a segregated setting? Many parents either want this path for their child or don’t question the legitimacy of it.

Our schools are imperfect systems. Most do the best they can to serve our children, but many are using unproven programs for students with intellectual disabilities. They’re doing what’s always been done, even if the outcomes continue to be no high school diploma and little chance of meaningful employment. Click on the “7 Essential Research Studies to Win the Fight for Inclusion” above and you will find that all the research collected since IDEA passed in 1975, shows inclusion is the best path for students with even the most significant disabilities. Even though we must work in the broken system we have, doesn’t mean we should stop advocating for evidence-based improvements to education for students with Down syndrome.

Many parents have fought long and hard to pave the way for inclusion for our generation of children. But inclusion in general education with proper supports is still not a reality for too many students with Down syndrome. Often the reason is the “I” in IEP. It’s ironic that many parents want to use the “I” in IEP to get their child into general education with supports, while many schools are using it to segregate children. Which is the correct course? I believe we have to follow the law, which states that the continuum of placement begins in the general education classroom with proper supports. It’s understandable if after exhausting all individualized supports in the general classroom, a child may need more supports pulled out of the classroom. But we need to follow the law first and foremost.

Read Related Post: 4 Resources to Help Teachers Include Students with Down Syndrome in the General Education Classroom

I believe our children are not the problem. They have proven they can surpass society’s pathetically low expectations, and they want more. They deserve “individualized” education with their typical peers. We can’t continue to go along with a failed way of educating our children. The stakes are too high. People with Down syndrome are living much longer, healthier lives. Still, for most, their prospects after high school are grim.

How will children with Down syndrome ever be fully included when each school and parent’s definition of “individualized education” is different? If the “I” in IEP is used to divide and conquer us, we’ll never win the fight for inclusion. We must follow the law and research, and ensure that our child is receiving individualized supports in the least restrictive environment.

What do you think? What’s the biggest barrier to full inclusion with proper supports for students with Intellectual Disabilities? Comment below.

 

 

Legislation Could Continue to Increase College Opportunities for Students with Intellectual Disabilities

by

Like many soon-to-be high school graduates, college is on Patrick Foraker’s mind. Just this week he interviews at Clemson and George Mason.

Patrick is just one of 3.3 million students applying to college in the U.S. this year, but just the fact that Patrick gets to go to college is an extraordinarily novel idea. “When he was born, these programs did not exist,” says Beth Foraker, Patrick’s mom and disability advocate.

Inclusive post-secondary educational opportunities for students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) really started taking off after the reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) in 2008. At the time, the HEOA began allowing students with ID to qualify for Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and the Federal Work Study Program for the first time. It also established a new grant program that funds the development of programs tailored specifically to college students with intellectual disabilities across the country.

Read Related Post: College Scholarships for Students with Down Syndrome

Now, disability advocates are fighting to keep those, and other, important provisions in the current reauthorization, which recently moved to the U.S. Senate. “Parents and students need to reach out to their Senators soon. Even if your child with Down syndrome is only a baby you can start planning, but we need your help to advocate,” says Stephanie Lee, National Down Syndrome Congress’ Senior Policy Advisor.

Stephanie says when her daughter, Laura, with Down syndrome graduated from high school in 2001, she dreamt of going to college. “But at the time there was only about 15 college programs for students with intellectual disabilities nationwide,” Stephanie says. From that point, Stephanie knew she would make her daughter’s dream of college come true, and she became instrumental in getting the provisions to include students with ID in the HEOA.

Stephanie says it’s not guaranteed that these important provisions will continue to be authorized, so we have to remind our Senators of the improvements made thus far. According to Think College, there are now more than 260 college programs for students with ID, and 61% of the students that graduate from these programs are competitively employed. That’s compared to an 85% unemployment rate for the rest of the ID community.

Read Related Post: What College Should Look Like for Students with Intellectual Disabilities  

Stephanie is asking local, state, and national disability rights organizations to sign onto a letter to the Senate HELP committee, letting Congress know our community’s priorities for the bill. So far, 13 local and national organizations have signed onto the letter released last Friday.

Signatures to this letter to Congress need to be submitted by end of business on Thursday, February 22nd. To read and sign onto the letter click here.

Going forward, Stephanie says small improvements related to funding guidance should be made in the HEOA or at the Department of Education, and are detailed in the letter above. She says parents and community members can also improve these students’ odds. “It can be a challenge to start these post-secondary programs. I’ve been a part of starting several, and obviously start-up funding is the biggest challenge. But sometimes even a lack of understanding of why we need post-secondary options for students with ID can be an issue. Community colleges and universities need to know that inclusive programs have far reaching benefits for even typical students,” Stephanie says.

Stephanie Lee (right) with her daughter, Laura (left)

Although Stephanie’s daughter passed away a couple of years ago, she says her daughter Laura was able to see and speak about the benefits of the 2008 reauthorization of HEOA. “It’s very exciting when I read on Facebook parents are taking their child to visit college programs. Still, there are many places in our country with no post-secondary options,” Stephanie explains. She hopes new families with college in their sights will step up and advocate for the HEOA reauthorization.

Beth and Patrick Foraker plan to do just that. “There’s a reason they call life after high school for people with intellectual disabilities: Falling Off A Cliff. 85% of adults with ID are unemployed. The Higher Education Act needs to be reauthorized and it is not guaranteed that the TPSID funding will continue. These programs provide real options and a real chance at tackling that terrible statistic,” Beth explains.

To Learn more about the Higher Education Opportunity Act Reauthorization click here. Does your child with Down syndrome plan to go to college? How do you plan to make that happen? Tell me your story below.

Making SMARTER IEP Goals with an Inclusive Mindset

by

How do we get our loved ones with Down syndrome included in regular education classrooms with proper supports? For most, it’s an elusive question. But it all really starts with IEP Goals.

A good evaluation drives good IEP goals, which can drive placement in regular education with proper supports. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) actually mandates specific requirements for IEP goals, but often even school personnel don’t know about these requirements. It may be up to you to advocate for more evidence-based, inclusive-driven IEP goals for your child.

Read Related Post Here: 3 Words that Will Transform Your Child’s Next IEP Meeting

Two Speech and Language Pathologists are using their combined 40 years experience at the IEP table to help parents and teachers write better IEP Goals. You may have heard of SMART Goals, which is an acronym created by a group of entrepreneurs and used in many industries. Although the acronym is helpful to the IEP goal writing process, Lara Wakefield and Kelly Ott say it needed to be expanded to include IDEA mandates. Keep reading to find out how they improved one of my son’s IEP goals using the expanded acronym: SMARTER.

“If we write SMARTER IEP Goals we have better outcomes. The entire IEP process and the student’s education depends on solidly written IEP goals. This includes driving placement to a more inclusive setting,” explains Lara Wakefield.

Overview of the SMARTER acronym:

  1. Specific Skill sets and observable behaviors; Use specific actions words and contexts
  2. Measurable with meaningful and manageable data collection, including baselines
  3. Attainable with an annual IEP cycle
  4. Research/evidence-based methods are documented in the goal
  5. Teachable with cues and strategies that are explained in the goal
  6. Evaluate the data and communicate it regularly to parents
  7. Relevant to the general education curriculum by citing State Standards or Common Core Standards

Read Related Post Here: 7 Research Studies You Can Use at Your Child’s Next IEP Meeting to Win the Fight for Inclusion

Lara says every part of the SMARTER acronym and the federal mandates for IEP goals back up inclusion. “If the goal is supposed to be relevant to the general education curriculum, than what better place to carry out specific skill sets than in the general education classroom. Make sure that’s in your child’s IEP goal,” says Lara. Click on the link above and you will learn that every research study since IDEA was written in the 1970s, shows a regular education setting is more beneficial than a segregated setting; even for students with the most significant disabilities.

Be careful! IEP teams who leave out the evaluation and communication of data could actually lead to a more segregated setting. “If the team has goals that don’t include meaningful and manageable data collection that they evaluate and then communicate to you, they could come back and say your child hasn’t made progress. Often they will recommend a more segregated setting to help your child make progress without proving it with meaningful data. Parents should question this approach and ask ‘where’s the data?’,” Lara explains.

I gave Lara a copy of one of my son’s IEP goals that had fallen into contention. I argued to the IEP team that the goal had still not been addressed six months after the IEP was written. When I called for an IEP meeting to review data for the goal it was apparent the goal had indeed not been addressed. I argued for more time in the classroom with a collaborative effort between the SLP and teacher, and got it. Lara said the goal left out how and when data would be collected and analyzed.

 

You can find Lara Wakefield and Kelly Ott’s step-by-step book to SMARTER IEP goals below. Visit their website here. Does your child’s IEP goals include how and when data will be collected? Is this data communicated to you? Comment below.

How School Boards are Using Endrew F. Supreme Court Case Against Students with Down Syndrome

by

A recent U.S. Supreme Court case that was meant to be a watershed moment for the Down syndrome community and all students with disabilities, has quickly turned into yet another way to try and segregate our children.

The Endrew F. can be compared to the Brown v. Board of Education ruling for African American students. In Endrew F., The Supreme Court unanimously ruled schools must be held to a “markedly more demanding” standard when educating students with disabilities. But school boards are using the high court case to make an argument for continued segregation of students with the most significant disabilities.

Read Related Post Here: Realizing the Promise of the Endrew Supreme Court Case

It’s been 10 months since the Supreme Court created a new standard that requires special education students to meet academic standards and advance grade to grade. In that short time two cases revolving around the segregation of students with Down syndrome have put in question the promise of Endrew F.

As these two cases advance to the Ninth and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the question will be: How will the courts interpret Endrew F. for students with intellectual disabilities? Can these students only receive “more meaningful benefit” in a self-contained class?

Read Related Post Here: 7 Research Studies You Can Use at Your Child’s Next IEP Meeting to Win the Fight for Inclusion

If you’ve read this blog before, or have any knowledge of inclusion for students with Down syndrome, you know there’s NO research that shows more academic benefit for students with the most significant disabilities in self-contained classrooms.  In fact, every research study done since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act first became law in 1975, shows the regular classroom with proper supports provides all students with the best outcomes.

In both of the current cases at the federal appellate court level, R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District and L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education, the parents and their supporters (COPAA, NDSC, NDSS, and other disability rights organizations) argue the boys with Down syndrome are in fact making progress in the regular classroom. You can read more about the cases below.

Read Related Post Here: L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education and R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District

But the National School Boards Associations filed an amicus brief against the boys, and in favor of the school districts that want to segregate them. The organization that supports more than 90,000 school board members argues “academic benefit is the key factor for a court determining whether a school district has provided services in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).” The organization believes Endrew F. strengthened the importance of the educational benefit factor in LRE determinations. They stressed that school personnel are the experts when deciding if progress has been made and if placement should change, and courts shouldn’t “second guess” this judgement.

Read the National School Boards Association amicus brief for the R.M. Gilbert Unified School District here and for the L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education case here. 

Special Education Attorney and Professor, Susan Marks, is troubled by the National School Boards Association interpretation of the ruling. “They are essentially using Endrew F. as justification for trumping the LRE if a school team believes that a student would have greater academic progress in a separate program. Another troubling issue with the National School Board’s reasoning is their assertion that courts should give deference to the school professionals in making such determinations. However, we know that the IDEA gives parents a substantial role in developing their child’s program,” Susan Marks explains.

Special Education Advocates and Attorneys agree if the courts accept this troubling interpretation of Endrew F., parents will find it increasingly more difficult to access an inclusive placement. Still, many are confident the boys with Down syndrome in this case will prevail, because of the evidence that they made meaningful progress in regular education.

What do you think about these cases? Who do you think will prevail and why? Why are we still fighting for inclusion of students with the most significant disabilities? Tell me what you think below.

 

 

How a Tennessee Boy with Down Syndrome’s Family Fought School Segregation and Won

by

Deborah Duncan Rausch says it took countless sleepless nights researching and even selling her home to fight her son, Luka’s, public school district and win. She doesn’t want any other family to have to do the same just to get their child included.

Deborah with her son, Luka

Deborah says it started in their hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee when she realized starting in preschool Luka would be segregated from his peers and set on a non-academic path to nowhere. The family moved to Hamilton County to a magnet school in Chattanooga that initially accepted Luka with open arms. But starting in 3rd grade, as high stakes state testing began, the school started pushing for a segregated setting even though Luka was making progress.

The district wanted to place Luka for half his day in a self-contained classroom in a school outside of his neighborhood. “The segregated class follows no state curriculum or standards. There’s no homework or grades. No accountability,” Deborah explains.

Read Related Post Here: Ninth Circuit Court to Decide if Student with Down Syndrome Can Stay in General Education Classroom

Deborah pushed back and started advocating for other families facing the same prejudice in her school district. “It was so important to me because I knew it was endemic. They were trying to segregate my son as a 9-year-old. It was worth selling my house to pay the $75,000 in legal fees to force the school district to follow federal law. But what about the families that can’t?” Deborah asks.

Knowing Luka would not receive a Free and Appropriate Education in the Least Restrictive Environment if he stayed, Deborah moved her son to a Montessori School where he continues to attend today. After a five year battle with the school district, the family eventually prevailed at the district court level in Tennessee. The District Court ruled that a self-contained class is more restrictive than necessary, but that the family would not receive reimbursement for the private Montessori School.

She didn’t stop there. “I’m in finance, so I know you have to follow the money,” says Deborah. She started digging deep, making numerous Freedom of Information requests, and soon uncovered an incentived funding formula that keeps students with disabilities in her county in a cycle of segregation. “Our district’s formula pays more in segregated setting receiving the exact same level of service, than if they were in regular setting. We filed suit against Tennessee’s Department of Education for violating their fudiciary duties. They quickly settled with us, because they knew we were right,” Deborah explains.

“We can’t go any place in our town without parents coming up to us and thanking us for what we did. They say they felt helpless,” Deborah describes.

Read Related Post Here: 7 Research Studies You Can Use at Your Child’s Next IEP Meeting to Win the Fight for Inclusion

The family’s battle for inclusion is still not over. Hamilton County Schools actually filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals. “They have no ground to land on, but it allows them to delay reimbursement of our legal fees. They just look vindictive and have spent a lot of taxpayer money just to violate the law. We finally decided to cross appeal for reimbursement of the Montessori school private tuition,” Deborah explains.

12-year-old Luka

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that families can be reimbursed for private school tuition if the public school IEP was found to be inappropriate, and the if the private school placement is deemed to be the most appropriate available option (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v.Department of Education of Massachusetts). “The District Judge even stated Luka made progress at the Montessori School, and he ruled the public school was inappropriate. I think he knew there was a clear violation, but just didn’t want to penalize the school district by making them pay for the private school tuition,” Deborah explains.

Even after all of the family’s success, Deborah would never recommend suing. “I would recommend learning everything you can about your child’s rights. Get connected to a local advocacy agency. No parents should go into an IEP meeting alone. Always have an advocate with you. Schools will negotiate if pushed. Fewer district will go as far to segregate as ours did,” Deborah says.

“And If you don’t care at all about disabilities, care about the the cost of taking parents to court. We could be pushing a million dollars for my son’s case, and not a single student has been educated with that money. That money should have been spent on training teachers, co-teachers, advocacy training for parents. Everyone should be outraged by that.”

A ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court for L.H. v. Department of Education of Hamilton County could take months or even a year. I will keep you posted on any updates about the case.

Have you or someone you know had to fight a similar battle for inclusion? Are you frustrated that we’re still fighting this fight more than 30 years after the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was passed? Tell me about it below.