Preparing School Personnel to Implement Section 504

By Shaw, Stan F Madaus, Joseph W

Keywords: Section 504; personnel preparation; related services; civil rights Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has become an increasingly important mechanism in providing services to students with disabilities in public schools. Because Section 504 is a civil rights law, responsibility for its implementation involves a range of school-based professionals, including administrators, general education teachers, school counselors, school psychologists, and special education teachers. This article reviews data from two studies that gathered information about the specific roles of a variety of school-based professionals and the levels of training related to Section 504 that they received. Given the growing importance of Section 504, suggestions are presented for improving the preparation of personnel to function as members of Section 504 teams.

The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), tided the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), has governed service provision for students with disabilities since its promulgation in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). Personnel preparation programs have appropriately developed curricula and courses based on its mandates (e.g., least restrictive environment, diagnosis, transition planning, early intervention) as the prescriptive national special education law. It is not surprising, therefore, that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by entities that receive federal funding, was virtually ignored by public schools for more than 20 years (Smith, 2002).

In recent years, however, Section 504 has been receiving increased attention (Council of Administrators of Special Education, 1999). Its broad definition of disability has amplified its importance as students with hidden disabilities (e.g., attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disability) seek protections under this law (Katsiyannis & Conderman, 1994). Over the last decade, as both parents and professionals have learned more about Section 504, there has been an increasing emphasis on its implementation (deBettencourt, 2002). Now, with IDEA receiving intensive scrutiny and change, Section 504 has become more critical for schools to consider (Miller & Newbill, 1998).

Perspectives of Special Education Directors

Madaus and Shaw (2006b) and Madaus, Shaw, and Zhao (2005) presented data from a survey of all of the special education directors in one state about district-wide 504 policies and procedures. Given that special education/ pupil services directors coordinated Section 504 compliance in two thirds of the districts, it is clear that district management of Section 504 has become a defacto special education responsibility even though it is clearly not intended to be. When asked if “training or staff development related to Section 504 is provided to professional staff throughout the district,” 8% of the special education directors selected “Never” or “Rarely,” 33% indicated “Sometimes,” and 29% specified “Often.” Such professional staff development was “always” provided throughout the district in only 26% of the schools. Similarly, respondents were asked if “Section 504 procedures are distributed to professional staff throughout the district.” Six percent selected “Rarely,” 17% selected “Sometimes,” 22% selected “Often,” and 5% selected “Don’t Know/ Unsure.” In just 51% of the districts were Section 504 procedures “always” distributed to professional staff. Perhaps as a direct result, the special education directors indicated that less than a quarter (23%) of school personnel “always” had sufficient knowledge about the law to effectively implement Section 504 plans, and 21% “never,”"rarely,” or only “sometimes” had sufficient knowledge. These data from the perspective of central office personnel seem to suggest that school personnel do not have the necessary information to ensure equal access for students with disabilities under Section 504.

Roles of School Personnel in Section 504

Madaus and Shaw (2006a) also surveyed 574 school-based professionals in one state related to their roles in the implementation of Section 504 and to the amount of preservice and in- service training they received. With a response rate of 46%, completed surveys were received from a range of professional groups, including school counselors (19%), special education teachers (16%), school psychologists (14%), social workers (13%), school principals (11%), general education teachers (10%), and assistant principals (9%). Twenty-six percent reported having 6 to 15 years of experience, and 58% reported having more than 15 years of experience; 84% indicated that they had experience serving on a Section 504 team, typically attending on five team meetings per year.

The respondents reported being actively involved in a variety of roles related to Section 504. When asked who served as the person responsible for overall school compliance with the regulations, the most frequently identified tides were school counselors (16%), school psychologists (9%), principals (8%), and assistant/vice principals (8%). The respondents were also asked who was responsible for both running Section 504 meetings and coordinating completed Section 504 plans. Because a range of professionals can be involved in these roles, the respondents were allowed to select multiple responses. The results indicated that Section 504 meetings were most commonly run by school administrators (48%), followed by school counselors (39%), school psychologists (27%), and school social workers (21%). Responsibility for managing completed Section 504 plans most often fell to school counselors (43%), general education teachers (38%), school psychologists (31%), and special education teachers (27%).

Given the active role of a broad range of school personnel in various components of Section 504 implementation, information was gathered related to both in-service and preservice training related to the regulations. Twenty-eight percent indicated that they had “never” received any in-service training. Sixteen percent of the respondents indicated that they had received training during the present academic year, 21% in the previous academic year, and 35% more than 2 years prior to completion of the survey. For those in preservice training, 69% had received no training related to Section 504. Of the 28% who did receive Section 504 training as part of their education, 38% described this training as “adequate” and 39% described it as “effective” or “very effective.” An additional 28% described this training as having “limited effectiveness.”

Discussion

The data presented by Madaus and Shaw (2006a, 2006b) and Madaus et al. (2005) indicated that at the school level, leadership of Section 504 activities was mostly the responsibility of related services personnel (e.g., school psychologist, counselor, social worker) or school administrators (e.g., principal, assistant principal). Similarly, Section 504 plans were coordinated by a broad array of school personnel, led by counselors, general educators, school psychologists, and then special educators. Given that section 504 is not a special education law, this would be appropriate if personnel were knowledgeable about implementation of the law. More than 10 years ago, Katsiyannis and Conderman (1994) anticipated that states would provide leadership in developing section 504 guidelines and focus resources on addressing the training needs of district personnel who would be responsible for implementing section 504. According to the data presented by Madaus and Shaw (2006a), this is not the case. Many respondents reported that many districts did not provide training to personnel on section 504 or even distribute section 504 procedures to staff (Madaus & Shaw, 2006a).

This raises questions about whether school personnel have the skills to effectively implement the law. School districts need to make a major commitment to include staff development on Section 504 for all school personnel as an area of emphasis for their staff development and school improvement teams. There is also a need for personnel preparation programs for a broad array of professionals to include instruction on implementation of Section 504 in the schools. Although deBettencourt (2002) noted that university faculty should be training students about the legal requirements of Section 504, preservice and in-service teachers currently may complete their training with a very limited understanding of it. As deBettencourt stated, “We are doing a disservice to these teachers by not including in their preparation a clear understanding of the differences between Section 504 and IDEA” (2002, p. 23).

Implications for Personnel Preparation

Special Education Teachers

Although it is appropriate for a broad range of professionals to have responsibility for implementing Section 504, special education personnel are the chief advocates for students with special needs. Their limited involvement with Section 504 should not be from lack of knowledge. The Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) Common Core of Knowledge and Skills for All Beginning Special Educators (Council for Exceptional Children, 2004) requires professional activities to be “consistent with the requirements of law, rules and regulations” (p. 3). Personnel preparation programs have, with good reason, focused on the very prescriptive requirements of IDEA. Unfortunately, Section 504 and the related Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) have received very little attention (Madaus & Shaw, 2006b). It is necessary for programs preparing special education personnel to include specific instruction on the implementation of Section 504 as part of the required program of study. As specified in Table 1, there is an array of content- including knowledge of the law, differences between Section 504 and IDEA, and specific information about Section 504 eligibility, policies, procedures, and student plans-diat need to be provided to fulfill the requirements of CEC’s Common Core (Madaus & Shaw, 2006c). It would be appropriate for agencies that assess professional standards to make this a point of emphasis in the years ahead. In a similar vein, CEC’s knowledge and skills standards for special education administrators (Council for Exceptional Children, 2004) specify knowledge of “laws and policies for general and special education” and the skill to “interpret laws and policies” (p. 1). Since the previous study (Madaus et al., 2005) indicated that district special education administrators were confident in their knowledge of Section 504, it is probably more critical that they be able to fulfill the standard to “design and implement professional development” (p. 2) regarding Section 504 for general education administrators and teachers, as well as for special education and related services personnel. Lashley and Boscardin (2003) reinforced the important role of special education administrators, noting that their “challenge will be promoting collaboration between general and special education teachers and administrators to assure that high quality education programs are accessible to all students” (p. 3).

Principals

The school principal or assistant principal often serves as the school-based Section 504 coordinator and is also often involved in coordinating Section 504 meetings and managing developed Section 504 plans (Madaus & Shaw, 2006a). Crockett (2002) noted, however, that building administrators have limited professional training in the area of special education and limited knowledge of the needs of students with disabilities. Crockett also indicated that accreditation guidelines for building administrators do not include expectations of knowledge or skills to fulfill these responsibilities. Bays’s (2004) call for leadership preparation programs for future administrators to integrate “special education knowledge, skills, and dispositions across their curricula” (p. 258) would go a long way toward preparing principals for their critical role as leaders for Section 504 implementation in the schools.

Related Services Professionals

The data reported by Madaus and Shaw (2006a, 2006b) showed that not only were related service personnel involved in Section 504 implementation, they often took a leadership role at the building level. These data make the case that counselors, school psychologists, and social workers should receive extensive preparation (see Table 1) in implementation of Section 504 in the schools. In fact, such preparation would seem to be more critical for these personnel than for special educators and should include a focus on their administrative leadership of school-based Section 504 activities. A text used to prepare school counselors, Transforming the School Counseling Profession (Erford, 2003), offers an excellent example of effective preparation. An extensive chapter on students with disabilities contains productive discussions of Section 504, including differences with IDEA, key concepts (e.g., significant impairment), assessment, and the counselor’s role on the multidisciplinary team. It also includes information on chairing team meetings and presents a sample 504 plan.

General Education Personnel

Many states require a special education or inclusion course(s) or specified content for all personnel to be certified to work in schools (i.e., general education teachers and administrators, related services personnel). The data reported by Madaus and Shaw (2006a) indicated that general education teachers are actively involved in implementing Section 504, particularly in managing Section 504 plans (38%), for which they were reported to be the second most frequently responsible professional group. Although Section 504 is not a special education law, introduction to special education or inclusion courses at the preservice level may be the one opportunity to get Section 504 information to many general educators. Thus, it would seem critical that information on inclusive schools include objectives and activities related to Section 504. However, a review of some of the most widely used inclusion texts (Freund & Rich, 2005; Lewis & Doorlag, 2005; Salend, 2005) revealed appropriately extensive preparation in implementing IDEA but very little information on putting Section 504 into practice in the schools. Although Salend (2005) did include a completed Section 504 plan, none of the texts mentioned above help the practitioner determine eligibility under the law. Authors of such texts are, therefore, urged to include material on the application of Section 504 policies and procedures in future editions.

REFERENCES

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. [section] 12101 a seq. (1990)

Bays, D. A. (2004). Science in the schoolhouse: The critical role of the school leader. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 256- 261.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2004). CEC’s professional standards. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from http:// www.cec.sped.org/ps/ perf_based_stds/knowledge_standards.html

Council of Administrators of Special Education. (1999). Section 504 and the ADA: Promoting student access (2nd ed.). Fort Valley, GA: Author.

Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special education’s role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 157-168.

deBettencourt, L. U. (2002). Understanding the differences between IDEA and Section 504. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34, 16- 23.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1400 et sea. (1975)

Erford, B. T. (2003). Transforming the school counseling profession. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Freund, L., & Rich, R. (2005). Teaching students with learning problems in the inclusive classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Merrill.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. [section]1400 et seq. (2004)

Katsiyannis, A., & Conderman, G. (1994). Section 504 policies and procedures: An established necessity. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 311-318.

Lashley, C., & Boscardin, M. L. (2003). Special education administration at a crossroads: Availability, licensure, and preparation of special education administrators (COPSSE Document No. IB-8). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (2005). Teaching special students in general education classrooms (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Merrill.

Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2006a). The role of school professionals in the implementation of Section 504, Storrs, CT: Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2006b). School district implementation of Section 504 in one state. Physical Disabilities. Education and Related Services, 24(2), 47-58.

Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2006c). Section 504 knowledge and skills. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.

Madaus, J. W., Shaw, S. E, & Zhao, J. (2005). School district practices related to Section 504. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 18(2), 24-29.

Miller, L., & Newbill, C. (1998). Section 504 in the classroom. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. [section] 701 et seq.

Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Merrill.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93- 112 as amended,. 29 U.S.C. [section]794.

Smith, T. E. C. (2002). Section 504: What teachers need to know. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 259-266.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Stan F. Shaw, EdD, is a professor of special education and codirector of the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability at the University of Connecticut. His current interests include transition to postsecondary education, special education policy and law, and personnel preparation. Joseph W. Madaus, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut. His primary areas of interest include documentation of learning disabilities, transition, assessment, and post-school outcomes of adults with learning disability. Address: Stan F. Shaw, Neag School of Education, Box 2064, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2064; email: sfshaw@uconn.edu

Copyright PRO-ED Journals Mar 2008

(c) 2008 Intervention in School and Clinic. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.