Revision of this was then and this is now

rnixon@123
GeneralRequirements.docx

General Requirements:

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

· This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

· Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.

· Refer to Chapters 2-4 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.) for specific guidelines related to doctoral-level writing. These chapters contain essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.

· This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.

· You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Directions:

1. Write a reflection (250-300 words) that provides a list of the changes you made to the paper and discusses your revision process including how you incorporated the feedback of the instructor into the revised version. Similar to an abstract, this section will receive its own page following the title page and preceding the introduction to the paper.

2. List your changes in bullet fashion on this single page following your title page.

3. Add a section to the paper regarding how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes on the role of the special education leader.

4. Incorporate 2-4 additional current empirical citations in your revision.

5. The revised paper will incorporate instructor feedback and accomplish the following: clarify the thesis statement; solidify supporting arguments; edit for grammar, spelling, and punctuation; adjust word choice to display professional and scholarly language; and adjust sentence structure for improved readability.

Rubric

Collapse All RubricCollapse All

collapse Reflection assessment

Reflection

20 points

Criteria Description

Reflection

5. Target

20 points

A reflection is thoroughly presented and demonstrates thoughtful insight. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are impactful.

4. Acceptable

18.2 points

A reflection is present and reasonable. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are reasonable.

3. Approaching

16.4 points

A reflection is presented, but is cursory and lacking depth of insight. A list of revisions made is present, but lacks specificity; the revisions noted are not substantive.

2. Insufficient

14.6 points

A reflection is present, but is incomplete. A list of specific revisions made is not present.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A reflection is either missing or not evident to the reader.

collapse Integration of Instructor Feedback assessment

Integration of Instructor Feedback

50 points

Criteria Description

Integration of Instructor Feedback

5. Target

50 points

Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. It is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.

4. Acceptable

45.5 points

Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.

3. Approaching

41 points

Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed.

2. Insufficient

36.5 points

Integration of instructor feedback is attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader.

collapse Revision of Thesis and Argument assessment

Revision of Thesis and Argument

40 points

Criteria Description

Revision of Thesis and Argument

5. Target

40 points

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Acceptable

36.4 points

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. The argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Approaching

32.8 points

Thesis apparent and appropriate to purpose. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Insufficient

29.2 points

Thesis and/or main claim remain insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. The argument presented remains disorganized and unclear. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No improvements to the thesis and argument are evident.

collapse Revision of Writing Mechanics assessment

Revision of Writing Mechanics

40 points

Criteria Description

Revision of Writing Mechanics

5. Target

40 points

Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. Writer demonstrates command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Acceptable

36.4 points

Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3. Approaching

32.8 points

Changes to the writing components are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2. Insufficient

29.2 points

Changes to the writing components are largely cosmetic rather than substantive. Mechanical errors continue to be a distraction to the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice remain present.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No improvements to the writing mechanics are evident.

collapse Additional Section Discussing How Current Legislation Affects Leadership Responsibilities assessment

Additional Section Discussing How Current Legislation Affects Leadership Responsibilities

40 points

Criteria Description

Additional Section Discussing How Current Legislation Affects Leadership Responsibilities

5. Target

40 points

A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is clearly presented. Discussion is thorough and insightful. Research is from scholarly and current sources.

4. Acceptable

36.4 points

A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is clearly presented. Discussion is convincing. Research is from original sources; most are authoritative, but some are outdated.

3. Approaching

32.8 points

A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is present, but done at a cursory level.

2. Insufficient

29.2 points

A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is present., but undeveloped or inadequate.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A discussion of how current legislation affects leadership responsibilities and the impacts of the proposed changes of the educational leader is not presented.

collapse APA Format assessment

APA Format

10 points

Criteria Description

APA Format

5. Target

10 points

The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.

4. Acceptable

9.1 points

Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g., headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.

3. Approaching

8.2 points

Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g., font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present.

2. Insufficient

7.3 points

Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used.

Special Education Laws

Name

Grand Canyon University

SPE-812

June 17, 2022

Kathleen Tate

Special Education Laws

The CASE offered a development proposal aimed at improving special education through promoting self-worth, dignity, potential, and uniqueness and ensuring students with disability are at par with nondisabled children. One of the recommendations aims to propose total funding for special education since the cost of this education system is higher than that of normal children. The increase in the number of children with disabilities has made it necessary to increase funding for special education n to promote equality among children and achieve total funding by 2021 (CASE, 2017).

Another recommendation is to oppose subsidizing private education because it does not offer equal opportunities for students with disability. Moreover, a public subsidy of private education goes against the interests of the taxpayers, communities, and the public school system. There is a lack of accountability in the private schools, and these institutions do not comply with the provisions of the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) (CASE, 2017).

CASE also recommends the revision of Independent Education Evaluation Request Requirements. IEE is provided at public expense, and parents are allowed to evaluate all records relating to children with disability. Another recommendation regards the redefinition of severe bodily injury as a serious physical injury that requires the presence of a healthcare professional and absence from school. Moreover, an expansion of maintenance of effort exception with a view of the integration of systemic changes in education in relation to early intervention, improved efficiencies, and lower expenditures due to low-cost technology. Monitoring requirements regarding disproportionality and promote accountability and flexibility and early intervening funds. There is also required that facilitated IEP team meetings with trained facilitators at no cost where conflicts are taking place. Where the IEP team should not be used, facilitation should be provided at no cost. CASE also provides that a due process be filed only after the school district is aware of any formal disagreements before allowing parents to file a complaint under the IDEA (CASE, 2017). This aims to enable school districts to address many issues relating to due process for students and their families.

There are other recommendations regarding functional behavior assessments. CASE recommends that functional behavior assessments should not be subjected to IEEs. The requirements are to be revised for FBAs and behavior intervention plans under the provision of IDEA discipline. Moreover, CASE requires that a consistent burden of proof be confident across states in those cases seeking relief bears the burden. Moreover, there are recommendations to change emotional disturbance to emotional and behavioral disability, which aims to eliminate the negative notions associated with emotional disturbances.

History of Special Education Law

The history of special education has had a significant past that has influenced the modern nature of education. The issue of special education started attracting serious attention from stakeholders in 1954 in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in Kansas, where education was identified as an important determiner of life success. The case's original motive was to address civil rights issues. Still, the outcome resulted in the case being applied in special education for students denied an opportunity to get an appropriate education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was responsible for offering opportunities to learners. However, in 1966 this board was amended so that it would help in funding the special education. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was important for those seeking special education as it posited that people with disabilities would not be denied a chance in an education system that received federal funding. The most significant changes in education laws occurred in the 1970s, with the passage of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act in 1975 (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020).

Moreover, successful cases that banned students with disabilities from attending public schools were another significant milestone in the history of special education since it provided a clear opportunity to protect their rights to equity through participating in all educational programs. The PARC and Mills cases are examples of such cases that originally intended to protect the rights of students with disabilities. On its part, IDEA has created a procedure that aims to safeguard students' rights and provides parents of children with disabilities with to challenge decisions in the education system. Some of the significant changes include the No Child Left Behind, as advocacy for the role of the Department of Education to escalate measures to ensure all the states were in compliance with and performance reported to avoid losing federal funding (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020). Such steps have had significant milestones in improving special education and formulated a framework that could be utilized to improve special education in different states in collaboration with the Department of Education.

In 1982, the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley created a pathway that required students with disabilities access individualized instructions to ensure their educational needs were met. Other changes in IDEA were made in 1997 to ensure measurable and meaningful programs were in place for students with disabilities. In the modern education system, all students are recognizable under the provisions of IDEA, and all public education institutions in the United States should adhere to such guidelines (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020).

Current Special Education Legislation

The current special education legal guidelines advocate for free and appropriate education (FAPE). This was passed in March 2017 by the Supreme Court in the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. However, FAPE has been in existence since 1975, and no changes have been applied to it. The current education standards have been established to make progress in the benefits and the extent to which such benefits must be maintained at a minimum. As such, schools are required to provide students with an education that matches an IEP that is reasonable and makes the child progress irrespective of their education or physical standards. Therefore, the law requires children to access education irrespective of their abilities.

Positive and Negative of Proposed Changes to IDEA

Positives

One of the proposed changes in the full funding of IDEA. However, inadequate funding for IDEA makes it difficult to offer the full benefits children with disabilities are expected to receive regarding existing needs. Moreover, the realization that fund requirements for children with disabilities are higher than that of normal children will help ensure that all institutions can create an environment by availing of the necessary resources to make special education more effective. This would be supported if the recommendation to derive private education from a public subsidy would avail the necessary funds for special public education. Further, parents are supposed to make a notification to schools before making a complaint through due process under idea. This is aimed at making it possible to make the necessary modifications to ensure the complaints raised by the parents are addressed amicably. This would help save on time and resources utilized while trying to follow judicial procedure and addressing such complaints in court. It is also important that the proposed changes to IDEA, like changes in terminologies that would look offending such as emotional disturbance to an emotional and behavioral disability, would help create a positive picture (Mitchell et al., 2019). Therefore, the recommended changes would have significant positive changes that would positively change the outlook of special education.

Negatives

Some of the negative implications of the recommended changes to IDEA is that withdrawing funds from private education is unfair to the taxpayers. All parents are taxpayers, and denial of private education finding would be unfair to the children. Therefore, the proposals should establish equity rather than look discriminatory and unfair in the face of the public. Notifying schools while filing a complaint via due process is likely to interfere with the course of justice since the schools may fail to act according to the agreed terms concerning the issue of concern. As a result, such provisions may interfere with the central idea behind the formulation of IDEA (Mitchell et al., 2019).

Alternative Proposals

It is important to have a better approach to addressing parents’ grievances without filing due process. Therefore, in case of a conflict, teachers must be trained on how to handle conflicts presented by the parents. Preparation of the appropriate programs is a great way of ensuring program deficits in teachers’ training are integrated. These programs should focus on dispute resolution to enable teachers to address parents complaining about certain programs and promote a conducive relationship that fosters meaningful special needs education. Moreover, teachers should acquire the right skills to enhance the teacher-parent relationship.

Additionally, educational professionals and parents should take an active role in preparing IEP and put in place a guideline under which set guidelines should be implemented. All the facilitators of the program should be given a guideline that will help guide parents and ensure all the objectives of reprogramming are met. It would also ensure parents are active participants in the process (Padia & Traxler, 2020). Issues arising should be addressed at the local level instead of involving attorneys at the beginning.

References

CASE. (2017, July 20). RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE PUBLIC LAW 108-446. https://www.casecec.org/assets/IDEA%20Reauthorization%20Recommendations%20July%202017.pdf.

Mitchell, B. S., Kern, L., & Conroy, M. A. (2019). Supporting students with emotional or behavioral disorders: State of the field. Behavioral Disorders44(2), 70-84.

Padia, L., & Traxler, R. E. (2020). (Special) Education is Political;(Special) Education is Social Justice. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis10(1).

Rodriguez, J. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2020). Special education law and policy: From foundation to application. Plural Publishing.