Analysis Of Special District Laws Of Oregon PDF Download

In the 27 years since the establishment of federal law mandating special education, no state has been fully in compliance. In addition, the voices of school personnel (special education teachers, speech and language pathologists, and school psychologists) charged with implementing these laws and regulations have been largely silent in the national research. A review of 1306 references concerning the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not find studies that included these front line school district personnel who serve as "intermediaries" and have responsibility to implement special education policy. This is the first study that provided a forum for Oregon professionals to share their concerns and suggestions regarding implementation of the IDEA. The study went beyond the enumeration of noncompliance areas, asked questions about why compliance is problematic, and compared what study participants view as problematic to litigated areas at the Oregon complaint investigation and due process hearing levels. Multiple methods in the data collection process included surveys (n=169), semi-structured interviews (n=11), and document analysis (n=147). To provide baseline information, quantitative analysis provided ordinal ranking of responses and statistical comparisons among participants from the different specialty areas, different years of experience, and different district sizes. It also compared participant responses to Oregon litigation. Part of the study used an exploratory and descriptive approach to obtain accurate and thick description of participant experiences. Participants' rankings differed significantly from identified areas in the literature and alleged violations brought in due process hearings and complaint investigations. Participants ranked least restrictive environment and evaluation concerns highest while the literature and reviewed litigation identified the individualized education program as most problematic. Differences existed among participants based on district size and their disciplines. No differences were found based on experience. A thorough review of policy and funding are indicated. Implications for practice include increased focus on the emphasis of training programs and technical support. Increasing placement options, consistency of information, streamlining of the individualized education program, and assistance in the evaluation and eligibility process are also needed. Because the study included participants from Oregon, generalizability is limited to the state.