Welcome to IDEA Partnership

The IDEA Partnership reflects the collaborative work of more than 50 national organizations, technical assistance providers, and organizations and agencies at state and local level.

Partner Spotlight: National Behavioral Health Community of Practice.

iStock 000000581875Small
Youth Lens Project Gives Voice to the Impact of Stigma
Youth across the nation and their adult allies have developed an activity to engage others in sharing their insights about stigma and isolation.

Compliance and results drive new special education efforts.

rdaIn June, 2014 the Office of Special Education Programs released its new approach to improving outcomes for students with disabilities.

Read more

Partnership launches Leading by Convening: A Blueprint for Authentic Engagement

The IDEA Partners have identified one of the biggest barriers to deep collaboration...everybody thinks they are already doing it!

Interconnected Systems Framework (ISF) provides a comprehensive design for school behavioral health

The Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), The Center for School Mental Health (CSMH) and the IDEA Partnership have collaborated on the development of a framework for working across education and mental health for better student outcomes.

Stakeholders develop free resource on competitive intergrated employment

Dialogue Guides

DG Handbook

Community of Practice

Learn and act together >>

CoP Guidebook

Partnership Way

Build engagement >>

Leading by Conveing

INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) - Statute

6. Adds requirements for children with disabilities transferring school districts within a state and between states.
Within-state transfers: In the case of a child with a disability who transfers school districts within the same academic year, who enrolls in a new school, and who had an IEP that was in effect in the same state, the local education agency (LEA) shall provide such child with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), including services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents, until such time as the LEA adopts the previously held IEP or develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP that is consistent with federal and state law. [614(d)(2)(C)(i)(I)]

Between-state transfers: In the case of a child with a disability who transfers school districts within the same academic year, who enrolls in a new school, and who had an IEP that was in effect in another state, the new LEA must provide such child with FAPE, including services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents, until such time as the LEA conducts an evaluation pursuant to IDEA requirements at Section 614(a)(1), if determined to be necessary by such agency, and develops a new IEP, if appropriate, that is consistent with federal and state law. [614(d)(2)(C)(i)(II)]

Transmittal of records: To facilitate the transition for a child described above, the new school in which the child enrolls shall take reasonable steps to promptly obtain the child’s records, including the IEP and supporting documents and any other records relating to the provision of special education or related services to the child, from the previous school in which the child was enrolled, pursuant to 34 CFR Section 99.31(a)(2); and the previous school in which the child was enrolled shall take reasonable steps to promptly respond to such request from the new school. [614(d)(2)(C)(ii)]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. What concerns might arise between districts when a student transfers from one district to another?


  2. What concerns might arise between states when a student transfers from one state to another?


  3. What concerns might youth and families have as they transition to a new school?


Application Questions

  1. What policies and procedures would assist a “seamless” transition between districts?


  2. What policies and procedures would assist a “seamless” transition between states?


  3. What type of communication system would be helpful among states and districts who receive new students?


  4. How might the receiving district best inform parents of the procedures necessary to adopt an out of state or out of district IEP according to the receiving district guidelines?


  5. What are the procedures for obtaining informed consent, if an evaluation is necessary?


  6. How might schools ensure the IEP is in place in a timely manner?


    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:


    Role: Early Childhood Professional & Advocate
    Location: Maryland
    Role: Higher Education
    Location: South Carolina
    Role: Related Services Provider
    Location: New Jersey
    Role: Parent Training & Information Professional
    Location: California
    Role: Parent
    Location: New Mexico


INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) - Statute

5. Changes the secondary transition requirements.
Beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child is 16, and updated annually thereafter, (note: eliminates age 14 requirements) the IEP must include:
  • Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and
  • The transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals.
[614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. What concern might parents and youth express, given that, transition goals do not have to be addressed on the IEP until the child is 16 years of age?


  2. IDEA 2004 provides that IEPs include post-secondary goals based upon assessment related to training, education, employment, and where appropriate, independent living skills. In your view, how might this provision impact the involvement of community agencies?


  3. IDEA 1997 provided for transition to be addressed on the IEP at 14. IDEA 2004 provides for goals to be in place by 16. How might the change in age from 14 to 16 with respect to addressing transition requirements impact IEP development?


  4. Some believe that transition planning at 14 is necessary for college bound youth to actualize that option. In your view, how might this change impact a student’s ability to enroll in college-prep coursework at the high-school level?


  5. Although transition is not required to be in place until age 16 under IDEA 2004, in your view is it wise for districts to consider an earlier start? Why? Why not?


Application Questions

  1. What polices and procedures might schools have in place to highlight the importance of transition?


  2. What information (e.g., best practices, resources, personal and professional contacts) might districts or state agencies share with teachers, parents and students to assist in their making informed decisions regarding transition?


  3. What resources and training might be helpful for students and families to understand the implications of transition before a child reaches the age of majority (age 18, or the age of majority as determined by state guidelines)?


  4. Are there policies, procedures, or best practices that could support a level of parent participation after the child reaches the age of majority?


    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:


    Role: Early Childhood Professional & Advocate
    Location: Maryland
    Role: Higher Education
    Location: South Carolina
    Role: Related Services Provider
    Location: New Jersey
    Role: Parent Training & Information Professional
    Location: California
    Role: Parent
    Location: New Mexico


INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) - Statute

4. Changes provisions regarding the statement of services.
The IEP must include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child. [614(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV)]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. How might the consideration of peer-reviewed research impact the development of an IEP?


  2. How might the use of peer-reviewed practices impact the delivery of services?


  3. How might the use of peer-reviewed practices impact AYP scores?


Application Questions

  1. How might a team determine whether special education services, related services, or supplementary aids and services are based upon peer reviewed research?


  2. How might a team determine if they met the guideline of evaluating services based upon peer-review “to the extent practical”?


  3. What type of university and/or professional development training is necessary to prepare teachers to judiciously choose and properly implement research-based practices within their classroom?


  4. What is the best way to inform parents about research-based services and/or practices?


  5. Whose responsibility should it be to ensure teachers have access to journals that document peer-reviewed research?


    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:


    Role: Early Childhood Professional & Advocate
    Location: Maryland
    Role: Higher Education
    Location: South Carolina
    Role: Related Services Provider
    Location: New Jersey
    Role: Parent Training & Information Professional
    Location: California
    Role: Parent
    Location: New Mexico


INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) - Statute

3. Revises requirements for measuring progress and reporting progress to parents.
The IEP must include a description of:
  • How the child's progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured; and
  • When periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals (such as through the use of quarterly or other periodic reports, concurrent with the issuance of report cards) will be provided.
[614(d)(1)(A)(i)(III)]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. If an IEP team chooses not to use short-term objectives (STOs) for a child, how might this impact the communication and trust between families and teachers in meeting annual goals?


  2. Given the new focus on developing and measuring annual goals, how might the collaboration between general and special education change to meet this requirement?


Application Questions

  1. What type of actions might a district or state consider to ensure IEPs effectively describe how children’s progress toward meeting annual goals will be measured?


  2. If a team decides not to use STOs for a student (i.e., student who does not qualify for alternate assessments), how might teachers report to parents their child’s progress towards achieving annual goal(s)?


  3. Given this reporting must take place periodically and concurrent with the issuance of report cards, what type of measurement system would be useful for teachers to document students’ progress?


  4. How might a joint data collection system facilitate the communication between general education and special education teachers on student progress?

    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:


    Role: Early Childhood Professional & Advocate
    Location: Maryland
    Role: Higher Education
    Location: South Carolina
    Role: Related Services Provider
    Location: New Jersey
    Role: Parent Training & Information Professional
    Location: California
    Role: Parent
    Location: New Mexico


INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) - Statute

2. Changes provisions regarding assessments.
The IEP must include a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on state and districtwide assessments consistent with Section 612(a)(16)(A). [614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)(aa)]

If the IEP team determines that the child shall take an alternate assessment on a particular state or districtwide assessment of student achievement, the IEP must include a statement of why the child cannot participate in the regular assessment and why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child. [614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)(bb)]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. Who might be a part of the IEP team in determining appropriate alternate assessments for a child?


  2. How might the new focus on academic and functional performance impact selection of appropriate assessments (e.g., independent assessment, commercial assessment)?


  3. How might the use of an individualized planning tool (e.g., MAPS) impact choice and measurement of alternate assessments?


Application Questions

  1. What resources and guidelines might be helpful to an IEP team in choosing appropriate alternate assessments?


  2. How might an IEP team use the instructional accommodations provided for a student at a classroom level to decide what type of accommodation(s) are needed for that student on alternate or modified state assessments?


  3. What types of policies and procedures might be helpful at the classroom, building, and state level to ensure proper reporting of alternate assessment data?


    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:


    Role: Early Childhood Professional & Advocate
    Location: Maryland
    Role: Higher Education
    Location: South Carolina
    Role: Related Services Provider
    Location: New Jersey
    Role: Parent Training & Information Professional
    Location: California
    Role: Parent
    Location: New Mexico