That was then this is now

helloHelp
ATTACHED FILE(S)
Take a moment to review the details of this assignment below and gather any necessary files. Once you’re ready to submit your assignment, move on to Step 2.
Assessment Traits
Requires Lopeswrite
Assessment Description
It is important for the special educator leader to understand the history and reasoning behind the laws governing the discipline. This assignment will help you to synthesize your research on the history of special education law, evaluate how the history influenced the purpose and structure of IDEA, and consider possible needed updates and changes to IDEA in the upcoming reauthorization.
General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure the successful completion of the assignment:
· Refer to “Recommendations for Change Public Law 108-446: Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004).” This resource is available on the Internet. One possible link is:https://www.casecec.org/assets/IDEA%20Reauthorization%20Recommendations%20July%202017.pdf
· This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
· Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
· Refer to Chapters 2-4 of thePublication Manual of the American Psychological Association(7th ed.) for specific guidelines related to doctoral-level writing. These chapters contain essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.
· This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.
· You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Directions:Write a paper of 1,500-1,750 words in which you summarize the Council of Administrators of Special Education Recommendations for Change: Public Law 108-446. Evaluate the impact the proposal will have on the purpose and structure of IDEA. Do the following in your paper:
1. Summarize the proposal.
2. Discuss the history of special education law as it pertains to current legislation and laws pertaining to special education.
3. Evaluate the positive and negative impacts of the proposed changes to IDEA.
4. Propose and support any alternative ideas the special education leader might consider.
step 22
Upload Files
Start by clickingUpload Filesin the table below. Make sure to add all of the files required for your submission.
This assignment requires aSimilarity Report.
You can request one within the table after uploading your files. Files submitted to your instructor without aSimilarity Reportwill automatically receive one upon submission.
· Note: Once aSimilarity Reportis created for a file, it cannot be deleted.
step 33
Submit Assignment
Click the checkbox next to any files you would like to submit and click Submit Assignment to send them to your instructor.
Uploaded Files
UPLOAD FILES
File Name
Uploaded Date
Similarity Report
Actions
No files have been uploaded.
SUBMIT ASSIGNMENT
Rubric
Collapse AllRubricCollapse All
collapseSummarize the Proposalassessment
Summarize the Proposal
31.5points
Criteria Description
Summarize the Proposal
5. Target
31.5points
The proposal summary is detailed and insightful.
4. Acceptable
28.04points
The proposal summary is thorough. Research is from original sources; most are current, but some are outdated.
3. Approaching
25.52points
The proposal summary is present, but done at a superficial level.
2. Insufficient
23.94points
The proposal summary is present. Discussion is absent or inadequate.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
The proposal summary is not present.
collapseDiscuss the History of Special Education Lawassessment
Discuss the History of Special Education Law
31.5points
Criteria Description
Discuss the History of Special Education Law as It Pertains to Current Legislation and to Laws Pertaining to Due Process.
5. Target
31.5points
A discussion of the history of special education law as it pertains to current legislation and to laws pertaining to due process is insightful and convincing. Argument is convincing.
4. Acceptable
28.04points
A discussion of the history of special education law as it pertains to current legislation and to laws pertaining to due process is clearly presented. Argument supports claims.
3. Approaching
25.52points
A discussion of the history of special education law as it pertains to current legislation and to laws pertaining to due process is present, but done at a cursory level.
2. Insufficient
23.94points
A discussion of the history of special education law as it pertains to current legislation and to laws pertaining to due process is present. Argument and/or discussion are absent or inadequate.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
A discussion of the history of special education law as it pertains to current legislation and to laws pertaining to due process is not present.
collapseEvaluate the Impact of Eliminating Due Process Hearings on the Current Structure of IDEA.assessment
Evaluate the Impact of Eliminating Due Process Hearings on the Current Structure of IDEA.
31.5points
Criteria Description
Evaluate the Impact of Eliminating Due Process Hearings on the Current Structure of IDEA.
5. Target
31.5points
An evaluation of the impact of eliminating due process hearings on the current structure of IDEA is clearly presented. Discussion is thorough and insightful. Research is from scholarly and current sources.
4. Acceptable
28.04points
An evaluation of the impact of eliminating due process hearings on the current structure of IDEA is clearly presented. Discussion is convincing. Research is from original sources; most are authoritative, but some are outdated.
3. Approaching
25.52points
An evaluation of the impact of eliminating due process hearings on the current structure of IDEA is present, but done at a cursory level.
2. Insufficient
23.94points
An evaluation of the impact of eliminating due process hearings on the current structure of IDEA is present. Discussion is absent or inadequate.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
An evaluation of the impact of eliminating due process hearings on the current structure of IDEA is not presented.
collapsePropose any Alternative Ideas the Special Education Leader Might Consider.assessment
Propose any Alternative Ideas the Special Education Leader Might Consider.
31.5points
Criteria Description
Propose any Alternative Ideas the Special Education Leader Might Consider.
5. Target
31.5points
A proposal of an alternative idea is clearly presented. Argument supports claims and is insightful. Research is from original, current sources.
4. Acceptable
28.04points
A proposal of an alternative idea is clearly presented. Argument is thorough and convincing. Research is from original sources; most are authoritative, but some are outdated.
3. Approaching
25.52points
A proposal of an alternative idea is present, but done at a superficial level.
2. Insufficient
23.94points
A proposal of an alternative idea is present, but incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
A proposal of an alternative idea is not present.
collapseSynthesis and Argumentassessment
Synthesis and Argument
21points
Criteria Description
Synthesis and Argument
5. Target
21points
Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. The synthesis and argument in the paper are of publication caliber.
4. Acceptable
18.69points
Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. Approaching
17.01points
Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
2. Insufficient
15.96points
Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources.
collapseThesis Development and Purposeassessment
Thesis Development and Purpose
42points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Target
42points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The development indicated by the thesis and/or main claim is acceptable for publication.
4. Acceptable
37.38points
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. Approaching
34.02points
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Insufficient
31.92points
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
collapseMechanics of Writingassessment
Mechanics of Writing
10.5points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing
5. Target
10.5points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Acceptable
9.35points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
3. Approaching
8.51points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
2. Insufficient
7.98points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
collapseAPA Formatassessment
APA Format
10.5points
Criteria Description
APA Format
5. Target
10.5points
The document is correctly formatted to publication standards. All research presented is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. The paper could readily be accepted for publication.
4. Acceptable
9.35points
Required format is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Scholarly research accounts for the majority of sources presented and is topic-related and obtained from reputable professional sources. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
3. Approaching
8.51points
Required format is used correctly, although some minor errors may be present. Scholarly research sources are present and topic-related, but the source and quality of some references is questionable. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
2. Insufficient
7.98points
Required format is attempted, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Some included sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
1. Unsatisfactory
0points
Required format is rarely followed correctly. An appropriate number of topic-related scholarly research sources and related in-text citations is not present. No reference page is included. No citations are used.

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more