For the first time, the U.S. Department of Education has issued determination letters on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to each state education agency for Part B and to each lead agency for Part C. The determinations, required under the statute, are part of the on-going efforts to improve results for children and youth with disabilities.

As amended in 2004, the IDEA requires the Secretary of Education to make an annual determination as to whether each state is meeting the requirements of the statute. Under the IDEA each state is required to have in place a State Performance Plan (SPP) that evaluates the state’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Parts B or C of the IDEA, and describes how the state will improve its implementation of these programs. Each state must then submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) detailing its progress in meeting the targets it established in its SPP.

The Department approved states’ SPPs in 2006 and States submitted their first APRs under the SPPs in February of 2007. The letters the Department issued announce and explain the first determinations made under these new requirements of the IDEA.

Meets the requirements and purposes of the IDEA

Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of the IDEA

Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA

Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA

For each compliance indicator in the APR, whether the state demonstrated compliance or that it corrected noncompliance in a timely manner, or if it did not demonstrate compliance, nonetheless had made progress in ensuring compliance over prior performance in that area. For all indicators in the SPP and APR, whether the state provided valid and reliable FFY 2005 data that reflected the measurement for the indicator. Whether the state had other IDEA compliance issues that had been identified in the Department’s monitoring, audit or other activities, and the state’s progress in resolving those problems.

The IDEA identifies specific technical assistance or enforcement actions aligned with each of the determinations, with the exception of “Meets Requirements” that the Department must take under specific circumstances. These actions are consistent with the level of concern signaled by the determination, however, consistent with the IDEA, none of the enforcement actions will be applied to states this year.

Copies of the determination letters for each state will be available on Part B at:

and, for Part C:

PART B DETERMINATIONS

Meets Requirements

Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming

Needs Assistance

Alabama, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Bureau of Indian Affairs, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Needs Intervention

Colorado, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, Washington, DC, Federated States of Micronesia, Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Washington

Needs Substantial Intervention

None

PART C DETERMINATIONS:

Meets Requirements

Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, Iowa, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Needs Assistance

American Samoa, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, Wisconsin

Needs Intervention

Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington, DC, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee

Needs Substantial Intervention

None

Grand Rapids Press, Grand Rapids, MI, circulation 133,000

Excerpt

Progress comes slowly for Maiya Novitsky, a 4-year-old with Rett syndrome. Her parents consider just maintaining her current level of ability an accomplishment. But her father, Scott Novitsky, said he is worried Maiya — and other students with severe disabilities — will regress dramatically if she is denied year-round schooling because of a proposed change in state Education Department rules.

"We can see that she’s learning and making gains," Novitsky, of Walker, said. "But if we’re told that she has to take the summer off, they’re going to have to go back and redo everything in the fall. I just don’t know why they would want to do that."

But educators and special education advocates said the proposed change, which would bring the state in line with national standards, should not hinder students who truly benefit from extended time in the classroom.

Article Link

Year-round special education program may end (opens in new window)

Publisher’s Note

This is a good example of how to use a topic that is of current interest to a wider audience to get the word out about Rett Syndrome. The issue in Michigan is that legislators are proposing that a child’s Individual Education Planning (IEP) “committee” be the determining body as to whether a child would receive an extended school year education. Currently that is a mandate in Michigan for all students in special education programs, but legislation would change this. The challenge with this is that it creates a situation whereby the IEP team may end of voting on the issue to reach consensus and the parent usually has just one vote, compared with the school district representatives who form a majority of members on an IEP team. The only recourse if a parent disagrees with the District on any education related issue is to file a costly and lengthy appeal, called a “Fair Hearing”, with an Administrative Law Judge.

Kudos to Scott Novitsky for getting the word out about Rett Syndrome to an audience of 133,00 subscribers and for making the general public aware of this vital educational need.

Chicago Daily Herald, May 12, 2007

Editor and Publisher’s Note

As two people who have met Lindsey and spent time with this fine young woman, this news saddens us greatly. Our prayers go out to Lindsey and the entire Ross family. In addition to being great parents, the Ross’s are strong and spirited leaders in the Rett Syndrome Community in Illinois and Internationally.

Diane and Mick Ross deserve our praise and kudos for making such a valiant effort and costly investment to make a difference in Lindsey’s life and those throughout the Rett Syndrome Community. This Federal court ruling is a major step back for people with Rett Syndrome who seek simply to learn, express themselves, and make friends among their peers. In our opinion Lindsey Ross deserves better consideration and we urge Federal lawmakers to act immediately to change the laws to correct injustices such as this.their hands. It also slows growth of the head and often causes seizures. However, Ross also has been evaluated as having “average or close to average” intelligence.

What do you think about this story?

This would be a good time to send an email with a link to this story and your comments to your U.S. Senator and Congressional Representative:

U.S. Senate Link

U.S. Congress Link

We’d like to hear your thoughts about this story. Please post them by clicking on the comments link below.

Source

Detroit Free Press May 6, 2007

Based on feedback provided by Scott Novitsky of Walker, Michigan, USA, father of Maiya (4 RTT).

Excerpt

The increase in autism cases is creating challenges for public schools across metro Detroit that are charged with providing a free education to all children, even if that means they have to treat a disability before a child can learn. Because insurance companies rarely cover costly therapies and programs for children with autism, the schools are often their only source of treatment. And the schools are searching for new approaches to reach them.

While public schools are the main provider of resources and treatment for children with autism, there is no consistency in the availability or quality of programs from one district to the next because Michigan does not mandate what schools should do for these children. In 2005-06, Michigan’s public schools spent $93.5 million on programs just for children with autism. That money is on top of what the schools pay special-education teachers, psychologists, social workers and others who also deal with children with autism.

For parents who are not happy with their local district’s offerings, the only alternative is making their way through a maze of costly programs and medical treatments. Scott Novitsky of Walker considers himself one of the fortunate few. His insurance helps pay the small army of professionals treating his 4-year-old daughter, Maiya. She has Rett syndrome, a severe form of autism. She does not speak, has gastrointestinal problems and has no control of her hands. She suffers from uncontrollable repetitive movements and uses a wheelchair. "The insurance companies wanted to pawn everything off on the school system," Novitsky said. His goal is to keep Maiya from regressing. If she makes gains, that’s even better. "We’re going to just enjoy the time we have with her and keep her happy," he said. "And hopefully the cure will come."