Introduction and brief overview of the policy
According to the law, any student who is entitled for special education ultimately has the federal right to have an access to it. The reason for that is because any child living with disability needs to have an easy access to not only special education but also to other associated services which will enable him or her meet their unique requirements. Regardless of the means the government of Texas has been utilizing to limit the number of students indentified for special education, the is the need of coming up with other better plans or policies that can aid in rectifying the continued violation of the federal special education laws and regulations (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1).
On the other hand, one of the policies that are used by the government of Texas to foster special education for disabled students is the individual with disabilities education act (IDEA). As much as easy access to education is concerned, all public schools in Texas are mandated to be in the position of offering quality edification to all students (Nowicki 6). Basically, IDEA is regarded as being a collection of state rules and regulations that are used by the government for the purpose of ensuring free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all disabled learners who will be enrolled in Texas’s public schools. According to this act, each public school should be in the position providing equitable academic opportunities to all disabled learners in the least restrictive environment (LRE) as well as in accord with the individualized education program (IEP) of each student (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1).
Major issues facing each level of government
One of the reasons as to why the law recommends special education to be provided in public schools is because the federal funding these institutions receives are aimed at developing better education programs that can benefit students with disabilities. Despite, each level of government has the authority of imposing their own rules and regulations because each one of them has its own requirements (Ennis 302). This is to imply that each government has autonomy of creating rules they require as much as they do not end up contradicting the fundamental nature of the federal laws. Nonetheless, although it is stipulated by the law that students with special needs be enrolled in conventional classes together with non-special learners, such requirements have been found to be deduced differently throughout the country (Willis 193).
Nonetheless, each level of government in Texas is not mandated to utilize federal funding to finance special education programs as a way of developing scholarship programs for students from low-income earning families. The reason for that is because it violates the federal law. In the process of providing special education in Texas, TAC (Texas Administrative Code) and TEC (Texas Education Act) are typically the responsibility of both the commissioner and state board of education. Similarly, in order to be in the position of ensuring that both laws are effectively administered, Texas Education Agency takes the responsibility of monitoring the general progress of the provision of special education services (Estes 453). This is done through the use of the PBMAS (performance-based monitoring analysis system).
Reasons for initiating changes to the policy
Although the responsibility of the IDEA is to ensure that all disabled student have had an easy access to special education, TEA (Texas Education Agency) had failed to effectively implement those rule and regulations. One of the reasons for initiating changes to this policy is because TEA had extensively failed to indentify, locate, and evaluate all disabled students who resides within the state and who are requires special education as well as other related services. Such a survey was also to be conducted despite of the severity of the student’s disability (Hodges 325). This was also in line with the failure of implementing proper strategies to conduct such an exercise.
Another issue that initiated changes to the IDEA is the failure of TEA in facilitating the availability of FAPE (free and appropriate public education) to any disabled child who resides in Texas. The third reason is the failure of the management authority of TEA to accomplish their supervisory and monitoring duties as demanded by individual with disabilities education act (IDEA). This in return resulted to the failure of ensuring that IDEA’s child requirements in all independent school districts. Have been met Likewise, regardless of the implementation of the special edification representation indicator as a means of measuring the number of students with special needs enrolled, it was found out that the percentages still continued to decline (U.S. Department Of Education Issues Findings In Texas Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Monitoring | U.S. Department Of Education 1).
Options to be considered
Despite the need of OSEP (office of special education program) working together with TEA, it was important to come up with other means that can increase the identification and enrollment of disabled children to public schools. One of the option that had been considered by TEA as a means of addressing the concerns of OSEP entail issuing letters to independent district schools in the state that could have reiterate their children to seek responsibilities under individual with disabilities education act (IDEA) (Willis 196). Another option entailed the need of supporting the strategies used by TEA in seeking required information from their various departments through coordinating listening sessions in the state.
Additionally, there was the implementation of new law that was aimed at prohibiting the continued use of the performance indicator within the public schools. The reason for restricting the use of this performance indicator is because it was only geared towards measuring the percentage or the total number of students obtaining special edification and other associated services under individual with disabilities education act (IDEA). Similarly, the use of the 8.5 percent cap had been realized to have the ability of denying students with special need the chance of accessing special education (Nowicki 22).
Pros and cons of each potential reform (costs v. benefits)
Advantages
The provision of free and appropriate public education (FAPE) ensures that each child have received his or her education needs regardless of his or her learning disabilities at public expense. When it comes to evaluation, the law stipulates that evaluations for students with special needs are conducted in a logical manner. Ideally, what the law demands is the use of multiple tests that can validate that such a child actually demands special edification services. In return, this has the potential of eliminating discrimination (Ennis 309).
Additionally, with the use of the IEP (individualized education program) it becomes possible to set up objectives, modifications, and accommodations to the existing curriculum. This also enables public schools to have specialized professionals who can facilitate the learning of a child with special needs and other related services, for instance while playing with those without disabilities (Willis 201). This is achieved through the use of the LRE (least restrictive environment).
Disadvantages
As much as IDEA is concerned, it has been realized that the evaluations for students with disabilities can only be valuable if only there is the use of qualified administers as well as other educators who can have the potential of recognizing the problem in the first place. But this has not been the scenario due to the lack of strategies included in what the IDEA stipulates (Willis 196)Moreover, due to the fact that there is the existence of various legal documents, at times it has been realized that they are not audited as required on a quarterly basis. This in return makes educators to end up having high self-preservation incentives to ensure that the student meets his or her academic goals. Equally, due to the high chances of meeting with savvy parents, it becomes tricky to ensure that all that is stipulated in by the IDEA have been implemented effectively (Estes 463).
Best option moving forward
Such a strategy ought to take into account the need of ensuring that even disabled children have been given support when accessing special education using effective programs that enables them to realize their education potentials. Another collective action that can be taken by the federal authorities of Texas will entail including a plan that can facilitate the identification, location, as well as evaluation of children with special needs by public schools (U.S. Department Of Education Issues Findings In Texas Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Monitoring | U.S. Department Of Education 1).
Conversely, it is important for the government to ensure that they have stopped the use of intervention methods in district schools. The reason for that is because they have been realized to have the potential of delaying or denying the provision of specialized education services to any child having learning disabilities. To better continue implementing the IDEA requirements, it is vital to ensure that each individual public district school has in place what is called an admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee. The goal for this committee is to aid in evaluating the needs of any eligible student having a disability as well as for any student whom individual and full evaluation could have been conducted initially (Nowicki 24)
Summary and conclusion
Team work and good communication between the parent, public schools, and associated stakeholders is one of the means of ensuring that the child has received quality education regardless of his or her learning disabilities. The importance of this is that it enables the parent and the school personnel to ensure that the child is safe while learning or playing at school. To be in the position of facilitating equitable access to education, it is vital for all concerned authorities to come up with the means of implementing what is documented by the IDEA policy in academic setting.
Due to the fact that the main focus of IDEA is on the needs of the child and not his or her disability, it becomes possible to integrate other procedural safeguard standards that ascertain that the student is achieving his or her academic needs. The use of this policy is also important throughout Texas because it aid in providing protocols to be followed once the child is enrolled in any public school. It is the precautions that are highlighted in the IDEA that have been noted to have the potential of enhancing not only child but also parent participation as one of the members of the school team who provides specialized edification services to the learners.
Work cited
"U.S. Department Of Education Issues Findings In Texas Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Monitoring | U.S. Department Of Education." Ed.gov. N.p., 2019. Web. 1 July 2019.
"Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)." Texas Classroom Teachers Association. N.p., 2019. Web. 1 July 2019.
Nowicki, Jacqueline M. “SPECIAL EDUCATION: Varied State Criteria May Contribute to Differences in Percentages of Children Served.” GAO Reports, Apr. 2019, p. i-37. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=136080598&site=eds-live.
Hodges, Jaret. “Assessing the Influence of No Child Left Behind on Gifted Education Funding in Texas: A Descriptive Study.” Journal of Advanced Academics, vol. 29, no. 4, Nov. 2018, pp. 321–342. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1193184&site=eds-live.
Ennis, Robin Parks, et al. “Child Find Activities Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Recent Case Law.” Teaching Exceptional Children, vol. 49, no. 5, May 2017, pp. 301–308. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0040059916685063.
Estes, Mary Bailey. “Charting the Course of Special Education in Texas’ Charter Schools.” Education & Treatment of Children, vol. 26, no. 4, Nov. 2003, pp. 452–466. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=11597730&site=eds-live.
Willis, Mary. “Utilizing Prosecutorial Discretion to Reduce the Number of Juveniles with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System.” Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, vol. 2016, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 191–215. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=114681484&site=eds-live.
