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on, referred to as the January version) be withdrawn from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: [email protected] m.]