By AMY RILEY
One Citizen's Perspective

This is the first in a two-part series on proposed changes to state Department of Education regulations regarding the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. This week addresses the political process. Next week will be an insight into the people and lives this law affects.

When Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in June 1997, a process of preparing regulations to implement the federal law became necessary in all 50 states. The Georgia Department of Education chose to convene a task force made up of educators, administrators, lawyers, parents, and individuals from various advocacy groups to look at IDEA, and determine a set of regulations that would be a template for local school districts for the delivery of education services to all children with special needs.

After getting input from people all over the state, a new version of regulations to support IDEA were presented in January of this year to the state Board of Education, with a request for their approval from the Department of Education and Superintendent Linda Schrenko. It is here that the process became a little convoluted.

At the January board meeting, Bruce Jackson, a member of the board since last year, asked that the new IDEA rules version (from here on, referred to as the January version) be withdrawn from the agenda. The State BOE chairman, Otis Brumby, complied and no vote was taken on the proposed rule.

In April of this year, an amended version (now called the April version) of the IDEA rule was presented to be placed on the table for 30 days of public comment, after which a vote was expected to occur. The April version was radically different from the January version, and the result was a lot of confusion and fear all over the state that the new rule could potentially cause big problems for parents and individual school districts and lead to a flood of litigation for a law that was already “the third most litigated law in this country,” according to Clemene Ramsey, special education coordinator for Fayette County schools.

Concern about the April version of the proposed rule centered predominantly around issues of language and interpretation of the federal law. I use the past tense because, as of Friday, state Deputy Superintendent Davis Nelson reported that now the April version has been scrapped, too, due to the outpouring of criticism from throughout the state.

To illustrate the language issue, consider the following. The current document, Chapter 160-4-7, Special Education, defines physical and occupational therapy as services provided by qualified physical or occupational therapists “to develop and enhance the independent physical functioning of students with disabilities so the students can benefit from special education.” The April version of the rule eliminated the phrase, “so the students can benefit from special education,” leaving the Georgia School Boards Association (GSBA) fearful that the new rule would require occupation and/or physical therapy for all students with disabilities, not just those students in a special education program, a reality that would, in effect, dilute resources across a broader spectrum of need.

The single greatest cause for concern, according to local parents and educators, was the proposed language change to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) clause. LRE operates on the principle that, “to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities...shall be educated with students who are not disabled.”

This is achieved through inclusion in the regular education classroom for as much of the day as possible by adding appropriate modifications and support staff in a collaborative setting.

The April version of the regulations offered language which many parents and educators felt would eliminate educational settings other than inclusion, except in “extraordinary cases...and on an infrequent basis.”

Nick Harris, a Fayette county parent of a child with special needs, sums it up this way: “We used to have to fight to have our children included in the regular ed classroom. Now we may have to fight to have our children placed in a contained classroom if that is, in fact, the least restrictive environment for that particular child.”

Ramsey stated that language which mandates stringent, restrictive environments is contradictory to “our whole philosophy, and to the spirit of IDEA, which holds that every child is different and has the right to an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) that is tailor-made to meet his or her specific needs.”

Since a new version is expected, local parents will have another opportunity to offer public comment. For more information on the latest version of the rule and how to submit your public comments, contact Clemene Ramsey at 770-460-3990, ext. 150.

Be sure to read again next week for a glimpse into the opinions, beliefs and realities of local parents who are everyday advocates for their children with special needs.

[Your comments are welcome at: ARileyFreePress@aol.com.]

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page