Showing posts with label Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Show all posts

More Fun With Numbers: The Condition of Education 2011

National Center for Education Statistics logo....Image via Wikipedia
 
 
 
Time for some statistics, or as we used to say in the old neighborhood, "satistics."  The National Center for Educational Statistics, an arm of the United States Department of Education, has released its annual report, "The Condition of Education 2011."  It is huge.  If you like data, and educators collect all kinds of data, this report is for you

You can read the entire report or sections here. Please take a look.  Thanks to our friends at NICHCY, the national clearinghouse for special ed information for the heads up about the report.  The document has stats about education of all kinds not just special ed.  Here are some highlights: 
 
The number of kids receiving special education in 2008-2009 was 6.5 million, about 13.2% of all public school kids.  I know that the next sentence is going to cause my buddy, Dr Data, to send me an email, but the percentage has decreased ever so slightly each school year since 2004-2005 when it was 13.8% of all children in school.

The LRE numbers are also interesting.  In 2008-2009, the 5 of special ed kids in the general education environment at least 80% of the time is 58%.  Those in gen ed 40-79 % are 21.7%.  Those in gen ed 40% of the time or less are 15.1%.  3% are in separate schools.  See Table A-7-2 for more LRE data, or to compare across school years or by categories of disability.

Reproduced below is Table A-7-1 which shows the number and percentage of 3 to 21 year olds served under IDEA by type of disability:




Table A-7-1. Number and percentage distribution of 3- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, and number served as a percentage of total public school enrollment, by type of disability: Selected school years, 1980–81 through 2008–09—Continued
Type of disability
1980–81
1990–91
1995–96
2000–01
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
Number served as a percentage of total public school enrollment2
All disabilities
10.1
11.4
12.4
13.3
13.8
13.7
13.6
13.4
13.2
Specific learning disabilities
3.6
5.2
5.8
6.1
5.7
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
Speech or language impairments
2.9
2.4
2.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
Intellectual disability
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
Emotional disturbance
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
Hearing impairments
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Orthopedic impairments
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Other health impairments
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
Visual impairments
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Multiple disabilities
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Deaf-blindness
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Autism
—
—
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
Traumatic brain injury
—
—
#
#
#
#
0.1
0.1
0.1
Developmental delay
—
—
—
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Preschool disabled1
†
0.9
1.2
†
†
†
†
†
†




Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

New ADA Regulations Re Service Animals - Part I

Suzi Q, a certified service dog, working in sn...Image via Wikipedia

If you read this blog, you know that I love service dogs.  Really I love almost all dogs, but the regal service dogs are beautiful animals and they really help many people with disabilities.

On September 15th the Department of Justice finalized new regulations concerning service animals under the Americans With Disabilities Act. These regulations take effect on March 15, 2011.  They pertain to Title II (governments, including schools) and Title III (public accommodations). Here is a summary by the Department of Justice.  Here is the printed version in the federal register (this works as a sleep aid as well.)  This is a highlight sheet of the changes to Title II.
Here is the definition of "service animal"
Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler's disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition. 
And here is the new regulation under Title II:

§ 35.136 Service animals

  • (a) General. Generally, a public entity shall modify its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
  • (b) Exceptions. A public entity may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if—
    • (1) The animal is out of control and the animal's handler does not take effective action to control it; or
    • (2) The animal is not housebroken.
  • (c) If an animal is properly excluded. If a public entity properly excludes a service animal under § 35.136(b), it shall give the individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in the service, program, or activity without having the service animal on the premises.
  • (d) Animal under handler's control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).
  • (e) Care or supervision. A public entity is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.
  • (f) Inquiries. A public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person's disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public entity shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public entity may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person's wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).
  • (g) Access to areas of a public entity. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a public entity's facilities where members of the public, participants in services, programs or activities, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.
  • (h) Surcharges. A public entity shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public entity normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.
  • (i) Miniature horses.
    • (1) Reasonable modifications. A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.
    • (2) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public entity shall consider—
      • (i) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
      • (ii) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;
      • (iii) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and
      • (iv) Whether the miniature horse's presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.
    • (C) Other requirements. Paragraphs 35.136 (c) through (h) of this section, which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.  
Happy Columbus Day!
 
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Labels: , , , , , ,

Big Changes to §504: Do They Affect Special Education - Postscript Part II

Special needs education transport services in ...Image via Wikipedia


Our recent  series on § 504 and special education examined the recent changes in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which automatically change provisions of §504. These changes were mentioned by multiple speakers on my summer rock tour for special education law.

One person who I asked about this was my buddy and mentor Art Cernosia.  Art and I grew up about ten miles from each other in Chicago, but we didn't meet until he was in Vermont and I was in West Virginia. He is now one of the national authorities on special ed law.  I wondered what he thought of Professor Webber's prediction that 504 would be seeing more action because of the IDEA eligibility tightening.

Art said that he thought that   § 504 would not see much of an increase in activity.  He believes that the anti-discrimination nature of the 504 FAPE requirement would be  less attractive still to parents than the more fully defined IDEA FAPE requirement.

Also, he pointed out that  the exhaustion requirement is being applied increasingly by the courts to §504 actions.  In other words, courts are requiring parents who file 504 suits to first exhaust their administrative remedies by pursuing a due process hearing under IDEA with the state education  before proceeding to court. This exhaustion requirement, he feels, will make it likely that parents will continue to file both IDEA and 504 claims together rather than 504 in lieu of IDEA.
§504 is very quickly becoming a hot button issue.   

So what do you think will §504 replace IDEA as the special education law of choice?
Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Big Changes to §504: Do They Affect Special Education - Postscript Part I

This is the internationally recognized symbol ...Image via Wikipedia

I am constantly amazed by the number of high quality readers this blog attracts. Thank you - to all of you.

One such reader is Jo Anne Simon, a lawyer and professor, who advocates on behalf of parents of kids with disabilities. She recently shared with me her testimony before Congress when they were considering the ADA amendments (which also changed the eligibility requirements for §504.

She contacted me about the recent series on the changes to §504 and what they mean for the education of children with disabilities. She has some well articulated opinions.

Here is a portion of her testimony before Congress:

"Concerns that the ADAAA will compel schools to provide services to students who don’t really need them are misplaced. Whether a student has a disability and what, if any, services he needs are two distinct issues. Take the hypothetical child with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder whose medication fully corrects the symptoms of his disorder. That is actually unlikely to be the case since medication does not improve deficits in working memory, processing speed, lexical access or executive functioning. However, even if medication had a completely corrective effect, that child would still be protected from discrimination based on his disability. Protection from discrimination, however, only requires the provision of services where there is a demonstrated need for those services. The ADA does not require needless service provision. The greater danger, of course, is that a child entitled to protection and perhaps in need of services, will not get them, and will not have the opportunity to learn what he could and should be learning."

You can review her comments in their entirety here.

As with anything in special education law, there are lots of viewpoints. In the next post in this postscript series, I will share some more reaction to the first posts in the series. Stay tuned.

Related articles by Zemanta
Zemanta">
Labels: , , , , , , ,

New Poll - Will the Changes to §504 Make Parents Turn Away From IDEA?

Opinion poll 2005-09-08Image via Wikipedia

Big news, we have a new poll!

For those of you who regularly read this blog, you know that we occasionally ask you to venture over to the lefthand side of the blog and weigh in on a pending issue in special education law. First a cautionary note, these polls are not "scientific" in nature. They are a toll by which we gauge the feelings of readers, but all polls of this nature lack the random sample which social scientists say make any poll reliable. Moreover, we here at this blog are not experts on wording bias; in fact, we cannot resist the act of placing our tongues in our cheeks. So please do not quote the results of our polls as though they are scientific fact.

Despite all the disclaimers above, these polls can be fun. So we run them occasionally.

The current topic is will the changes to §504 make parents turn away from IDEA. We have been running a series on the changes to §504 and what they mean for the education of kids with disabilities. There are a few more posts coming about some reactions to the series. You may vote now or later, but please exercise the franchise! Be heard. Voting is open until December 19th.
Related articles by Zemanta
Zemanta">
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Big Changes to §504: Do They Affect Special Education - Part III

This is the internationally recognized symbol ...Image via Wikipedia

In previous posts we have examined why Congress made changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act and §504. Now were ready to discuss some of the changes:

- The definition of major life activities has been expanded to include major bodily functions, sleeping, standing, lifting,bending, reading, concentrating, thinking and communicating.

- Impairments that are episodic or in remission is considered a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

- The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as medication, medical supplies, ...low vision devices (not including ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics, hearing aids, cochlear implants, ...the use of assertive technology, ... learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications... 42 USC §12102(4)(E).

- a relaxed definition of substantial limitation.


These are the big changes. In the next post on this series, we will review how theses changes might affect the education of children with disabilities.
Related articles by Zemanta
Zemanta">
Labels: , , , , , ,

Big Changes to §504: Do They Affect Special Education - Part II

US Supreme Court building, front elevation, st...Image via Wikipedia
In the previous post in this series, we discussed the buzz during my summer rock tour on special education law concerning the changes to §504 and the ADA. The big question seems to be how the changes will affect the education of children with disabilities.

Congress was very upset with two lines of court decisions stemming from two opinions by the U. S. Supreme Court. One line of cases began with Sutton v. United Airlines 527 US 471, 30 IDELR 681 (1999). There the Supremes ruled that in determining eligibility for employees with disabilities who have used mitigating measures, such as medication or contact lenses, the disability must be measured by taking the mitigating measures into account. (Under §504 and ADA to be eligible, a person must have a disability that substantially affects a major life activity.)

Another involved cases following the decision in Toyota Manufacturing v. Williams 534 U.S. 184, 102 LRP 6137 (2002). In that case, the Court held that people who have impairments that substantially limit a life activity are not protected where the limitation is one that would substantially affect the lives of most people. The Supremes ruled that this would not be a major life activity.

It was in reaction to these changes that Congress changed the laws. More on the changes in the next post in this series.
Related articles by Zemanta
Zemanta">
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)