Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization

Presentation by Martin Gould,
Senior Research Specialist, National Council on Disability,
at the National Asssociation of Developmental Disabilities Councils
Public Policy Seminar

July 23, 2002

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for inviting NCD to participate in the National Association's public policy seminar. I am Martin Gould, a Senior Research Specialist at the National Council on Disability (NCD). NCD is an independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress on issues affecting Americans with disabilities.

NCD is charged by Congress with monitoring federal statutes and programs pertaining to people with disabilities, and assessing their effectiveness in meeting their needs. Its mission is to provide a voice in the Federal government and to Congress for all people with disabilities in the development of policies and delivery of programs that affect their lives. One of those areas involves special education.

As you know, reauthorization activities for IDEA are underway. Of the various IDEA matters that are likely to be taken up during the reauthorization process this, NCD believes that enforcement, funding, discipline and over representation are key issues.

Current Status of IDEA Implementation

How well is IDEA working?

During the course of five studies on the IDEA, from 1989 to 2000, NCD consistently learned that parents of children with disabilities are enthusiastic supporters of the law. ¹ They think it's a good law. They also told us there is room for improvement on the basics.

In the more than 25 years since its enactment, IDEA implementation has produced improvements in the quality and effectiveness of the public education received by millions of American children with disabilities.

National data show that about 27% -55% (depending on which IDEA Annual Report Table you use) of students who receive special education graduate with diplomas, compared to 75% of their peers in general education. About 27% of students with IEPs who complete high school enroll in post-secondary education compared to 68% of the general student population. And, three to five years after exiting high school, more than half are found to be employed compared to 69% of their peers.

National data also show about 50% of students who receive special education are instructed in regular classrooms, where they have access to the general curricula and more rigorous educational instruction. We believe these outcomes are the result of the U.S. Department of Education's involvement with states and local school districts over the years. We also believe that the educational outcomes could be much better through strengthened federal leadership and consistent implementation and enforcement of the law.

In January, 2000 NCD released Back to School on Civil Rights, a report that analyzed data contained in the DoED's state monitoring reports. The study measured compliance and enforcement in the areas of FAPE, LRE, IEP, transition services, general supervision, procedural safeguards and protection in evaluation of students with disabilities. The study also looked at the enforcement and decision making efforts by leadership at DoED, in relation to 15 years of its own data about noncompliance with the law by state and local school districts. NCD's Back to School report revealed that a majority of states, to different degrees, failed to ensure compliance in all areas.

NCD found that students with disabilities in some states were not provided with transition services and supports, or related services such as speech therapy, physical therapy, or psychological counseling as reflected in their IEPs.

NCD also reported that: "In addition to the testimony of parents, special education advocates attest that inappropriate placement in unnecessarily restrictive settings and a lack of services for students served in regular classrooms persist in many areas.

When students do not receive the IEP services and/or supports they are deemed eligible for they cannot achieve outcomes. Clearly, those children will be left behind.

When school systems continue to categorically and unnecessarily place students (particularly those from diverse backgrounds) in unnecessarily restrictive educational settings, students will be stigmatized, will have difficulty learning, and school systems won't maximize the use of the scarce federal education dollars they receive yearly.

IDEA Reauthorization

NCD's research from Back to School indicated that the ongoing struggles of many students with disabilities, their parents, and advocates to obtain services under IDEA left them with the impression that the Federal Government was not enforcing the law effectively. In far too many cases, parents were still a main enforcement vehicle for ensuring compliance with IDEA -- at all levels of government.

In order to fully and fairly advise Congress and the White House during the IDEA reauthorization process, NCD undertook a comprehensive review and analysis of testimony, briefings, research, and public comments regarding key IDEA issues (i.e., enforcement, funding, discipline, over representation). As a result NCD: (a) issued an IDEA working paper seeking community input to questions related to these key issues, ² and (b) produced an IDEA reauthorization synthesis paper. ³

NCD Reauthorization Findings and Recommendations

Monitoring and Enforcement--There is clear agreement that significant weaknesses are present in the current systems of monitoring and enforcement. A large number of comments addressed the need for change to a less bulky, more timely system focused on solid outcomes for students and more classroom time for teachers. It is important to note that there were no calls to eliminate federal monitoring, rather to improve it. Three themes for solutions emerge in public opinion: 1) Professionals say there is too much needless paperwork leaving too little teaching time. This claim is not supported by parents who believe process is important for implementation; 2) The question of responsibility for the paperwork requirements--federal or state bureaucracy--gives rise to the suggestion that clearer and more concise instructions are needed for States to assist them in limiting paperwork to essential information; and 3) More emphasis should be placed on meaningful monitoring activities leading to improvements in student outcomes. These issues frame a lively public debate over how much paperwork, monitoring, and/or enforcement is necessary for implementation of the IDEA and what level should be responsible for them.

Funding--What, if any, changes should be considered in federal special education funding formulas? Integrated funding, which is the utilization of IDEA funds in general education classrooms, has been a highly controversial and divisive issue for years, with advocates for student rights strongly opposing earmarking any IDEA money for use outside of special education. It was clear that administrators strongly favor such changes in IDEA while the parents do not. A myriad of other recommendations also surfaced--weighted or differential payments based on severity of the disability; elimination of funding supporting segregation; examination of costs vs. expenditures as the funding formula base; creation of federal safety nets for cost overruns; addition of more administrative allowances; and, coordination of funding with other federal programs with IDEA responsibilities, to name a few

Discipline--While the advocacy community has held fast to the discipline amendments of 1997 as the right and equitable answer to the thorny question of disciplinary treatment of students with disabilities. There appears a strong body of evidence in the public statements that the current system is too confusing. Some teachers and administrator's advocate for a unified system of discipline for all students. Others are adamant that the policy must only be "clarified and simplified." Most seem to believe the core principals of the disciplinary policy are important and recommend holding firm to the protections for students so carefully crafted in 1997.

Overrepresentation--Recommended solutions to overrepresentation tended to cluster around a number of themes, the most prevalent being the need for strong early intervention programs for identification and prevention of special education placement. Likewise, interventions in general education, with proper testing, rigorous eligibility criteria, assessments, materials, and high quality instruction. These lead to blended funding streams, which is addressed again in the funding section, although this solution is not universally supported. For successful early intervention and general education prevention the shortage of teaching staff is identified as a major issue and targeted for changes through professional development, parent training and support. Finally, appropriate data collection and manipulation is important, with the issue of disaggregation for race and gender appearing several times.

NCD's review and analysis of IDEA reauthorization activities revealed many recommended changes to IDEA. Some of the recommendations resonate clearly with NCD. Others we believe would threaten the rights of students with disabilities if they were to become law. Based on the review of testimonies and other public statements, along with the other NCD work on IDEA policy and implementation, including our Back to School Report, NCD makes (9) recommendations for the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

In brief, NCD recommendations are that:

IDEA include instructions to the Department of Education to more carefully review state regulations, and provide instructions and technical assistance in instances where the state rules include unnecessary paperwork requirements or regulations to ensure implementation requirements that adhere to the law without creating unnecessary paperwork.

Congress should authorize and fund the Department of Justice to independently investigate and litigate IDEA cases, as well as administer a federal system for handling pattern and practice complaints filed by individuals.

The Departments of Education and Justice be directed to develop national compliance standards, improvement measures, and enforcement sanctions that will be triggered by specific indicators and measures indicating a state's failure to ensure implementation of the law.

To fund enhanced Department of Education-sponsored technical assistance programs activities, IDEA should include a formula that triggers additional funding equal to 10 percent of every IDEA, Part B increase.

The IDEA mandate reporting for all students with disabilities in the state accountability reports and that the IEP be required to address the need for alternate assessments and individualized accommodations.

Congress adopt mandatory funding in keeping with the original commitment from the Federal Government to fund 40 percent of the per pupil cost of special education, and that Congress tie full funding of IDEA to full enforcement of IDEA, specifically, the implementation of the recommendations listed above.

Current discipline requirements be carefully examined and simplified where possible, without eliminating any protections for students with disabilities. No cessation must remain an absolute requirement in the law.

The overrepresentation issue be tackled head on with early intervention and prevention services in the early years and into general education, funded through Title I and other so designated funds.

The law support the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the Department of Education to expand its initiatives to serve non-English speaking groups and/or people with limited English proficiency and create culturally appropriate training materials.

Conclusions

In 1975, Congress crafted a statute designed to produce quality outcomes for students, while providing a system of checks and balances for school systems. The law defines special education as "specially designed instruction" to meet the "unique needs" of students; each IEP should set forth a student's unique needs and individually designed instruction; and, each placement is to be based on the student's IEP and no more restrictive than necessary. If IEPs are based on the unique needs of students, if instruction is individually designed, if IEPs are faithfully implemented, and if the LRE requirements are followed, students will likely achieve valued outcomes while enjoying maximum interactions with their nondisabled peers.

NCD believes that real implementation, compliance with, and enforcement of, these basic IDEA requirements continues to be a necessary condition for student outcomes, as well as reasonable and efficient use of scarce school system resources. Its recommendations for IDEA reauthorization by the 107^th Congress are oriented to strengthening the civil rights aspects of IDEA as well as the law's programmatic aspects.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to share these remarks today.

Notes

1. Back to School on Civil Rights (2000) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/backtoschool_1.html; Improving the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Making Schools Work for All of America's Children Supplement (1996) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/96school.html; Improving the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Making Schools Work for All of America's Children (1995) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/95school.html; Inclusionary Education for Students with Disabilities: Keeping the Promise (1994) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/inclusion.html; Serving the Nation's Students with Disabilities: Progress and Prospects (1993) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/progress.html; and, The Education of Students with Disabilities: Where Do We Stand? (1989) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/stand.html.

2. IDEA Reauthorization: A Working Paper ( February 7, 2002) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/reauthorizations/idea/idea_workingpaper.html.

3. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Where Do We really Stand? (July 5, 2002) http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/synthesis_07-05-02.html.

HOME | FAQs | NEWSROOM | SITE MAP | FEDERAL AGENCIES | RESOURCES

Last Updated: July 24, 2002