A Good or Bad IDEA?
The Reauthorization of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Kathy Chandler, Trace Crossings Elementary School, Hoover, Alabama
Published in Focus on Inclusive Eduation, Fall 2003, Vol. 1, # 1

Are we making a change for the better with the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)? As we consider the reauthorization of IDEA, key issues to examine include aligning IDEA with standards in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), reducing litigation, reforming education finance and funding, ensuring school safety, increasing accountability, adding more parental involvement and choices, changing individual education plans (IEPs), improving early intervention strategies, and reducing the disproportionate representation of minorities in special education. Both the House Bill (HR 1350, 2003) and the Senate Bill (S. 1248, 2003) reflect changes in each of these areas. The focus of this article is on those issues that most directly affect classroom teachers: the alignment between IDEA and NCLB standards, and IEP changes and the reduction of paperwork.

Background Information About IDEA

IDEA originated as Public Law 94-142, "The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975." Before this Act, many states excluded children with disabilities from receiving a formal education. Only one in five children with disabilities was enrolled in school. The Act was reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, again in 1997, and now in 2003.

Today, over 6.5 million children ages 3-21 are served every year through IDEA, reflecting a 30 percent rise over the past 10 years. With three out of four special education students in general education classrooms, almost every classroom in the United States will be affected by the reauthorization of IDEA (National Education Association, 2003).

Alignment Between IDEA and NCLB Standards

NCLB was passed into law on January 8, 2002. It affects "virtually every program authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—ranging from Title I and efforts to improve teacher quality to initiatives for limited English proficient (LEP) students and safe and drug-free schools" (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 9).

NCLB altered accountability measures in schools throughout the United States. Several aspects of accountability that have received attention are the definition of "highly qualified" teachers, the use of standardized testing, and the use of "scientifically based" reading programs (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). IDEA has embraced the language and philosophy behind NCLB by including these aspects in its reauthorization (HR 1350, 2003).

Highly qualified teachers are defined as those with a bachelor's degree, state certification, and who have demonstrated content area knowledge through a state evaluation standard (K-12 Education: Highlights of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). This definition has received criticism for its lack of emphasis on pedagogy: a highly regarded teacher with 25 years of experience may not be considered "highly qualified," although a graduating education student who has taken a state test may be.

Increased accountability means increased assessment. Special education students must take the same assessments on grade level as regular education students. In rare exceptions, a child may take an alternative assessment. According to section 612(b)(16) of HR 1350, "participation in assessments adds the requirement that inclusion in assessments applies to NCLB assessments." These assessments will include participation in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, standardized achievement tests in reading and mathematics as well as science by the 2007-2008 school year (K-12 education: Highlights of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).

Albert Einstein once said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." What is being counted in standardized tests? In order to answer that question we have to look closely at test construction. Authors of these tests typically survey basals and textbooks in order to determine what they consider to be important test questions, which then are tried out in a variety of schools. Those questions that most students get right or wrong are discarded in order to develop a normal curve of distribution. Remaining questions could be of little or great importance; most assess low-level skills. Critical thinking and application activities are all but absent. The normal curve of distribution ensures that half of the students score below and half score above the average. It should be obvious what this will mean for students receiving special education services. What cannot be counted in standardized tests is the ability of a child to work with her peers, respect the opinions of others, create and design, engage in democratic principles, develop autonomy, and live a well-balanced life.

Consequences for failure are dire under NCLB. Teachers and administrators are judged by standardized test results. Their jobs, reputation in the community, and federal funding for their schools are at stake. The pressure on students becomes overwhelming, especially for students in special education. Organizations such as ACEI have taken a stand against standardized testing in grades K-2 and question the use of standardized testing for the remainder of the elementary grades (Perrone, 1991).

The term "scientifically based research" in reading instruction is also taken from NCLB. This wording is a reference to research used in the National Reading Panel report (National Reading Panel, 2000a). Section 614(b)(5) of HR 1350 uses this definition to determine eligibility in special education:

In making a determination of eligibility, under Paragraph 4(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such is (a) a lack of scientifically based instruction practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction (as that term is defined in Sec. 1208(3) of the ESEA of 1965 [also known as NCLB]); (b) lack of instruction in math; or (c) Limited English Proficiency.

The determination of a specific learning disability also has changed. Based on Section 614(b)(6) of HR 1350:

(A) In General: Notwithstanding section 607 of this Act, or any other provision of law, when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined under this act, the LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation or mathematical reasoning. (B) Additional Authority: In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a LEA may use a process which determines if a child responds to scientific, research based intervention [emphasis mine].

Scholarly debate has developed over the validity and reliability of the research used in the National Reading Panel report. Joanne Yatvin, one of the panel members, highly criticized the report as being inaccurate and misleading (Yatvin, 2002). Criticism also has been raised by Elaine Garan (2002), Richard Allington (2002), Stephen Krashen (2000), and Gerald Coles (2003) about the research included in the NRP report. The motives of panel members, who may have used the report to support their own research and receive large financial gains, also have been questioned (Kohn, 2002). The rigorous methodology chosen by the panel is impossible to follow. In many cases, there were too few studies to perform a meta-analysis. While this information is revealed in the full, 600-page report, it is not mentioned in the summary documents. In fact, many discrepancies can be found between the full report and the summary (Garan, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000a, 2000b).

In light of this debate, one has to ask why this controversial report is being used to support federal mandates involving the education of our children. Under this determination, will teachers be required to use those programs defined as "scientifically based" in their classrooms? Or, will specific programs be required, in addition to methods and strategies already employed by the teachers? The research that has been deemed "scientifically based" is quantitative research. What about the extensive qualitative research that supports literature-based programs in which authentic, meaningful learning takes place? Will a preference be given to quantitative research over qualitative? If so, the government is supporting one paradigm over another.

IEP Changes and the Reduction of Paperwork

One extensive change that will occur in regard to Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) is the removal of short-term goals and benchmarks. Special education students will be expected to follow the same curriculum as their peers. A comparison of the 1997 IDEA and the House Bill reveals the following contrast:

IDEA (1997) Section 614(d)(ii): An IEP shall include, "a statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives related to (I) meeting the child's needs that result from the child's disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum . . ." HR1350 (2003) Section 614(d)(ii): An IEP shall include, "a statement of measurable annual goals designed to (aa) enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum."

What research or authorities were consulted to support this change? With such a dedication to research, one would think that this information related to short-term objectives would be easy to attain. Although I have put this question to several politicians, I have yet to receive an answer. What assumptions are being made about educators and children? Are special education students failing because teachers have low expectations of their abilities? What will the removal of short-term goals accomplish? What will happen if we set impossible long-term expectations for children, especially since students in special education must now take the same tests as regular education students?

Parents now will be given the choice to develop a multi-year plan that may be in effect for three years [HR 1350, 2003, Section 614(d)(5)]. Rules regarding attendance of IEP meetings by team members are relaxed under HR 1350. Regular education teachers or any other members of the IEP team may be excused by the parent and LEA if attendance of such a member is not necessary [HR 1350, 2003, Section 614(d)(1)(B)]. Meetings may be conducted by alternative means such as videoconferences and conference calls [HR 1350, 2003, Section 614(d)(7)(f)].

Duplication of paperwork is also removed under HR 1350. "Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to require . . . the IEP team to include information under one component of a child's IEP that is already contained under another component of such IEP" [HR 1350, Section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)].

The Status of HR 1350 and S. 1248

HR 1350 passed the House of Representatives on April 30, 2003. The bill then was passed to the Senate Heath, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP). The vote in HELP was bipartisan. The next step is for the bill to be brought to the Senate floor for discussion. Amendments to the bill may be made at this time. If S. 1248 passes the Senate, it and HR 1350 will go to conference where compromises likely will be made (Community Advisory Committee for Special Education, 2003).

Questions and Future Directions To Consider

Is it a good or bad IDEA? There is not a simple answer. Educators have both praised and condemned parts of the reauthorization. Several questions still need to be answered. What role should research play in our curriculum decisions? Should one type of research be valued over another? What are the long-term effects of standardized testing? Will we sacrifice wisdom for specific content knowledge? Do we value correct answers or thoughtful responses? What are the best expectations that we can have for our children receiving special education services? Is there a difference between high expectations and appropriate expectations? How can we help children receiving special education services succeed within the parameters of IDEA and NCLB?

Conclusion

We must take great care in our education policy decisions affecting children. As parents, educators, and administrators, we are child advocates and guardians of those who cannot speak for themselves or do not have the right to vote. Let no one persuade us otherwise. It is our duty to inform ourselves and let our voices be heard on IDEA, NCLB, or any other decision that affects our children's lives.

References

Allington, R. (2002). Big brother and the National Reading Curriculum:
     How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.