A. 1. Free and Appropriate Public Education
This mandate states that every child, abled and disabled, must be provided a free and appropriate public education. (Gargiulo, 2006) 2. Least Restrictive Environment
This mandate states that if a mainstream classroom is conducive to a child’s individual needs they must be educated with children without disabilities. Every effort must be made to be inclusive of a child with disabilities in a regular classroom setting alongside children with disabilities. (Gargiulo, 2006) 3. Individualized Education Plan
Upon identification of a child’s disability, an individualized education plan (IEP) must be written. These IEP’s must be updated or developed annually by a team of professionals, with input from the parents and, if appropriate, the student. The IEP must include measures of the student’s current educational level, identifiable goals for the year, methods in which evaluation of goals will occur, specific special education services needed, level of mainstream inclusion or reasoning for exclusion from mainstream class, changes necessary in comparison to mainstream education, projected timeline to initiate services and/or duration of services, and annual evaluation of progress made by student on the IEP. (Gargiulo, 2006) 4. Procedural Due Process
This mandate is designed to ensure that parents and students, if appropriate, are involved in each aspect of their education. This ensures that parents are involved in their child’s evaluation via written permission, are involved in placement in special education via written permission, that they have the right to review and exchange information regarding their child’s education, that they have the right to an independent evaluation of their child’s disabilities, that they have the right to a hearing regarding their child’s education plan (with or without an attorney), that they have the right to appeal any aspect of their child’s evaluation or participation in a special education program, and that they have the right to confidentiality. (Gargiulo, 2006)
5. Non-discriminatory Assessment
Each child identified with a disability must receive an education that meets his or her individual need. This mandate outlines some necessary steps to assure that children are equitably evaluated. It states that the evaluations must be in the child’s primary language, given by personnel with the proper training and expertise, designed to evaluate specific needs instead of only general needs, includes more than one type of evaluation method, must not be discriminatory against the child’s disability, and must be given by a team of individuals with knowledge or experience in each area of a child’s disability. (Gargiulo, 2006)
6. Parental Participation
This component ensures that all of the mandates of PL-142 include parental participation. It ensures through specific procedures that parents are included and aware of all of the steps outlined above. (Gargiulo, 2006)

B. Key Components of:
PL 99-457 The key components of this revision are to expand free, appropriate education to children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 5. It also offers intervention for children with disabilities from birth to two years of age. (The Education For All Handicapped Children Act Amendments of 1986 (PL 99-457), n.d.)
PL 101-476 This revision changed the title of the law from “Education for All Handicapped Children Act” to the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act”. This change occurred to recognize the person first and then the disability. This revision also added two categories of disability, autism and traumatic brain injury. It also gave guidelines to begin the transition of a student from public schools to community agencies by the age of 16. (The Education For All Handicapped Children Act Amendments of 1990 (PL 101-476), n.d.)
PL 105-17 This revision had the most changes to the law since enactment. The revision gave more involvement to parents, teachers, and students. It also gave guidelines for including students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. The revision required that assessments of special education students and reporting of assessment of student be handled similarly to general education students. (IDEA ’97, 2003)
IDEA 2004 There were several key provisions of the 2004 revision of IDEA. One was the requirement of states to develop a comprehensive, research based method of identifying students in need of special education intervention. It also requires that teachers of core academic subjects must be highly qualified to teach both special education and the core subject they are teaching. There were also several changes made to the IEP process. One of these was allowing, with written parental and school consent, IEP team members to be excused from IEP meetings. Another was requiring, when practical, services and supplemental aids be based on peer-reviewed research. It also removed the requirement of progress reports in special education with the same frequency as general education. It also requires that students who exit special education, whether through graduation or by maximum age, be given a summary of academic and functional performance. (IDEA 2004 Final Regulations Update, 2013)
PL 108-446 This revision expanded upon the definition of highly qualified teachers and gave specific requirements and established evaluation methods to determine that a special education teacher is highly qualified in special education and their core subject if applicable. It also provided more opportunities and funding for professional development. It made some revisions to IEP’s, which included the addition of annual measurable goals, periodic reports of progress, allowed 15 states to attempt reduction of paperwork for teachers, established U.S. Department of Education issued forms, allowing IEP meetings to be held electronically, and the requirement of school to work transitioning at 16 years of age. It removed the written consent requirement for a staff member to not attend IEP meetings if their area of content is not being discussed. However if their content area will be discussed, written consent is still required to excuse the absence from the IEP meeting. It also gives more detail for the early intervention and IDEA eligibility of pre-school aged children. (Summary of Key Sections of the IDEA of 2004 PL 108-46, 2005)
C. Process for Evaluation and Referral of a Student
1. Parents or teachers identify that a child may benefit from special education. This may relate to any category of need that affects a child’s education. (Rose, 2012)
2. The child’s parent must be provided notification of suspected disability and then written consent to evaluate a student. Within 60 days, a team of professionals and teachers will assess, evaluate, and review a child to determine needs. (Rose, 2012)
3. If this team, along with the child’s parents, concludes that a child has a disability under IDEA guidelines, the student will proceed to the next step in the process. (Rose, 2012)
4. The eligibility is determined and a decision is made to provide services or not. Parents may appeal a decision made by the evaluators.
5. If eligibility is determined and parents are in agreement, an IEP meeting must be scheduled within 30 days and parents must receive notification and be given the opportunity to be involved in the meeting. (Rose, 2012)
6. The IEP team for this student is formed and should include parents, teachers, and any necessary individuals with advanced knowledge of the student’s needs. The IEP will include strengths, needs, present educational function, individual student goals, and details about specific services provided to meet the student’s needs. (Rose, 2012)
7. Special education and any needed services will begin as soon as possible following completion of the IEP. Parents and all staff involved in implementation of an IEP must have a copy of or access to the IEP. (Rose, 2012)
8. Progress or lack of progress as outlined in the IEP must be reviewed according to state laws and school district policies. This timeline for review of progress should be outlined in the IEP. (Rose, 2012)
9. IEP’s should be reviewed annually, at a minimum, to determine that needs are being met and that goals are being achieved. Changes to IEP should occur if goals are no longer relevant or are unattainable. (Rose, 2012)
10. Student’s necessity of special education services should be reevaluated within the next 1-3 years. If a parent or teacher request reevaluation, it may occur outside of that timeline. (Rose, 2012)
D. Intervention Concepts
Pre-referral Intervention This concept would occur before or during step one of the referral process. This intervention occurs between general educators and service providers who can intervene if learning disabilities are suspected and formulate a plan to accommodate individual needs of a student. This process of early intervention can help to determine whether a referral for evaluation is necessary. (Gargiulo, 2006)
Multi-disciplinary Team This intervention concept is required by law and must include at least one teacher. This team is responsible for assessment of a student referred for special education. Having a team of experts and professionals in multiple areas allows for comprehensive assessment of a student. (Gargiulo, 2006)
Norm-referenced and Criterion-referenced assessments Norm-referenced assessments evaluate how a student performs compared to other students of roughly the same age. It is generally in the form of standardized testing and does not take into account individual disabilities and is broad in the understanding of an individual student’s abilities. Criterion-referenced assessments are more specific to student’s skills and can be helpful in measuring a student’s strengths and needs on an individual basis opposed to measuring a group in which a student may not have similar strengths or needs. (Gargiulo, 2006)
Cascade of Service Delivery Options This concept of special education involves different levels of service options from least restrictive to most restrictive education settings. Generally, the goal is to have a special education plan that is as close to general education as possible. Sometimes this is not the prime option for a student. If a student’s needs cannot be met in a general education classroom, even with support service and supplemental aid, they have a cascade of options until their needs are met. The first level is general education classroom inclusion. The next option is resource room education in which a student is pulled out of the general classroom from 21-60% of the day for specialized services. Following that is a separate classroom in which the student is in a separate classroom from the general classroom for more than 60% of the day. The next level is a separate school which is generally a school that is specifically designed for children with disabilities in which a student spends at least 50% of their school day. The next level of the cascade of options is a residential facility in which a student receives special education 24 hours a day in the place where they reside. Lastly is a hospital or homebound special education in which a student receives special education in their home or a hospital setting. (Gargiulo, 2006)

References

Gargiulo, R. M. (2006). Special education in a contemporary society: An introduction to exceptionality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781452282084/pages/59359055 on November 11, 2013.
IDEA 2004 Final Regulations Update. (2013). National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/disability-advocacy/learn-ld-laws/idea/idea-2004-final- regulations-update?start=1 on November 11, 2013.
IDEA ’97. (2003). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/the_law.html on November 11, 2013.
Principles of IDEA. (2011). Learning Disabilities Association of America. Retrieved from http://www.ldaamerica.org/aboutld/parents/special_ed/principles.asp on November 11, 2013.
The Education For All Handicapped Children Act Amendments of 1986 (PL 99-457). (n.d.). Cengage Learning. Retrieved from http://college.cengage.com/education/resources/res_prof/students/spec_ed/legislatio n/pl_99-457.html on November 11, 2013.

The Education For All Handicapped Children Act Amendments of 1990 (PL 101-476). (n.d.) Cengage Learning. Retrieved from http://college.cengage.com/education/resources/res_prof/students/spec_ed/legislatio n/pl_101-476.html on November 11, 2013.
Rose,S. (2012). Steps to Refer a Student for a Special Education Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.brighthubeducation.com/special-ed-law/111538-referring-a-student-for-an- evaluation/ on November 11, 2013.
Summary of Key Sections of the IDEA of 2004 PL 108-46. (2005). American Foundation for the Blind. Retrieved from http://www.afb.org/section.aspx?SectionID=58&TopicID=264&DocumentID=2768 on November 11, 2013.