.. .1

fig

.. in”
J 6

rd."
.3 .

Au

1 .33“; .
Adi. r ,

 

 

.‘Lflflw...

 

L

.12.!
£91951.)

X23 I) l 1

I... . A... f.

|. . .5
I...1.i.i

WIS

2:3, LIBRARY
’ Michigaz'. State
All r
5 00‘? 705 University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
The Implementation of Section 504 in K-12
Public Schools: Policies, Procedures & Practice

presented by

Kimberly Ann Arsenault

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degree in Special Education

WGWL

Major professor

Date April 29, 2003

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0» 1 2771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDm.p65«p.15

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 504 IN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE

By
Kimberly Ann Arsenault

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Special Education
2003

Tr

recew
these
stude
If it is
more

aCCO

ABSTRACT

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 504 IN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE

By

Kimberly Ann Arsenault

Currently, a number of students with physical or mental impairments are
receiving their educational services in the regular classroom settings. Often
these students are not considered disabled under IDEA. However, these
students do require a response from the regular education staff and curriculum.

If it is determined that a physical or mental impairment substantially limits one or
more of the major life activities, than that student may be eligible for
accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Section 504, as it is commonly referred to, is a federal law which originally
was intended to reduce discrimination in the area of employment for individuals
with disabilities. However, advocacy organizations and the legal systems have
intensified their focus on Section 504’s requirement to insure the education
system provides the broad range of accommodations and services essential for
students with special needs to participate in public education programs and
activities. The US. Department of Education regulations for Section 504 require
that students with disabilities be provided with a free appropriate public education
(FAPE). These regulations require public schools to identify students, evaluate
them, and provide services if necessary, in addition to following procedural

safeguards. Nevertheless, many schools simply lack clarity in their interpretation

oftis

requre

Secnc
schoo
theini
goal:

Sechc

SDeCr
“Krke
Darnc
0fthe

Impie

of this law, and therefore are limited in their ability to fully implement its
requirements.

Few studies have been conducted regarding the implementation of
Section 504. Given this lack of empirical data, and the demands being placed on
school districts, further research is essential. This research project focuses on
the implementation of Section 504 in four public middle schools in Michigan. The
goal of this project was to examine the factors that influence implementation of
Section 504 in public schools as mandated by law.

Their were thirty participants in this research study including principals,
special education teachers, regular education teachers, counselors, social
workers, a school psychologist, and the Section 504 coordinators. All of the
participants were interviewed by the researcher. This study reports the analysis
of these interviews, in order to examine the complex issue of actual

implementation of Section 504.

Copyright by
KIMBERLY ANN ARSENAULT
2003

DEDICATION

To my parents, Larry and Darlene

enco
suds
when.
Seen
menu
efion
gnu:
enco

FWOg'

reCor
OfiER
QQNl

the d

and,

\

Emmi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Eugene Pemell for all of his support and
encouragement. I am fortunate that he decided to work with “one last doctoral
student" even after his “official” retirement. I am also extremely indebted to Dr.
Michael Leahy, whose knowledge of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, including
Section 504, proved invaluable. I wish to express my thanks to the other
members of my committee, Dr. Douglas Campbell and Dr. Philip Cusick for their
efforts in reviewing and critiquing my work. I would also like to express my
gratitude to Dr. Carol Sue Englert, who provided me with a great deal of
encouragement, guidance, and information during my first few years in the
program.

I am extremely grateful to the four principals and all of the staff members
who were willing to participate in this study. Their willingness to participate and
share their understandings has enabled me to complete this study and hopefully
provide practitioners with valuable information.

I want to thank Lisa Homuth for her assistance in transcribing tape-
recorded interviews and also helping to “proof” the dissertation, in addition
offering support and encouragement. Additionally I would like to extend my
gratitude to my brother, Chad Arsenault, for his professional input and critique of
the draft documents.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents Larry and Darlene, my brothers
and sisters, Tammy, Todd, Damon, and Joy, who provided me with

encouragement, and my fiance, George, who had to endure my constant

vi

struggles to “finish my dissertation”. VWthout their support, I never would have

completed this dissertation.

vii

 

 

 

CHAPTI
The Pur
Overvre

taeme
The Net
Dellmlta
Resear:

 

CHAPT
Henry
History 5
Hlstory a

CHAPTE
Inhoduc
Method:
The Site
DmaCo
Data An
Limitahc

CHAPTI
IHhoduc
KDOwle(
KnoWler
Betlefs I
FETCept
Written

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Study

Overview of the Study

Statement of the Problem

The Need for and Significance of the Study
Delimitations of the Study

Research Questions

CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

History and Intent of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973
History and Intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
History and Intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act

CHAPTER 3 — METHODOLOGY
Introduction

Methodological Approach

The Site, Population, and Sample
Data Collection Tools

Data Analysis

Limitations of the Study

CHAPTER 4 - PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction

Knowledge and Understanding of the Purpose of Section 504
Knowledge of the Section 504 Identification/Eligibility Process
Beliefs Regarding How Things Should Be Done

Perceptions Regarding Why Things Are Done They Way They Are
Written Documentation

Summary

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION

Overview of Significant Findings

Knowledge and Understanding of the Purpose of Section 504
Knowledge of the Identification/Eligibility Process

Beliefs Regarding What Should Be Done to Implement Section 504
Perceptions Regarding Why Things Are Done the Way They Are
Implications of the Study with Regard to Current Policy and Theory
Recommendations for Further Research

Implications of the Study with Regard to Professional Practice

viii

A
OCDODODOJN—t

49
49
55
59
62

69

72
72
73
75
76
78
80

87

 

 

 

APPEN

APPEN

 

APPEN

APPEN

APPEN
l
l

BfiflJO

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A — Table Comparing Idea, Section 504, and ADA 92
APPENDIX B - Professional Educational Staff Interview Protocol 99
APPENDIX C - School Questionnaire/Consent Form 101
APPENDIX D -

Consent Form for Professional Educational Staff Participation 105
APPENDIX E - 108

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects,

Letter of Renewed Approval

BIBLIOGRAPHY 110

ix

 

 

 

Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 4
Table 4

Table 4.

II

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 — Comparison of Section 504, IDEA, and ADA
Table 3.1 - Staff Participants

Table 4.1 —Lake Superior Middle School

Table 4.2 -Lake Erie Middle School Responses

Table 4.3 — Lake Huron Middle School Responses

Table 4.4 —Lake Michigan Middle School Responses

19

52
53

55

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1

xi

 

 

 

ADA -
ADD -
IDEA -
ISD -

Sectlor

PL 94-1

SST -

 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act

ADD - Attention Deficit Disorder

IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
ISD - Intermediate School District

Section 504- Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973

PL 94-142 - Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act

SST - Student Support Team

xii

 

 

 

1,
C
La.

over'
sore
fund;
oppc
rellgi
rnovr
rnore

thud

res;
argr
for}
in 1
larg
PM»

UISE

the

Mr

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Pumse of the Study

There have been many changes in the American public school system
over the past century. Our nations’ schools are said to be a “reflection of
society" which transmit the values and beliefs of that society. One of our nations'
fundamental beliefs is that of social equality. Each person will have the
opportunity to improve their status in life, regardless of race, social class, or
religion. It is because of this strong equality ideal that the public schools have
moved from a pattern of exclusion, based primarily on race or handicap, to a
more inclusive system which accepts and provides “equal opportunity” to all of its
students.

A majority of the changes in school policies have been primarily a
response to mandates derived from federal legislation. Indeed, it has been
argued by many educators and scholars that Public Law 94-142, The Education
for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) and later reauthorized and renamed
in 1990 and 1997 as the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), has had the
largest impact on educational policies and practices. IDEA was intended to
provide students with disabilities the same rights and opportunities as their non-
disabled peers, namely, a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Schools
who refuse to comply with this law risk the loss of federal funds.

However, there is another piece of landmark federal legislation which was
the precursor to IDEA and provided the foundation for many of the major

principles, such as FAPE, that are found in PL. 94-142. Public Law 93-112, The

 

Rehab

which is
areas c‘
disaball‘.
lndwrdu

Actofli

 

origin.

on Sec:
range 0"
‘0 Partlc
0i EdUCT
provider
rE’qulre i
”906855
SChOtls
limited lr

T
DUblic St

I” the de

regardln

 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 including Section 504, as it is commonly referred to,
which is a federal law that originally was intended to reduce discrimination in the
areas of employment, education, and various other settings, for individuals with
disabilities. This law was concerned with social equality and civil rights for
individuals with disabilities, as it is worded almost identically to the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, or national
origin.

Advocacy organizations and the legal system have intensified their focus
on Section 504’s requirement to ensure the education system provides the broad
range of accommodations and services essential for students with special needs
to participate in public education programs and activities. The US. Department
of Education regulations for Section 504 require that students with disabilities be
provided with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). These regulations
require public schools to identify students, evaluate them, and provide services if
necessary, in addition to following procedural safeguards. Nevertheless, many
schools simply lack clarity in their interpretation of this law, and therefore are
limited in their response to fully implement its requirements.

The purpose of this study was to attempt to explain and understand how
public schools implement Section 504. The analysis focused on several factors
in the decision making process; 1) professional educational staff knowledge

regarding Section 504, and, 2) written school policies regarding Section 504.

Overview of the Study
Chapter 1, the introduction, describes the purpose of the study, and

provides an overview of the problem being investigated. The analytical lenses of
policy implementation theory and theories regarding decision making are also
described. Additionally, this chapter discusses the delimitations, assumptions,
and research questions addressed by this study.

Chapter 2 contains a review of the related literature, focusing on the
history of Section 5040f the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act(later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act or IDEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Additionally, several of the parallels between Section 504, IDEA, and the ADA
will be explored in further detail. Theories regarding policy implementation,
decision making, and “cultural capital" will also be reviewed. The lack of
research and data regarding Section 504 students will also be discussed.

Chapter 3 describes the research design, methodology, the research sites
and sample selection for this study. A review of similar types of studies is
presented as well.

Chapter 4 presents the actual data recorded from the interview process,
and Chapter 5 provides an analysis, discussion, along with implications for future
research and professional practice.

Statement of the Problem

Special education, as we see it today, is a relatively recent development in

our public school system. Historically, children with disabilities were simply

excluded from the public schools. Prior to the 1970’s, many states had laws

 

penhrtr

8 Carat.

monume
US. 482

I
race (He

educate

Based

America
tOSChoo
tMsman
Cases el
CONSttu‘
lunsqm

became
imDOrtan
V- the CC

free Dubr

permitting public schools to deny enrollment to children with disabilities (Heward
& Cavanaugh, 1997).

However, the civil rights movement provided the catalyst for change. The
monumental civil rights case of Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, 347
US. 483 (1954) challenged the practice of segregating students according to
race (Heward, 2000). According to the ruling issued by the US. Supreme Court,
education must be made available to all children on equal terms:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and

local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great
expenditure for education both demonstrate our recognition of the
importance of education in our democratic society. It is required in the
performance of our most basic responsibilities... . In these days, it is
doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he
is denied the opportunity of an education. (Brown v. Board of Education,

1954)

Based primarily on the implications of this decision, that all students both African
American and white should be afforded “equal opportunity" and “equal access”
to school programs, many parents of special education students reasoned that
this mandate should readily apply to their children as well. A number of court
cases evolved, based primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which states that no state shall deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law and that no state shall deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Heward, 2000).
These two fundamental values, that of equal protection and due process
became the foundation for special education law. This was evidenced in an
important court decision, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens(PARC)
v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1971, which established the right to a

free public education for all children with mental retardation. In 1972, Mills v.

4

Board of Education of the District of Columbia expanded the Pennsylvania
(PARC) decision to include all handicapped children. The court adopted a
comprehensive plan that provided for 1) a free appropriate education, 2) an IEP,
and 3) due process procedures (Alexander, 1985).

As a result of both the PARC and Mills decisions, federal legislation was
initiated in the early 19703 seeking to eliminate discrimination against the
handicapped in both work and education environment (Alexander, 1985).
Perhaps the most significant piece of federal legislation involving individuals with
disabilities includes the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 of
the Act states:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability. . .shall solely by reason of

her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.
The US. Department of Education regulations for Section 504 require that
students with disabilities be provided with a free appropriate public education
(FAPE). These regulations require public schools to identify students, evaluate
them, and provide services if necessary, in addition to following procedural
safeguards.

Many individuals are much more familiar with PL 94-142, the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), which was passed in 1975. This act
was later reauthorized and renamed as the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) in 1990 and again in 1997. It is this law which provides the

mandates for our current special education policies and procedures. It is

interesting to note that all of the regulations found in Section 504, are also
included in IDEA

However, while IDEA contains mandates for funding and data collecting
procedures for school districts, Section 504 has no such provisions. Although all
individuals who are disabled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) are also considered disabled and therefore protected under Section 504
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), there is no required data
reporting, and no funding source for individuals who qualify solely under the
eligibility guidelines provided by Section 504. Vifithout data to document the
number of students currently being provided accommodations primarily under
Section 504 provisions, the impact of this legislation on the students it was
designed to protect is unknovm.
The Need for and Significance of the Study

While many studies have focused on special education students and the
effectiveness of the implementation of PL. 94-142, later reauthorized as IDEA in
1990, few studies have been conducted on how schools implement Section 504.
The lack of sufficient data regarding the implementation of Section 504 is
evidenced by a significant deficiency in the research literature. Additional
research is necessary to ascertain how Section 504 is implemented in the public
schools, and whether the knowledge of educational staff and parents has an
effect on the number of students referred and identified as eligible under Section
504, in order to determine if it is meeting the needs of the students it was

designed to protect.

During the 2001-2002 school year 5,653,830 children ages 6-21 were
served under IDEA in the United States, 00. and Puerto Rico (US. Department
of Education, 2002). While it is generally accepted that all students who qualify
for services and accommodations under IDEA are also eligible for Section 504
protections, the number of students who are eligible for Section 504 but do not
qualify for IDEA is unknown. Unlike IDEA, there currently is not a database,
either at the state or national level, which provides data regarding the actual
number of students Identified as eligible for Section 504 protections. Wlth so
little data available, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of Section 504. In
view of this lack of empirical data, further research is crucial to understanding
what Section 504 means for the public school system and, more importantly, the
students it serves.

The realization that so little is actually known about Section 504 and the
protections it offers students first became evident to me during my first year as a
regular education administrator. I taught special education prior to becoming an
administrator and, as quite often happens, based on my “special education”
background, it was determined that in addition to my other administrative duties, I
would also become the Section 504 Coordinator for our district. (Never mind that
despite my special education degree, I had never even heard of Section 504
during my undergraduate training and was only vaguely aware of its existence).

I soon discovered that very few people, both inside and outside the field of
education, have a clear understanding, or even basic awareness, of Section 504.
Over the years I have met with many teachers, administrators, counselors,

social workers, school psychologists, doctors, and parents, and even Section 504

 

 

 

 

 

more fq
researd
educat.
SChool
Iesuhs

"HEPwr

504) ti

and dr
InitigL

Sectlc

Dub“c
piaCe
With E

Coordinators who readily admit that they are unsure exactly what this law means
for them or the individuals it was designed to protect. I have participated in
meetings with newly assigned Section 504 coordinators and learned that they
were simply told they were now the Section 504 coordinator for their district. Like
me, many of the “assigned Section 504 coordinators” did not receive any training
prior to these assignments. Therefore they, including myself, were left to
educate themselves.

This issue became more evident when I decided to investigate, with a
more formal process, what I had observed informally. While completing a
research project for a graduate course requirement, I interviewed several regular
education teachers, special education teachers, administrators, social workers,
school psychologists, counselors, and parents regarding Section 504. The
results of these interviews suggested that even with staff in-services (the
interviewees generally agreed they had received some training regarding Section
504) the lack of general awareness of Section 504 was substantial.

The basic premise of this study revolves around policy implementation
and decision making. This apparent lack of knowledge regarding Section 504
intrigues me. How are educators and parents able to make decisions regarding
Section 504 if they are unaware of the law itself?

The purpose of this study was to attempt to explain and understand how
public schools implement Section 504. What are the policies and procedures in
place to implement Section 504? Which factors, it any, are different in a school
with a high number of Section 504 eligible students vs. a school with a low

number of Section 504 eligible students? The underlying issue in the research is

equity, basically, are all students being identified equitably as intended by the
lam Which factors play a crucial role in the identification process?

This study is important in several aspects. Based on its much broader
definition, and illustrated in figure 1 below, Section 504 potentially effects a much
larger number of students than IDEA. Given the fact that over 5.6 million
students were receiving services under IDEA during the 2001 -2002 school year,
the potential number of students receiving or needing Section 504

accommodations may be substantial indeed.

Figure 1 STUDENT POPULATION

 

 
    
   
 
    
 

Regular Education Only Students

504 Onl Students

  

IDEA & 504
Students

*Council of Administrators of Special Education, CASE 1999

Due to the fact that so little information regarding Section 504 eligible
students is available, a significant portion of students may be underserved. This
study may contribute valuable information regarding the implementation of

Section 504 in public schools. Does the knowledge of school staff play a key role

in identifying students with disabilities? The results of this study may play a
crucial role in determining the need to train educational staff regarding Section
504. It may also emphasize the need to keep better statistical data regarding the
number of students eligible for Section 504 services.
Delimitations of the Study
This study does not attempt to:

1) Examine the implementation of any part of Section 504 other than parts 8, C,

and D. It will specifically focus on middle school students.
2) Examine any programs or services that may, or may not be, provided to

students who are in private or charter schools.

Assumptions

This study is based on the following assumptions:
1) Public schools in all states are required to implement Section 504, and have
formulated policies and procedures to follow federal mandates.
2) All public schools have some form of identification and evaluation
procedures for Section 504 eligibility.
3) There currently is no mandatory funding or data reporting source for Section
504.

4) Section 504 is a very broad law, open to interpretation.

Research Questions

This study attempts to answer the question, “ What factors influence the
way in which Section 504 is implemented in a public middle school?” In order to

gain a better understanding of this process, teachers, administrators, counselors,

10

social workers, and psychologists, were asked to reflect upon and discuss their

understanding of Section 504, and their participation, or lack of participation, in

the Section 504 process.

Participants in this study were asked to respond to Open ended interview

questions by recounting their general knowledge and personal experiences

involving Section 504 referral, evaluation, and eligibility meetings and

accommodation planning. Questions focused on the following themes:

1)

2)

3)

Interviewees understanding of Section 504

What do teachers, administrators, social workers, counselors, school
psychologists, and Section 504 coordinators understand about
Section 504? When did they first become aware of Section 504?
How/where do they get their information?

Interviewees participation in the referral, evaluation and
accommodation planning process.

Have teachers etc, participated in the referral and evaluation process?
What are the established evaluation procedures?

What do teachers etc, perceive to be their role in the
evaluation/implementation process?

Interviewees perceptions regarding the established Section 504
procedures

What do teachers think about the identification process? What should
it look like?

Why are things done the way they are?

11

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A basic understanding of the history and intent of Section 504, IDEA, and
the ADA, and their actualization into the day to day operation of the public
schools is crucial to understanding their impact on the students they were
designed to protect. Therefore each of these laws will be discussed at some
length, with the most concentrated focus on Section 504. Theories regarding
policy implementation and decision making will also be reviewed and provide
possible future analytical frameworks.

Histogy and Intent of Se_ction 504 of t_h_§ Rehabflit_at_ion Act of 197:;

During the past decade, a great deal of debate has occurred regarding the
implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in our nation’s
public school systems. Section 504, as it is commonly referred to, is a broad civil
rights law which protects the rights of individuals with handicaps in programs and
activities that receive assistance from the US. Department of Education. Unlike
other federal legislation which is written in multifaceted, often extended formats,
Section 504 is a relatively straightforward part of the Rehabilitation Act. Section
504 states,

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability. ..shall solely by reason of

her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.

One of the noteworthy aspects regarding section 504 is its original intent.
Section 504 is part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to Wagner

(1988) the primary objective for Congress by enacting 504 was to “honor the

12

requirements of “simple justice’ by ensuring that federal funds not be expended in
a discriminatory fashion” (p.398). Originally, this act was targeted at programs
dealing with employment and the enhancement of employment for persons with
disabilities. The act was amended in 1974 to “extend its protections to
handicapped students seeking access to federally supported public schools”
(Kortering, Julnes, & Edgar, 1990, p. 8).
There are seven different subparts of regulations of the Section 504:

A. General provisions

8. Employment practices

C. Program accessibility

D. Preschool, elementary, and secondary education

E. Postsecondary education

F. Health, welfare, and social services

G. Procedures

The key areas that public schools must deal with include subparts B, C,

and D: employment practices, program accessibility, and preschool, elementary,
secondary education. Basically, children with disabilities must be afforded
“equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach
the same level of achievement" as their non-disabled peers (Jacob-Timm &
Hartshome, 1994, p.29). Additionally Section 504 regulations stipulate that
school districts may not discriminate against parents or employees of the district
who have disabilities. However, the purpose of this study was to concentrate

specifically on student protections.

l3

The federal government has stipulated that in addition to providing
reasonable accommodations for students identified as eligible for Section 504
services, it is the responsibility of K-12 public schools to locate and evaluate
students suspected of having a “handicap” under Section 504 guidelines (Smith,
1 998).

One final note on the law itself, because it is a federal law, it applies only
to entities that receive federal funds. Many public schools receive assistance
from federal funding for a variety of programs, including school lunch, special
education, and gifted or talented programs, and therefore they must comply with
Section 504 regulations. i

What does this mandate represent for the public schools that provide
educational programs for the individuals this law was designed to accommodate?
In order to answer this question, we must first address the regulations and
requirements Section 504 places on schools.

Definition of Disability Under Section 504
Section 504 defines an “individual with a handicap” as

..... any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which

substantially limits one or more major life activities, (ii) has a record of

such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.

[Section 504 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at 29 U.S.C. 706(8)(B)]

The Act defines a “physical or mental impairment" as

(A) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or

anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems:

neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory,
including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genito-

urinary; hemic and lymphatic skin; and endocnne;[Title 34, Code of
Federal Regulations, section 104.3(i)]; or

14

(8) any mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation,
organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning
disabilities.l'l'itle 34, Code of Federal Regulations, section 104.3(ii)]

The phrase “has a record of such an impairment" means
He/She has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or
physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities. The use of this definition of a handicapped person is rarely
applicable in elementary and secondary education, and is insufficient, by
itself to trigger section 504 protections and accommodations[OCR
memorandum, 8l3l92, 19 IDELR 894].

The phrase “is regarded as having an impairment” means

(i) The physical or mental impairment substantially limits major life
activities only as a result of others toward the impairment;

(ii) Has none of the impairments defined in paragraphs (A) or (B) of this
definition but is treated as having such an impairment.

The use of this definition of a handicapped person is rarely applicable in
elementary and secondary education, and is insufficient, by itself to trigger
section 504 protections and accommodations[OCR memorandum, 8/2/92,

19 IDELR 894].

Unlike IDEA, which requires that an individual have an identified disability which
fits in a specific category such as Ieaming disabilities, Section 504 requires that
they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of
the person ’s major life activities.

Once it is established that an impairment exists, the second part of the
definition: substantially limits a major life activity, must also be present. The act
defines major life activity as

...functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking,

seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, Ieaming, and working. (Title 34

Code of Federal Regulations Part 104.3)

Although section 504 does not clearly define the term “substantially limits,” it

understandably is a key concept that is often difficult for a local school district to

15

operationalize. The Americans with Disabilities Act interprets the phrase
“substantially limits” to mean

A major life activity is substantially limited if a person is “unable to perform
a major life activity that the average person in the general population can
perform".[29, CFR 1630.2 (j)(1)(ii)]

Or

A major life activity is substantially limited if a person is “significantly
restricted in the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual
can perform major life activity as compared to the condition, manner or
duration under which the average person in the general population can
perform that major life activity". [29, CFR 1630.2 (j)(1)(ii)

The Council of Administrators of Special Eduwtion, or CASE, has
formulated a similar definition based, in part, on this finding. CASE defines the
term in the following manner:

...the term “substantially limits’ be interpreted to mean that the student is
unable to perform a major life activity the average student of
approximately the same age can perform, or that the student is
significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which
a particular major life activity is performed as compared to the average
student of approximately the same age. (CASE, 1999, p14)

The Office of Civil Rights has ruled that the phrase “substantially limits” is to be
defined by the school district (Letter to McKethan, 23 IDELR 504 [OCR 1994]).

Section 504 Regulations:
Basically, OCR (1989) stated that school districts must do the following
things to meet Section 504 requirements:

. Annually identify and locate all children with disabilities who are
unserved;

. Provide a “free appropriate public education” to each student with
disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability;

0 Ensure that each student with disabilities is educated with non-
disabled students to the maximum extent appropriate;

. Establish nondiscriminatory evaluation and placement procedures
to avoid the inappropriate education that may result from the
misclassification or misplacement of students;

16

 

3.:
{Q
0

 

94-14
amen
cases
tuned
idenhr
demSi
aCCep
lhenli
renani
agani

fOUIlde

0 Establish procedural safeguards to enable parents and guardians
to participate meaningfully in decisions regarding the evaluation
and placement of their children; and

. Afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in
nonacademic and extra-curricular services and activities.

History and Intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, or PL

94-142, was formulated in a large part by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. This is turn, was based on several landmark court decisions court
cases involving civil rights, notably, Brown v. the Board of Education, in 1954. As
noted earlier, the wording in section V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is almost
identical to that found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, it was the
decision in the case of PARC v. Mills which brought into debate the henceforth
accepted policies of excluded public education to a number of students based on
their handicap, which led to development of the EAHCA. This law was later
renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 1990, and it was reauthorized
again in 1997. There are six major principles of IDEA which provide the
foundation for all special education programs:

1) The “zero reject" principle which means that all children, regardless of
the severity of their disability, must be educated. The child find system
requires that each school is responsible for locating, identifying and
evaluating any child suspected of having a disability.

2) A Free, Appropriate Public Education or FAPE

3) Nondiscriminatory Identification and Evaluation methods

17

 

Juhrc
[Msat
Base:
fighhs
PUbhc
Thmle
doesr
dang,
impam
byAD.
'henhfi

Sudla

 

4) Least Restrictive Environment or LRE, which means that schools must
educate handicapped students with non-handicapped peers to the
greatest extent possible

5) Due process Safeguards

6) Parent and Student Participation in Decisions

History and Intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act, PL 101-336, was signed into law in

July of 1990. The National lnfonnation Center for Children and Youth with
Disabilities consider it to be the most significant disability legislation ever passed.
Based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA extends civil
rights protection of persons with disabilities to private sector employment, all
public services, public accommodation, transportation, and telecommunications.
This legislation also includes private nonsectarian schools. Although this law
does not deal directly with the education of students with disabilities, it does
clarify the civil rights of all individuals with disabilities, and therefore has an
impact on special education (Friend, 1996). A person with a disability as defined
by ADA is exactly the same as Section 504 or a person with (1) a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity; (2) with a record of
such and impairment; or (3) who is regarded as having such and impairment.
The major provisions of ADA are as follows:

1) Employers with 15 or more employees may not refuse to hire or

promote a person because of a disability if that person is qualified to

perform the job. “Also an employer must make reasonable

18

 

2)

3)

4)

accommodations that will allow a person with a disability to perform
essential functions of the job. Such modifications in job requirements
or situation must be made if they will not impose undue hardship on
the employer.

All new vehicles purchased by public transit authorities must be
accessible to people with disabilities. All rail stations must be made
accessible.

It is illegal for public accommodations to exclude or refuse persons
with disabilities. Public accommodations are everyday businesses and
services, such as hotels, restaurants, grocery stores and parks. All
new buildings must be accessible, and existing facilities must remove
barriers if the removal can be accomplished without a great deal of
difficulty or expense(Heward, 2000).

Companies offering telephone service to the general public must offer
relay services to individuals who use telecommunication devices for

the deaf (e.g. TDDs) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

For a more detailed comparison of the three laws, please refer to

Appendix A for a table which depicts the relationship between Section 504, IDEA,
and the ADA, as represented by the Council of Administrators of Special

Education, Inc., 1999.

Much like the growing pains that public school districts faced in the mid

seventies with PL 94-142 in 1974, which provided handicapped students with the

right to FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education), school districts are once

19

again attempting to follow the federal mandates necessitated by the
implementation of a law that went into effect in 1973. Similar to some of the
problems that occurred with IDEA, the actual processes for identifying possible
students with disabilities, referring them, and evaluating them to determine
Section 504 eligibility may vary across school districts or even individual
students. This may be due in part to the broad definition of the law itself.

The current definition for Section 504 eligibility leaves a great deal open to
interpretation. And, as one might reasonably expect, different individuals and
therefore different schools, will interpret things differently. Exactly how many
school-age public school children are currently found eligible for Section 504?
Well, unlike special education with its state and federal record keeping systems,
there is not a national or state database in Michigan that keeps track of the
number of students eligible for 504 and the reason for their eligibility. In
California, an audit completed by the California Bureau of State Auditors found

that:

Los Angeles and San Francisco had low percentages of students with 504
plans. According to a survey of its schools, during the fall of 1999 Los
Angeles had approximately 710,000 students enrolled in grades K
through12 and of these students 1,234, or less than 0.2 percent had
Section 504 plans. San Francisco had approximately 61,000 students K
through12, yet only 62 of these students had Section 504 plans,
representing only 0.1 percent of the total district enrollment. (p.24)

Additionally, according to the state report,

20

 

less than 2 percent of the 1999 graduating seniors nationwide who took
theSAT received extra time, and in California, the rate was less than 1.2
percent. Because so few students receive accommodations on
standardized tests, it appears that some students might not be getting the
assistance they need. While the cause of this problem may vary from
district to district, a lack of staff and parent awareness of Section 504 and
its implications for education would seem to be contributing factors.(p.2)
In addition to finding that many students are not being identified and therefore
may be underrepresented and served, the auditors also found the opposite to be
true. Basically some students who may not be eligible for accommodations were
receiving extra time on the tests:
We identified questionable cases at six of the seven districts we reviewed.
Our review of the files of 330 Califomia students from 18 public schools,
most of whom obtained extra time on standardized tests, found that the
basis for their accommodations was questionable in 60 instances, or 18.2
percent. (p.2)
The state audit also revealed that some districts did not have adequate records
to support the accommodations some students received. One district’s “incorrect
interpretation of Section 504 allowed potentially ineligible students to obtain extra
time on college entrance exams.” In that district, Section 504 eligibility decisions
were often inappropriately made by one person rather than the team. On a more
interesting note, one district provided an unwarranted Section 504 plan to a
student due to the threat of litigation. The report also revealed that like Michigan,
there “is no statewide data on the number of Section 504 plans at California
schools" (p.25).
Therefore, given the broad definition of Section 504 eligibility, the potential
number of 504 eligible students could include the following: diabetic children,
asthmatic children, children with AIDS or who are HIV positive or have other

communicable diseases. Students who have a physical or mental impairment

2]

which does not meet IDEA eligibility may also be included, including students
with attention deficit disorder, or ADHD. There are between 1.5 million to 2
million students in the United States who have this disorder (Fossey, 1995).

Even though all of these students may not qualify, the potential for large numbers
of Section 504 students exist. When you couple ADHD with other impairments,
you can begin to understand the substantial numbers of students who may be
eligible for Section 504 accommodations.

The lack of accurate records creates some of the uncertainty and
indecision that school districts face regarding eligibility criteria. A student that
qualifies in one school district may not qualify in another, based on each districts’
knowledge/Interpretation of the law. Some school districts may simply be more
familiar with the law, while others may have parents who know how to manipulate
the system to get what they want for their children, in essence, the “cultural
capital” effect that Annette Lareau discovered in Home Advantage (1989).

As the California audit clearly reveals, increased demands in testing
situations (in Michigan, there is a state educational assessment test called the
MEAP, in which students can earn scholarships for college based on their
scores) have caused some parents possibly to look for an “edge” for their
children. Because students with 504 eligibility may have accommodations on
these tests, there is always the possibility that the system may be abused, much
like the audit in California demonstrated.

Additionally, unlike special education, which has funding designated to
support student programming, accommodations for students found eligible solely

under Section 504 must be made from the general education classroom teachers

22

and budget. With the ever increasing costs of education, and the limited
resources with which districts are forced to work, the costs for such
“individualized accommodations” may create tension among educators faced
with making budget decisions for the good of all of the students.

With so much at stake, how are schools dealing with the identification and
referral process? How are these decisions regarding students made? What
impacts them the most?

As is the case with most civil rights legislation, the burning issue in this
case is equity. Are schools equitable in their identification of students who are
eligible for 504 accommodations? In essence, are schools making decisions
regarding section 504 eligibility based on the law/.7 And does this interpretation of
the law vary across school districts? Does parental knowledge of Section 504
guidelines play a role in the referral process? Does the knowledge of teachers,
administrators, and other key educational staff, regarding Section 504 play a role
in the referral and eligibility decision making process? My purpose here is not to
find fault with the schools themselves, but rather to identify whether or not the
possibility exists that the original intent of the law, and the broad nature of the law
itself, lead to unintentional inconsistencies in its interpretation and
implementation in the public school system.

There are several issues and political factors affecting the implementation
of Section 504. Fullan (1991) identified nine “interactive factors” affecting policy
implementation. He grouped them into A) characteristics of change, 8) local

characteristics, and C) external factors.

23

 

The factors involving the characteristics of change include: 1) defining the
need, 2) clarity, 3) complexity, and 4) quality/practicality”. In order to implement
Section 504, teachers and other educators must see the need for identifying,
evaluating and providing accommodations for students. However, as Fullan
states, “Teachers frequently do not see the need for an advocated change”. In
the case of Section 504, many teachers are simply unaware of its implications.

The second issue involves clarity. “Legislation and many other new
policies and programs are sometimes deliberately stated at a general level in
order to avoid conflict and promote acceptance and adoption” (Fullan, 1990 p70)
Such is the case for Section 504. The law itself is very broad, with several key
terms, such as “substantially limits” left to be defined by each school. This leads
to confusion as often teachers are unsure about eligibility issues and reasonable
accommodations. Practitioners need to knowledgeable about Section 504
eligibility criteria in order to make informed decisions.

The issue of complexity refers to “the difficulty and extent of change
required for the individuals responsible for implementation”. In order to
implement Section 504 requirements, there is a fine balance between ‘keeping it
simple’ so as not to overwhelm staff members, and ‘not emphasizing enough’ the
changes that need to occur, thus resulting in little or no change.

Finally, the quality/practicality issue is also an important consideration.
According to Fullan, quality is ignored “when adoption is more important than
implementation, decisions are made without the follow-up or preparation time
necessary to generate adequate materials.” School districts are ‘scrambling’ to

comply with Section 504. Districts need to plan for and develop their stages of

24

implementation. However, districts may not have the ‘quury’ of time. Similar to
the ”litigation strategy” employed by parents prior to PL 94-142 (T weedie, 1982),
parents are again “seeking compliance’ regarding 504 eligibility for their children
through the courts, rather than relying on professional educators.

The key local characteristics for change include: 1) district, 2) community
and board, 3) the principal, and 4) the teacher. When implementing Section 504
in a school district, the district’s past history, or ‘track record’, will influence the
new proposal. In other words, if teachers have had negative experience in the
past, they will think negatively about new ideas as well, and become less willing
to put forth effort to change. One of the keys to helping a district overcome this
problem is the superintendent and other central office staff, including the Section
504 coordinator. They provide the district with direction and support efforts “by
their actions” (F ullan, 1991 ), so the recruitment of a highly knowledgeable and
dynamic 504 coordinator can have a positive effect on its implementation.

The school board and community can have a positive or negative role in
the implementation of any policy. It has been my experience, as a 504
coordinator in several districts, that many communities and school boards lack
knowledge regarding Section 504. One of the key goals, as noted by Fullan,
would be to inform the board and gain their support and cooperation.

The third factor for change at the local level involves the principal.
According to Fullan, “all major research on innovation shows that the principal
strongly influences the likelihood of change, but it also indicates that most
principals do not play change leadership roles”. In the case of Section 504, the

building principal at every level will need to play an active role in the

25

implementation of Section 504. Staff members need to see her actively
involved in in-services and meetings involving Section 504 planning and
implementation. An active leadership role will have a lasting affect on the
implementation process.

The final factor for implementation at the local level involves the teacher,
whom I refer to as the “front-line educators”. Teachers’ psychological states and
values influence their capacity for change. It is important for teachers to be
working together and sharing ideas with colleagues and administrators. In the
case of Section 504, teachers need to share knowledge, successes, and, simply,
‘ways to make it work’.

Fullan is not the only one who views the “front-line educators” as crucial to
the implementation process. Fulcher (1989 ) views policy as that of a struggle
enacted by social actors, where language or ‘discourse’ is the instrument of
power. In this view, policy is made at all levels, rather than the traditional
framework with its top-down model. As stated by F ulcher, there are 3 different
forms of policy; written, stated, and enacted. The written policy for Section 504 is
supplied by the federal government, complete with definitions, regulations and
procedures. In turn, school districts who receive federal funds must have written
administrative procedures and policies regarding Section 504. However, it is the
enacted policy, carried out by “front-line professionals”, that, it can be argued, is
the true measure of implementation.

The final group of factors that affect policy implementation are §_xt_eLn_a_l
f_a_c_tgr_s_. Government agencies and legislators perceive themselves as the

“policymakers”. Teachers and other “front-line educators” view the government

26

as totally unaware and therefore unrelated to the world of practitioners. Section
504 was became law in 1973, but due in part to its original intent, and the lack of
relationship/shared vision between the policy makers and the “front-line
educators” little progress in the area of enacted policy has actually occurred.
Again, this is an example of the tension that exists between written vs. actual
(enacted) policy.

Another issue that impacts implementation of Section 504 concerns the
organizational structure of the school itself. Skrtic(1995) states that if we look at
schools through the structural lens, we find they are characterized by machine
bureaucracies, with technical divisions of labor and standardization of
performance, where the workers are performers and not “problem-solvers”. The
consequences of this model are that change occurs based on a rational/technical
approach, which produces more bureaucracy. In this model teaching becomes
mechanical and a simple series of steps which reduces the professional
discretion and problem solving abilities. In this model rather than meeting the
needs of the client, the professional matches the client to the list of available
services, often referred to as ‘pigeonholing’. All of the parts of this model lead to
the routinization of decisions. This continues today in both special education and
Section 504 eligibility meetings, as staff members struggle to keep up with ever
increasing caseloads compounded with decreasing financial and human
resources. Due to the fact that Section 504 is a civil rights law which applies to
all students, parents, and employees, and unlike IDEA, no additional funding ls
included for the implementation of this law, the increased strain on both human

and financial resources is considerable.

27

 

Skrtic describes the inner professional bureaucracy structure of schools as
“performance organizations in which professionals work alone to perfect the
standard practices in their repertoires” . There is a conflict between the
“bureaucratic values that ground the performance-oriented paradigm of the
professional culture and those that underwrite the adhocratic or problem solving
orientation.”

Adhocracies, are informal groups of people (parents, educators, students)
designed to meet and solve problems. They are based on innovation,
adaptation, and divergent thinking. The size and nature of the adhocracies would
be flexible, based on the needs of the client. These adhocracies would provide
professionals with the format to become innovative, creative, and collaborative
problem solvers. Of course, it would also increase professional accountability.
They would create unique educational programs designed to meet the needs of
the individual child rather than fit the child to an existing program. The parent
would become a more valued member rather than an adversary. This
collaboration would allow the parent more active participation in the discourse.

Section 504 does provide the opportunity for more professional decisions
than IDEA of 1997. For instance, the evaluation process is less rigid. Unlike
IDEA, Section 504 does not stipulate the titles or number of people
(administrator, special education teacher, regular education teacher, MET
representative, etc.) who must be present in an evaluation meeting. It simply
states, “a group of people knowledgeable about the student”. In essence, it
allows educators the ability to decide which individuals are necessary to make

sound decisions regarding a child’s eligibility, thus conserving limited resources

28

 

and providing the ability to adjust the evaluation to meet the needs of the
individual student thereby providing services sooner. This is the type of
“adhocracy” that Skrtic proposes, more freedom to make professional decisions.
However, in order to make these decisions, professionals need to be trained in
the eligibility requirements. Without this knowledge, “adhocracy” will falter due to
lack of clarity about the purpose.

On the other hand, IDEA continues to force schools to operate as machine
bureaucracies in the evaluation process. As Weatherley and Lipsky(1977)
determined, during special education evaluations all students were evaluated
using the same process-including mandated personnel and testing requirements.
For instance a child with multiple physical and emotional problems, is evaluated
in the same time frame, and with the same resources, as a child suspected of a
mild impairment- such as a Ieaming disability. This mandate to evaluate every
child in the same manner is the govemment’s attempt to hold schools
accountable and “treat individuals fairly". However, fairness isn’t treating
everyone the same, fairness is treating everyone according to his or her needs.
By mandating the types of assessments and the people involved, individual
decision making is eliminated, and so is the “by in” or “values” by the committee
members. Consequently, evaluation decisions become “routine”.

Additionally, the eligibility criteria for IDEA of 1997 are very specific.
Individuals must meet certain categories including specific testing scores in order
to receive services. For instance, a student must be two or more standard
deviations below the mean in order to qualify for a Ieaming disability, or must fall

below a 70 IO in order to qualify as mentally impaired. This leaves little flexibility

29

for professionals in the eligibility meeting when the student scores a 71 or 72 IO.
In effect this is the ”routine decision” that Skrtic is referring to. A student “falls
into” a certain category, or he doesn’t, and in order to receive services, a student
must be labeled. By default, the professional committee is forced into a
“machine bureaucracy", where all decisions become “mechanical” or routine.
Due to the mandates, members (professionals) are ‘absolved’ of their decisions
and therefore their responsibilities as problem solvers. They blame the system
for “not allowing them” to meet the needs of the students. The thought process
might be, “We would like to help you, but the government says you

must... ..and because you don’t, there is nothing we can do.”

Section 504 however, has a much broader definition of eligibility. There
are no cutoff scores or categories one must meet. According to Fullan,
“Legislation and many other new programs are sometimes deliberately stated at
the general level in order to avoid conflict and promote acceptance and
adoption." This may have been the intent with Section 504. The Office of Civil
Rights has ruled that the phrase “substantially limits” is to be defined by the
school district (Letter to McKethan, 23 IDELR 504 [OCR 1994]). Thus an
adhoc committee could determine what “substantially limits" means for their
district. Again, this demonstrates the concept of viewing educators as
professionals and problem-solvers, rather than as machines executing steps.

Perhaps the best example of Skrtic’s machine bureaucracy can be seen
at the placement l9vel of both Section 504 and IDEA. In both cases, due in part
to limited resources (particularly in the case of Section 504), student placement

decisions are made where, rather than meeting the needs of the client, the

30

professional matches the client (student) to the list of available services, often
referred to as ‘pigeonholing’. This is true when we look at the continuum of
services for special education; teacher consultant, resource programs, self-
contained programs, day treatment or residential placement. Which one can we
“plug the child into”? Rather than, what do we need to do to meet the needs of
the child?

For Section 504, the accommodation plan and placement revolves
around what is the “minimum accommodation we can make so as not to increase
or overburden the regular education teacher”. Remember, there is no funding to
support additional staff or materials/equipment. Front line educators (committee
members) are forced to weigh the needs of the individual vs. the need to
conserve limited resources and serve the needs of the masses. Weatherly and
Lipsky(1977) summarized this dilemma in the following manner:

To accomplish their required tasks, street-level bureaucrats must find
ways to accommodate the demands placed upon them and confront
the reality of resource limitations. They typically do this by routinizing
procedures, modifying goals, rationalizing services, asserting priorities,
and limiting or controlling clientele. In other words, they develop practices
that permit them in some way to process the work they are required to do.
(p. 172)
Their study supports Skrtic’s theory of school organization, namely schools are
forced to become machine bureaucracies in order to keep up with the demands
placed on them coupled with limited resources. Government mandates, for both
Section 504 and IDEA create these conditions.
Currently no funding is provided to implement Section 504. Any additional
resources needed for Section 504 accommodations come out of the general

fund, and IDEA funds may not be used. Obviously this issue needs to be

31

addressed, before educational options are based solely on funding rather than
individual needs. This lack of funding forces educators to weigh their decision to
meet the needs of the individual student vs. the underlying need to conserve
limited resources and serve the needs of the masses. This information needs to
be shared with educators up front. Current financial situations and decisions
need to be reexamined by the “stakeholders”. Shared decision making regarding
finances is crucial. According to Sergiovanni (2000), the “key to success is for
parents, students, and teachers of each school to have control over their own
destinies and to have distinctive norms and approaches for realizing their goals”.
Sergiovanni summarizes the reason for such success in this way:
Good schools are unique. They are unique because they reflect the
values of the communities they serve. They reflect the beliefs of the
teachers who work in them. Why is uniqueness important? Because
creating a unique school and being part of a unique school helps us feel
special and improves our level of commitment. Shared commitments pull
people together and create tighter connections among the and between
them and the school. And these factors count in helping students learn at
higher levels.
Therefore, implementation of any policy should be somewhat unique to that
school. Variation among schools should not only be expected, it should be
encouraged. By forming alliances with the community and businesses, more
resources may be obtained. The greater the number of ideas and resources, the
more possibilities exist, but more importantly, these ideas represent the values
and priorities of the people who will be implementing them, and thus are much
more likely to be implemented than “mandates” from either the federal, state, or
district level.
Several recent state audits have revealed the need for teacher training

and planning time in order to fully develop and implement practices and

32

procedures. In their summary, the Ann Arbor Public Schools review strongly
advised the district to “organize a series of systematic Section 504 training
models” (Scheetz, 2001). The state of California found that “some students may
not be getting the assistance they need because of a lack of awareness of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and weaknesses in district
processes for identifying students with suspected disabilities” (Hovvle, 2000).
Teachers cannot make informed professional decisions without the proper
knowledge and training regarding both Section 504 and IDEA. Therefore,
teacher training regarding Section 504 and IDEA implementation becomes
paramount to the successful education of all students. Teacher in-services need
to focus on enabling all teachers to meet the diverse Ieaming populations of
students. Although special education programs, and more recently general
education programs, at the university level have focused on the requirements for
IDEA, little information is currently shared (at the undergraduate level) regarding
Section 504.

Weatherley and Lipsky (1977) identified the use of incentives or rewards
as a key to the successful implementation of any policy. Yes, rewards and
punishments are in line with the behaviorist theory as defined by B.F. Skinner.
However, it has been established that people are more motivated by rewards
than the fear of punishment. Currently schools are faced with “comply or face
the possibility of losing other funds”. There is no real incentive to actively pursue
and implement Section 504.

Finally, ongoing assessment of all of these areas is essential. According

to McCarthy and Still (1993), a key to the success of any new policy is “its

33

 

 

ongoing monitoring progress”. Each stage of this process an be monitored and
measured using assessment tools that will be designed by the “stakeholders".
The planning stage for implementation is by far the extensive issue. It is also the
most crucial. By analyzing the issues that policy implementation faces, schools
are provided with the means to deconstruct old ineffective models and replace
them with others that offer the possibility of success by focusing on the values
and resources of the social actors involved.

Summary

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a broad civil rights law
which protects the rights of individuals with handicaps in programs and activities
which receive federal funding. The primary objective for Congress enacting
Section 504 was to “honor the requirements of ‘simple justice’ by ensuring that
federal funds not be expended in a discriminatory fashion" (Wagner, 1988,
p.398).

Since its enactment, schools have been faced with the challenges of
implementation. Similar to some of the difficulties that occurred with IDEA, the
actual processes for identifying possible handicapped students, referring them
and evaluating them to determine Section 504 eligibility may vary across districts
or even individual students. Unlike IDEA, Section 504 is very broad law, with
several key terms, such as “substantially limits”, left to be defined by each
school. This may lead to confusion as often educators may be unsure about
eligibility issues and reasonable accommodations. Practitioners need to
knowledgeable about Section 504 eligibility criteria in order to make informed

decisions. The state of California found that “some students may not be getting

34

the assistance they need because of a lack of awareness of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and weaknesses in district processes for identifying
students with suspected disabilities”(Howle, 2000). Teachers cannot make
informed professional decisions without the proper knowledge and training
regarding both Section 504 and IDEA. Training requires both time and money.
However, unlike IDEA, Section 504 did not come with any additional funding.
The lack of funding may create additional constraints for schools regarding
Section504 implementation.

Policy implementation does not occur in a vacuum. As noted previously in
this chapter, F ullan (1991) identified nine “interactive factors” affecting policy
implementation. Additionally Fulcher (1989) states that policy is made at all
levels, rather than the traditional framework with its top-down model. Finally,
Skrtic (1995) argues that the very organizational structure of schools themselves
has a tremendous impact on policy implementation. These theories provide a
reference for analyzing policy implementation.

In summary, there is a very limited body of research regarding Section
504, particularly its implementation. The purpose of this study is to attempt to
explain and understand how public schools implement Section 504. The data
and results from this research may provide educators and policy makers with

valuable information regarding Section 504 implementation in public schools.

35

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that influence the
implementation of Section 504 in public schools, as mandated by law.
Specifically this study examined the understanding and participation of the
individuals directly involved in the decisions necessitated by the implementation
process, in addition to district policies and procedures related to this mandate.

This chapter explains the methodological approach selected for this study,
the site of the study, the population, sample size and demographics. The
limitations of the study will also be presented.
Methodological Approach

This was a qualitative study involving interviews and reviews of written
policies and procedures by the researcher. According to Fulcher (1989) there
are three different forms of policy: written, stated and enacted. This study
examined Section 504 implementation by recording the responses of several key
individuals responsible for Section 504 implementation. Specifically, Iwras
interested in just how knowledgeable the “front line educators” -those individuals
ultimately responsible for its implementation- are regarding this law. In order to
implement this policy, one must be aware of the eligibility requirements of the
Section 504. I also examined written documents including: policy and
administrative guidelines, records of in-service training, Section 504 documents
including the referral form, parent invitation letter, meeting plan and evaluation,

accommodation plans, and due process rights. In addition, other forms of public

36

notification such as student handbooks, parent newsletters, job postings,
websites, and district newsletters, were also reviewed.
The Site, Population and Sample

In acquiring the samples for this study, a questionnaire was distributed to
22 middle schools in southwestern lower Michigan. A former colleague of mine
agreed to distribute the surveys and consent forms personally at a principal’s
meeting. I chose these middle schools because I am familiar with the structure
of middle schools, having worked as a professional educator (as a special
education teacher, assistant principal, athletic director, and Section 504
coordinator) for the past 14 years, and they are relatively close to where I live. I
also have worked on a professional level with many of the administrators of the
schools where l directed the surveys, and I felt this would improve my chances of
gaining access to their schools. The questionnaire asked principals (or 504
coordinators) to identify the number of Section 504 students who were currently
enrolled in their schools, in addition to specific questions regarding how the
Section 504 students were referred/Identified. Unlike IDEA, which requires
identification and accounting procedures in order to receive funding, currently
there is not a state or national accounting system to track Section 504 students
or provide a database which contains information regarding the number of
Section 504 students in a given school. I designed these surveys as a screening
tool to determine how many Section 504 students were actually identified in a
given school, in order to choose which schools to participate in my study. I

made follow-up phone calls and sent e-mails to encourage responses to the

37

 

surveys. Based on the data collected through these surveys, I selected my
sample population.

Ten of the 22 surveys were returned, eight of the ten were filled out by the
building principal, and two by the district! building Section 504 coordinator.
However, one of the principals filled the survey out anonymously, and therefore
that survey could not be included. There were five schools which reported a total
of 28 students receiving accommodations based on Section 504 eligibility. The
combined population of all of the schools surveyed was 3,330 students. Of the
28 students identified by the five schools, 21 were referred based on ADD, five
for a low IQ, and two for health reasons. Following the analysis of the returned
surveys, I selected four schools for my sample population using the following
procedure. The returned surveys were separated into two piles. One pile
contained the five school surveys which stated they had Section 504 students in
their buildings, and the other pile contained the four surveys which stated their
schools currently did not have any identified Section 504 students. I did not
include the anonymous survey in either pile. I randomly drew out two surveys
from each of the piles. I then contacted each of the building principals for the
four schools, first by e-mail, and then over the phone. I explained that I would
like to do further research on Section 504 by interviewing several staff members
at their school. Each of the principals agreed to participate in the study and talk
to their staff members to see if they would be willing to participate in the study.
Following confirmation that there were indeed willing participants in each school,

I arranged one day in each school to conduct the interviews. However, a second

38

visit to the site was occasionally necessary to accommodate participant
schedules.

A total of thirty professional staff members participated in this study,
twenty—five were actually interviewed, and five staff members, all from the same
school, chose to respond in writing to the interview protocol questions. The five
written responses were not part of the original design, and I will describe those
circumstances in more detail later. I had originally planned to interview parents
at all four schools as well, however, based in part on my responses from
professional staff members, I did not interview any parents. I will present my
rationale for this decision in detail a little later in this chapter. All of the
participants were white. Twelve were male, and 18 were female. Of the
participants, four had a specialist degree, 20 had a masters degree, and 10 had
a bachelors degree. The total number of years experience of this group was
398.5, ranging from 1 to 30, with an average of just over 13 years. As table 3.1

demonstrates, it was definitely an experienced group of staff with the majority

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

attaining advanced degrees.
Table 3.1 Staff Participants
TITLE DEGREE EXPERIENCE SEX ETHNICICTY
Social Worker MA 8 years Male Caucasian
Section 504
Coordinator]
Psychologist EdS 24 years Female Caucasian
Regular Ed.
Teacher BA 11 years Male Caucasian
Special Ed.
Teacher MA 4 years Female Caucasian
Principal MA 25 years Male Caucasian

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal MA 11 years Female Caucasian
Regular Ed.
Teacher BA 6 years Female Caucasian
Psychologist EdS 4 years Female Caucasian
Social Worker BA 6 years Female Caucasian
Special Ed.
Teacher BA 4 years Female Caucasian
Regular Ed.
Teacher BA 3 years Female Caucasian
Special Ed.
Teacher MA 9 years Female Caucasian
Special Ed.
Supervisor/504
ln-service Two MA 24 years Female Caucasian
Section 504
Coordinator Two MA 20 years Male Caucasian
Psychologist EdS 19 years Male Caucasian
Special Ed.
Teacher BA 6 years Female Caucasian
Principal MA 13 years Male Caucasian
Special Ed.

Teacher MA 27 ‘A years Female Caucasian
Asst. Principal BA 9 years Male Caucasian
Social Worker MA 14 years Male Caucasian

Regular Ed.

Teacher MA 11 years Female Caucasian
Regular Ed.

Teacher BA 1 year Male Caucasian

Principal MA 28 years Female Caucasian
Psychologist EdS 16 years Male Caucasian
Special Ed.

Teacher MA 11 years Female Caucasian
Regular Ed.

Teacher BA 25 years Female Caucasian
Regular Ed.

Teacher BA 13 years Female Caucasian

 

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Ed.
Teacher MA 9 years Female Caucasian
Counselor MA 7 years Female Caucasian

Section 504
Coordinator MA 30 years Male Caucasian

 

There were four separate middle schools in lower Michigan that
participated in this study. Lake Michigan Middle School is a “Class 0” school,
with approximately 350 students. Lake Michigan Middle School is part of an
urban fringe district, with just over 2,000 students. Roughly 90% of the parents
have a high school diploma, and 30% of the parents hold at least a bachelor’s
degree. The median household income is close to $60,000, and the number of
economically disadvantaged students is slightly less than 20% of the school
population. Over 70% of the students attending Lake Michigan Middle School
pass the MEAP (Michigan Education Assessment Program). Approximately 10%
of the school population is receiving special education services. Lake Michigan
Middle School currently does not have any identified Section 504 students. At
the time of this study, no student had been referred for a Section 504 evaluation.

Lake Superior Middle school is a “Class A” school, with just under 750
students. Lake Superior Middle School is part of a rural district, with just over
4,500 students. Roughly 87% of the parents have a high school diploma, and
15% of the parents hold at least a bachelor's degree. The median household
income is close to $45,000, and the number of economically disadvantaged
students is slightly less than 25% of the school population. Over 55% of the
students attending Lake Superior Middle School pass the MEAP. Approximately

17% of the school population is receiving special education services. Lake

41

 

Superior Middle School currently has six students receiving Section 504
accommodations, all due to ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), there is also one
student currently in the referral process.

Lake Huron Middle School is a “Class C” school, with approximately 350
students. Lake Huron Middle School is part of a rural district, with just over 1,200
students. Roughly 77% of the parents have a high school diploma, and 9% of
the parents hold at least a bachelor’s degree. The median household income is
close to $30,000, and the number of economically disadvantaged students is
slightly less than 40% of the school population. Over 40% of the students
attending Lake Huron Middle School pass the MEAP. Approximately 16% of the
school population is receiving special education services. Lake Huron Middle
School currently does not have any identified Section 504 students. At the time
of this study, no student had been referred for a Section 504 evaluation.

Lake Erie Middle School is a “Class B" school with approximately 800
students. Lake Erie Middle School is part of a rural district, with just over 2,300
students. Roughly 80% of the parents have a high school diploma, and 11% of
the parents hold at least a bachelor’s degree. The median household income is
close to $35,000, and the number of economically disadvantaged students is
slightly more than 33% of the school population. Over 41% of the students
attending Lake Erie Middle School pass the MEAP. Approximately 15% of the
school population is receiving special education services. Lake Erie Middle
School currently has ten students receiving Section 504 accommodations, all due

to ADD.

42

Data Collection Tools

Data was collected primarily through the use of the interview process,
beginning in January of 2003 and continuing through April of 2003. In order to
gain personal perspectives, each participant was individually interviewed using
an informally structured, open-ended, interview protocol. A total of thirty
teachers, administrators, social workers, counselors, and psychologists were
asked to discuss their knowledge and understanding of Section 504, and their
participation in the identification and evaluation process. In order to ensure
accuracy, interviews were audio-taped with the permission of the interviewee. All
of the interviews took place at each participant’s respective school, except one
school in which all participants responded only in writing. In one school we used
an office conference room, and all of the interviews took place in that setting with
each participant scheduled to see me during their preparatory hour. In two of the
other schools, I went to each individual teachers classroom and met with them
during their preparatory hour or after-school. I spoke with the social workers,
psychologists, and principals, each in their offices. Four of the 25 interviews took
place over the phone in order to accommodate the interviewees. For reliability,
all individuals who were interviewed were asked if they would like the opportunity
to review a written summary of their responses in order to clarify their comments
and ensure accuracy of information after the audio-tapes had been transcribed.
All of the participants stated that this was not necessary, although many of them
expressed an interest in the results.

The actual length of the interviews varied a great deal, depending on the

knowledge and interest(s) of the interviewee. One interview lasted only 3

43

minutes when the interviewee stated she really did not know what Section 504
actually was and therefore was unable to answer any of the questions. Another
interview lasted nearly 40 minutes. The average length of the actual interview
itself was approximately fifteen to twenty minutes, with some additional time
needed for introductions, explanations of the consent form, and “small talk” in an
attempt to ease nerves. Despite attempts to put the participants at ease, a
majority of the interviewees seemed quite uncomfortable talking about Section
504, and several would switch over to special education, an area in which they
were much more familiar. Sometimes they would combine the two. Many of the
interviewees seemed concerned about my perceptions regarding their knowledge
in this area. I spent a great deal of time explaining l was not trying to “test”
anyone, rather I wanted to gain insight as to their experiences, training, ideas,
and procedures regarding Section 504. I chose the interview method in order to
gain a more detailed knowledge of individual’s perceptions and involvement in
the actual Section 504 implementation process. The interviews proved to be a
valuable tool for gathering data.

Several challenges presented themselves while trying to schedule the
interviews. I originally contacted all of the building principals via e-mail to see if
they would be willing to participate. Each principal agreed and stated that they
would ask their staff members if they would be willing to participate. It required
approximately three weeks of e-mailing back and forth, and several rounds of
“phone tag” to get responses and schedules from two of the buildings. In each
of these two buildings the principals. contacted their staff members and set up the

interview schedule for the day. In the third building I contacted the individual staff

members either by phone or e—mail to set up their interviews, after receiving
permission from the principal. The principals were very willing to help, and were
very accommodating to my requests.

The fourth school presented a different challenge. The principal had
agreed to participate based on an e-mail message. When I contacted him later
to review and select our options for interviewing days and times, he asked if I
would mind e-mailing him the interview questions. For some reason I had not
envisioned the possibility of someone making this request and I was unsure of
how to handle it. In the end, I did e-mail him the protocol, as requested.
However, I was very worried about how the participants’ knowledge of the actual
questions beforehand would affect the interview data. When I called later that
week to schedule the interview meetings, the principal stated that he had given
the questions to his staff in order to save time, and they had filled them out and
returned them to him. He also stated he had filled one out as well so no
interviews would be necessary. Again, this wasn’t exactly what I had envisioned,
however I accepted the completed protocols, and after reviewing them I was
relieved to notice that they were fairly complete and honest. It did not appear
that the participants had researched all of their answers, as some contained “I
don’t knoW' as answers. I have included the data in my research, but I have put
an asterisk to mark that this was a written response, rather than an interview.
Again, having been both a teacher and school administrator, I realize how busy
this time of year is in a middle school, and I feel that the principal was trying to

make the process as convenient as possible for his staff. However, due to time

45

constraints, I was unable to schedule another school in which to conduct
additional interviews.

The written responses from the fourth school were not the only
adjustments to my data collection plan. Originally I had planned on interviewing
parents as well. However, two of the schools did not have any identified Section
504 students, and I felt it would probably be a misuse of the parent(s) time to
randomly contact several parents from these schools and ask questions about
Section 504 when they probably had never heard of it.

As for the two schools that did have identified Section 504 students, based
on the survey to the schools, only 3 of the 16 total students for the two schools
were actually referred for Section 504 evaluation by a parent. Originally, based
on my own personal experiences as a Section 504 coordinator, and informal
discussions with other educators during Section 504 conferences, I predicted that
there would have been a larger number of Section 504 students in the schools
with a high number of parent initiated referrals. However, both the returned
surveys, and the responses from the educational staff I interviewed indicated that
the teacher made the referral in a majority of the cases. Because the incidence
of parent referral was not extensive, only two parents had referred their child for

evaluation, I did not feel it was as necessary to add a parent perspective at this

time.
Data Analysis

Responses to interview questions were audio-taped and transcribed. The
tapes were transcribed within twenty-four hours of the interviews, and reviewed

by a second person to ensure accuracy. In addition to the audio-tapes, I also

 

 

 

took brief notes during the interviews. One interview was partially lost due to
problems with the tape-I relied on my brief notes for those responses. The actual
names of the participants were not used, rather I refer to participants by their title.
Pseudonyms are used to replace actual names of the schools to help ensure
anonymity. A line-by-line analysis of each transcript was conducted.

The five handwritten responses from the participants at Lake Michigan
school were also reviewed. All of the data from the interviews and the written
responses were analyzed in relation to the research questions and coded based

on the Sackman’s (1991) four-component framework of cultural knowledge.

Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations to this study. The individuals participating in
the interviews seemed embarrassed about their apparent lack of knowledge.
They answered the questions hesitantly, and often appeared to be “guessing” as
they would periodically answer the question with another question, such as
“Maybe refer to SST (Student Support Team)?” The professionals wanted this
interviewer to tell them the “correct” answers. With the exception of the Section
504 Coordinators, and several principals, none of the participants seemed
confident in their answers.

Although the sites were selected randomly, and the principals asked for
volunteers which represented both experienced and inexperienced teachers, this
was a small sample of the total professional staff. Interviews of the entire school
staff may have provided a more complete representation of overall knowledge,

however, the actual process might not have been revealed as accurately.

47

 

 

 

f—n.

This was a qualitative study ,involving four rural school districts, whose

results may not be readily generalized to a larger population. This sample
population may only be representative of schools with similar demographics. It
may not apply to large urban districts due to their sheer size, diversity, and
complexity.

It was not the intent of this study to evaluate or criticize current school
procedures. The intent was to explain how schools implement Section 504, and
to gain a better understanding of the role teacher, administrator, counselor, social
worker, and psychologist plays in this process.

It is through this study that I hope to augment the rather limited body of
literature that focuses on Section 504 implementation. It is my desire that this
study will provide further insights to educators and policy makers in order to

better meet the needs of the population that Section 504 was intended to serve.

48

 

 

 

Chapter 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

I began this study with the belief that teacher knowledge and participation
play a significant role in the implementation process of Section 504 or any
government mandate. Similar to the theories by Fullan (1991) and Fulcher

( 1989), my prior professional educational experience had led me to believe that
the successful implementation of any mandate has a great deal to do with the
role played by what I have labeled the “front-line educators”. In order for these
front-line educators to do their job, they must have the leadership, knovwedge,
and desire to make these changes. Data collected from the interviews with
professional staff members revealed some critical information as it relates to
these theories.
There were a total of 30 professional staff members who volunteered to
participate in this study. The sample included both male and female staff whose
experience in education ranged from one to thirty years. They had varying
degrees in education, from bachelors to specialists.
As one might expect, the base of knowledge regarding Section 504 van'ed
across the district. Refer to Table 4.1 through Table 4.4 for the individual school
results.
In Lake Superior Middle School, Table 4.1, almost 70% of the staff
members indicated they had participated in some type of in-service training

regarding Section 504 and had participated in at least one Section 504 meeting.

49

 

In contrast, only 25% of the staff at Lake Huron Middle School, Table 4.3

reported they had participated in some training on Section 504, and less than
40% indicated they had participated in a Section 504 meeting, and these were

meetings that had occurred when they were teaching at different schools, not

while they worked at Lake Huron.
In Lake Erie Middle School, Table 4.2, all of the staff interviewed had

participated in a Section 504 meeting, and over 60% reported they had

participated in and in-service on Section 504. Additionally, 80% had referred a

student for a Section 504 evaluation.
The written responses from Lake Michigan Middle School , Table 4.4,

indicated that only 10% had participated in an in-service on Section 504.
However, 60% had participated in a meeting regarding Section 504, even though
Lake Michigan reported that it did not have any Section 504 students at this time.

A common finding among all of the schools involved the ability of

participants to clearly state the referral process. As the tables demonstrate, only

four of the thirty participants were able to state the referral process for their

school.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.1 Lake Superior Middle School
Identified Referred Participated Stated Defined Participated
TITLE Section student for In 504 504 Section Section 504
504000nd. 504. Meeting Referral 504 Elig. ln-service
Process
LPrinclpaI Yes Yes Yes, 6-10 Partially Yes Yes
Assistant
Principal
Yes Yes Yes, 1-5 Partially Partially Yes
Reg. Ed.
Teacher
No No Yes, 1-5 No No No
Reg. Ed.
Teacher No No No No No No
Spec. Ed.
Teacher
No No No No No Yes
Spec. Ed.
Teacher
No No Yes,1-5 No No Yes
Social
Worker Yes No Yes, 10+ Partially Partially Yes
504
Coordinator N/A No Yes, 10+ Yes Yes Yes
/ Psychologist Yes Yes Yes, 10+ No No No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.2 Lake Erie Middle School
Identified Referred Participated Stated Defined Participated
TITLE Section student for In 504 504 Section Section 504
504000rd. 504. Meeting Referral 504 Elig. ln-service
Process
Princlpal Yes Yes Yes, 10+ Yes Partially Yes
Reg. Ed.
Teacher No Yes Yes, 10+ No No No
Reg. Ed. No Yes Yes, 10+ Partially No No
Teacher
Spec. Ed.
Teacher No Yes Yes No No No
Spec. Ed.
Teacher No No Yes No No Yes
504 N/A Yes Yes, 10+ Yes Yes Yes
Coordinator
[ Psychologist Yes Yes Yes, 10+ Partially No Yes
Counselor
Yes Yes Yes, 10+ Partially Partially Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

 

‘1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.3 Lake Huron Middle School
Identified Referred Participated Stated Defined Participated
TITLE Section student for In 504 504 Section Section 504
504000rd. 504. Meeting Referral 504 Elig. ln-service
Process
Principal No No No Partially No No
Reg. Ed. No No Yes, 1—5 Partially No No
Teacher
Reg. Ed. No No No Partially No No
Teacher
Spec. Ed. No No Yes, 1-5 Partially No No
Teacher
Spec. Ed. No No No No No No
Teacher
Social No No No No No Yes
Worker
Special Ed
Supervisor
504 Yes No Yes, 10+ Partially Partially Yes
Information
Provider
Psychologist No No No No No No

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.4 Lake Michigan Middle School*
Identified Referred Participated Stated Defined Participated
TITLE Section student for In 504 504 Section Section 504
504000rd. 504. Meeting Referral 504 Elig. In-service
Process
Principal Yes Yes Yes, 1-5 Partially Partially N/A
Reg. Ed.
Teacher Yes No No No No No
Spec. Ed.
Teacher Yes No No No No N/A
Social
Worker Yes Yes Yes, 1-5 No No Yes
504 N/A Yes Yes 10+ Yes No N/A
Coordinator
[Psychologist " " ‘ " " '

 

 

 

 

*These were based on written responses to the interview protocol, the 504
coordinator is the school psychologist as well.

To understand and explain how schools implement Section 504, I

collected interview data from 30 professional staff members from four separate

middle schools. I also examined some of the written documentation from each of

the four schools. The responses of the professional staff were then analyzed.

Sackmann’s (1991) four-component framework of cultural knowledge

provided the foundation for analyzing the results of categories and themes. The

first level, “dictionary knowledge,” refers to an individual’s knowledge of things or

events on a descriptive level. The second level, “directory knowledge,” refers to

process knowledge, or how things get done. The third level, “recipe knowledge,”

refers to recommendations about what should be done to make improvements.

54

 

 

 

 

The fourth level, “axiomatic knowledge” describes beliefs about why things are
done the way they are.

All of the participants brought their own unique perspectives and
experiences to the interview process. Four main themes emerged from the
interviews: 1)Knowledge and understanding of the purpose of Section 504, 2)
Knowledge of the identification and referral processes, 3) Beliefs regarding what

should be done to implement the Section 504 process, and 4) Perceptions
regarding why things are done the way they are.

The responses present the reader with a glimpse of how mandates are
individually internalized by the “front-line educators” who are ultimately
responsible for their implementation in schools. The information is presented

according to the themes around which it is organized. Citations are used to

provide support for the research findings.

Knowledge and understanding of the Pumse of Section 504

I wanted to gain a better understanding of professional educational staffs’

perspectives regarding the purpose of Section 504. There was one theme that

became apparent relatively quickly. Many staff members felt Section 504 was
developed to provide assistance to students who didn’t qualify for special
education services, but still needed some accommodations. As one counselor
stated, “The purpose is to provide services for students who are not eligible for
special education, who have a disability in one of those areas.” A principal put it
more concretely:

I think the purpose of Section 504 is to provide written plans for students
who did not fall under special education rules to have written plans for

55

 

them, so that in writing, parents, teachers, and kids, you know, everybody
involved, knows exactly what that kid needs in terms of accommodations,
modifications, whatever it might be. I think it is just to in writing, clear
things up, just to make sure.

Similar responses came from psychologists, “From my point of view 504 is a
mechanism to, umm, provide accommodations for students who do not
necessarily qualify as special education.” Another stated:
Section 504 in my mind is to give accommodations and assistance to
children that don’t qualify for special ed, but need services to

accommodate them to be successful in the general education curriculum.
So it’s mandated so teachers have to do it.

 

In all, a total of 17 of the people interviewed mentioned in some form that Section
504 is for those students who are not eligible for special education, but still need
some assistance. Three of the five written responses also stated it was for
students who did not qualify for special education. So, roughly 66% of the

participants stated that Section 504 is for students who did not qualify for special

 

education. There were however, some interesting perceptions that did not fit this
theme. One Section 504 coordinator had an insightful observation:
I think that the purpose of Section 504 is to make sure that systems-
organizations, be resilient in their problem-solving in trying to meet the
needs of people with disabilities.
A regular education teacher answered, “In my mind I think the purpose is to
make sure that students who have some factors inhibiting them get fair chances
to succeed. ” An assistant principal stated, “Basically looking at classroom
modifications, accommodations that we can make within the general education
curriculum.” A social worker with almost 30 years of experience remarked:
Well, it’s from the Rehab Act of 1973 wasn’t it? And I... like it was the
wheelchair ramp law. Which was the first when it was implemented, but
now that all these ADD kids have been identified ..... That seems to be ah,

those are the students that most frequently have the 504 plans written at

56

 

school. But it is an accommodation plan for any handicapped student.

Ah, we didn’t formalize them. You know we got all kinds of kids on

crutches and in wheelchairs that we didn’t specifically write 504 plans for,

but they received the accommodations.
It is interesting to note his perceptions on the changes in the law since its
inception. Originally he thought it was for physical impairments and making
accommodations for access physically, and now it has changed to accommodate
ADD students. He went on to say later that policies and procedures regarding
Section 504 have been revised several times in his district over the past several
years.

When it came to other types of “dictionary knowledge”, such as the
participants’ awareness of their Section 504 coordinator- who must be identified
for each district as required by law- some participants were unclear. In Lake Erie
Middle School, of the eight people interviewed, six were unable to identify the
Section 504 coordinator. Only the principal and the actual 504 coordinator knew
who the Section 504 coordinator was. In Lake Huron Middle School, none of the
eight participants were able to identify the Section 504 coordinator. In Lake
Superior Middle School, four out of the nine were able to identify their Section
504 coordinator (this also includes the Section 504 coordinator) , and of the
written responses from Lake Michigan Middle School, all five identified their
Section 504 coordinator, who also happened to be the special education
supervisor as well. Keep in mind that those participants from Lake Michigan
Middle School were given the questions to respond to in writing, and they may

have researched that information. In total, 57% of the participants were unable

to identify their district Section 504 coordinator.

57

In order to gain a better understanding of the amount and types of training
that each participant had received, I asked each of the 30 staff members to
respond to the following question, “How did you acquire your knowledge
regarding Section 504? “ Only two of the participants stated they had actually
had a college class that mentioned Section 504. A psychologist from Lake Huron
Middle School stated:

Through college, college classes on it, and umm, from having to do

Section 504 plans and their Section 504 IlEPCs type of the things I don't

know what the technical name for them. We just call them the 504 lEPCs

and writing those plans and going along with that and stuff.

A teacher from that same school responded:

It was given to me in undergrad work. And then I stumbled upon it in
some CA-60 files and I had to look it up and refresh.

However, a majority of the answers were along the lines of this response from a
teacher at Lake Erie Middle School:
School of hard knocks(laughs). Through being involved in writing the
plans. Through having to follow the plans for students. Through special-
education teachers like yourself trying to educate me.

Other staff, such as this teacher also from Lake Erie Middle School, had similar
responses:

Probably just from experience. Having to go to 5043, having to participate
in them. It wasn't something I knew anything about coming into the job.
So nothing like in college or anything? Not that I recall.
In all, 11 staff members referred to the fact that they started Ieaming about
Section 504 when they had a student who was eligible or other types of “on-the-
job” knowledge.
Several staff members also made reference to training provided by their
district or ISD (Intermediate School District), especially those staff members from
Lake Superior Middle School. As the assistant principal stated:

58

We have had a couple of opportunities for training here. We had one
through the administrative team, and then I went to a workshop at a
conference that highlighted 504’s. We actually have another day of in-
service coming up on 504’s, district-wide. Especially as parents become
more and more aware of 504’s.

Another common response included conducting individual research or reading in
order to increase self knowledge. Approximately six responses included some

reference to doing research or reading on their own.

Knowledge of the Section 504 Identification/Eligibility Process

When responding to questions regarding “directory knowledge” or
knowledge about the actual identification and eligibility process of Section 504,
understanding varied within a school and across the schools. A counselor from
Lake Erie Middle School, where they currently provide accommodations for ten
Section 504 students, stated:

What is that process? Well, first of all we umm, look at if they have a
certifiable disability, and then we call, ah, next we do a staffing, and then
we have to meet with parents and decide. Well, first of all we have to
determine whether or not they’re eligible and we do that through various,
you know assessments. In our district we will use a doctor’s statement for
ADHD. Then we have a meeting, we set up a meeting and umm,
determine whether or not they’re eligible. And then we set up a staffing
and invite the parent in and we set up the Section 504. We have
accommodations and, ah you know, the parents sign it. We put it in place
and give the parents their rights.

A principal from that same building had a more detailed version of the process:

Umm, what we do, we do it basically the same way that we do any other
kinds of referrals here in the building. Really they all start as referrals
made to me, or me making referrals to the teachers, or to the parent or
whatever level, because of a concern that we have about a kid. OK. And
usually what we do is we convene a staffing. We pull a team together and
people that I think might be able to give us some input, sometimes that's
teachers from another building maybe it's the fifth grade teacher and we
bring a fourth grade teacher or fourth grade teachers up... .umm school
psychologist and maybe the special ed supervisor might be involved in it,
but not always. If it's a kid that's had services in the past or if they‘re fairly
recent, may be discontinued, maybe speech and language for instance, or

59

OT, but more often it would be speech and language that would be
discontinued and then we bring them in for input.

The need to conduct a staffing and discuss the strengths and needs of the
student was an important part of the process. Additionally, this principal
identified that part of the reason for the staffing process was to use the
information gained in the staffing to formulate a plan to meet the student’s
needs:

And then as a result of that staffing, then we decide OK where we go
next? And if we in think that there is probably a disability but not but it’s not
going to be a special education referral, and umm ..... then we bring the
parent into it. You know we have a meeting, we set up a meeting with the
parent. And let them know that we're having just an initial 504 meeting.
We need to talk about ..... ask them to bring any kind of information. I talk
with the parent ahead of time and let them know, you know, where we're
going with this why we are concerned. That is never the first time I've
talked with that parent obviously about concerns but, then we, I let the
parent know if umm. .. .that we're looking for what might be standing in the
way of that child's education. And if its an,.. if it’s a bonafide disability then
we would be looking at putting together this written 504 plan, and move
forward with it. And then if goes the, well better stay on for Section 504, I
don't need to go into the special-education route you already know that
anyway. And then if we do determine that is, then we just do the
paperwork for the 504 plan right at that meeting usually with the parent if
there's enough time. Then we just get in place.

Several teachers in what that same school had different responses:

For us usually it's a student that has failed in some way, whether at a
grade level or a class level. Or because a parent has asked for a 504.
Usually those are the two things. Usually we’ll bring a team of people
together. At first usually just the teachers, and then we build on that with
administrators. And after we get the, pretty much the groundwork set, we
bring in parents.

Several others stated they were not familiar with the process, and one replied:

That's a good question. Well, umm, most of them that I've been involved
in are ones that other people have set up, and then we're just invited to
the meeting. A couple times in the past, we, as the individual teachers,
have suggested it and started the process just by basically seeing the
counselors and doing any paperwork that needed to be done. Because we

60

knew it was a student that didn't qualify for special ed. but still needed
something. So mostly go to the counselors (laughs).

In Lake Huron Middle School where they currently do not have any
students receiving accommodation under Section 504, the psychologist
remarked, “I don’t know the referral process for this district, but I could tell you
my old districts’." Several other staff remarked, “I don’t know.” One teacher
stated:

I know that we have a process for referring kids. We start with an SST

form, and we fill that out and then the SST meets- maybe even with the

teacher- to decide what the next step should be. Whether it be to fill out a

special education request form or umm to try some other intervention.
The principal answered quite honestly:

Umm, we really don't have one. Because we haven't until I came and

brought it up last year it was never brought up in the district at all. But for

our regular and special ed kids, if the students having problems, we kind
of go through a support team. And make that determination at that point.

But we've never actually had a 504 referral.

In Lake Superior Middle School, where several students had been
identified as eligible for Section 504 accommodations, the identification/referral
process was described by the principal as:

Well what we have is we have a student support team or SST and our

process starts there, the students are brought to the SST team. From

there we determine is a 504 appropriate. If that's the case then we bring in
the parents with the due process. We make sure that we determine from
there does the child qualify for 504 or do they not? And then we proceed
with the team and the parents we develop the plan.
Of the eight other staff members interviewed at Lake Superior Middle School, five
of them mentioned the SST team as part of the process for identification or
referral. However, there was still some confusion regarding the process, as one

teacher put it:

61

All I know is what my part was on that committee, and that was that at that
committee, teachers, representatives from their teams, would bring names
up at that point. And then there were some forms that they would fill out. I
was never an active participant l was just a representative from our team
so as far as what the forms look like I really don't think I ever saw them I
just was part of the discussions of various ways of accommodating those
students at the meeting.
Another teacher from the same school stated:
Well I believe that when we have a team meeting we come and find out
which student is having trouble or difficulty in a certain area. And then we'll
look in his records, his CA 60, to find out what is going on. Referral from
other teachers. and we would get something going from there and see if it
was inadequate.
It became apparent rather quickly that even in schools such at Lake Superior
Middle School, where there was an identification process in place, there still were
a number of staff members who did not have a clear understanding of the referral
process. This pattern was evident in all of the schools. There was also a lack of
clarity regarding exactly how a student would qualify for Section 504
accommodations. Details regarding the decision making process, the decision
makers, and the criteria for eligibility were not provided in staff answers.
When asked if they had actually ever participated in a Section 504
meeting, 21 responded that they had, which is roughly 70%. Keep in mind that

four of those 21 individuals are the actual 504 coordinators for the district.

Beliefs R rdin How Thin s hould Be Done

l was very interested in staff members “recipe knowledge” or their beliefs
about what should be done. I felt these perceptions would provide a great deal
of insight regarding how Section 504 is implemented, or not implemented, in a

building. Unfortunately, I think for those participants with limited experiences

62

regarding Section 504, this question caught them somewhat off guard and was
therefore difficult to answer. Perhaps a better question might have been, “What
works well regarding Section 504 processes, and what needs to be improved?"
When asked what they think the process should look like, several participants
stated that we really do not even need 504s, such as the psychologist from Lake
Superior Middle School:

I don't think we need to do anything different. I think there still is just a lot
of confusion about what 504 student is or who is a 504 student. Umm, you
know there are a lot of kids out there who need accommodations and can
benefit from them, and actually get accommodations from teachers. You
know that is something that we, it is almost like we avoid doing 504’s. We
set up accommodations and we do do plans for students who need it, and
there's always that fine line where do we start a 504? Wnat is a
handicapping condition? How is it affecting their Ieaming? You know to be
able to truly do a 504 you have to have that handicapping condition and
you know that's kind of I guess where I see the weakness of the whole
thing, is identifying the handicapping condition. What identifies the
handicapping condition? Is it the school? Is a doctor? A parent that says
they have this? What needs to be done to say that there is this condition
that is affecting their ability to be what is it a lifelong what I can’t remember
the exact wording, but you know that affects the ability to be successful?
And I think that's where the whole process falls down, and where it
becomes I don't know, whether the schools have used that to avoid doing
504’s or make sure that they're doing them appropriately I don't know.
You know there is a line there between and my feeling is I don't think we
need 504’s. I mean teachers do a lot of accommodations for kids. I think
the 504 process came along or however it developed, and like a lot of the
laws for handicapping conditions have been abused. And you know
parents know that they have rights and lawyers push these rights.
Teachers help kids, I mean they really do, and do a lot for kids and you
don't need a 504 to do it. Umm, there's a gray area about what the whole
process is that really, I think, could maybe clarified to make it work better.

A social worker from that same school also felt that “formal” 504’s were not
necessary as teachers make accommodations regardless:
I think we do very well here, because we look at modifications and
accommodations short of a formal 504 plan. You know we've got forms

that have 504 at the top, but my understanding is if you’re providing
accommodations you may be meeting the requirements of a law even if it

63

doesn't have 504 at the top of the form. So we go through many strategies
sometimes, even before we go to a 504.

A Section 504 coordinator from Lake Erie Middle School also stated that formal
Section 504 plans were not always necessary:

If I were in charge there wouldn’t be a 504. I think our responsibility is to
take care of the needs that the kids have. We should be doing that
anyway. I don't think it should be legislated but we do.

A psychologist form Lake Erie Middle School felt that any student who is
struggling should have accommodations:

I think that the ideal way to, you know, fulfill ..... the idea, at least the idea
that I understand behind the whole 504 concept, is to provide
accommodations in a structured manner. Wnat I don’t understand is why
shouldn't every regular ed student who is sthggling fall under that?
Because we're talking regular education accommodations. So, if I were if I
were to make the choices and I could make the decisions, then that's what
I would do then. Every regular ed child who is struggling enough to come
to the attention of, you know, parent ,staff, whoever, then a 504 meeting
should be held. And maybe not as structured as what we typically do
because we call lot of staff people in for one meeting. That wouldn’t
always be necessary. A classroom teacher and a special ed person could
conceivably handle the entire meeting. You have a special ed person who
has a fund of accommodations, the regular ed person who is sitting there
can say yes this is workable or no this is not workable. And that would be
it.
A teacher from Lake Erie Middle School was very concerned about the lack of
follow-up or sharing of information regarding exactly who are the Section 504
students in a building. In order to provide their accommodations, teachers who
were not involved in the identification meeting, and especially future teachers,
should be given information about them:
It's difficult to say. It so hard to know a kid right away. If we had much more
background information on students as they came into our classrooms at the
beginning of the year then it would be much easier for us to identify the
students quicker. You know if you're looking at smaller class size, things like

that, then I could identify kids quicker in order to start the process. If we had
background information from the counselors, you know, what is going on at

64

home you know special instances like that other circumstances any
information from prior teachers... .. it would almost be helpful if we had a
couple weeks of school and then we had a meeting with all of our students
prior teachers and said okay bring us up-to-date you know because then you
would know some information about the kid and you could say what's up with
him? What's up with him? You know this is what we’re getting from him, is
that normal? You know, anything like that. But I think that is also important to
have every single teacher that the kid sees at the 504. And we don't do that
with special ed meetings you know we just have the one regular ed teacher
there, and with 504 I think everybody needs to be there.

Many staff suggested that both parents and students need to become more
involved in the process. As one teacher stated:
(We need)To bring the students into it more, to ask the student what they
need ..... because I think we always put them in at the tail end and the
success or the failure of a 504 is so dependent upon the student that why not
bring them in at the beginning of it? Especially at this age level. Especially
middle school or beyond. You know maybe at an elementary level it would be
different but here you gotta find out what a kid needs. My perception or the
parents' perception might not be what they need. But unfortunately they’re
always brought in after it's a done deal.
When discussing what schools should do to improve the process, a teacher from
Lake Superior Middle School replied:
Maybe we could bring the parents in, and speak to them one—on-one, and
to give them a firsthand account of their accountability of the students and
what they have. Maybe we can use the student agenda. Have them you

know communicate through that to the teachers instead of having just the
social workers talk directly to the parents.

In summary, responses to questions regarding the actual process of
referring and identifying Section 504 students varied immensely. Educators lack
clarity both in the purpose and the procedural processes for Section 504. Only
four participants were able to outline the Section 504 referral procedures in their

buildings. Several others mentioned portions of the process, with a majority

stating it went through the building SST, or Student Support Team, but they

65

made no mention of what happened before, during, or after it was brought to the
SST. However, very few individuals mentioned the fact that you have to have a
physical or mental handicap and it must significantly impact a major life activity in

order to qualify for accommodations.

Perceptions Rpgarding Why Thims Are Done The Way They Are

Perhaps some of the most valuable insights, which provide the clearest
evidence regarding the confusion surrounding Section 504 implementation, come
from the responses regarding what Sackmann labeled, “axiomatic knowledge”, or
why we do things the way we do. To translate this into this research setting, I
analyzed responses about current practices and why teachers felt these
practices were utilized.

Many staff members felt that accountability plays a role in the current
status of Section 504. As one counselor stated:

There is no accountability, there's been no accountability, and also

because umm there has been, you know, there's just a lot of politics.

There is a lot of regulations regulating special ed., special ed services, so I

mean they follow them to the "t" because they have to. They don't want to

be fined. But 504 there is not. So, there is no accountability, so they can
just, , do their own interpretation. They can bend the rules, they can make
the rules, never mind what the law says, I think there is a lot left to
interpretation. Subjective and it's not real clear.

Another teacher from Lake Erie Middle School also suggested:

Because I don't think they want kids being, or having a 504 plan. I mean

as far as the procedures not being published really or anything. I don't

think they want kids having 504 plans because it‘s just more work for them
and it’s another legal thing they're responsible for. That's my gut feeling.
Several participants supported the issue that often no changes would occur in

schools if it were not for mandates. One assistant principal simply stated things

are the way they are regarding Section 504 because “It is the law.” Another
Section 504 coordinator went on to elaborate a bit more:

Well I think in that most of the cases, just like IDEA , I think they evolved
because there was probably resistance in organizations to adjust and do
modifications, and so actually it got to the point where there was enough
agitation in our society that they ended up providing legislation that said
okay now you have to do it. I think that probably came out of people not
understanding completely how to adjust to people who have disabilities
and a resistance to doing it. I think most of that usually comes out of just
ignorance not knowing, not knowing what to do, not knowing and not
having an understanding of the disability or the particular nuances of a
disability, and then really just not knowing what to do. But I think it
certainly came about because there was a need to leverage systems to
change.

Another issue that was repeated again revolved around the confusion regarding
the purpose and driving force behind the mandate for Section 504. One
particularly long response from an experienced school psychologist portrays the
sentiment:

I think our process goes where you try and work with the kids in general
education. We have the SST to make things work. If that isn’t working we’ll
look at is there something more significant do we need to do a 504? Which
we might do in that initial meeting and if the 504 isn’t going to work and isn't
significant enough that we're going to look at special-education. You know
being kind of the continuum. And umm... it’s unfortunately we have become
driven by what lawyers are pushing the linking of rights of students. And
there are times I think that students’ rights might be neglected or I don't think
abused is the right word, but they were not doing what's best for a student at
times and that can drive some of that, you know the litigation that that forces
some of these things happen. I don't truly understand why 504 was initially
enacted. I don't think it was initially enacted, was it, for education right? And
see that's what bothers me. It's another one of these things where, you know
something was taken for people once they're done and can't function in
society and someone grabbed a hold of it and brought it down to education
where wasn't ever directed or intended to be used. And that's where the
murkiness and all the problems come in. And now we got it and you know it
has to be done because again you got the lawsuits that say well you know we
get this act out there that says you have to provide for these people. Partly I
think it was done and I think special-education can pick them up, but now a
you've got lawyers out there who jump on it. I guess more than anything its
probably driven through the legal process unfortunately.

67

A social worker organized the reason for the current practices in this manner:
I think that it probably evolved this way because the 504 section was Mitten
as a civil rights law and the IDEA law was written as special-education law
and those two people didn’t talk to each other. And so if someone is in
special-education a lot of the 504 requirements, the civil-rights are taking care
of through that process. But with 504 there are some kids, and it gets really
complicated to say a kid is a handicapped meaning 504, but not handicapped
meeting special ed. That's where it comes down to accommodations vs.
services. And if the student can succeed with just accommodations then they

can stay in the realm of 504, but once they need services then we gotta go to
special ed.

Writtpp roumentation
The Section 504 Coordinator for Lake Erie Middle School provided this

researcher with a great deal of written documentation, including Section 504
fonns-referral, evaluation, and accommodation forms, in addition to
parent/student rights and due process forms. A flow chart explaining the referral
process was also included. There were also documents regarding distn'ct policies
regarding Section 504 procedures. A quick review of the middle school student
handbook did not produce a reference for students/parents regarding who they
could contact regarding Section 504 concerns.

The principal for Lake Huron Middle School stated that they did not have
any forms on file, and the special education coordinator would have any of the
paperwork or other information. After speaking with the special education
coordinator, who also provides training and serves as a resource person for Lake
Huron Middle School, I was informed that the referral, evaluation, and
accommodation forms I received from Lake Erie Middle School were the same
ones that Lake Huron Middle School would use, as they are both served by the

same ISD (Intermediate School District).

68

The Lake Superior Middle School principal produced a packet dated 2001
and it was apparently distributed to every professional staff member (several of
them mentioned this packet during the interview process). This packet contained
Section 504 referral forms, evaluation forms, due process rights, meeting
invitation forms, 504 plan accommodation forms, and a definition of the term
“substantially limits”. There is also a board policy regarding Section 504.

Due to the fact that I did not actually conduct interviews at Lake Michigan
Middle School, I was unable to review their written materials. The
psychologist/Section 504 coordinator did mention forms and processes in his
written responses to the interview protocol however, I was unable to verify these.

Overall, the written documentation provided by two of the schools was
very detailed and included Section 504 referral, evaluation, and accommodation
plan forms in addition to due process rights. Lake Erie also included the board
policies. Lake Superior stated that it provided each teacher with a Section 504
packet, and several of the teachers referred to this packet during my interview.
The written documentation indicates that some resources in terms of time and/or
money was spent developing these forms and policies. The two schools who
had identified Section 504 students in their buildings were the two schools that

were able to readily produce written documentation when asked.

m

Many of the participants in this study expressed uncertainty over both the
PUTpose and the identification/eligibility process. A majority of the participants did
"0t Present a solid understanding of exactly what Section 504 meant, or how a

3t“dent became eligible for Section 504 accommodations. Only two of the

69

participants in the study were able to identify the fact that the law has actually
been in place since 1973. Several, like the psychologist from Lake Erie Middle
School, mistakenly assumed it was put in place to “supplement" special
education:
I think 504 came into being because special education, as is defined in
Michigan, was missing students with certain disabilities, syndromes,
whatever. 504 was an effort to address those students who don’t meet the
stricter criteria for special ed. And yet who still manifest difficulties, you know,
struggle with class work.

It did appear however, that those schools that provided accommodations
for identified Section 504 students seemed to have a slightly better
understanding of the process. A majority of the participants from Lake Erie and
Lake Superior Middle Schools were able to identify their Section 504 coordinator,
and also portray some sort of referral/identification process-although this was
rarely a complete, step by step process. It appeared that more of the staff from
these two buildings had also participated in Section 504 meetings. What is not
clear, however, is the relationship between the two factors. Did the staff
participate in more meetings because of their knowledge regarding Section 504?
Or did they gain more knowledge by participating in more Section 504 meetings?

According to majority of all participants, the bulk of their knowledge
regarding Section 504 was gained through on-the- job training by colleagues, or
working with a student who was Section 504 eligible. However, both schools
containing Section 504 students also provided their staff with in-service training
on Section 504. The two schools that did not currently have any identified

Section 504 students did not mention in-service training or provide

documentation to that effect.
70

The confusion surrounding Section 504 was mentioned repeatedly when
participants were asked their perceptions about why things are done the way
they are regarding Section 504. Many responses included lack of understanding
or training, lack of knowledge, and little funding or accountability. Participants
often questioned the relationship between special education and Section 504.

As these narrative responses from the participants clearly demonstrate,
the implementation of Section 504 in these four middle schools can be
characterized as wrought with confusion, in both purpose and process. The very
front-line educators who are given the task of actually canying out this mandate,
have not been given sufficient tools, in terms of training and resources, needed

to ensure implementation.

71

Chapter 5
DISCUSSION

This study set out to answer the question, “What factors influence the way
in which Section 504 is implemented in a public middle school? What are the
beliefs and perceptions of professional staff about the purpose and processes of
Section 504? Thirty professional educational public school staff members were
asked to reflect on their experiences and understanding of Section 504 as it
related to their job. The data from these interviews is centered on several
themes which define their understanding and experiences.

This chapter will present an overview of the significant findings of the
study as presented by the main themes, discuss the implications of the study
with regard to current policy and theory, and consider the findings of the study
with relation to the existing research. Recommendations for further research as
well as implications for practitioners will also be discussed.

Qverview of Significant Findings

The responses from the 30 participants demonstrate many of the
challenges that schools or any bureaucracies face when dealing with mandated
change. Similar to the challenges that schools faced with the implementation of
PL 94-142, now known as IDEA, schools once again must design procedures
and processes to ensure the rights of all of their students. However, there is one
major difference between the two implementation processes. IDEA brought with
it additional funding, and Section 504 did not.

Responses to the interview questions are arranged around 4 main

themes: 1) knowledge and understanding of the purpose of Section 504, 2)

72

knowledge of the identification and referral processes, 3) beliefs regarding what
should be done to implement the Section 504 process and, 4) perceptions
regarding why things are done the way they are. The significant findings around

these four themes will be presented here.

Knowledge and understandipg of the pugppse of Section 504; How can you
determine if a student is eligible for Section 504 if you do not undprstgnd the
eligibility rguirements?

Section 504 eligibility is defined as a physical or mental impairment which
substantially limits a major life activity. It became apparent over the repeated
interview responses, that very few educators actually understood the
requirements for Section 504 eligibility. Less than 2% of the participants were
able to define Section 504 eligibility requirements, and 20% were able to provide
partially identify Section 504 eligibility requirements.

However, these individuals, like many professionals in the educational
system, saw themselves as caring individuals, with the best interests of students
at heart, and felt that if making a child eligible for Section 504 accommodations
would help them, then it should be done. The two pronged eligibility requirement:
1) having a documented physical or mental impairment, 2) which substantially
limits a major life activity such as learning, was only mentioned by two of the
participants. Many of the participants felt if the student was simply struggling in
school they should be eligible for Section 504 accommodations. All of these
educators may be expected to make decisions regarding an individual student’s
eligibility for Section 504 accommodations. On what basis do they make these

decisions?

73

A lack of expertise pervaded a majority of the participants’ responses as
they related their experiences with the introduction of Section 504. Many
participants revealed that they had just recently become aware of the law, “within
the last several years". A number of participants stated that their biggest
resource for information was their colleagues, these same colleagues who
acknowledged they had a limited understanding of Section 504 as well. Many
times an educator only became aware of Section 504 through having a student
with a plan, or participating in a Section 504 referral/eligibility meeting. This sort
of “Ieam as you go” response was a consistent theme.

In-service training on Section 504 appeared to have a positive impact on
the understanding of those staff members who reported having participated.
Educators who had received training seemed a little more comfortable explaining
the purpose of Section 504 than their counterparts who did not report having
received any training. The responses clearly demonstrate the need to offer
support and training for professional staff members. The need to provide staff
with much more in-depth information regarding the individuals that Section 504
was designed to protect, and their resulting educational needs, becomes readily
apparent when conversing with educators.

The level of knowledge and involvement of the building leader may also
be an important factor in the implementation of Section 504. According to F ullan
(1991), “all major research on innovation shows that the principal strongly
influences the likelihood of change, but it also indicates that most principals do
not play change leadership roles”. In the case of Section 504, the building

principal at every level will need to play an active role in the implementation of

74

Section 504. Similar to those findings noted by Fullan, the administrator’s
knowledge of Section 504 did appear to affect the other staff. In the buildings
were the principal demonstrated an interest and knowledge in Section 504, the
staff also appeared more knowledgeable and interested. In the two buildings
where the principal acknowledged little understanding, the staff also appeared

less confident in their statement of purpose.
Knowledge of the identification and eligibilig accesses: How does this work?

Although less than 22% of the participants were able to identify the
requirements for Section 504 eligibility, 63% responded that they had participated
in meetings regarding Section 504. Many readily stated that they had
participated in more than one meeting, however they were hesitant about “how
the process worked”.

During the course of many of the interviews, several of the participants
expressed uncertainty regarding the actual identification process. They simply
were unable to identify when or how a student is referred, and when or how a
student is found eligible to receive accommodations. Although each of the
Section 504 coordinators was able to effortlessly state each of their districts
procedures regarding Section 504, many of their employees had a different, less
organized version. Two of the participants identified the fact that there is
eligibility criteria, and a few stated they would contact their SST (Student Support
Team), which is a team of teachers, administrator(s), psychologists, special
education teachers, counselors, and social workers that work with students who
are referred to that team by a teacher due to an academic or behavioral concern.
What happened after the referral to a SST remained a mystery. Some stated the

75

process began with a parent or teacher concern, but were unsure what
papenwork or procedures needed to follow due to this concern. This lack of an
understanding regarding a common set of standards and referral/identification

process pervaded the responses.

Beliefs agarding what should be done to implement the Section 504 process

Due, in part, to the difficulty the participants experienced in stating both
the purpose and school procedures regarding the process of implementing
Section 504, it was a somewhat arduous process for them to formulate
responses regarding what should be done regarding Section 504. However
several common themes emerged. Many educators felt that the law should be
followed, and every student who is eligible for accommodations under Section
504 should receive them. However, these same educators were unsure
precisely what the criteria for eligibility for Section 504 were. Several stated that
there should be a more formal process in order to properly evaluate students,
including referral, evaluation, and testing procedures. Conversely, several
individuals stated that any student who is struggling should receive
accommodations-formal or not. Other responses included involving both the
parent and student sooner in the process, in order to have a more profound
impact.

Perhaps the most interesting responses were those that stated the
process that their school has in place now works well, especially when those
same individuals were unable to clearly state what the purposes and processes
for Section 504 implementation in their school were. This study began due to my

curiosity and professional interest regarding how schools deal with the
76

challenges of implementing Section 504. Through my conversations with
educators, it became apparent that these schools had developed ways to meet
the needs of students with regard to Section 504 .

One belief seemed to be either hinted at, or directly addressed, by every
individual I interviewed, and that was the question of whether or not schools
actually need to have Section 504 accommodations. Now, this debate could be
a topic for an entire research project by itself, but I feel it gets to the heart of part
of the problem regarding Section 504 implementation, and that is that educators
do not “buy in” to the notion that they must have additional paperwork and forms
and procedures to help kids. They feel that these are things that good teachers
will do anyway. Therefore, it is a waste of precious time and resources to make it
a formal process, especially if it can be taken care of informally. And just in case,
there is special education to protect the rights of handicapped students, so
basically in their mind, there is no need to duplicate services. I am not certain
whether this is an accountability issue, or a lack of expertise issue.

If we look at this problem from an accountability point of view, special
education teachers in this study stated that Section 504 was a general education
responsibility. Now legally, this is correct, as Section 504 is a civil rights law, and
students are to receive accommodations to provide access to the general
education curriculum. However, many regular education teachers confuse
Section 504 with special education, and many participants in this study even
asked if a 504 meeting was an IEP. Due to the fact that each group of teachers
places the responsibility on another group, nobody is taking responsibility to

solve the problem. There is little, if any, collaboration. Therefore, there is little

77

teacher-to-teacher networking or peer collaboration. One way to improve the
implementation process of Section 504 may be to develop teacher-to-teacher
networks. Providing some training in peer collaboration may be a way to improve
these networks(Johnson & Pugach, 1991).

If we look at this problem from a lack of expertise perspective, due to the
fact that, outside of the Section 504 coordinator for each district, few individuals
possess “expert” knowledge (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995) schools must find
methods to bring expert knowledge into the schools at the “front-line” or teacher
level. Again, this 'all ties in with the “buy-in” that is needed on all levels in order to
successfully implement a policy. One way to bring this knowledge in on this level
is to train a lead teacher who demonstrates exceptional staff development skills
and have her work closely with teachers during there day to day activities (Logan
& Stein, 2001).

Perceptions rpgarding why things are done the way they are: Why do we do what

we do?

Perhaps one of the most significant findings from this study pertained to
the participants responses to why schools “do what they do” regarding Section
504. The interviewees felt that insufficient knowledge/training regarding the law,
as well as a significant lack of accountability and funding created the atmosphere
that schools experience today. Many stated that if it weren’t for the
courts/litigation and parents’ increasing knowledge of their rights, little progress
would have been made towards developing procedures and processes to

implement Section 504. Several of the participants thought that Section 504 was

78

part of the special ed continuum-in other words, if a student did not meet special
education eligibility requirements, than they must be a Section 504 student.
Keep in mind that Section 504 is a civil rights law unlike IDEA. Often districts
“muddy the water” by making the Special Education Coordinator responsible for
Section 504 students as well, although in 3 of the 4 districts who participated in
this study, the Section 504 coordinator was no longer the Special Education
Director.

Other than the Section 504 coordinators for each district, as well as two of
the building principals, the level of understanding of both the purpose and the
processes of implementing Section 504 was limited. For the most part educators
voiced their frustration and embarrassment regarding their lack of knowledge in
this area. But it is important to note that this deficit in understanding of Section
504 did not prevent them from advocating for students whom they felt deserved
accommodations. Teacher and other educators voiced concerns for all students
who are struggling and felt the need to offer them any type of assistance
available including Section 504.

Summag

The data from these interviews suggests that public middle schools face
many challenges when implementing Section 504. The need for staff training,
funding, and “Section 504 experts” in each building is clear. Although in each of
these schools there was not a “regimented, formalized process” for identifying
Section 504 students like there is for IDEA, it is clear from the many statements
made by staff that the staff does realize the need to help students. In three of the

four buildings, educators have developed less cumbersome, more informal

79

processes for dealing with individual students. Through my conversations with
educators, it became apparent that these schools had developed ways to meet
the needs of students with regard to Section 504 and still, “keep it manageable”.
This data corresponds with a similar finding by Weatherly and Lipsky (1977) who
reported:
To accomplish their required tasks, street-level bureaucrats must find
ways to accommodate the demands plawd upon them and confront
the reality of resource limitations. They typically do this by routinizing
procedures, modifying goals, rationalizing services, asserting priorities,
and limiting or controlling clientele. In other words, they develop practices
that permit them in some way to process the work they are required to do.
(p. 172)
The key to “full implementation” may lie somewhere in between the required

formal mandates, and the informal processes which schools currently employ.

lm Iications of the tud with R ard to urrent Poli Theo

At the heart of this study was the belief that educators have been asked to
implement a mandate that they have little understanding, training, or knowledge
about. These front-line educators are asked to make decisions regarding a
student’s educational program with little information regarding eligibility
requirements on which to base these decisions, and often under the threat of
litigation by parents. Previous studies, cited in Chapter 2, stress the importance
of training, especially as it relates to staff understanding and “buy in”. The data
obtained in this study supports previous research regarding the need for teacher
training and planning time in order to fully develop and implement, practices and
procedures. In their summary, the Ann Arbor Public Schools review strongly

advised the district to “organize a series of systematic Section 504 training

80

models” (Scheetz, 2001). The importance of including teachers of “front-line
educators" in the development, planning and training stages cannot be ignored.

During the course of this study my thoughts again returned to my original
research question, “What factors influence the way in which Section 504 is
implemented in a public middle school? lfeel that this question can best be
answered by examining the law itself. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, is a federal law which originally was intended to reduce discrimination in
the areas of employment, education, and various other settings, for individuals
with disabilities. This law was concerned with social equality and civil rights for
individuals with disabilities as it is worded almost identically to the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
Section 504 of the Act states:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability. . .shall solely by reason of

her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity

receiving Federal financial assistance.
The US. Department of Education regulations for Section 504 require that
students with disabilities be provided with a free appropriate public education
(FAPE). These regulations require public schools to identify students, evaluate
them, and provide services if necessary, in addition to following procedural
safeguards.

With the stroke a pen, seemingly overnight, persons who had previously
been excluded from participating in employment, education, and other programs
receiving federal funding based on a disability, were now “guaranteed”

accommodations that would enable them the same opportunity to participate as

81

their non-handicapped peers. However, the requirements this law placed on
school systems were largely overlooked based in part on its emphasis on
employment, as well as building, access. Additionally, with the arrival of PL 94-
142 only one year later in 1974, schools now were required to focus their efforts
on creating programs to meet federal guidelines or face losing federal funding.
The resulting creation of a separate program to deal with special education
needs was the result.

This brings us to the current situation. How can one law, IDEA, which
actually went into effect one year after The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, become so
well implemented, while the other remains a source of confusion? This leads us
again back to the original research question: What factors influence the way in
which Section 5041s implemented in a public middle school? Not surprisingly
perhaps, based on the responses cited in this study, the factors which
significantly impact the implementation of Section 504 in these four middle
schools are similar to those found previous research studies by Fullan, Fulcher,
and Skirtic as referenced in Chapter 2, namely, lack of training, lack of ownership
in the policy making, lack of resources in terms of time and money, and lack of
clear leadership.

Only two of four schools I visited mentioned in—service training regarding
Section 504. Fewer than 20% of the interviewees actually understood the intent
behind Section 504, and fewer were able to state the eligibility requirements.
Although the educators involved were extremely interested in helping students,
they did not demonstrate a sense of urgency in understanding more about

Section 504 or taking ownership of the responsibilities it created. They did, at

82

times, seem kind of embarrassed that they did not know more about it, but at the
same time felt like they had more important things to worry about, and basically
didn’t special education meet the needs of those types of students?

The lack of funding and therefore accountability may in fact be the key
factor in the implementation process. As stated previously in Chapter 2, IDEA
came with funding in order to develop and implement the policy. Intensive
training provided schools with information and specially trained personnel.
Colleges designed entire teacher training programs based on the new
requirements. Today, in every school across the United States, there are special
education programs and detailed criteria and processes to determine eligibility.
Each school has developed a separate program, with “specialists” such as
special education teachers, social workers, special education directors, and
psychologists to deal with disabled students. Each program is funded based on
the number of students who receive services, and the types of services they
receive. Each state is required to produce accounting records regarding the
number of students currently eligible for services, and their type of eligibility, such
as Learning Disabled. Special education programs undergo stringent state and
federal monitoring to evaluate their programs and services. In stark contrast,
Section 504 does not receive any additional funding. This is due to the fact that
Section 504 is a piece of civil rights legislation, and like other civil rights
legislation, no additional funding is provided to implement the law, only the threat
of loss of funding if civil rights are denied. There is not a monitoring system, but

rather a “complaint system" with referrals to the Office of Civil Rights.

83

In Section 504 there are no “specialists”. Many colleges’ education
programs do not routinely address Section 504. But most remarkable is the lack
of accountability. There is not a monitoring system, but rather a “complaint
system” with referrals to the Office of Civil Rights.

How is Section 504 implementation evaluated? Indeed, many of the
educators I spoke with felt that if it weren’t for litigation, literally no progress
would have been made on Section 504 implementation.

A final factor, involving the importance of leadership, cannot be
overlooked. Each 504 coordinator I interviewed was very knowledgeable
regarding the law. Unfortunately very few of the participants in the study were
able to identify their Section 504 coordinator, thus a valuable resource may be
underutilized. It should also be noted however, that unlike special education with
its own administrators to facilitate programs, in each of the schools I visited the
Section 504 coordinator had numerous other responsibilities, and being “in
charge” of Section 504 was a small part of his/her job. This left little time or
resources to share some of that “expert” knowledge. One last note regarding
leadership relates to the building principal. As mentioned previously, the
knowledge and leadership of the principal also had a significant effect on his/her
staff. The importance of a highly knowledgeable, motivated principal with regards
to change and policy implementation should not be overlooked.
Recommendations for Further Research

The findings from this study make evident the need for further research in
this area. In particular, additional research needs to be conducted which

examines the role parents play in this process. Parents were the driving force

behind the development of PL 94-142, later renamed IDEA, and I suspect they
will also have a significant impact on the direction schools take regarding Section
504 implementation. Originally I had planned to involve parents in this study,
however, based on the limited knowledge of the staff members I interviewed, in
addition to the low numbers of identified Section 504 students found in each
school, I decided to limit my study to professional educators.

Further studies also need to supplement the scarce amount of actual
research available regarding Section 504. With the exception of several court
cases, many of which do not involve education, little research has been done
involving Section 504 in the public schools. During the course of this study I
have contacted lawyers, a professor from the University of Arkansas who
conducts seminars nationwide on Section 504, the head of the CASE
organization, a top member of the special education department of Michigan, and
numerous Section 504 coordinators, professors, and other educational
professionals, all in an attempt to gain information regarding possible research
studies, and/or accounting databases regarding the possible number of Section
504 students in Michigan or in the United States. I was repeatedly informed that
such a database does not exist. Other than the statistics provided by both Ann
Arbor Public Schools and the California State Audit, little information has been
published regarding the number of Section 504 students receiving
accommodations in a given school. I was unable to locate any research which
evaluates Section 504 implementation.

Many students across the United States are eligible for accommodations

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Currently a national or state

85

database for Section 504 eligible students does not exist, and therefore the exact
number of students whose lives this federal law impacts is not known. However,
given the known number of students identified as having ADD- 1.5 to 2 million,
(Fossey, 1995) combined with other physical or mental impairments which may
substantially limit a major life activity such as Ieaming, the number could be
considerable indeed. Further research needs to address this lack of data.
Future projects may need to collect data on the number of students currently
eligible for Section 504. In addition, the data should identify the individuals who
actually make the referrals (parents, teachers, or others) and the types of
impairments that are the qualifying condition (ADD, mental impairment, diabetes,
etc.) An important issue here is equity, are all students receiving the same
consideration?

This research revealed that the “official process" and the “actual process”
involving the knowledge of the “front-line educators” were not the same. Only 16
students out of 2,250, less than 1%, were identified as eligible for Section 504,
yet the same schools identified 339 students or 15% as eligible under IDEA.
Similar results were reported by the Ann Arbor Public School System, and the
state of California found that; “some students may not be getting the assistance
they need because of a lack of awareness of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and weaknesses in district processes for identifying students with
suspected disabilities". These conclusions were based on state audits. Further
research needs to establish if there is a correlation between the lack of

knowledge by professionals and lack of identification of students eligible for

Section 504.

86

In summary, the number of students potentially impacted by this law is
considerable. Clearly, schools are faced with the possibility that the original intent
of the law, and the broad nature of the law itself, lead to unintentional
inconsistencies in its interpretation and implementation in the public school
system. How are schools implementing this law? Further study is needed to
identify the policies and procedures utilized by the schools, and their impact on

the students.

Implications of the Stugy with Regard to Professional Practice

This study holds many implications for professional practice as it relates to
the implementation of Section 504 within the educational setting. The findings
from this study would indicate that schools/educators need to address the
following issues:

. The need for training in order to gain a clear understanding of the purpose
of Section 504 in terms of what it is, and what it is not

. The need to establish a process for implementing Section 504 in a school,
and establish procedures for this process

0 The need to create resources in terms of necessary paperwork and
information

0 The need to have highly knowledgeable leaders (experts)

e The need to have some sort of process for monitoring implementation

0 The need to develop a method of sharing information and resources

87

In order to implement Section 504, practitioners may need to review their
own interpretations and understanding of Section 504. In order to make referral
and eligibility decisions regarding Section 504, educators must have the correct
information regarding the law. Lack of training is an issue which will continue to
hinder the implementation of Section 504 unless it is addressed.

Due to the lack of funding, practitioners would be encouraged to share or
jointly develop resources, including personnel, and especially written forms and
procedures. Highly knowledgeable Section 504 coordinators might provide in-
service training for newly appointed coordinators or other staff members. These
staff members in turn can share information with other staff members in their own
districts or buildings. In Michigan, the lnterrnediate School Districts may be able
to help coordinate this effort.

Section 504 was intended to protect the rights of employees and students
with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limited a major life
activity. Schools are required to identify, evaluate, and provide accommodations
which allow the student access to the same curriculum and activities as their
non-handicapped peers. If educators are going to be successful in their
endeavors to help students, they must learn to work collaboratively and form
peer networks at all levels, administrative to teacher, which allow them to share
ideas, resources, and expertise in order to meet the needs of all students. They
must also be willing to work with policy makers in order to have ownership in the
implementation process.

A final thought regarding Section 504 implementation as it relates to

practitioners. Section 504 could be characterized as full of ambiguity, politics,

88

and abstractions. It is often difficult to understand. Although many of the same
factors influencing the implementation of other policies seem to apply to Section
504 implementation as well, the very ambiguous nature of this law may negate

the impact that educators are able to have on any of the implementation issues

they attempt to address.

89

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TABLE COMPARING IDEA, SECTION 504, and ADA

91

IDEA, Section 504 and ADA

1999 Edition, Copyright CASE,

 

 

 

 

AComparison Inc.
encore» meme—m ' ' with
1‘ 8 M3 . ~ ’ 1990 W -
egal Citation
20 USC 1400 et seq. 29 USC 794 42 USC 12134

34 CFR Part 300

 

340FR 104

 

 

whose purpose is to provide
financial aid to states in their
efforts to ensure adequate and
appropriate educational
services for children with
disabilities

A Federal funding stature ,.

28 CFR Part 35

 

 

A broad civil rights law which
protects individuals with
disabilities in programs and
activities that receive Federal
Ifinancial assistance from the
US. Department of Education.

A broader civil rights statute

Ithan 504 extending protections
to individuals with disabilities

in private industry employing
more than 15 individuals, public
entities, public
accommodations
telecommunications and

 

 

private nonsectarian schools

 

 

Infants and toddlers with
disabilities 0-2: children 3-21
who meet the definition of one
of the specific disabilities
applicable to school age
children

   

' idéniiné; 'éniidien that have . '

disability who meet the
definition. The child (1) has or
(2) has had a physical or
mental impairment which
substantially limits 8 major life
activity or (3) is regarded by
others as disabled. Major life
activities include walking,
seeing hearing, speaking,
breathing, Ieaming, working,
caring for one-self, and
performing manual tasks. The
disability need only
substantially limits a one major
life activity in order for the
student to be eligible.

 

   

Any person with a physical!
mental impairment which
substantially limits one or more
major life activities such as

self care, manual tasks, walking
seeing, hearing, breathing,
Ieaming/working, has a record
of such an impairment, or is
(regarded as having such an
impairment.

 

fine

 

Provides additional funding for
eligible students.

 

  
 

Does

not provide additional
funds. IDEA funds may not be
used to serve children eligible
only under Section 504.

Does not provide additional
funds

 

 

92

 

 

 

q;r.-!'..:.._r,'.-.~...‘_. . '. . .‘l .
Oi

,-2j.-~l-' P‘f (tut-s

("I-...

 

...-”n I'."' “'7'. ',i"
“:.'. #1.“. i- ..t.
‘I"'.~“1.--"
- ...-‘..

O \.4

v r .‘ r .- . .
... ,_._. '._ ,. “...”... _, -_.I ,~ ~:.—. ,
l':'l:'ejv-<'..L I.\ .. _ :1 .. ......_ . _.~._ n .. .,
‘ . .‘ ”1.. .
u

-r---.-_.__.-

......

 

Each public agency shall take
steps to provide academic and
non-academic services and
activities in such manner as is
necessary to afford children
with disabilities an equal
opportunity for participation in
those services and activities.
(34

CFR 300.306).

l

 

 

 

Rule: No qualified individual

  

with A disability shall, because
a recipient facilities are
inaccessible or unusable by
disabled individuals, be
denied the benefits of, be
excluded from participation in,
or otherwise be subjected to
discrimination under any
program or activity.

Does not require recipients to
make each of the existing
facilities or every part of an
existing facility accessible.

(1) the program may redesign
equipment (2) reassign classes
to accessible

buildings With priority to those
methods that offer programs
and activities to disabled
persons in the most

integrated setting appropriate.
New construction or alterations
after June 3, 1977 must be
accessible.

1992 must be accessible.

 

Rule No qualified indivrdual
with a disability shall, because
a public entity's facilities are
inaccessible or unusable by
individuals with disabilities, be
idenied the benefits of

its services, programs or
activities or be subjected to
discrimination.

EXCEPT:

“Does not necessarily require a
public entity to make each of its
existing facilities accessible to
individuals with disabilities
(same rule as 504 applies).
Does not require the public
entity to fundamentally alter the
nature of the service, program
or activity or incur an undue
financial and administrative
burden. However, this does
not relieve the public entity from
providing access to individuals
with disabilities through other
means. New construction or
alterations after January 26,

 

u: ,‘ V i~'- flied-7:3: fifix‘iri-‘tgr'
‘ I

‘ .. .53.. :.,_ . -q_-“-!_t_ .‘u'fl‘... 4. '. 1v" ‘
. a.‘J‘.'J:_.';'.. 3", p.551... ‘2’)“ ‘- ‘ u '

 

 

Requrres notice to the parent or
guardian with respect to
identification, evaluation and/or
placement. IDEA procedures
will suffice for Section 504
implementation.

'Requires written notice.
*Delineates required
components of written notice.
“Requires written notice prior to
any changes in placement.
Requires the provision of a free
and appropriate public
education to eligible students
covered under the law including
specially designed instruction.
“Requires a written IEP

 

 

Requires notice to the parent of
guardian with respect to
identification, evaluation and/or
placement. IDEA procedures
will suffice for Section 504
implementation.

“Written notice not required, but
indicated by good professional
practice.

*Requires notice only before a
”significant change” in
placement. Requires the
provision of a free and
appropriate public education to
eligible students covered under
the law including specially
designed

None

 

 

93

 

document with specific content
and a required number of
specific participants at the IEP
meeting.

* ”Appropriate education"
means a program designed to
provide "educational benefit“.
'Related services are provided
if required for the student to
benefit from specially designed
instruction.

 

the accommodations

 

instruction. The individual
Education Program (IEP) of
IDEA will suffice for Section
504 plan. * Does not require a
written document but does
require a plan. A written plan is
indicated by good

professional practice. It is
recommended tot the district
document that a group of
persons knowledgeable about
the student convened and
specified the agreed

upon services.

* "Appropriate education”
means an education
comparable to the

education provided to non-
disabled students, requiring
that accommodations be made.
‘Related services, independent
of any special education
services as

defined under IDEA, may be

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*r“E5.;;-,§'.;_2;‘.;.1:}'_I“{J~f'.:".'.';*"_'-.'.'-'.:5,-l;'.‘.'"..""-.“'-‘i‘_".-_;'jT-‘ . - r . ‘3? '=-' "' ‘“ i’ "'" "'3'” ”7"“ was}: 11214.;
E9 he placement of students with The student shall be placed in None
disabilities in special classes, the regular educational
Separate schools or other environment unless the child's
removal from the regular education cannot be achieved
educational environment occms satisfactorily even with the use
only when the nature or of supplementary aids and
severity of the disability is services.
such the education in regular
classes with the use of
supplementary aids and
services cannot be
satisfactorily achieved. In
addition the placement must
provide special education, to
the maximum extent
appropriate to the needs of the
student, with other students
who do not have a disability
and be as close as possible to
the student's home
Defines specrfic membership of Group of individuals None
the Team knowledgeable about the

student, evaluations and
placement options develop an
accommodation plan.
' r-é-i::-:-.~a;-::-'=;.;z-z-e.‘....... '.-.-.=-.-. J : “w .5 -- ' — . .. .
A Full comprehensive Evaluation draws on None

evaluation is required,
assessing all areas related to

 

information from a variety of
sources in the area of concern;

 

 

94

 

the suspected disability. The
child is evaluated by a
multidisciplinary team or group.
Requires informed consent
before an initial evaluation is
conducted

decisions made by a group
knowledgeable about the
student, evaluation data, and
placement options.

Requires notice; at least one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 An IEP review meeting
is required before any
change in placement.

 

 

restrictive environment)
0 A meeting is not

required for any

change in placement.

 

regional OCR office has
advised that rs also required
Reevaluation considered at Requrres penodrc None
least every 3 years. A reevaluations. IDEA schedule
reevaluation is not required for reevaluation will suffice.
before a significant change in
placement, but a review of Reevaluation is required before
current data is recommended. a significant change in
Provides for independent placement.
educational evaluation at
district expense if parent No provision for independent
disagrees with the evaluation evaluations at district expense.
obtained by school and hearing District should consider any
officer concurs. Informed such evaluations presented.
Parent consent is required for
reevaluation, unless school can
show parent did not respond to
attempts made
When Interpreting evaluation When Interpreting evaluation
data and making placement data and making placement
decisions. the law requires: decisions, the law requires:
0 Draw information from . Draw upon information
a variety of sources. from a variety of
o Assure that all sources.
information is o Assure that all
documented and information is
considered. documented and
0 Ensure that the considered
eligibility decision is 0 Ensure that the
made by a group of eligibility decision is
persons including those made by a group of
who are knowledgeable persons including those
about the child, the who are knowledgeable
meaning of the about the child, the
evaluation data and meaning of the
placement options. evaluation data and
0 Ensure that the student placement options.
is educated with his/her . Ensure that the student
non-disabled peers to is educated with his/her
the maximum extent non-disabled peers to
appropriate (least the maximum extent
restrictive environment) appropriate (least

 

 

95

 

 

 

U ,

 

 

accommodation.

 

 

 

 

- I -.u:"."
'1: my." . .

“mm“ "' '~ W:
Individuals with disabilities

   

 

cm. largisré's'ridéaiénéfiaaér'
Section 504 apply.

Civil Ri ms Act.

 

 

State'Compliant Procedures
required (34 CFR 300.660)

Size aligpragramgaa its. ' "
budget, type of operation.
nature and cost of

’ seem the businessmand its

budget. type of operation.
nature and cost of

accommodation .

 

’ é‘c’ri‘oéisiriiéy'iak‘é titanium ‘

action pertaining to use or
possession of illegal drugs or
alcohol against any student to
the same extent such
disciplinary action is taken
against students who are not
disabled. Due process at 34
CFR 104.35 do not no . .
9..) frwww‘» - .

Current Vdm'g use is not

considered a disability.

Current alcohol abuse that
prevents individuals from

. performing duties of the job or

that constitutes direct threat to
property or safety of others is
not considered a disability.

 

cm.

 

excludes any individuals with a
icontagiOus disease which
renders the individual unable to

Permits qualification that an

individual with a cuneMly

contagious disease or infection
not pose a direct threat to the

 

, rform a job.

health or safety of others.

 

incorporates prohibition against

retaliation, intimidation.
coercion, threats and
discrimination found in
regulations under Title VI of the

- . flame». ...

' Rarities straight; its garage. ‘

a self-evaluation to identity
discriminatory policies and
practices.

Requires districts with 15 or

more employees to designate a
Section 504 compliance officer
and a grievance procedure to

 

,’...A -_.:.... .- ,..

Extends protections of non-

‘disabled individuals who have

testified or participated in any
manner in an investigation,
proceedings or hearing under
ADA.

at J56h£§é€ 115637. ‘gcrsai ' ‘ W

districts were required to

update their Section 504 self
evaluation to assure

compliance with the ADA which

 

YOU.

must involve constituent

Requires public entities with
more than 50 employees to
designate a compliance officer
and a grievance procedure to

 

 

including the right to remain in
the current educational
placement pending appeals.

 

child's disability and the
behavior complained of? If
“yes“; the child may not be
i removed for more than 10

 

investigate complaints alleging investigate complaints alleging
noncompliance with Section non compliance with ADA.
504.

s‘c‘r he ,. ,. . .

Any Disciplinary removal of District must reevaluate the Amends 504 — to create

more than 10 consecutive days child prior to any disciplinary exception for disciple of drug

is a significant change of removal for more than 10 days. and alcohol related behavior.

placement triggering the

procedural safeguards of IDEA, ls there nexus between the

 

 

 

Cumulative removals of more
than 10 school days within the
year may be considered as a
change of placement and thus

 

consecutive days unless the
behavior is drug/alcohol
related.

 

 

 

 

Htrigger the procedural No Automatic right to remain in
safeguards under IDEA. current educational placement.
Cannot terminate FAPE as a Right to FAPE may cease due
disciplinary measure. to a disciplinary action.
3A V: W 7 2 “ ' " ' '“ 1' r: ':.-.
Requires districts to provide Requires districts to provide
impartial hearings for parents or impartial hearings for parents or
guardians who disagree with guardians who disagree with
the identification, evaluation or the identification, evaluation of
placement of a student. placement of a student.
Requires that the parent have
an opportunity to participate
and be represented by counsel.
Other details are left to the
discretion of the local school
district. Policy Statements
should clarify specific details.

 

 

Requires the parent or guardian
to pursue administrative
hearing before seeking redress
in the courts.

 

Administrative hearing not
required prior to OCR
involvement or court action;
compensatory damages

ssible.

 

 

 

 

 

«- f-r. --'-'

'W..

, , -. (ray—5‘,

 

Enforced by the US. Office of
Special Education Programs.

. Compliance is
monitored by the State
Department of
Education and Office of
Special Education
Programs
The State Department
of Education resolves
complaints.
Non-compliance may
result in loss of IDEA
funds and aid.

 

 

Enforced by the US. Office for
Civil Rights, United States
Department of Education
(OCR).

0 State Department of
Education has no
monitoring, complaint
resolution or funding
involvement.
Non-compliance may
result in loss of all
federal funds.

 

Enforced by the US. Office fo
Civil Rights, United States
Department of Education
(OCR).

0 State Department of
Education has no
monitoring, complaint
resolution or funding
involvement.
Non-compliance may
result in loss of all
federal funds.

- --'-.;r=..'

     

l'

 

 

97

APPENDIX B

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL STAFF INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

98

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL STAFF INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
504 Interview Questions
Administrators, Regular Education Teachers, Special Education Teachers,

School Psychologist, Section 504 Coordinator, School Social Worker

1. How many years have you been involved in education? What is your degree
(BA, MA, PhD)

Who is the Section 504 Coordinator for your school district?
In your mind, what is the purpose of Section 504?

How did you acquire your knowledge regarding section 504?

9'99)!”

Have you ever participated in a Section 504 eligibility/renewal meeting? If so,
how many?

a) 0-5
b) 6-10
c) 10+

6. What is the identification/referral process for Section 504 in your
school/district?

7. Have you ever referred a student for Section 504 eligibility? What steps occur
in this process? Who participates in the decision making process?

8. At what stage and to what extent do parents participate in the process?

9. What do you think the “ideal" process for identifying Section 504 students
would look like? (What do you feel it should be?)

10. Why do you think that procedures regarding Section 504 are the way they
are? (Why are things done the way they are?)

99

APPENDIX C

SCHOOL QUESTIONAIREICONSENT FORM

100

SCHOOL QUESTIONAIRE/CONSENT FORM

Dear

My name is Kimberly Arsenault, and I am a doctoral student at Michigan State
University. I am currently a special education supervisor, and a former assistant
principal] 504 Coordinator at Fruitport Middle School. I am doing a dissertation
on Section 504 and I am interested in determining the approximate number of
students who are identified as 504 eligible, and how the 504 implementation
process works in public schools. Unlike special education, there is not a
database containing the number of students identified as eligible for Section 504
accommodations, therefore, it is unclear exactly how many students have been

identified in Michigan, or even the United States.

I am sending this brief survey to several middle schools in westem Lower
Michigan. The survey is only 5 questions long. Please return both pages of this
survey in the return envelope I provided. As an administrator, I realize how busy
you are, and I appreciate your time. Participation in this survey is voluntary,
however, I will provide each school that completes this survey with a capy of my
results, so your school can see what other schools your size look like. Individual
schools WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED, however, I will group results based on

demographic characteristics, such as size and SES.

CONSENT

101

 

The data from the study will be used primarily for a dissertation study;
however, the data may also be used in reports about the project, in published
articles, and in presentations at conferences. In any such uses, identities of
participants will not be revealed.

I agree to voluntarily participate in this study by completing the following
survey.

Name(PIease Print):

 

Signature:

 

Position:

 

Date:

 

School:

 

If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact either
myself, Kimberly Arsenault at (231 )-773-0534 or Dr. Eugene Pemell, MSU, at
(517)—355—8909.

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or
are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-
anonymously if you wish-Ashir Kumar, M.D. Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)-355-2180, fax:
(517)432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

Your Title (504 Coordinator, Principal,
Assistant Principal, Counselor, Special Education Director)

(If you are unable to answer any of the questions, please indicate you do not
have that information rather than leave it blank, thank you.)

102

 

1. How many students are currently enrolled in your middle school?

2. How many students have been identified as eligible for Section 504
accommodations? (middle school only)

3. How many students were referred for 504 evaluation by:
Teachers Parents Doctors Other

(Example, 10 were referred by teachers, 5 by parents, 1 by a doctor -16 total)

4. How many of the students referred for 504 evaluations were found eligible?
Teachers Parents Doctors Other
(Example, 5 of the teachers’, 2 of the parents’, and 1 of the doctor's referred
students were actually found to be eligible-8 total)

5. Of the total number of students who are eligible, how many qualified due to:

 

 

ADD Diabetes Asthma
Low Cognitive Ability (IQ) Other (Please list
area)

Please return both pages in the envelope provided. THANK YOU!

103

APPENDIX D

CONSENT FORM FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL STAFF
PARTICIPATION

104

 

CONSENT FORM FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL STAFF
PARTICIPATION

The purpose of this study is to better understand the implementation
process for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Specifically, I will be
observing the process used by your school to implement Section 504. Various
school personnel will be interviewed regarding their perceptions of Section 504
and the 504 referral process. The focus of the interview questions will be on
general awareness. These conversations would be scheduled at a time and
place convenient for you, including your home if that is what you would prefer.
The information gained from this project may provide educators with valuable
insights, which may reduce the uncertainty K-12 public schools face regarding
various aspects of the 504 implementation process.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You can withdraw
from the study at any time without penalty. If you chose to participate in the
study, you may choose not to answer specific interview questions. If a tape
recorder is used during your interview, you have the right to ask to stop the
recording at any time.

All of the data that is collected for this project will be treated with strict
confidence. Your name will not be used in any reports about this project, and
any identifying characteristics will be disguised.

There are some limitations on the extent to which confidentiality can be
guaranteed for participants in the study. Anyone familiar with the school site

might be able to identify specific individuals despite the use of fictional names

105

and disguised information. However, every effort will be made to protect the
confidentiality of information about the participants.
CONSENT

I have read the above description and the activities I will be asked to
participate in. The data from the study will be used primarily for a dissertation
study, however, the data may also be used in reports about the project, in
published articles, and in presentations at conferences. In any such uses,
identities of participants will not be revealed.

I agree to voluntarily participate in the activities I have indicated

below(please indicate “yes” or “no” for each category):

1. You may talk to me about my perceptions and knowledge of Section 504.
yes no

2. You may audiotape conversations described in item # 1 (above).
yes no

Name(PIease Print):

 

Signature:

 

Position:

 

Date:

 

If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact either
myself, Kimberly Arsenault at (231)865-4026 or Dr. Eugene Pemell, MSU, at
(517)355-8909.

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or
are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-
anonymously if you wish-Ashir Kumar, M.D. Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180, fax:
(517)432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

106

APPENDIX E

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
LETTER OF RENEWED APPROVAL

107

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

diversity Committee on
Research Involvln
Human Subjo

Michigan State University
202 Olds Hall

East Lansing, MI

48824

517/355-2180

FAX: 517/432-4503
www.msuedu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihs@rnsu.edu

the Michigan State University
DEA is mstitutional Diversity

Excel/eras in Action.
MSU i: an a/fimrative-action,
equalmpportunily institution.

MICHIGAN STATE

u N I v E R s l T Y_
November 19, 2002

TO: Eugene PERNELL, JR
338 Erickson Hall
MSU

RE: IRB# 01-745 CATEGORY: 2-F. 2-G EXPEDITED

RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: November 18, 2002
EXPIRATION DATE: November 18, 2003

I TITLE: K—12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS SECTION 504 IMPLEMENTATION

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT‘S RENEWAL.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. Projects continuing
beyond this date must be renewed with the renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited
renewals are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit a
5-year renewal application for complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please include a revision form with the
renewal. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request
with an attached revision cover sheet to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and
referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any
revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of firework, notify
UCRIHS promptly. 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human
subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu.

Sincerely,

) J 4,. 47%

Ashir Kumar, M.D.
UCRIHS Chair

AK: _ rt

9‘: Kimberly Arsenault

15150 Leonard
Spring Lake, MI 49456

108

BIBLIOGRAPHY

109

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander,K, & Alexander, M. (1985LAmericgn Public School Lg_w. West
Publishing CO: St. Paul, MN, 365-400.

Blazer, B. (1999). Developing 504 classroom accommodation plans: a
collaborative, systematic parent-student-teacher approach. Teaching

Exceptional thldren,32(2), 28-33.

Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc. (n.d.) Student Access: A

Resource Suide for Educators, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. Reston, VA: CASE

Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc. (1999). Section 504 and the
ADA Promoting Student Access: A Besource guide for Educators: CASE

Cole, 8, 8 Others. (1995). Social work education and students with disabilities:
implications of section 504 and the ADA. Journal of Social Work
Education, 31(2), 261 -268.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (1996). Includin tudents with cial Needs A

Practical uide for lassroom Teachers. Allyn 8. Bacon: Needham
Heights, MA

Fulcher, G. (1989). “Introduction" in Disabli Policies? A om arative

Approach to Education Polig and Disability. The Falmer Press:
Philidelphia, PA, 1-18.

Greenbaum, A., & Shearer, J. (1982). Meeting the intent of section 504.
Educational Record, 6S(2),35—37.

Gom, S. (1998). What Do I Do When...The Answer Book on Section 504.
Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Heward, W. (2000). Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Heward, W., 8. Cavanaugh, R. (1997). Eduational equality for students with
disabilities. Banks, J. & Banks, C. (Eds), Multicultural education: Issues
and @rsmwes. (3rd ed) pp. 301-333) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Hovvle, E. (2000, November). Standardized Tests: Although Some Students
May Receive Extra Time on Standardized Tests That is Not Deserved,
Others May Not Be Getting the Assistance They Need. California state
audit report submitted to the Governor of California and the state Senate,
CA: Sacramento.

110

Johnson, L., 8 Pugach, M. (1991). Peer collaboration: accommodating students
with mild Ieaming and behavior problems. Exceptional Children, 57, 454-
461.

Kardon, D. (1995). Section 504: developing a social work perspective in schools.
Social Work in Education, 17(1), 48-54.

Kortering, L., Julenes, R., 8 Edgar, E. (1990). An instructive review of the law
pertaining to the graduation of special education students. Remedial and

Sflial Education, 11, 7-13.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in
Elementary Education. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.

Logan, K., 8 Stein, 8. (2001). The research lead teacher model: helping general
education teachers with classroom behavior problems. Teaching

Exceptional thldren, 33(3), 10-15.

Lyon, 0., 8 Ryan, J. (1982). An omission in the federal legislation for
handicapped children: requirements of careful identification. ._Iournal for

Sfl'al Educators, 18(2), 1-4.

National Information Center for Children and Youth With Disabilities. (1993).
Including special education in the school community. NIQHQY News

Digest, 2 (2), 1-7.

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, (1993), Meeting the Needs of all
Students: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. OSPI.

Reid, R., 8 Katsiyannis, A. (1995). Attention-deficitlhyperactivity disorder and
section Remedial and Spe_g'al Education, 16(1), 4452.

Richards, D. (1999). An Overview of Section 504. A paper presentation given at
the Texas School Administrators Legal Digest Special Education
Conference, Dallas: TX, CESD.

Scheetz, J. (2001). Ann Arbor Public Schools Special Education Program
Review, Executive Summary. A full review of the Student Support Teams,
Section 504 procedures and Special Education Programs and Services.
Scheetz Associates, Ann Arbor, MI.

Schumm, J., 8 Vaughn, S. (1995). Meaningful professional development in
accommodating students with disabilities: lessons Ieamed. Remedial and

Sficial Education, 16, 344-351

Smith, T. (1998). Section 504 8 Public Schools: A Handbook for Educators.
Little Rock, AR: Pro-Ed.

111

Tumbull, H. (1983). Fundamental rights, section 504, and baby doe. Mental
Retardation, 21(5), 218-221.

Wegner, J. (1988). Educational rights of handicapped children: Three federal
statues and an evolving jurisprudence. Part I; The statutory maze.
Journal of Law and Education 17 387-457.

 

Yell, M., 8 Peterson, R. (1995). Disciplining students with disabilities and those
at risk for school failure: legal issues. Preventing School Failure, 3S(2),
39-44.

Zirkel, P. (1996). Another withering decision. Phi delta Kapgn, 78(2), 171-172.

Zirkel, P. (1994, March). Complying with IDEA and Section 504: LRP’s Update
on Special Education Law. Handout given at the conference in Detroit,
VA: LRP Publications.

112