Showing posts with label Disability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disability. Show all posts

Is Special Ed Creating Independent Adults - Part II

English: U.S. Census Bureau Regions, Partnersh...
English: U.S. Census Bureau Regions, Partnership and Data Services Program. A map of the US Census Bureau Regions. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)















In a recent post  we noted that about a third of adults receiving government assistance had disabilities of some type. This caused us to question whether transition in specific and special education in general were succeeding with respect to the goal of creating independent adults.

Well last week our friends at the U S Census Bureau provided more numbers to cause us to repeat these questions. They have released the Disability Employment Tabulation which has a wealth of statistical information about people with disabilities in the workforce.  You can review the deep well of information  on the Disability Employment Tabulation through this link.

Here is a small sample of the in formation available:

Between 2008 and 2010, individuals without disabilities were about three times more likely to be employed than individuals with disabilities. Overall, individuals with disabilities accounted for 9.4 million, or 6.0 percent, of the 155.9 million civilian labor force. 

More than half of all workers with a disability were concentrated in four general occupation groups: service workers (except protective services) with 18.2 percent, followed by administrative support (15.1 percent), sales workers (10.4 percent) and management, business and finance (8.9 percent).

Among specific occupations, janitors and building cleaners had the highest number of employees with a disability at 315,000, or 11.8 percent of all workers in that field, followed by drivers/sales workers and truck drivers with 263,000 people, cashiers with 256,000 and retail salespeople with 223,000.

Among occupations with 100,000 or more people, dishwashers had the highest disability rate at 14.3 percent, followed by refuse and recyclable material collectors (12.7 percent), personal care aides (11.9 percent), and janitors and building cleaners (11.8 percent). The rates for refuse and recyclable material collectors, personal care aides, and janitors and building cleaners were not statistically different from one another. 

More than half of workers with disabilities (52 percent) earned less than $25,000 in the previous year, compared with just 38 percent of workers with no disabilities. This translates into an earnings gap where individuals with disabilities earn about 75 percent of what workers without disabilities earn.

Overall, janitors and building cleaners were among the most common occupations for individuals with a disability for non-Hispanic whites (184,000 people), non-Hispanic blacks (60,000) and Hispanics (54,000).
Individuals with disabilities accounted for 6.3 percent of the male civilian labor force and 5.7 percent of the female civilian labor force.

The three most common occupations for men with disabilities were drivers/sales workers and truck drivers (246,000); janitors and building cleaners (217,000); and laborers and freight, stock, and material movers (171,000). For women, they were cashiers (195,000); secretaries and administrative assistants (189,000); and nursing, psychiatric and home health aides (172,000). The number of male laborers and freight, stock, and material movers was not significantly different from the number of female nursing, psychiatric and home health aides.

Any thoughts?




Enhanced by Zemanta

Is Special Ed Making Independent Adults? New Study By Census Bureau

English: Seal of the United States Census Bure...
English: Seal of the United States Census Bureau.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
























According to the Census Bureau, among the 46.0 million adults who received income-based government assistance in 2011, 30.4 percent of them had a disability.  The report issued last month is entitled Disability Characteristics of Income-Based Government Assistance Recipients in the United States: 2011

“On average, people with disabilities have lower employment and earnings; therefore, understanding what assistance people with disabilities receive may help governments better coordinate and administer their programs,” said Bernice Boursiquot, a Census Bureau statistician and co-author of the report.

States west of the Appalachian Mountains had higher rates of disability among recipients of income-based assistance. In comparison, states in the Southwest and along the Eastern Seaboard had lower rates.  West Virginia, Kentucky and Arkansas were three of the top five states for disability prevalence in the total population, as well as in the total population receiving government assistance. In West Virginia, 26.8 percent of people with disabilities reported having ambulatory difficulty, defined as severe difficulties walking or climbing stairs. 

You can view the entire report here.

One question for special education: how does this reflect on IDEA transition programs?  Is special education succeeding in making people with disabilities more independent?  Your thoughts?



Enhanced by Zemanta

Special Education Law 101 - Part IX

English: Seal of the Supreme Court of the Unit...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This is the most recent post in the continuing series that is meant to be an introduction to special education law.  In today's post we will be discussing discipline of students with disabilities.  People often ask why disciplinary actions are regulated by the special education law.  The reason is that before passage of the law's predecessor, it was common for school officials to exclude children with disabilities by expelling them and giving them long suspensions. This series of abuses was reflected in the legislative history of the law.  
 
Discipline is one area that seems to cause folks to develop stomach problems (sorta like the rule against perpetuities in law school), but it isn't really as hard as we seem to make it.  Let me know if this explanation helps.

                                                   Discipline Issues

The IDEA imposes special rules that govern the discipline of students with a disability.  The basic rule is that a special education student may not have her placement changed (i.e., suspensions of more than 10 days or expulsion) for conduct that is a manifestation of her disability.  IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(F).  If the behavior is not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the student may be disciplined in the same manner and for the same duration as children without disabilities.  IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(C).

One exception is that, regardless of manifestation, the schools may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting,  sometimes referred to as “IAES,” for up to 45 school days if (1) the student possesses a weapon at school; or (2) the student possesses or uses or sells illegal drugs at school; or (3) the student has inflicted “serious bodily injury” upon another person while at school.  IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(G).  The schools may also ask a hearing officer to change the placement of a student with a disability to an IAES if remaining in the current placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or others.  IDEA, § 615(k)(3)(A) and (B).

              Another cardinal rule in the discipline area is that regardless of whether the conduct of a student was a manifestation of the student’s disability, where a student with a disability is removed from his current placement, the schools must continue to provide educational services to ensure FAPE for the student and to enable the student to continue to participate in the general curriculum although in another setting.  IDEA, § 615(k)(1)(D).  See generally regarding discipline issues, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530 – 300.537. 
 
                The Supreme Court dealt with discipline issues and endorsed the stay put provision in the case of Honig v. Doe 484 U.S. 305, 108 S.Ct. 594, 559 IDELR 231 (1988).  In that decision, the Supreme Court, noting the Congressional intent in preventing the exclusion of disabled students and reiterating the importance of the procedural safeguards under the IDEA, refused to read a dangerousness exception into the stay put provision. The high Court outlines the history of abuses of the discipline of kids with disabilities in that decision.
 
 In District of Columbia v. Doe ex rel Doe 611 F.3d 888, 54 IDELR 275 (DC Cir 7/6/10) DC Circuit ruled that HO did not exceed his authority where he reduced a disciplinary suspension. HO reduced a 45 day suspension to an 11 day suspension noting the trivial nature of the infraction and finding that the more lengthy suspension denied FAPE to the student.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Special Education Law 101 - Part V

English: A special education teacher assists o...
English: A special education teacher assists one of her students. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)









Our series providing an introduction to special education law continues.  Previous posts have introduced the two basic concepts underlying IDEA, free and appropriate education and least restrictive environment.  Today's post concerns eligibility and identification.

Identification & Eligibility

Issues pertaining to identification and eligibility are governed by IDEA § 612(a)(3) and 614 (b)(4)-(6).  See, 34 C.F.R, § 300.121- 300.125, 300.300, 300.306, 300.307 – 300.311.  

In summary, to be eligible, a child must have one of the enumerated conditions(mental impairment, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities)(which adversely affects his education) and by reason thereof, he must need special education and related services.  In addition as a third requirement for eligibility, most of the disabling conditions require that the condition adversely affects the child's educational performance.


Some important circuit court decisions:

Marshall Joint Sch Dist No 2 v. CD by Brian & Traci D    616 F.3d 632, 54 IDELR 307 (7th Cir 8/2/10) Seventh Circuit reversed HO who found student eligible solely upon physician’s opinion that the student could benefit from adaptive PE.  The Seventh Circuit noted that a physician may not simply prescribe special education; IEPT must consider relevant factors.

Alvin Indep Sch Dist v. AD by Patricia F 503 F.3d 378, 48 IDELR 240 (5th Cir. 10/4/7)  The fifth Circuit affirmed a holding that despite a fifth grader’s ADHD, he was not eligible for  special education.  The student consistently received passing grades, he succeeded on statewide tests and he was achieving in social situations.  Accordingly, he did not by reason thereof “need special education and related services,” and, therefore, he was not a child with a disability as defined by the IDEA

Hood v. Encinitas Union Sch Dist 47 IDELR 213 (9th Cir. 4/9/7)  The Ninth Circuit applied the Rowley standard to an eligibility issue.  Where the student consistently received above average grades despite her disability, she received educational benefit, and therefore, was not eligible for SpEd.  NOTE:  One legal scholars has questioned whether the Rowley test is too restrictive for eligibility purposes, Weber, Mark "The IDEA Eligibility Mess," http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1206202
IDEA also places a child find duty upon school districts.  A district has an affirmative duty to identify and evaluate children with disabilities.  District of Columbia Public Schs (JG) 111 LRP 25934 (SEA DC 3/18/11) The standard for child find is suspicion of a disability rather than actual knowledge. District of Columbia Public Schs (JG) 111 LRP 25934 (SEA DC 3/18/11).
Compton Unified Sch Dist v. Addison 598 F.3d 1181, 54 IDELR 71 (9th Cir. 3/22/10) By a 2-1 vote, Ninth Circuit rejected school district argument  that there is no child find duty because of language pertaining to prior written notice. The district argued that only an action or refusal is a violation. The Ninth Circuit held that a parent could file a dpc on any matter related to identification, evaluation, FAPE or placement, so, therefore, child find violations are actionable.  
Ridley Sch Dist v. MR & JR ex rel ER 680 F.3d 260, 58 IDELR 271 (3d Cir 3/19/12) Third circuit conducted a detailed review of the law concerning Child Find, and concluded that the HO erred by failing to allow the school district a reasonable time to identify the student as disabled.  
Enhanced by Zemanta