Chp[1]. 3 Special Education - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis


Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis Inducted into the William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor (HBCU)

Remarks by Angela Stevens McNeil
July 26th 2008

Good Morning. My name is Angela Stevens McNeil and I have the privilege of introducing the next Hall of Honor Inductee, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis. Dr. Kritsonis was chosen because of his dedication to the educational advancement of Prairie View A&M University students. He earned a Bachelor’s degree in 1969 from Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his Master’s in Education from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa.
Dr. Kritsonis has served and blessed the field of education as a teacher, principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, invited guest professor, author, consultant, editor-in-chief, and publisher. He has also earned tenure as a professor at the highest academic rank at two major universities.
In 2005, Dr. Kritsonis was an Invited Visiting Lecturer at the Oxford Round Table at Oriel College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. His lecture was entitled the Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning.
In 2004, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis was recognized as the Central Washington University Alumni Association Distinguished Alumnus for the College of Education and Professional Studies.
Dr. William Kritsonis is a well respected author of more than 500 articles in professional journals and several books. In 1983, Dr. Kritsonis founded the NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS. These publications represent a group of highly respected scholarly academic periodicals. In 2004, he established the DOCTORAL FORUM – National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research. The DOCTORAL FORUM is the only refereed journal in America committed to publishing doctoral students while they are enrolled in course work in their doctoral programs. Over 300 articles have been published by doctorate and master’s degree students and most are indexed in ERIC.
Currently, Dr. Kritsonis is a Professor in the PhD Program in Educational Leadership here at Prairie View A&M University.
Dr. William Kritsonis has dedicated himself to the advancement of educational leadership and to the education of students at all levels. It is my honor to bring him to the stage at this time as a William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor Inductee.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chp[1]. 3 Special Education - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

  1. 1. T H R E E Special Education William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
  2. 2. jargon of special education <ul><li>p.l. 94-I42 : passed in 1975 guaranteeing every child with a disability free and appropriate education now know as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) </li></ul><ul><li>504: prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in programs that receive federal funds </li></ul><ul><li>FAPE: Free, appropriate public education </li></ul><ul><li>IEP: Individualized education program </li></ul><ul><li>ARD: Admission, review, and dismissal. </li></ul><ul><li>Placement: This refers to the instructional arrangement in which the child is educated. </li></ul><ul><li>LRE: Least restrictive environment </li></ul>
  3. 3. jargon of special education <ul><li>Related Services: Special transportation and other non-instructional services that are necessary for the child to obtain benefit from the educational program. </li></ul><ul><li>Eligibility: Meeting certain criteria for federally funded special education programs . </li></ul><ul><li>FIE: Full Individual Evaluation. </li></ul><ul><li>IEE: Independent Educational Evaluation. </li></ul><ul><li>ESY: Extended School Year </li></ul><ul><li>OSEP: Office of Special Education Programs. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Federal legislation Child Find <ul><li>School districts take an active role in identifying and serving students with a need. </li></ul><ul><li>Publicize the availability of special education services. </li></ul><ul><li>Train teachers to identify the typical signs of disability </li></ul><ul><li>Reach out to private-school administrators and home schoolers. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Federal Legislation Evaluation <ul><li>To avoid untutored labeling a Full Individual Evaluation (FIE) </li></ul><ul><li>ARD committee meets in order to eliminate unnecessary testing. </li></ul><ul><li>Parents have the right to disagree with decisions if so they are entitled to obtain an Independent Educational Evaluation but can force the district to accept data. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Federal Legislation Eligibility <ul><li>Two Requirements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Student must have a disability that qualifies under the law </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The student must as a result of the disability need special education services </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Federal Legislation ARD Committee <ul><li>ARD Committee is composed of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The parent (s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A regular education teacher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A special education teacher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Someone who can interpret the instructional implications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A representative of the school district </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Others in the judgment of the parents or the school, have special knowledge or expertise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>When appropriate, the student </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Federal Legislation Individualized Education Program <ul><li>A statement of the child’s present levels of education </li></ul><ul><li>Measurable annual goals, including short-term objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Related services, supplemental aids and services, program modifications and supporters for school personnel that provides services to the child </li></ul><ul><li>Explanation for class exclusion </li></ul><ul><li>Modifications needed </li></ul><ul><li>Dates services are provided </li></ul><ul><li>Statement of how the parents will be informed of child’s progress </li></ul>
  9. 9. Federal Legislation General Curriculum <ul><li>Refers to the things the regular education students are expected to learn </li></ul><ul><li>Special education students should be taught as much as possible, the same subject matter that the regular education students are taught. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Federal Legislation NCLB and Statewide Assessments <ul><li>Require states to hold all students to the same academic standards, and to demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) through statewide test in certain subjects. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Federal Legislation Least Restrictive Environment <ul><li>The law mandates that LRE, but it also mandates a full continuum of alternative placements, some of them highly restrictive. </li></ul><ul><li>Other terms Mainstreaming, and Inclusion </li></ul>
  12. 12. Federal Legislation Procedural Safeguards <ul><li>Four Aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Notice </li></ul><ul><li>Consent </li></ul><ul><li>The right to an IEE </li></ul><ul><li>The right to a Due Process Meeting </li></ul>
  13. 13. Federal Legislation Attorneys’ Fees <ul><li>Parents who “prevail” in a special education dispute with a school district are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. </li></ul><ul><li>Congress put some limits on recovery of attorney fees in IDEA 1997 and 2004. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Federal Legislation FAPE <ul><li>Board of Education v. Rowley </li></ul><ul><li>established two things </li></ul><ul><li>School districts are not required to maximize the potential of a child but rather provide some educational benefit to the child. </li></ul><ul><li>How courts in the future would examine disputes under IDEA </li></ul>
  15. 15. Federal Legislation Related Services <ul><li>If a student needs the services to attend school, and the service can be provided by someone other than an M.D., then the school district must provide or pay for the service. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Federal Legislation Extended School Year Services
  17. 17. Federal Legislation Unilateral Placements <ul><li>This involves a disagreement between school and parent as to the appropriate placement </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul>PARENTS vs. SCHOOL - Reimbursement <ul><li>Cost Reimbursements </li></ul><ul><li>What the school believes </li></ul><ul><li>What the parent believes </li></ul><ul><li>Burden of Proof - Parent </li></ul><ul><li>Prove IEP and/or Placement recommended by school is inappropriate </li></ul><ul><li>Parents prove their arranged IEP and Placement are appropriate </li></ul><ul><li>Factors faced by - Parent </li></ul><ul><li>Law presumes program recommended by school is appropriate </li></ul><ul><li>Law require school to propose a program that confer (reasonable </li></ul><ul><li>benefit) </li></ul><ul><li>School proposed program will be less restrictive than the private placement </li></ul><ul><li>Teague I.S.D. v. Todd L. (1993) Denied </li></ul><ul><li>Reimbursement Denied </li></ul><ul><li>School program appropriate </li></ul><ul><li>Restrictive vs. Non-Restrictive </li></ul><ul><li>Florence County School District Four v. Carter(1994) </li></ul><ul><li>Facility </li></ul><ul><li>Argument </li></ul><ul><li>U S Supreme Court Reimbursement </li></ul><ul><li>IDEA 1997 Procedural Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>School – Line of Defense (fix problem) </li></ul><ul><li>Parent - Procedural Requirement Notice </li></ul><ul><li>Private Schooling – Assemble, evaluate, devise, and determine FAPE </li></ul>
  18. 18. Federal Legislation Private-School Children IDEA 1997 <ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Under child find the public school is required to evaluate students in private school for special education. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>They are also required to spend a proportionate share of federal special education funds </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Public to Private </li></ul><ul><li>Child Find </li></ul><ul><li>Proportionate Share </li></ul><ul><li>IDEA 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>FAPE </li></ul><ul><li>Services </li></ul><ul><li>No Due process </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions by ISD </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of rights </li></ul><ul><li>Texas </li></ul><ul><li>Exception </li></ul><ul><li>Dual Enrollment </li></ul>
  19. 19. Discipline of Students with Disabilities <ul><li>The ARD committee must review all relevant information and then answer two questions: </li></ul><ul><li>Was the conduct of the student caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability? </li></ul><ul><li>Was the conduct of the student a direct result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP? </li></ul><ul><li>Congress and Special Education </li></ul><ul><li>Guarantee an appropriate education </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage safe classrooms free drugs </li></ul><ul><li>S-1 v. Turlington </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. Court of Appeals / Fifth Circuit </li></ul><ul><li>Student Behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Students Classification </li></ul><ul><li>Disability or Not </li></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court – Honig v. Doe </li></ul><ul><li>Dangerous Behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Suspension Lengths </li></ul><ul><li>Injunction </li></ul><ul><li>“ Stay Put” provision of IDEA </li></ul><ul><li>Then Current Placement </li></ul><ul><li>Congress revision of Special Education discipline laws in IDEA 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>Congress enacted into federal law a requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Expellable Act </li></ul><ul><li>Congress nullifies major court decision </li></ul><ul><li>Common Wealth of Virginia v. Riley </li></ul><ul><li>Congress Intervention revised IDEA </li></ul><ul><li>Nondisabled vs. Disabled </li></ul><ul><li>Stay Put </li></ul>
  20. 20. DISCIPLINE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES <ul><li>V. Continued… </li></ul><ul><li>Exception to “stay put” </li></ul><ul><li>Violation to Code of Conduct </li></ul><ul><li>Removal longer Than 10 days </li></ul><ul><li>Congress adopted statutory language </li></ul><ul><li>Cumulative rule </li></ul><ul><li>Concept of a “Manifestation Determination” </li></ul><ul><li>IDEA 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>ARD Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Texas Legislature – TEC §37.0021 </li></ul><ul><li>Restraint and Time Out </li></ul><ul><li>Time Out </li></ul>
  21. 21. Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 <ul><li>Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973 </li></ul><ul><li>Federal Money </li></ul><ul><li>Americans with Disabilities Act </li></ul><ul><li>Section 504 three pronged definition </li></ul><ul><li>Group 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Group 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Group 3 </li></ul><ul><li>504 Special Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Physical or Mental Impairment </li></ul><ul><li>ADD </li></ul><ul><li>LEP </li></ul><ul><li>Coverage of 504 </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigating Measures - Performance </li></ul><ul><li>Medication </li></ul><ul><li>Non Medication </li></ul><ul><li>504 Eligible </li></ul><ul><li>Performance </li></ul><ul><li>Potential </li></ul><ul><li>Genuine physical or mental impairment </li></ul><ul><li>Major life Activity </li></ul><ul><li>IDEA vs. 504 </li></ul><ul><li>Standards for eligibility </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements </li></ul>
  22. 22. <ul><li>William Allan Kritsonis, PhD </li></ul>