document_title: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

question_text: the first major legislative act for individuals with physical disabilities was passed in

question_tokens: the first major legislative act for individuals with physical disabilities was passed in

text: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

text: Background[edit]

text: Before the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was enacted in 1975, U.S. public schools accommodated only 1 out of 5 children with disabilities.[3] Until that time, many states had laws that explicitly excluded children with certain types of disabilities from attending public school, including children who were blind, deaf, and children labeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally retarded."[4] At the time the EHA was enacted, more than 1 million children in the U.S. had no access to the public school system.[4] Many of these children lived at state institutions where they received limited or no educational or rehabilitation services.[5] Another 3.5 million children attended school but were “warehoused” in segregated facilities and received little or no effective instruction.[4] As of 2006, more than 6 million children in the U.S. receive special education services through IDEA.[6]

text: Historical Context[edit]

text: In 1954, the established educational format in the United States of segregating black and white students into separate schools was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court during the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).[7] This caused a great deal of unrest in the political sphere and marks a gateway moment in the Civil Rights Movement. Education was an important aspect of the Civil Rights Movement. The years that led up to the formation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 were marked by strife in the United States, from the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 to the Vietnam war ongoing from 1955 until 1975. On top of those events, the Civil Rights Movement was in full force in the United States. From schools being integrated to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, from Greensboro sit-ins to marches on Washington, equal rights for all was a prevalent ideal. President John F. Kennedy showed interest in mental retardation studies and President Lyndon Johnson used Federal funds to increase research on “at-risk” youth. Early intervention programs for children living in low socioeconomic situations, such as the Head Start Program, began showing up around the country.[8] Education was soon at the forefront of many political agendas.

text: The first legislation which provided relief was the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Congress then enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to alleviate the financial burden created by litigation pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. Public schools were required to evaluate handicapped children and create an educational plan with parent input that would emulate as closely as possible the educational experience of non-disabled students.Students should be placed in the least restrictive environment-one that allows the maximum possible opportunity to interact with non-impaired students. Separate schooling may only occur when the nature or severity of the disability is such that instructional goals cannot be achieved in the regular classroom. Finally, the law contains a due process clause that guarantees an impartial hearing to resolve conflicts between the parents of disabled children to the school system.

text: The act also required that school districts provide administrative procedures so that parents of disabled children could dispute decisions made about their children’s education. Once the administrative efforts were exhausted, parents were then authorized to seek judicial review of the administration’s decision

text: 17 years later, in 1990, the EHA was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in order to place more focus on the individual, as opposed to a condition that individual may have.[9] The IDEA also had many improvements on the EHA, such as promoting research and technology development, details on transition programs for students post-high school and programs that educate children in their neighborhood schools, as opposed to separate schools.[10]

text: Six Pillars of IDEA[edit]

text: Individualized Education Program (IEP)[edit]

text: "The basis for the handicapped child's entitlement to an individualized and appropriate education is the individualized educational program ("IEP"), that a school system must design to meet the unique needs of each child with a disability." Phillip C. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 701 F. 3d 691, 694 (11th Cir. 2012), citing Doe v. Ala. State Dep't of Educ., 915 F.2d 651, 654 (11th Cir. 1990) and Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 524 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988) (underscoring the importance of the IEP by describing it as "the centerpiece of the statute's education delivery system for disabled children"). The act requires that public schools create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student who is found to be eligible under both the federal and state eligibility/disability standards. The IEP is the cornerstone of a student's educational program. It specifies the services to be provided and how often, describes the student's present levels of performance and how the student's disabilities affect academic performance and specifies accommodations and modifications to be provided for the student.[11]

text: An IEP must be designed to meet the unique educational needs of that one child in the Least Restrictive Environment appropriate to the needs of that child. When a child qualifies for services, an IEP team is convened to design an education plan. In addition to the child’s parents, the IEP team must include at least one of the child’s regular education teachers (if applicable), a special education teacher, someone who can interpret the educational implications of the child’s evaluation, such as a school psychologist, any related service personnel deemed appropriate or necessary, and an administrator or CSE (Committee of Special Education) representative who has adequate knowledge of the availability of services in the district and the authority to commit those services on behalf of the child. Parents are considered to be equal members of the IEP team along with the school staff. Based on the full educational evaluation results, this team collaborates to write an IEP for the individual child, one that will provide a free, appropriate public education. The required content of an IEP is further described in the Individualized Education Program article.

text: Free Appropriate Public Education[edit]

text: Guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), FAPE is defined as "special education and related services that A) are provided at the public’s expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge, B) meet the standards of the State educational agency, C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved; and D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program under section 614(d). (Pub. L. No. 94-142, § 602(9))”[2] To provide FAPE, schools must provide students with an “… education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.”[12]

text: Some of the criteria specified in various sections of the IDEA statute includes requirements that schools provide each disabled student an education that:

text:
Is designed to meet the unique needs of that one student
Provides “ …access to the general curriculum to meet the challenging expectations established for all children” (that is, it meets the approximate grade-level standards of the state educational agency.)
Is provided in accordance with the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) as defined in 1414(d)(3).[13]
Results in educational benefit to the child.[13]

text: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)[edit]

text: The U.S. Dept. Education, 2005a regulations implementing IDEA states: "...to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities including children in public or private institutions or care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling or other removals of children with disabilities from regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily."

text: Simply put, the LRE is the environment most like that of typical children in which the child with a disability can succeed academically (as measured by the specific goals in the student's IEP). This refers to the two questions decided upon in Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2D 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).

text: This court, relying on Roncker, also developed a two-part test for determining if the LRE requirement is met. The test poses two questions:

text:
Can an appropriate education in the general education classroom with the use of supplementary aids and services be achieved satisfactorily?
If a student is placed in a more restrictive setting, is the student "integrated" to the "maximum extent appropriate"? (Standard in AL, DE, GA, FL, LA, MS, NJ, PA, TX).[14]

tag: ol

text: Appropriate Evaluation[edit]

text: Children are placed in special education services through an evaluation process. If the evaluation is not appropriately conducted or does not monitor the information that is needed to determine placement it is not appropriate. The goal of IDEA’s regulations for evaluation is to help minimize the number of misidentifications, to provide a variety of assessment tools and strategies, to prohibit the use of any single evaluation as the sole criterion of which a student is placed in special education services, and to provide protections against evaluation measures that are racially or culturally discriminatory. Overall, the goal of appropriate evaluation is to get students who need help, extra help that is appropriate for the student and helps that specific student to reach his or her goals set by the IEP team.[2]

text: Parent and Teacher Participation[edit]

text: A good family-professional partnership is key for a student to receive the education necessary for success. Parents and teachers need to be willing to work together and communicate to determine the best ways of working with and providing information for a student. Both the family and the teacher work together on the IEP team to determine goals, the LRE, and to discuss other important considerations for each individual student. Throughout the whole IEP and special education process parents and families should be updated and kept informed of any decisions made about their specific student. Parents should also be able to provide valuable input about their student to determine placement and other educational goals. Parents, as well as teachers, are able to challenge any decisions that they feel are inappropriate for the student.[2]

text: Procedural Safeguards[edit]

text: IDEA includes a set of procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their families, and to ensure that children with disabilities receive a FAPE. The procedural safeguards include the opportunity for parents to review their child's full educational records; full parent participation in identification and IEP team meetings; parent involvement in placement decisions; Prior Written Notice; the right of parents to request independent educational evaluations at public expense; Notice of Procedural Safeguards; Resolution Process; and objective mediation funded by the state education agency and impartial Due Process Hearings.[15] IDEA guarantees the following rights to parents:

text:
Access to educational records
Parent Participation (In any and all meetings regarding placement and educational decisions)
Prior Written Notice (Anytime anything will be changed in a student’s IEP their parents must first be notified)
Procedural Safeguards Notice (A written copy should be provided to parents under federal and state law)
Understandable language (Translators must be provided when needed)
Informed Consent (Before any evaluations or services are provided the student’s parents must be informed and agree in writing before the school can move forward)
“Stay Put” Rights (If parents disagree with the school’s decision the student can stay put while the parents and school go through dispute resolution)
Due Process (If a parent has a dispute with the school about their student’s special education placement or teaching a process called due process is used to resolve issues; both parties are then able to tell their sides of the story in a court like setting)
Civil Action (If due process results are not to the liking of the parent or the school a civil lawsuit can be filed)
Mediation (An alternative to due process hearings) [16]

text: Important Relevant Issues[edit]

text: Confidentiality of Information[edit]

text: Throughout the entire IEP process the school has to protect the confidentiality of the student. Some schools may think that providing a teacher with the IEP is a violation of the student’s confidentiality, but the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act States that "if the disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the educational institution or local education agency who have been determined by the agency or institution to have legitimate educational interests" the school does not need written consent from a parent.[17] For more information about confidentiality see the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).[18]

text: Transition Services[edit]

text: At the age of 16 students are required to attend IEP meetings to discuss transition services with the IEP team. Transition services can be started earlier if the IEP teams deems it necessary, but the student must be at the meeting or appropriate measures must be taken to account for student preference.[19] Transition services coordinate the transition between school and post-school activities, such as secondary education, vocational training, employment, independent living, etc. These transitional decisions should be based on the students strengths/weaknesses, preferences, and the skills possessed by the individual. Once a decision has been made on the transition service a plan should be formed to allow the student to be able to fully reach this goal. In order for this to happen objectives, instruction needed, and other skills should be assessed and taken into account to prepare the individual for this transition.[2]

text: Discipline of a Child with a Disability[edit]

text: Pursuant to IDEA, when disciplining a child with a disability, one must take that disability into consideration to determine the appropriateness of the disciplinary actions. For example, if a child with Autism is sensitive to loud noises, and she runs out of a room filled with loud noises due to sensory overload, appropriate disciplinary measure for that behavior (running out of the room) must take into account the child's disability; such as avoiding punishments that involve loud noises. Moreover, an assessment should be made as to whether appropriate accommodations were in place to meet the needs of the child. According to the United States Department of Education, in cases of children with disabilities who have been suspended for 10 or more days for each school year (including partial days), the local education agency (LEA) must hold a manifestation determination hearing within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child resulting from a violation of code of student conduct. The Stay Put law states that a child shall not be moved from his or her current placement or interim services into an alternative placement if the infraction was deemed to cause danger to other students. The LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the individualized education program (IEP) team (as determined by the parent and LEA) shall review all relevant information in the student's file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if the conduct in question was:

text:
Caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child's disability; or
The direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the IEP.

text: If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP team make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP team shall:

text:
Conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan for such child, provided that the LEA had not conducted such assessment prior to such determination before the behavior that resulted in a change in placement described in Section 615(k)(1)(C) or (G);
In the situation where a behavioral intervention plan has been developed, review the behavioral intervention plan if the child already has such a behavioral intervention plan, and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior; and
Except as provided in Section 615(k)(1)(G), return the child to the placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavior intervention plan.[20]

text: If it is determined that a student's behavior is a manifestation of his or her disability, then he or she may not be suspended or expelled. However, under IDEA 2004,if a student "brings a weapon to school or a school function; or knowingly possess, uses, or sells illegal drugs or controlled substances at school or a school function"; or causes "serious bodily injury upon another person," he or she may be placed in an interim alternate educational setting (IAES) for up to 45 school days.[21] This allows the student to continue receiving educational services while the IEP team has time to determine the appropriate placement and the appropriate course of action including reviewing the FBA and the BIP.

text: Prohibition on Mandatory Medication[edit]

text: Due to allegations that school officials coerced parents into administering medication such as Ritalin to their child, an amendment to the IDEA was added called prohibition on mandatory medication. Schools may not require parents to obtain a controlled substance as a condition of:[3][22]

text:
attending school
receiving an evaluation or reevaluation
receiving special education services

text: Alignment with No Child Left Behind[edit]

text: The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 revised the statute to align with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB allows financial incentives to states who improve their special education services and services for all students. States who do not improve must refund these incentives to the federal government, allow parents choice of schools for their children, and abide by other provisions. Some states are still reluctant to educate special education students and seek remedies through the courts. However, IDEA and NCLB are still the laws of the land to date.

text: In looking to align NCLB and the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA there are a few key areas of alignment: requirement of highly qualified teachers, an establishment of goals for students with special needs and assessment levels for these students[23] The alignment of NCLB and IDEA requires that all special education teachers be highly qualified. While the standards for being highly qualified may differ between state or school district the minimum requirements are that a teacher holds a bachelor's degree from a four-year college, is certified and licensed to teach by the state and has taken the necessary tests to indicate competency in one's subject area,[24] although special education teachers are often exempt from such testing. These requirements for highly qualified teachers do not always exist for private schools, elementary or secondary. Next, goals and assessments must be provided that align with students' educational needs. A state is allowed to develop alternate or modified assessments for students in special education programs but benchmarks and progress must still be met on these tests that indicate adequate yearly progress (AYP). In addition, these goals and assessments must be aligned similarly to students enrolled in general education. Finally, in order to make AYP schools may additionally require that schools meet state standards of student retention, in terms of dropout rates and graduate rates for their special education students.[25]

text: Early intervention[edit]

text: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 started the course of action for early intervention programs. In this act, public schools that received federal funding were required to provide equal access to education for children with disabilities.[26] Services for infants and toddlers were not included in the Act until the reauthorization in 1986.[27]

text: On September 6, 2011, the US Department of Education updated the IDEA to include specific interventions for children of ages 2 and under that have disabilities. This section of the IDEA is entitled Part C and serves children with developmental delays or children that have conditions that may lead to developmental delays in the future. Part C is a $436 million initiative that will be administered at the state level.[28]

text: On September 28, 2011, the Department of Education published an article in the Federal Register detailing the updates that have been made to Part C of the IDEA.[29] The regulations are effective on October 28, 2011. Major changes in the regulations are detailed below:

text:
The definition of multidisciplinary has been revised to respect aspects of an updated individualized family service plan (IFSP) team.
Native language is the language normally used by the parents of the child for any child that is deemed limited English proficient
State’s applications to must include how the State plans to follow the payor of last resort requirements in Section 303.511
Distinguishes between pre-referral, referral, and post-referral IFSP activities such as screening, evaluations, assessments, IFSP development, etc.
Specifies that early identification information is provided in the native languages of various population groups in the State
State must report to the public the performance of each Early Intervention System program in relation to the State’s Annual Performance Report

text: More specific details on Early Intervention requirements are found below.

text: Part C of IDEA[edit]

text: Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)[edit]

text: An Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is a strengths-based plan of care for the infant/toddler with a developmental delay or disability. The plan is based on a child and family assessment of strengths and needs as well as the results of multidisciplinary evaluations administered by qualified professionals meeting their state's certification guidelines. The IFSP is similar to an IEP in that it addresses specific services, who will provide them and when/where, how often, etc. and the plan is monitored and updated frequently. Unlike an IEP, however, the IFSP addresses not only the needs of the child but also the needs of the family to meet their family goals and specified outcomes as related to assisting in their child's development. All infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under Part C of IDEA are required to have an IFSP in order to receive services.[30][31] Part C of IDEA is the program that awards grants to every state in the United States to provide early intervention services to children from birth to age 3 who have disabilities and to their families.[30][32] Part C of IDEA also allows states to define "developmental delay" (either as a standard deviation or a percent delay in chronological months) for eligibility. States provide early intervention services to the children who have medically diagnosed disabilities as well as children who exhibit developmental delays.[33] In order to receive funding, participating states must provide early intervention to every eligible child and the respective family, regardless of pay source.[33] Lastly, services from Part C are not necessarily free – early intervention programs, as the payor of last resort, make use of public and private insurance, community resources, and some states implement a "sliding scale" of fees for services not covered by public or private insurance.[34]

text: Goals for an IFSP[edit]

text: The goal of an IFSP is to assist the family in meeting their child's developmental needs in order to the infant or toddler (birth to age three) to increase functional abilities, gain independence and mobility, and be an active participant in his/her family and community. Another goal of early intervention in general is to improve a child's functional abilities, particularly in the domains of communication, cognitive ability, and social/emotional well-being in preparation for preschool and later kindergarten so that extensive special education services will not be necessary for the child's academic success.[35] Once an infant/toddler is determined eligible (each state sets its own eligibility requirements), the family identifies whom they would like to participate as part of the IFSP team. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C requires that the IFSP team consist of the family and at least two early intervention professionals from different disciplines (one being the service coordinator) – consistent with CFR §303.343(a)(1)(iv). However, the family may choose to include other members on the team such as the child's pediatrician, an early intervention service provider who may be working with the child, a parent advocate or trusted friend/family member.

text: The IFSP team works with the family to create a "service plan" to address the deficits of the infant or toddler and to assist the family in meeting their goals for their child's (and family's) development. The team uses information that the family provides as well as the results of at least two evaluations, all available medical records, and the informed clinical opinion of the professionals serving on the IFSP team. An initial IFSP is then created with the family.[34] An IFSP will outline the following:

text:
The child's current levels of physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional, and adaptive development.
The family's resources, priorities, and concerns to help in their child's development.
The desired end result for the child and for the family (goals/outcomes), as well as the steps needed to achieve said end result (objectives). The plan will be monitored and evaluated quarterly to gauge progress. If the family chooses to revise the goals or the plan, they include updates as revised additions to the plan.
The early intervention services for the child and the family. This includes how often and the method of how the child and the family will receive the services.
The different environments that the services will be provided in and justification for services not provided in the "natural environment" as defined by IDEA (the location that a child without a disability would spend most of his/her time). For example, the family might have requested to receive services for the child at a day care center or in their home.
The date the services will begin and their anticipated duration.[36]
The identification of the service coordinator, from the profession most immediately relevant to the infant's or toddler's family's needs, who will be responsible for the coordination and implementation of the plan with the other agencies and persons.[36]
For toddlers approaching the third birthday, the IFSP will include a transition plan outlining the steps, activities, and services needed to support the transition of the toddler with a disability to preschool or other appropriate services.[36]

text: In summary, a key to an effective IFSP is to include outcomes that “address the entire family’s well-being and not only outcomes designed to benefit the child’s development.”[34] For this reason, the IFSP will inherently have goals that are designed for the family as well as for the child.[37] The service coordinator helps the early intervention team of service providers write objectives that meet the family’s priorities and concerns.

text: Differences between IFSP and IEP[edit]

text: When writing the IFSP for a child, the IFSP can (but not always) outline services that are not one of the seventeen mandated early intervention services under Part C of the IDEA.[38] For example, a parent may need counseling services to overcome debilitating depression in order to better care for the infant or toddler, and these services will be written into the family's plan. The IEP (Individualized Education Plan) cannot include services to meet "family goals" but must focus solely on what the child needs to achieve academic success in an educational setting (whether the class or activity is academic or extra-curricular in nature).

text: The Individualized Family Service Plan is different compared to an Individual Education Plan in other key ways:

text:
Eligibility for early intervention (birth to three) under Part C of IDEA is set by each state individually and is often different from eligibility for special education (3–21) under Part B of IDEA.
The IFSP will have goals and outcomes for the family and for the infant's/toddler's development.
Goals on the IFSP may be in non-academic areas of development such as mobility, self-care, and social/emotional well-being.[38] The IEP has goals and outcomes for the child only and related entirely to his/her ability to adapt to and progress in an educational setting.[39]
The IFSP includes services to help a family in natural environment settings (not just in daycare/preschool) but at home, in the community, etc. Services and activities on the IFSP could be tailored to "nap time," "infant swimming lessons at the YMCA," "church outings," etc.[38] The IEP provides services solely on what happens in a pre-school or K-5 school environment or school-sponsored field trip/activity[39]
The IFSP team involves a service coordinator who assists the family in developing and implementing the IFSP.[38] The IEP team also involves the family, but the school district generally does not provide a professional who represents them and provides case management/service coordination. The family will have to communicate with the special education department's designee.

text: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act[edit]

text: The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36) amended CAPTA by requiring that cases of abused and neglected children, or those pre- or post-natally exposed to illegal substances, are referred to early intervention services using IDEA Part C funds.[40] This provision is also reflected in the 2004 revision of IDEA. Specifically, states can apply for grant money from IDEA for specific identification and referral programs.

text: Abused and neglected children are included under IDEA part C due to the growing body of evidence showing increased risk of developmental delay among children in the child welfare system.[40] In 2013, there were an estimated 679,000 victims of child abuse and neglect.[41] Nearly half (47%) were five years or younger.[41] The results of the 2008 National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) reported that children in Child Welfare had below average cognitive, behavioral, daily living, language, social-emotional and social skills than their peers. Slightly less than half of children five and under showed developmental delay.[42] A social and emotional assessment given to caretakers of these children showed 34.1% had a possible problem, and 27.0% had a possible social/emotional deficit or delay compared to 25% and 15%, respectively, in a standardized population.[42] Neurodevelopmentally, children in the child welfare system have similar risks to premature and low birth weight infants.[42] Children in this population scored nearly one standard deviation below the mean of the early cognitive development tool used for assessment. Language skills fell almost one standard deviation below the norm as well. Overall, 42.6% of children aged one to five years showed a need for developmental support, making them potentially eligible for early intervention services.[42]

text: In order to track the adherence to the law, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) required that eligible children and those actually referred to EI be reported by each state beginning in 2014.[40] A 2008 survey of 30 participating states by the IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association showed that 65% of children under three that are abused or neglected are being routinely screened for developmental delays. Fifty percent of respondents did not know whether their referrals for Part C had increased or decreased in the prior year.[43] As noted by many respondents to this survey, the referral system needs more funding and better communication among child welfare personnel.

text: The relationship between IDEA and Section 504[edit]

text: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is another law which assures certain protections to certain students with disabilities. §504 states that:

text: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . 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 . . . .". 29 U.S.C. 794(a).

text: Recipients of this Federal financial assistance include public school districts, institutions of higher education, and other state and local education agencies. The regulations implementing Section 504 in the context of educational institutions appear at 34 C.F.R. Part 104 D.[44] §504 applies to all programs or activities, including schools, that receive federal financial assistance. See 29 U.S.C. 794(b)(2)(B) (defining "program or activity" to include the operations of "local educational agenc[ies]").

text: Eligibility under §504 is different than under IDEA. While IDEA recognizes thirteen categories of disability, §504 defines individuals with disabilities to include any individual with a physical or mental condition which substantially limits at least one major life activity. 29 U.S.C. 705(20). It also includes persons with a history of such a disability and those who are perceived to have a disability. Most, if not all, children eligible under IDEA are also entitled to §504's protections. Regulations promulgated by the Department of Education offer additional guidance regarding the statute's prohibitions in the context of this case. See 34 C.F.R. 104 et seq.

text: Like IDEA, §504's regulations include “child find” provisions. Thus, public school districts have an affirmative duty to identify and evaluate every qualified handicapped child residing in the recipient's jurisdiction who is not receiving a public education and take appropriate steps to notify handicapped persons and their parents or guardians of the recipient's duties under §504. 34 C.F.R. 104.32.

text: The Section 504 regulations require a school district to provide a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) to each qualified student with a disability who is in the school district's jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. Under Section 504, FAPE consists of the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services designed to meet the student's individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students are met.[45]

text: Legislative history[edit]

text: 1975 — The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) became law. It was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990.

text: 1990— IDEA first came into being on October 30, 1990, when the "Education of All Handicapped Children Act" (itself having been introduced in 1975) was renamed "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." (Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142). IDEA received minor amendments in October 1991 (Pub. L. No. 102-119, 105 Stat. 587).

text: 1997— IDEA received significant amendments. The definition of disabled children expanded to include developmentally delayed children between three and nine years of age. It also required parents to attempt to resolve disputes with schools and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) through mediation, and provided a process for doing so. The amendments authorized additional grants for technology, disabled infants and toddlers, parent training, and professional development. (Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37).

text: 2004— On December 3, 2004, IDEA was amended by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, now known as IDEIA. Several provisions aligned IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed by President George W. Bush. It authorized fifteen states to implement 3-year IEPs on a trial basis when parents continually agree. Drawing on the report of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education,[46] the law revised the requirements for evaluating children with learning disabilities. More concrete provisions relating to discipline of special education students were also added. (Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647).

text: 2009— Following a campaign promise for "funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act",[47] President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on February 17, 2009, including $12.2 billion in additional funds.[48]

text: 2009— Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act was signed into law in September 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2009

text: Judicial interpretations[edit]

text: U.S. Supreme Court decisions[edit]

text: Schaffer v. Weast[edit]

text: On November 14, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, that it is the party which requests a hearing under IDEA who has the burden of proof in such an action.

text: Arlington v. Murphy[edit]

text: On June 26, 2006, the Supreme Court held in Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, that prevailing parents may not recover expert witness fees as part of the costs under 20 U.S.C.§ 1415(i)(3)(B).

text: Winkelman v. Parma City School District[edit]

text: On May 21, 2007 the Supreme Court held in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516, that parents have independent enforceable rights under the IDEA and may appear pro se on behalf of their children.

text: Forest Grove School District v. T.A.[edit]

text: The case of Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 129 S.Ct. 2484, argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2009, addressed the issue of whether the parents of a student who has never received special education services from a public school district are potentially eligible for reimbursement of private school tuition for that student under the IDEA.[49] On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court held that parents of disabled children can seek reimbursement for private education expenses regardless whether their child had previously received special-education services from a public school. By a vote of six to three, the Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement whenever a public school fails to make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to a disabled child.

text: Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F.[edit]

text: In Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. 526 U.S. 66 (1999), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court, relying heavily on Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U. S. 883 (1984), ruled that the related IDEA services provision required public school districts to fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing care for disabled children" such as the ventilator-dependent child in this case, despite arguments from the school district concerning the costs of the services."[50]:6 There is no undue burden exemption. Under the Court's reading of the IDEA's relevant provisions, medical treatments such as suctioning, ventilator checks, catheterization, and others which can be administered by non-physician personnel come within the parameters of the special education law's related services.[51] Disability advocates considered the Court decision to be a "substantial victory for families of children with disabilities."[50]:6 Amendments were made in the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 to increase IDEA funding as a result of the case.[50]:6

text: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District[edit]

text: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District is a Supreme Court case about "the level of educational benefit school districts must provide students with disabilities as defined by IDEA.[52] On January 10, 2017, Supreme Court Judges began hearing the case which is described by advocates as "the most significant special-education issue to reach the high court in three decades."[53] On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of students with disabilities saying that meaningful, "appropriately ambitious" progress goes further than what the lower courts had held.[54]

text: In September 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the "potentially groundbreaking case" brought by a "Douglas County couple who claim that their autistic son was not provided an adequate education in the public school system as required by federal law."[55] Access to public education through IDEA was affirmed in 1982 in Board of Education v. Rowley, but the quality of guaranteed education for students with disabilities under IDEA had not been addressed.[55] This Supreme Court case has the potential to "affect the education of 6.7 million children with disabilities" as the Court "struggles "to decide whether it should require public schools to do more under a federal law that calls for them to provide a free education that addresses the children’s needs."[56] In the Solicitor General's Amicus brief the Supreme Court was advised that, "Resolving the conflict among the circuits will ensure that millions of children with disabilities receive a consistent level of education, while providing parents and educators much-needed guidance regarding their rights and obligations."[57]

text: In 2010, Endrew, who was in Grade 5 at the time at Summit View Elementary school in Douglas County School District RE-1, began to exhibit "severe behavioral issues." The parents removed their child from Summit View and enrolled him in a specialized school for children with autism, Firefly Autism in Denver, with an annual tuition of $70,000.[58] The family requested reimbursement for the Firefly tuition claiming the Douglas County School District had not fulfilled the requirements of IDEA. On May 15, 2016, they lost their case before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado with circuit judges Harris Hartz, Timothy Tymkovich, and Gregory A. Phillips presiding.[58] Their argument was that "the federal statute only requires that schools provide students with "some educational benefit.""[55] In an amicus brief submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court was urged to take the case stating that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals " had set the bar — a standard of “merely … more than de minimis” educational benefit — too low."[55]

text: "Thus, for over 30 years, this Court has held that if a State provides a program 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,' then it 'has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more...No parent or educator in America would say that a child has received an 'appropriate' or a 'specially suitable' or 'proper’ education 'in the circumstances' when all the child has received are benefits that are barely more than trivial."

text: Supreme Court Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Anthony M. Kennedy expressed concerns about the implications of implementing IDEA with changes in quality of education standards. Breyer cautioned about potential rising costs of litigation, for example, extraneous lawsuits.[56] Kennedy questioned the financial cost to districts with severely disabled students; Alito considered the burden on poorer school districts.[56]

text: Not all of the eleven circuit courts have considered the issue of standards and in those that have, only two set "meaningful educational benefit" standard.[59] The Supreme Court will decide whether a uniform standard should apply nationally.[53] Alito expressed frustration with the "blizzard of words" produced in the last thirty years of appeals courts hearings which offered different views on standards.[56]

text: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176 (1982) in which the Court held that public schools were "not required by law to provide sign language interpreters to deaf students who are otherwise receiving an equal and adequate education."

text: The lawyer for the parents, Jeffrey L. Fisher, claimed that schools should provide "substantially equal educational opportunities" and in most cases, the costs involve "things like providing Braille textbooks, providing an iPad, providing some specialized instruction by a staff member who’s already on staff...[T]here are going to be some extreme cases....[IDEA] does not permit cost to trump what the act otherwise requires. Schools should provide "a level of educational services designed to allow the child to progress from grade to grade in the general curriculum."[56]

text: On November 21, 2016, 118 lawmakers filed a bicameral amicus brief supporting the rights of students with disabilities to receive a "meaningful" public education.[52][60] Since August 2016, National Education Association (NEA), the United States' largest trade union,[61] former officials of the U.S. Department of Education, National Disability Rights Network, the National Education Association, Advocates for Children of New York, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, and the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools" and others have "submitted amicus briefs in support of the child."[57]


document_title: Nuclear power in India

question_text: where was the first nuclear power stations established in india

root

text: Nuclear power in India

text: History[edit]

text:
Nuclear power generation[9]

Year
Generation (TWh)

2006

17.7

2007

17.7

2008

15.0

2009

16.8

2010

23.0

2011

32.3

2012

33.1

2013

33.1

2014

34.5

2015

38.4

2016

38.0

tag: table

text: Early nuclear physics research[edit]

text: As early as 1901, the Geological Survey of India (GSI) had recognised India as potentially having significant deposits of radioactive ores, including pitchblende, uranium and thorianite. In the ensuing 50 years, however, little to no effort was made to exploit those resources.[10] During the 1920s and 1930s, Indian scientists maintained close links to their counterparts in Europe and the United States, and were well aware of the latest developments in physics. Several Indian physicists, notably Daulat Singh Kothari, Meghnad Saha, Homi J. Bhabha and R. S. Krishnan, conducted pioneering research in nuclear physics in Europe during the 1930s.

tag: p

text: By 1939, Meghnad Saha, the Palit Professor of Physics at the University of Calcutta, had recognised the significance of the discovery of nuclear fission, and had begun to conduct various experiments in his laboratory related to nuclear physics. In 1940, he incorporated nuclear physics into the university's post-graduate curriculum.[11] In the same year, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust sanctioned funds for installing a cyclotron at the University of Calcutta, but various difficulties likely related to the war delayed the project.[12] In 1944, Homi J. Bhabha, a distinguished nuclear physicist who had established a research school at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, wrote a letter to his distant cousin J. R. D. Tata, the chairman of the Tata Group. He requested funds to establish a research institute of fundamental physics, "with special reference to cosmic rays and nuclear physics." The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) was inaugurated in Mumbai the following year.[13]

text: Establishment of atomic energy in India[edit]

text: Following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945, R.S. Krishnan, a nuclear physicist who had studied under Norman Feather and John Cockroft, and who recognised the massive energy-generating potential of uranium, observed, "If the tremendous energy released from atomic explosions is made available to drive machinery, etc., it will bring about an industrial revolution of a far-reaching character." He further noted, however, the difficulties in harnessing nuclear power for peaceful usage, "...a great deal more research work is needed before atomic power can be put to industrial use."[14]

text: In March 1946, the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research (BSIR), under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), set up an Atomic Research Committee under Bhabha's leadership to explore India's atomic energy resources and to suggest ways to develop and harness them, along with establishing contacts with similar organisations in other nations.[15] At the same time, the University of Travancore's research council met to discuss Travancore's future industrial development. Among other matters, the council made recommendations for developing the state's resources of monazite, a valuable thorium ore, and ilmenite, with regard to their applications in atomic energy. The council suggested the project could be undertaken by an all-India programme.[15] This was followed by the deputation of Bhabha and Sir Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar, the Director of the CSIR, to Travancore in April 1947 and the establishment of a working relationship with the kingdom's dewan, Sir C. P. Ramaswami Iyer.[16]

text: Early in 1947, plans were made to establish a Uranium Unit under the Geological Survey of India, to focus on identifying and developing resources of uranium-bearing minerals.[17] In June 1947, two months before Indian independence, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, then Minister for Industry, Supply, Education and Finance in the Interim Government of India, established an Advisory Board for Research in Atomic Energy. Chaired by Bhabha and placed under the CSIR, the Advisory Board included Saha, Bhatnagar and several other distinguished scientists, notably Sir K. S. Krishnan, the co-discoverer of the Raman effect, geologist Darashaw Nosherwan Wadia and Nazir Ahmed, a student of Ernest Rutherford. A Joint Committee comprising the above scientists and three representatives of the Travancore state government was set up to determine how best to utilise Travancore's resources of monazite.[18] Following the independence and partition of India, however, Travancore briefly declared itself independent before acceding to the new Dominion of India in 1949 after a period of intense negotiations.

text: On 23 March 1948, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Atomic Energy Bill in the Indian Parliament,[19] and it was subsequently passed as the Indian Atomic Energy Act. Modelled on the British Atomic Energy Act 1946, the Act granted sweeping powers to the central government over nuclear science and research, including surveying for atomic minerals, the development of such mineral resources on an industrial scale, conducting research regarding the scientific and technical problems connected with developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes, the training and education of the necessary personnel and the fostering of fundamental research in the nuclear sciences in Indian laboratories, institutes and universities.[13] Around the same time, the Government of West Bengal sanctioned the construction of a nuclear physics institute under the University of Calcutta; the cornerstone was laid in May 1948,[20] and the institute was inaugurated on 11 January 1950 by Irène Joliot-Curie.[11]

text: With effect from 1 June 1948, the Advisory Board for Research in Atomic Energy, together with its parent organisation the CSIR, was folded into the new Department of Scientific Research and placed directly under the Prime Minister. On 3 August 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission of India (AEC) was established and made separate from the Department of Scientific Research, with Bhabha as its first chairman.[21] In January 1949, the AEC met to formulate a uniform under- and post-graduate university syllabus for theoretical and fundamental physics and chemistry, to guarantee sufficient numbers of nuclear scientists and to ensure they would receive consistent levels of training and education.[22] In the same year, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research was designated by the CSIR as the hub for all major nuclear science research projects. In 1950, the government announced it would purchase all available stocks of uranium and beryllium minerals and ores, and declared large rewards for any significant discoveries of the same.[23][24] On 3 January 1954, the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (AEET) was established by the Atomic Energy Commission to consolidate all nuclear reactor research and technology-related developments; on 3 August, the Atomic Energy Commission and all its subordinate agencies, including the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the nuclear research institute at Calcutta University, were transferred to the new Department of Atomic Energy and placed under the direct charge of the Prime Minister's Office.[13]

text: The first reactors[edit]

text: At a meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission on 15 March 1955, the decision was made to construct a small nuclear reactor at Trombay. The reactor would be used for training personnel for the operation of future reactors and for research, including experiments in nuclear physics, studying the effects of irradiation and the production of isotopes for medical, agricultural and industrial research.[25] In October 1955, an agreement was signed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Indian Department of Atomic Energy, under which Britain would supply uranium fuel elements for a pool-type reactor to be designed by India.[25] The agreement further ensured the "close cooperation and mutual assistance between the Department and the Authority in the promotion and development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy," and provided for future design and collaboration in the construction of a high flux reactor at a later date.[26] Named Apsara, the reactor was housed in a 100 x 50 x 70 concrete building. India's and Asia's first nuclear reactor, Apsara reached criticality at 3:45 p.m on 4 August 1956 and was inaugurated by Prime Minister Nehru on 20 January 1957.[25][27][28]

text: In April 1955, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent offered to assist in building an NRX-type reactor for India under the Colombo Plan, of which both India and Canada were then members. Prime Minister St. Laurent expressed hopes the reactor would serve India well in the development of peaceful atomic research and development. On behalf of the Indian government, Nehru formally accepted the offer that September, stating the reactor would be made available to any accredited foreign scientists, including those from other Colombo Plan member states.[29][30][31] On 28 April 1956, Nehru and the Canadian High Commissioner to India Escott Reid signed an agreement for a "Canada-India Colombo Plan Atomic Reactor Project." Under the terms of the agreement, Canada would provide a 40 MW CIRUS reactor for solely research purposes, including the initial manufacture and engineering of the reactor, and would also provide technical expertise, including training Indian personnel in its operation. India would supply the reactor site and foundation, and would also pay all "internal" costs, including the construction of the reactor complex, the costs of local labour and any shipping and insurance fees.[32] Under Article II of the agreement, India would make the reactor facilities available to other Colombo Plan nations. Article III stipulated that the "reactor and any products resulting from its use will be employed for peaceful purposes only;"[32] at the time, however, there were no effective safeguards to ensure this clause.[30][31] A further agreement was made with the United States government to supply 21 tons of heavy water for the reactor.[33] Construction of the reactor began later in 1956, with Indian technical personnel sent to Chalk River for training.[34] CIRUS was completed in early 1960 and after achieving criticality in July 1960, was inaugurated by Nehru in January 1961.[35] Construction of a third research reactor, ZERLINA (Zero Energy Reactor for Lattice Investigations and New Assemblies) began at Trombay in 1958; ZERLINA was also commissioned in 1961.[36]

text: By February 1960, deliberations had begun to build India's first nuclear power stations; it was decided the first power plant would be erected in Western India, with locations in Rajasthan, near Delhi and near Madras noted for future electricity-generating reactors.[37] On 11 October 1960, the Indian government issued a global tender for India's first nuclear power station near Tarapur, Maharashtra and consisting of two reactors, each generating around 150 MW of electricity and to be commissioned in 1965.[38] In August 1961, the Indian and Canadian governments agreed to conduct a joint study on building a Canada-India nuclear power plant in Rajasthan; the reactor would be based on the CANDU reactor at Douglas Point and would generate 200 MW of energy.[35] The agreement for India's first nuclear power plant at Rajasthan, RAPP-1, was signed in 1963, followed by RAPP-2 in 1966. These reactors contained rigid safeguards to ensure they would not be used for a military programme. RAPP-1 began operation in 1972. Due to technical problems the reactor had to be downrated from 200 MW to 100 MW.[citation needed] The technical and design information were given free of charge by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to India.[citation needed] The United States and Canada terminated their assistance after the detonation of India's first nuclear explosion in 1974.

text: Recent developments[edit]

text: After successful commissioning of Kudankulam units 1 & 2, an agreement was made with Russia in June 2017 for the units 5 & 6 (2 x 1000 MW) with an estimated cost of INR 250 million (3.85 million US$) per MW.[39][40] Earlier, India had also entered in to an agreement with Russia in October 2016 for the units 3 & 4 (2 x 1000 MW) with an estimated cost of INR 200 million (3.08 million US$) per MW.[39]

text: Nuclear fuel reserves[edit]

text: India's domestic uranium reserves are small and the country is dependent on uranium imports to fuel its nuclear power industry. Since early 1990s, Russia has been a major supplier of nuclear fuel to India.[41] Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves,[42] electricity generation from nuclear power in India declined by 12.83% from 2006 to 2008.[43] Following a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in September 2008 which allowed it to commence international nuclear trade,[44] India has signed bilateral deals on civilian nuclear energy technology cooperation with several other countries, including France,[45] the United States,[46] the United Kingdom,[47] Canada,[48] and South Korea.[49] India has also uranium supply agreements with Russia,[50][51] Mongolia,[52] Kazakhstan,[53] Argentina[54] and Namibia.[55] An Indian private company won a uranium exploration contract in Niger.[56]

text: In March 2011 large deposits of uranium have been discovered in the Tummalapalle belt and in the Bhima basin at Gogi in Karnataka by the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD) of India. The Tummalapalle belt uranium reserves promises to be one of the world's top 20 uranium reserves discoveries. 44,000 tonnes of natural uranium have been discovered in the belt so far, which is estimated to have three times that amount.[57][58][59] The natural uranium deposits of the Bhima basin has better grade of natural uranium ore, even though it is smaller than the Tummalapalle belt.

text: In recent years, India has shown increased interest in thorium fuels and fuel cycles because of large deposits of thorium (518,000 tonnes) in the form of monazite in beach sands as compared to very modest reserves of low-grade uranium (92,000 tonnes).[60]

text: Nuclear agreements with other nations[edit]

text: As of 2016, India has signed civil nuclear agreements with 14 countries: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Namibia, Russia, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.[61] The 48-nation NSG granted a waiver to India on 6 September 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.[62] India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[63]

text: The nuclear agreement with USA led to India issuing a Letter of Intent for purchasing 10,000 MW from the USA. However, liability concerns and a few other issues are preventing further progress on the issue. Experts say that India's nuclear liability law discourages foreign nuclear companies. This law gives accident victims the right to seek damages from plant suppliers in the event of a mishap. It has "deterred foreign players like General Electric and Westinghouse Electric, a US-based unit of Toshiba, with companies asking for further clarification on compensation liability for private operators".[64]

text: Russia has an ongoing agreement of 1988 vintage with India regarding establishing of two VVER 1000 MW reactors (water-cooled water-moderated light water power reactors) at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu.[65] A 2008 agreement caters for provision of an additional four third generation VVER-1200 reactors of capacity 1170 MW each.[66] Russia has assisted in India’s efforts to design a nuclear plant for its nuclear submarine.[67] In 2009, the Russians stated that Russia would not agree to curbs on export of sensitive technology to India. A new accord signed in Dec 2009 with Russia gives India freedom to proceed with the closed fuel cycle, which includes mining, preparation of the fuel for use in reactors, and reprocessing of spent fuel.[68][69]

text: After the Nuclear Suppliers Group agreed to allow nuclear exports to India, France was the first country to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India, on 30 September 2008.[70] During the December 2010 visit of the French President Nicolas Sarkozy to India, framework agreements were signed for the setting up two third-generation EPR reactors of 1650 MW each at Jaitapur, Maharashtra by the French company Areva. The deal caters for the first set of two of six planned reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years.[71] The contract and pricing is yet to be finalised. Construction is unlikely to start before 2014 because of regulatory issues and difficulty in sourcing major components from Japan due to India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[72]

text: India and Mongolia signed a crucial civil nuclear agreement on 15 June 2009 for supply of Uranium to India, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Mongolia making it the fifth nation in the world to seal a civil nuclear pact with India. The MoU on “development of cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of radioactive minerals and nuclear energy” was signed by senior officials in the department of atomic energy of the two countries.[73]

text: On 2 September 2009, India and Namibia signed five agreements, including one on civil nuclear energy which allows for supply of uranium from the African country. This was signed during President Hifikepunye Pohamba's five-day visit to India in May 2009. Namibia is the fifth largest producer of uranium in the world. The Indo-Namibian agreement in peaceful uses of nuclear energy allows for supply of uranium and setting up of nuclear reactors.[74]

text: On 14 October 2009, India and Argentina signed an agreement in New Delhi on civil nuclear cooperation and nine other pacts to establish strategic partnership. According to official sources, the agreement was signed by Vivek Katju, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and Argentine foreign minister Jorge Talana. Taking into consideration their respective capabilities and experience in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, both India and Argentina have agreed to encourage and support scientific, technical and commercial cooperation for mutual benefit in this field.[75][76]

text: The Prime Ministers of India and Canada signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in Toronto on 28 June 2010 which when all steps are taken, will provide access for Canada's nuclear industry to India's expanding nuclear market and also fuel for India's reactors. Canada is one of the world's largest exporters of uranium[77] and Canada's heavy water nuclear technology is marketed abroad with CANDU-type units operating in India, Pakistan, Argentina, South Korea, Romania and China. On 6 November 2012, India and Canada finalised their 2010 nuclear export agreement, opening the way for Canada to begin uranium exports to India.[78]

text: On 16 April 2011, India and Kazakhstan signed an inter-governmental agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, that envisages a legal framework for supply of fuel, construction and operation of atomic power plants, exploration and joint mining of uranium, exchange of scientific and research information, reactor safety mechanisms and use of radiation technologies for healthcare. PM Manmohan Singh visited Astana where a deal was signed. After the talks, the Kazakh President Nazarbaev announced that his country would supply India with 2100 tonnes of uranium and was ready to do more. India and Kazakhstan already have civil nuclear cooperation since January 2009 when Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Kazakh nuclear company KazAtomProm signed an MoU during the visit of Nazarbaev to Delhi. Under the contract, KazAtomProm supplies uranium which is used by Indian reactors.[79][80]

text: South Korea became the latest country to sign a nuclear agreement with India after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) in 2008. On 25 July 2011 India and South Korea signed a nuclear agreement, which will allow South Korea with a legal foundation to participate in India’s nuclear expansion programme, and to bid for constructing nuclear power plants in India.[81]

text: In 2014, India and Australia signed a civil nuclear agreement which allows the export of uranium to India. This was signed in New Delhi during Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's meeting with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 4 September 2014. Australia is the third largest producer of uranium in the world. The agreement allows supply of uranium for peaceful generation of power for civil use in India.[82][83]

text: India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi and UK Prime Minister David Cameron signed Civil Nuclear Agreement on 12 Nov, 2015.[84]

text: In November 2016 Japan signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. Japanese nuclear plant builders saw this as potential lifeline given that domestic orders had ended following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, and India is proposing to build about 20 new reactors over the next decade.[85]

text: Nuclear power plans[edit]

text: As of 2009, India envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 2.8% to 9% within 25 years.[86] By 2020, India's installed nuclear power generation capacity is expected to increase to 20 GW.[87] As of 2009[update], India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors. Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3, and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors.[88]

text: The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years, in part due to the passing of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity.[89] When the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25 GW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45 GW.[90]

text: Risks related to nuclear power generation prompted Indian legislators to enact the 2010 Nuclear Liability Act which stipulates that nuclear suppliers, contractors and operators must bear financial responsibility in case of an accident. The legislation addresses key issues such as nuclear radiation and safety regulations, operational control and maintenance management of nuclear power plants, compensation in the event of a radiation-leak accident, disaster clean-up costs, operator responsibility and supplier liability.[91] A nuclear accident like the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster would have dire economic consequences in heavily populated India as did the 1984 Union Carbide Bhopal disaster, considered among the world's worst industrial disasters.[92]

text: India has already been using imported enriched uranium for light-water reactors that are currently under IAEA safeguards, but it has developed other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a thorium centred fuel cycle. While uranium deposits in the nation are limited there are much greater reserves of thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that thorium can theoretically be utilised in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket is under construction at Kalpakkam by BHAVINI.

text: Uranium used for the weapons programme has been separated from the power programme, using uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 tonnes of uranium per year.[93] Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20 GW by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 tonnes of uranium per annum. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40–50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India's Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tonnes), meaning that India's domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.[93]

text: Former Indian President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam stated while he was in office that "energy independence is India's first and highest priority. India has to go for nuclear power generation in a big way using thorium-based reactors. Thorium, a non fissile material is available in abundance in our country."[94] India has vast thorium reserves and quite limited uranium reserves.[95][96]

text: The long-term goal of India's nuclear program has been to develop an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle. The first stage of this employs the pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR) fueled by natural uranium, and light water reactors, which produce plutonium incidentally to their prime purpose of electricity generation. The second stage uses fast neutron reactors burning the plutonium with the blanket around the core having uranium as well as thorium, so that further plutonium (ideally high-fissile Pu) is produced as well as U-233. The Atomic and Molecular Data Unit (AMD) has identified almost 12 million tonnes of monazite resources (typically with 6-7% thorium). In stage 3, Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWR) would burn thorium-plutonium fuels in such a manner that breeds U-233 which can eventually be used as a self-sustaining fissile driver for a fleet of breeding AHWRs. An alternative stage 3 is molten salt breeder reactors (MSBR), which are believed to be another possible option for eventual large-scale deployment.[61]

text: In June 2014, Kudankulam-1 became the single largest power generating unit in India (1000 MWe).[97][98]

text: Nuclear power plants[edit]

text: Currently, twenty-two nuclear power reactors have a total install capacity of 6,780 MW (3.5% of total installed base).[99][100]

text:
Operational nuclear power plants in India

Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity
(MW)

Kaiga
NPCIL
Karnataka
PHWR
220 x 4
880

Kakrapar
NPCIL
Gujarat
PHWR
220 x 2
440

Kudankulam[101]
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
VVER-1000
1000 x 2
2,000

Madras (Kalpakkam)
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
PHWR
220 x 2
440

Narora
NPCIL
Uttar Pradesh
PHWR
220 x 2
440

Rajasthan
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
100 x 1
200 x 1
220 x 4
1,180

Tarapur
NPCIL
Maharashtra
BWR
PHWR
160 x 2
540 x 2
1,400

Total

6,780

text:
Nuclear power plants and reactors under construction in India[102][103]

Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity
(MW)
Expected Commercial Operation

Kakrapar Unit 3 and 4
NPCIL
Gujarat
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400
2018[104]

Kudankulam[103]
NPCIL
Tamil Nadu
VVER-1000
1000 x 2
2,000[105]
2022-2023

Madras (Kalpakkam)[106]
Bhavini
Tamil Nadu
PFBR
500 x 1
500
early 2018

Rajasthan Unit 7 and 8
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400
Unit 7: unknown
Unit 8: unknown

Total

5,300

text:
Planned nuclear power plants in India[105][107][108]

Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity
(MW)

Jaitapur[109]

Maharashtra
EPR
1650 x 6
9,900

Kovvada[110][111]

Andhra Pradesh
AP1000
1100 x 6
6,600

t.b.d. (was Mithi Virdi (Viradi))

Gujarat
AP1000
1100 x 6
6,600

t.b.d. (was Haripur)

West Bengal
VVER-1000
1000 x 6
6,000

Gorakhpur
NPCIL
Haryana
PHWR
700 x 4
2,800[112][113]

Bhimpur
NPCIL
Madhya Pradesh
PHWR
700 x 4
2,800[114][109]

Mahi Banswara[109]
NPCIL
Rajasthan
PHWR
700 x 4
2,800

Kaiga
NPCIL
Karnataka
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400

Chutka
NPCIL
Madhya Pradesh
PHWR
700 x 2
1,400

Madras[109]
BHAVINI
Tamil Nadu
FBR
600 x 2
1,200

Tarapur

AHWR
300 x 1
300

Total

41,200

text: Note: Some sites may be abandoned if not found technically feasible or due to strategic, geopolitical, international and domestic issues.

text: The details of the nuclear power generation capacity in the country are given below :[115]

text:
Fiscal Year
Total nuclear
electricity generation
Capacity factor

2008–09
14,921 GW·h
50%

2009–10
18,798 GW·h
61%

2010–11
26,472 GW·h
71%

2011–12
32,455 GW·h
79%

2012–13
32,863 GW·h
80%

2013-14
35,333 GW·h[116]
83%

text: Anti-nuclear protests[edit]

text: Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, populations around proposed Indian NPP sites have launched protests that had found resonance around the country.[5] There have been mass protests against the French-backed 9,900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the Russian-backed 2,000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The Government of West Bengal initially refused permission to a proposed 6,000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host 6 Russian reactors.[5][117] But now it's possible for Bengal to have its first nuclear power plant at Haripur despite resistance.[118]

text: A Public-interest litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government’s civil nuclear program at the Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the "staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies".[6][119] But the Supreme Court said it was not an expert in the nuclear field to issue a direction to the government on the nuclear liability issue.[120]


document_title: P45 (tax)

question_text: what does the p stand for in p45

question_tokens: what does the p stand for in p45

text: P45 (tax)

text: In the United Kingdom[edit]

text: In the UK, the front section, Part 1, is given by the old employer to HM Revenue and Customs, who then record the pay and tax details on to the individual's taxpayer record. Part 1A is to be retained by the employee, Part 2 retained by the new employer, and Part 3 taken by the new employer and sent to their tax office. The P45 contains details of earnings and tax paid during the tax year (tax paid in previous years is detailed on the P60 for that year).[citation needed]

text: The "P" code refers to documents in the PAYE series, in the same way that self-assessment documents are prefixed "SA" (e.g., SA100 - Individual tax return) and Tax credits paperwork is prefixed "TC" (e.g., TC600 - Tax credits application).[citation needed]

text: On 4 October 2017, at a Conservative Party conference in Manchester, the Prime Minister Theresa May was handed a P45 slip form by Simon Brodkin as a stunt claiming to be from the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.[3][4]

text: In the Republic of Ireland[edit]

text: In the Republic of Ireland, P45 is also used as a reference to a form used by the Revenue Commissioners with the same function. The administrative procedures in this area are similar; however, the form itself is different in design from the UK version. The form is planned to be eliminated from 1 January 2019, with a move instead towards real-time reporting of tax details to Revenue.[5]


document_title: Dogberry

question_text: who played dogberry in much ado about nothing

text: Dogberry

text: In the play[edit]

text: In the play, Dogberry is the chief of the citizen-police in Messina. He is first seen instructing his constables on their duties. He tells them that it's perfectly fine to sleep on duty, and that if they see a thief, they should not touch him, to avoid becoming defiled by association with crime.[2]

text: During their watch the constables overhear a conversation between two characters, Boraccio and Conrade, one of whom has been part of Don John's plot to discredit Hero. They misunderstand the conversation and arrest the two on the spot for acts of "treason" because they called the Prince's brother Don John a villain.

text: They are brought before the governor Leonato, who is at a loss to understand Dogberry's nonsensical description of the supposed crimes, but allows Dogberry to examine them. His absurd pseudo-legal rhetoric confuses matters even more, but when the Prince arrives at the truth about Don John, the plot is revealed and the arrested man confesses. Dogberry is rewarded for his diligence and leaves.

text: Comic persona[edit]

text: As is usual in Shakespearean comedy, and Renaissance comedy generally, he is a figure of comic incompetence. The humour of Dogberry's character is his frequent use of malapropism, a product of his pretentiousness, as he attempts to use sophisticated terminology with disastrous results. The name of the character is the Elizabethan common name for the fruit of the Common Dogwood (Cornus sanguinea), considered lowly and inferior to other edible berries.[3] Shakespeare appears to be poking mild fun at the amateur police forces of his day, in which respectable citizens spent a fixed number of nights per year fulfilling an obligation to protect the public peace, a job for which they were, by and large, unqualified.

text: Dogberry and his crew, however, are also given a thematic function, for it is they who (accidentally) uncover the plot of Don John and begin the process of restoration that leads to the play's happy conclusion. In that sense, Dogberry's comic ineptitude is made to serve the sense of a providential force overseeing the fortunate restoration of social and emotional order.

text: In addition to frequent malapropism, Dogberry provides the list of charges as a numbered list out of order comprising redundant items:

text:
Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.

text: and, in trying to make sure that the criminals' insulting of him is recorded in the evidence against them, repeatedly insists that it be written down that "[he is] an ass."

text: Elizabethan law enforcement[edit]

text: According to historian John W. Draper, Dogberry's behaviour as constable is an exaggeration of genuine problems with the amateur policing system at the time, in which sleeping during the night-watch was common, and watchmen often tried to avoid confronting criminals.

text: Since the office of constable was supposed to circulate among the commonality, everyone must have known what his duties were at least supposed to be, and so everyone could understand Shakespeare's travesty; and, since honest fellows who quaffed late at the taverns were likely to run afoul of him on the way home, his powers and his procedure were as widely understood as those of our modern state police upon the highways. Indeed, the Queen's own jester, Tarleton, was twice taken into custody for being on the streets after ten, and had to rely on his wit to avoid being jailed.[2]

text: Though the play is nominally set in Sicily, Dogberry's watch appear to be acting under English law of the period, according to which loiterers at night could be arrested under the catch-all charge of vagrancy. Indeed, that would be the legal basis for arresting Boraccio and Conrade: "Though they do not say so, they were in reality arresting the men as vagrants according to Dogberry's injunction". [2]

text: Notable performers[edit]

text: Dogberry was almost certainly created to be performed by William Kempe, as the names "Kemp" and "Kem" are sometimes accidentally substituted for the character-name in the published version of the play.[3]

text: Dogberry was played by the noted comedy actor Samuel Johnson during the 1880s and 1890s for Henry Irving at the Lyceum Theatre in London. John Martin-Harvey described him as the acknowledged Shakespearean clown of his day, and his portrayal of Dogberry (1882 and 1893) reflects this claim.[4][5][6]

text: In a noted 1976 Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) production set in India during the British Raj, John Woodvine played Dogberry "as a member of the local constabulary with a Peter Sellers Indian accent".[7] Christopher Benjamin alternated in the role with Terry Woods in Terry Hands' 1982 production for the RSC.

text: Dogberry was played by Michael Keaton in Kenneth Branagh's 1993 film adaptation and has been played on television by Michael Elphick, Frank Finlay, and Barnard Hughes. He was played by Nathan Fillion in Joss Whedon's 2012 film version.


document_title: List of Chief Ministers of Karnataka

question_text: who is the present chief minister of karnataka state

text: List of Chief Ministers of Karnataka

text:
Chief Minister of Karnataka
IncumbentH. D. Kumaraswamysince 23 May 2018Residence
"Anugraha", Kumarakrupa Road, BangaloreAppointer
Governor of KarnatakaInaugural holder
K. Chengalaraya ReddyFormation
25 October 1947

text: The Chief Minister of Karnataka is the chief executive of the south Indian state of Karnataka. As per the Constitution of India, the governor is a state's de jure head, but de facto executive authority rests with the chief minister. Following elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the state's governor usually invites the party (or coalition) with a majority of seats to form the government. The governor appoints the chief minister, whose council of ministers are collectively responsible to the assembly. Given that he has the confidence of the assembly, the chief minister's term is for five years and is subject to no term limits.[1]

text: Since 1947, twenty-two people have been Chief Minister of Mysore (as the state was known before 1 November 1973) and Karnataka. A majority of them belonged to the Indian National Congress party, including inaugural office-holder K. Chengalaraya Reddy. The longest-serving chief minister, D. Devaraj Urs, held the office for over seven years in the 1970s. The Janata Party's Ramakrishna Hegde has the second-longest tenure, while the Congress's Veerendra Patil had the largest gap between two terms (over eighteen years). One chief minister, H. D. Deve Gowda, went on to become the eleventh Prime Minister of India, while another, B. D. Jatti, served as the country's fifth Vice President. There have been six instances of President's rule in Karnataka, most recently in 2007–08.

text: The incumbent chief minister is the Janata Dal (Secular)'s H. D. Kumaraswamy, who was sworn in on 23 May 2018.

text: Chief Ministers of Mysore and Karnataka[edit]

text:
Colour key for parties

  Bharatiya Janata Party
  Indian National Congress
  Indian National Congress (I)
  Indian National Congress (O)
  Janata Dal
  Janata Dal (Secular)
  Janata Party
  N/A (President's rule)

text:
No[a]

Name

Term[2](tenure length)

Assembly[3](election)

Party[b]

Chief Minister of Mysore[c]

1

K. Chengalaraya Reddy

25 October 1947 – 30 March 1952(4 years, 157 days)

Not established yet

Indian National Congress

2

K. Hanumanthaiah

30 March 1952 – 19 August 1956(4 years, 142 days)

First Assembly (1952–57)(1951/52 election)continued...

3

Kadidal Manjappa

19 August 1956 – 31 October 1956(73 days)

Chief Minister of Mysore (following the state's reorganisation)[d]

4

S. NijalingappaMLA for Molakalmuru

1 November 1956 – 16 May 1958(1 year, 197 days)

...continuedFirst Assembly (1952–57)(1951/52 election)

Indian National Congress

Second Assembly (1957–62)(1957 election)

5

B. D. JattiMLA for Jamkhandi

16 May 1958 – 9 March 1962(3 years, 297 days)

6

S. R. KanthiMLA for Hungund

14 March 1962 – 20 June 1962(98 days)

Third Assembly (1962–67)(1962 election)

(4)

S. NijalingappaMLA for Shiggaon

21 June 1962 – 28 May 1968(5 years, 342 days)

Fourth Assembly (1967–71)(1967 election)

7

Veerendra Patil

29 May 1968 – 18 March 1971(2 years, 293 days)

Indian National Congress (O)

–

Vacant[e](President's rule)

19 March 1971 – 20 March 1972(1 year, 1 day)

Dissolved

N/A

Chief Minister of Karnataka[f]

8

D. Devaraj UrsMLA for Hunsur

20 March 1972 – 31 December 1977(5 years, 286 days)

Fifth Assembly (1972–77)(1972 election)

Indian National Congress

–

Vacant[e](President's rule)

31 December 1977 – 28 February 1978(59 days)

Dissolved

N/A

(8)

D. Devaraj UrsMLA for Hunsur

28 February 1978 – 7 January 1980(1 year, 313 days)

Sixth Assembly (1978–83)(1978 election)

Indian National Congress (I)[g]

9

R. Gundu RaoMLA for Somwarpet

12 January 1980 – 6 January 1983(2 years, 359 days)

10

Ramakrishna HegdeMLA for Basavanagudi

10 January 1983 – 29 December 1984[h](1 year, 354 days)

Seventh Assembly (1983–85)(1983 election)

Janata Party

8 March 1985 – 13 February 1986[i](342 days)

Eighth Assembly (1985–89)(1985 election)

16 February 1986 – 10 August 1988(2 years, 176 days)

11

S. R. BommaiMLA for Hubli Rural

13 August 1988 – 21 April 1989(281 days)

–

Vacant[e](President's rule)

21 April 1989 – 30 November 1989(193 days)

Dissolved

N/A

(7)

Veerendra PatilMLA for Chincholi

30 November 1989 – 10 October 1990(314 days)

Ninth Assembly (1989–94)(1989 election)

Indian National Congress

–

Vacant[e](President's rule)

10 October 1990 – 17 October 1990(7 days)

N/A

12

S. BangarappaMLA for Sorab

17 October 1990 – 19 November 1992(2 years, 33 days)

Indian National Congress

13

M. Veerappa MoilyMLA for Karkala

19 November 1992 – 11 December 1994(2 years, 22 days)

14

H. D. Deve GowdaMLA for Ramanagara

11 December 1994 – 31 May 1996(1 year, 172 days)

Tenth Assembly (1994–99)(1994 election)

Janata Dal

15

J. H. PatelMLA for Channagiri

31 May 1996 – 7 October 1999(3 years, 129 days)

16

S. M. KrishnaMLA for Maddur

11 October 1999 – 28 May 2004(4 years, 230 days)

Eleventh Assembly (1999–2004)(1999 election)

Indian National Congress

17

Dharam SinghMLA for Jewargi

28 May 2004 – 2 February 2006(1 year, 250 days)

Twelfth Assembly (2004–07)(2004 election)

18

H. D. KumaraswamyMLA for Ramanagara

3 February 2006 – 8 October 2007(1 year, 253 days)

Janata Dal (Secular)

–

Vacant[e](President's rule)

8 October 2007 – 12 November 2007(35 days)

N/A

19

B. S. YeddyurappaMLA for Shikaripura

12 November 2007 – 19 November 2007(7 days)

Bharatiya Janata Party

–

Vacant[e](President's rule)

20 November 2007 – 29 May 2008(191 days)

Dissolved

N/A

(19)

B. S. YeddyurappaMLA for Shikaripura

30 May 2008 – 4 August 2011(3 years, 66 days)

Thirteenth Assembly (2008–13)(2008 election)

Bharatiya Janata Party

20

D. V. Sadananda Gowda

5 August 2011 – 11 July 2012(341 days)

21

Jagadish ShettarMLA for Hubli-Dharwad-Central

12 July 2012 – 12 May 2013(304 days)

22

SiddaramaiahMLA for Varuna

13 May 2013 – 15 May 2018  (5 years, 2 days)

Fourteenth Assembly (2013–18)(2013 election)

Indian National Congress

(19)

B. S. YeddyurappaMLA for Shikaripura

17 May 2018 –  23 May 2018(6 days)

Fifteenth Assembly (2018 - present)(2018 election)

Bharatiya Janata Party

(18)

H. D. Kumaraswamy MLA for Channapatna

23 May 2018 – present(72 days)

Janata Dal (Secular)