The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a special education law that guarantees certain rights and protections to students with disabilities. The primary purposes of IDEA are to help students with disabilities get free appropriate public (FAPE) education and to give parents a voice in their children’s education. Even though virtual schools are growing very fast, there has been some concern regarding the appropriateness of these schools. This is because there is evidence that virtual schools may not be fully implementing IDEA for enrolled students with disabilities. This paper will examine the implementation of the IDEA in virtual schools.
Virtual schools are schools that deliver instructions to home-based students through Internet-based platforms. These schools offer comprehensive kindergarten-through-12th-grade curricula for students and families or legal guardians looking for a wholly alternative education rather than traditional schools (Bernstein, 2014). According to Beck, Egalite & Maranto (2014), virtual schools are growing very fast, and families are turning to these schools for a variety of reasons, including to access academically rigorous public education and because of the social issues or bullying, experienced in traditional schools. Numerous studies suggest that these schools are reimagining the structure and the delivery of special education services (Bernstein, 2014). The IDEA is the primary tenant of special education.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
IDEA was originally designed to provide rights and protections to students with disabilities in traditional brick-and-mortar schools and district-run public schools. However, the IDEA has been implemented in virtual school systems, although the implementation has been faced with numerous challenges (Deshler, East, Rose & Greer, 2012). A growing body of literature suggests that the mandates provided by the IDEA are not understood, monitored, or implemented in virtual public schools (Deshler et al., 2012). According to a study done by Crouse, Rice, and Mellard (2017), students with disabilities in virtual schools are being denied access to highly qualified teachers. More to this, the students are also being denied access to appropriate and individualized instruction (Crouse, Rice & Mellard, 2017). The students with disabilities are also not being protected by the IDEA by virtue of their teachers’ lack of knowledge (Crouse, Rice & Mellard, 2017).
Basham, Stahl, Ortiz, Rice, & Smith (2015) did a comprehensive study on publicly available evidence of IDEA compliance in virtual schools. From their research, Besham et al. (2015) found that at least 50 percent of all states and territories in the United States do not provide evidence of IDEA compliance in virtual schools. According to the study, 50-75 percent of the states and territories in the United States failed to provide sufficient publicly available evidence that the virtual schools present in those U.S. states and territories are implementing the basic tenants of IDEA. To add to this, Burdette, Greer, and Woods (2013) did a similar study. From their research, Burdette et al., (2013) found that less than 75 percent of state directors of special education reported collecting data on students with disabilities in virtual schools.
According to the IDEA, parents or legal guardians of students with disabilities ought to be granted the opportunity to take part in the educational evaluation, eligibility, as well as the placement of their children. In order to facilitate this, parents are given the federal rights to grant consent to and refuse to any service or activity and also have the right to participate as a member of their child’s individualized education program (IEP) team. However, the flow of federally mandated communication regarding special education processes in virtual schools is less clear.
Franklin, Burdette, East, and Mellard (2015) did a study on the IDEA compliance issues related to parent participation. From their research, Franklin et al., (2015), found that some parents or legal guardians of students with disabilities were informed that their disabled children were not eligible for enrolment in a virtual public school without being given the reason for their ineligibility. The Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD) (2016) found that virtual public schools relay information to parents or legal guardians of students with disabilities. However, the parents are not involved in decision-making processes related to the education of their children with disabilities.
With regard to IDEA compliance issues related to FAPE, the IDEA guarantees students with disabilities the right to appropriate free public education. However, there is some concern in the literature that virtual schools do not meet the "appropriate" mandate of IDEA as it relates to the provision of appropriate education and implementation of IEPs. For example, Rice, East, & Mellard (2015) did a study on IDEA compliance issues related to students' access to FAPE. Rice et al. (2015) found that students with disabilities enrolled in virtual schools are not given the opportunity for instruction in cooperative learning groups. More to this, opportunities for collaboration with peers are entirely absent in their study. Accommodations were sometimes assigned to these students with disability enrolled in virtual schools based on institutional needs rather than the needs of the individual students (Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2006).
Carnahan and Fulton (2013) did a study on IDEA compliance in virtual schools and found that 94.69 percent of students with disabilities in the 2008-2009 year was not given special education supports, despite spending 80 percent of their academic day in virtual education classroom. Similarly, Basham et al. (2015) reviewed the IEPs of 225 students with disabilities enrolled in virtual schools. From their study, Bashan et al. (2015) found 152 unique accommodations in those IEPs. After analyzing the data they obtained from their research, they realized that there was no "discernible pattern" in how the accommodations were allocated to the students. The students are assigned the accommodations in discernible patterns to create appearance of IDEA compliance rather than the needs of the individual students.
The IDEA child find mandate requires educational institutions or agencies to identify students with disabilities and evaluate their needs. The child find mandate of IDEA also requires the agencies to have a developed and implemented system in order to the students that are receiving the required special education. However, there is a growing concern in current literature regarding the current form of Web-based educational platforms used by virtual schools. Studies suggest that existing Internet-based platform ought to be reconceived. This is because the existing platforms used by virtual schools are not accessible for students with a variety of disabilities. Generally, the majority of the literature criticizes the way IDEA has been implemented in virtual schools. This is because these schools are not in compliance with the IDEA.
This research paper showed that compliance around the implementation of IDEA poses numerous challenges for virtual schools. Additional research that describes students with a disability enrolled in virtual schools ought to be conducted. Just as the United States have enrolment data that describes students with disability in traditional schools, it should also have enrolment data that describes students with disability in virtual public schools. Having data relating students with disability in virtual schools will allow policymakers, schools administrators and education in making appropriate decisions about the type of systems and Internet-based platforms that need to be implemented in virtual schools.
References
Basham, J, Stahl, S., Ortiz, K., Rice, M, & Smith, S. (2015). Equity matters: Digital & online learning for students with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities.
Beck, D., Egalite, A., & Maranto, R. (2014). Why they choose and how it goes: Comparing special education and general education cyber student perceptions. Computers & Education, 76, 70-79.
Bernstein, M. (2014). 'Whose Choice are We Talking About? The Exclusion of Students with Disabilities from For-Profit Online Charter Schools' Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest, XVI(Iii), 487-525.
Burdette, P., Greer, D., & Woods, K. (2013). K-12 online learning and students with disabilities: Perspectives from state special education directors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(3), 65-71.
Carnahan, C., & Fulton, L. (2013). Virtually forgotten: Special education students in cyber schools. TechTrends, 57(4), 46-52.
Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (2016). Equity matters: Digital & 125 online learning for students with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Ortiz & Basham.
Crouse, T. M., Rice, M. F., & Mellard, D. F. (2016). “How did I survive?” Online Teachers’ Describe Learning to Teach Students with Disabilities. Lawrence, KS: Center on Online Instruction and Students with Disabilities, University of Kansas.
Deshler, D., East, B., Rose, D., & Greer, D. (2012, September). An open letter from Don Deshler, Bill East, and David Rose (Principal Investigators), Diana Greer (Project Director) [Letter]. Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, Lawrence, KS.
Franklin, T, Burdette, P., East, T., & Mellard, D. (2015). Parents' roles in their child's online learning experience: State education agency forum proceedings series (Rep. No. 2). Lawrence, KS: Center on online instruction and students with disabilities, University of Kansas.
Lazarus, S, Thompson, S, & Thurlow, M. (2006). How students access accommodations in assessment and instruction: Results of a survey of special education teachers. College Park, MD: The Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, Educational Policy Reform Research Institute.
Rice, M, East, T., & Mellard, D. (2015). IDEA principles in the online environment: free appropriate public education, least restrictive environment and due process issues: super intendant forum proceedings (Report No. 3). Lawrence, KS: Center on online instruction and students with disabilities, University of Kansas.
