Special Education Update:
The Legal Basis of Co-Teaching
David Conrad, Principal
Manteno Middle School
dconrad@manteno5.org
Purposes
Some parents believe that special education inclusion is a right for all
children. Models such as co-teaching are an attractive alternative to
the traditional self-contained classroom, making inclusion a popular special
education intervention. However, is there a right to inclusion? The purpose of this web site is to provide a guided tutorial for educators
desiring more knowledge of special education laws regarding inclusion and co-teaching.
The tutorial will also include available resources for further study in the
instructional practices of co-teaching. In order to receive the maximum
benefit, educators are encouraged to work through the tutorial in the sequence
provided, completing all activities prior to moving to the next section.
Hyperlinked references provides referenced or supplementary information that
should be explored.
Objectives
- Contrast the differences between IDEA and Section 504.
- Understand the legal
principle of "least restrictive environment".
- Synthesize the significance of court cases on inclusion and
co-teaching.
- Apply articles to improve classroom practice.
Let's Get Started!
Federal Laws
The 14th amendment of the United States constitution, also
known as the equal protection clause, established that no state may deny persons
the equal protections of its laws. From this, two significant federal laws form the primary basis for
servicing disabled students in
schools -- IDEA and Section 504.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,
2004) establishes
three important concepts for special education:
- All children are entitled to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE)
- All children shall be education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) in
which they will receive an educational benefit, to the maximum extent
possible
- All children who qualify for services under this act shall have an
individualized education plan (IEP)
According to the Council for
Exception Children , IDEA requires the follow evaluation procedures:
- Requires that the child be fully and comprehensively
evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
- Requires informed and written parental consent.
- Requires a re-evaluation of the child at least once every
three years, or if conditions warrant a reevaluation, or if the
child's parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.
- Provides for independent evaluation at the district's
expense if parents disagree with first evaluation.
- Does not require reevaluation before a significant change
in placement. (Council for
Exceptional Children, 2002)
A student who qualifies for services under IDEA will have met the specific
criteria which is regulated by law. IDEA is highly regulated, and as a
result, its rules offer limited to flexibility to schools.
The primary purpose of this act is to educate children with disabilities in a
setting most like the regular education classroom, with necessary supplements or
modifications However, the act itself
does not mention "co-teaching" or "inclusion" by name.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973) was passed to extend
civil rights protections to disabled persons. Section 504 ensures that
disabled students have equal access to their education.
Students do not receive an individualized educational plan, and parents have
fewer procedural safeguards. Students who qualify must be unable to
perform one or more major life activities, such as walking, breathing, or
seeing. Section 504 offers less requirements and regulations, giving
schools and parents more flexibility. For example, parental consent is not
needed -- just parental notification.
A student who no longer qualifies
for services under their IEP may qualify for services under Section 504.
This is a common transition when the IEP is removed.
According to the Council for
Exceptional Children, Section 504 requires the following evaluation
procedures:
- Evaluation draws on information from a variety of sources
and is documented.
- Decisions about the child, evaluation data, and placement
options are made by knowledgeable individuals. Such decisions do
not require written consent of the parents, only that the
parents are notified.
- Requires "periodic" reevaluation.
- No provisions made for independent evaluation at school's
expense.
- Requires reevaluation before a significant change in
placement. (Council for
Exceptional Children, 2002).
Section 504 applies to students in regular
education settings. Modifications and supports can be provided
within the regular education setting, but students requiring a more
restrictive environment must qualify under IDEA.
Unanswered Questions
According to the
Wisconsin Education Association (2001), these two federal laws have failed to address
three key questions regarding special education placements:
- To what extent must schools go to provide services?
- How does a student's future academic and social performance weigh on the
decisions regarding placement?
- What are the legal rights for the other children in the classroom?
It has been the domain of the federal court system to
adjudicate the answers to those questions. Both schools and parents have
filed lawsuits that involve the definition of what
least restrictive environment is and whether or not an inclusion classroom would
be an appropriate placement. However, we can credit parent advocacy for
making it possible to for some disabled children to attend school.
This litigation often leads to regulation and/or
legislation that implements the court's decisions.
Court Cases
In 1972,
Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (P.A.R.C.) v. Pennsylvania was
the first argued case on behalf of disabled students. The plaintiffs used
the same legal arguments as
Brown v.
Board of Education -- that a separate education for retarded children is
inherently unequal under the 14th amendment. A consent decree established
that all mentally retarded children in Pennsylvania shall be educated in a
setting most like a regular education program.
Later in the same year,
Mills v. Board of Education
of Washington, D.C., applied the Pennsylvania case to all
disabled children in Washington, D.C., not just mentally retarded children.
Mills also established
due process rights for the parents of disabled students.
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
Daniel
R.R. v. State Board of Education established significant precedents
regarding LRE and mainstreaming. The courts created a "two-prong" test to
determine if services were being delivered in the LRE:
- Can education be achieved satisfactorily in the
general education classroom with supplemental aides and services?
- Is the student integrated to the maximum extent
possible?
The courts discussed mainstreaming and how instruction
would be delivered. They weighed the curriculum needed to teach the
plaintiff compared to the curriculum taught to the regular education students.
The court wrote that:
...mainstreaming would be pointless if we forced
instructors to modify the regular education curriculum to the extent that
the handicapped child is not required to learn any of the skills normally
taught in regular education. The child would be receiving special education
instruction in the regular education classroom; the only advantage to such
an arrangement would be that the child is sitting next to a non-handicapped
student (http://www.kidstogether.org/ct-danl.htm).
Oberti v. Board of Education
Oberti v. Board of
Education placed the burden of proof on schools to demonstrate that tthe
least restrictive environment has been provided. Regulations have been
implemented to document this through a series of questions on the IEP. In
addition, the courts ruled that supplemental aids and services alone were not a
reason to require a more restrictive placement.
In the case, the courts applied the tests to determine if
appropriate kinds of modifications and supplements were provided to the child.
The court ruled that the school had taken no action to train the staff,
communicate, or plan for the child's behavioral disability. The
court ruled that that school needed to implement more mainstreaming or provide a
rationale why mainstreaming was inappropriate for this child.
Sacramento City School Board v. Rachel Holland
Sacramento City School
Board v. Rachel Holland created the "4-prong" test:
- Educational benefit of the placement
- Non-academic benefits of the placement
- Harmful effects on the teacher and the other students
- Cost of the placement
The court clarified the final bullet by stating cost could
only be considered in that might affect another child in the district.
N.R. v. Kingwood Township
In
N.R. v. Kingwood Township, the courts established the standard of
a "meaningful education benefit" that is "gauged in relation to a
child's potential" . This standard must be used to determine the least restrictive environment
that is appropriate for the student.
Florence County v. Shannon Carter
In
Florence County v. Shannon Carter, the court found that:
...mainstreaming is a
policy to be pursued so long as it is consistent with the Act's primary goal of
providing disabled students with an appropriate education. Where necessary for
educational reasons, mainstreaming assumes a subordinate role in formulating an
educational program (http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.carter.htm).
The court further stated that mainstreaming was primarily
intended to prevent the separation of disabled children from the remained of the
school population.
Greer v. Rome City
According to the
Wisconsin Education
Association (2001), "the major message in this case is that all options must
be considered before removing a child from the regular classroom".
A school that fails to consider all possible placements is in violation
of IDEA.
The courts also ruled in Greer that schools may not refuse services on the sole basis of
cost. However, schools could not be compelled to provide a child with
his/her own private teacher if other arrangements would provide an appropriate
education.
Hartman v. Loudon County Board of Education
In
Hartman v. Loudon County Board of
Education, the court declared that IDEA encourages mainstreaming, but only to
the extent that mainstreaming does not prevent a child from receiving educational benefit.
Case Law Summary
While the courts have found that right to an inclusion classroom does not
exist, they have held firm to the concept that students must be educated in the
least restrictive environment possible where they would receive an educational
benefit. The courts have held to the facts in each individual case to
determine the appropriate placement for each student. The courts also
examine the IEP process to determine whether or not all placement options were
considered and whether placements were based upon the individual needs of
student (Wisconsin
Education Association, 2001).
Co-Teaching Education Resources
Now that you've learned about the legal basis for special
education inclusion, choose one of these instructional articles to read on your
own. You be asked to answer some questions about the article in your final
quiz, including a ten-sentence summary of the article's main points.
| 6 Steps to Successful Co-Teaching: Helping Special and Regular
Education Teachers Work Together by Natalie Marston
http://www.nea.org/teachexperience/spedk031113.html |
This article provides for teachers just starting in a co-taught
classroom. Issues addressed include colleague relationships, discussing
IEP goals, and evaluating each co-teacher's teaching style. |
|
What Matters Most in Inclusive Education: A Practical Guide for
Moving Forward by Deborah L. Voltz, Nettye Brazil, and Alison Ford
http://www.powerof2.org/cgiwrap/powerof2/feature/index.php
|
This descriptive research article summarizes statistical findings
from the past two decades of special education research. The article
stresses that inclusion is more than just a physical classroom setting;
the student must feel like he/she is a fully-participating member of the
classroom. |
| Co-Teaching: Are Two Heads Better Than One in an Inclusion
Classroom? by Millicent Lawton
http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1999-ma/coteaching.shtml
|
The article highlights three basic models of special education
co-teaching: complementary instruction, team teaching, and supportive
learning activities. The authors feel that co-teaching benefits all
students because a second teacher is there to clarify, rephrase,
re-teach, and enhance the instruction. The article also discusses the
challenges of co-teaching, including the difficulty in finding common
time to collaborate and plan for instruction. |
Making Differences Ordinary Through Co-Teaching by Kathy
Checkley
http://www.ascd.org/affiliates/articles/cl200302_checkley_2.html
|
The article asserts that successful co-teachers find a workable
blend of personalities and teaching styles. Building positive colleague
relationships is key to this success. The authors encourage co-teachers
to delineate the day-to-day management tasks in the classroom and decide
how to share them between both teachers. |
|
The Future of Special Education by Julie Tollefson
http://www.ku-crl.org/archives/misc/hudson.html |
This article approaches co-teaching as a "class within a class",
with students learning new thinking skills and study habits. Scheduling
is an important component ensuring that teachers have access to adequate
planning time, adequate collaboration opportunities, and the right mix
of students in the classrooms. |
| Collaboration by Sarasota County Schools
http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/GILS/teacher_media_collaboration.htm
|
This article presents a middle school planning model where classroom
teachers and librarians (media specialists) collaborate on information
literacy instruction. The basic "plan - do - review" model includes
specific steps that each party is responsible for. Samples of the
activities used by this school - in grades K-12 - are posted and
available for download. |
Summary
IDEA and Section 504 are laws that regulate the education
of children with disabilities. The courts have generally found that
inclusion placements should be considered in the context of the child's needs.
However, there is no inherent right to be taught in an inclusion or co-taught
classroom. The courts have consistently ruled the each case must be
examined based on the specific circumstances of the child, their disability, their
educational needs, and the least restrictive environment in which their
educational needs can be met. And, as educators take on more roles in inclusion settings --
such as co-teaching -- staff development and communication are important
elements in successful mainstreaming.
References
Council for Exceptional Children (2002).
Understanding the Differences Between IDEA and Section 504. Available:
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6086.
KidsTogether. (2007). Available:
http://www.kidstogether.org.
Wisconsin Education Association. (2001, November 5). Special education
inclusion. Available:
http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm.
Wrightslaw. (2007). Available:
http://www.wrightslaw.com.
Additional Legal and Educational Links
David Conrad, Principal
Manteno Middle School
dconrad@manteno5.org
