What's the IDEA?

Written by: Michael S. True, M.Ed

This article is copy protected and should only be reproduced by permission of the author. For information contact me at: mstrue1@hotmail.com .

As a former public school teacher, the commotion surrounding the IDEA, (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), re-authorization grabbed my attention back in the day. This act, composed and signed into law in 1990 by George H.W. Bush, further emphasized the continuing importance in promoting a fair and reasonable approach to educating students with disabilities.

So what are and were the issues?

From Wikipedia - "In practice, IDEA is composed of six main elements that illuminate its main points. These six elements are: Individualized Education Program (IEP); Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Appropriate Evaluation; Parent and Teacher Participation; and Procedural Safeguards. To go along with those six main elements, there are also a few other important components that tie into IDEA: Confidentiality of Information, Transition Services, and Discipline."

It was already federal policy for public schools to provide a free and appropriate education for all students when this new legislation was drafted. (IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990.) Parents and advocacy groups had been working long and hard to move toward a more integrated approach to bringing their children out of institutional settings and providing community-based alternatives. Unfortunately, school systems would initially move toward segregated classrooms and non-inclusive programs as a means of accomplishing this feat. The process of "integration" has evolved tremendously, since the mid 1970's, in many communities. Referring to federal government statutes has armed many families with the means to fight such practices.

The development and use of the IEP, (Individualized Education Plan), has been probably the greatest tool in the provision of appropriate disability-related programs within the public school system. However, despite the obvious benefit of the I.E.P., many school administrators want to push back on its use.

As the new requirements were put into effect, frequently teachers noted that writing up and providing ongoing documentation involved in the IEP process was very time consuming. Surveys indicate that most special education teachers agree with this. Also the meetings that have been associated with this process consume anywhere from a half of a day to one and a half days per week in teacher time. Personally, I have had issue with this element of the process myself. It is not so much a matter of wasted time as it is a matter of not enough time. All teachers have extracurricular activities that take them beyond the regular eight-hour day for which they are paid. Unlike the regular education teacher, the special programs teacher cannot spend their "planning" time in lesson preparation and the gathering of materials. This often occurs on their own time. Ultimately, a teacher's salary is just not commensurate with the amount of work required!

The idea of increasing a teacher's salary to compensate for the additional time is not a new one. The Powers That Be, however, are less than excited about increasing any funding. State and local support has always had its limits. Obviously, the more affluent schools systems can provide higher salaries and additional staffing if they would choose to do so.

On the federal level, every year, Congress agrees on the amount of money to be allocated to the Education Department's annual budget. However, these funds often get tied up. Individual spending Bills are, and continue to be, subject to separate approval. This annual funding is often contingent on the outcome of various committee hearings and meetings, and more often than not, squeezed by political efforts to balance the budget.

A large part of the re-authorization debate on Capital Hill involves money. More money is needed for the ongoing implementation of special programs in every state of the Union. Teacher salaries, additional support staff, materials, adaptive equipment, and administrative costs continue to strain budgets across the board. Current solutions include the use of a voucher system to somehow fix this problem. Some would have us believe that by a magical slight of hand the money problem could be solved by giving each parent a couple of thousand dollars and allowing them to choose the best services available to them in their area. Then, they just plunk that money down and, "viola", all the problems are solved!

How realistic is this in your area? Depending on what is available in your local school districts, sometimes these options are very limited. As far as going to a nearby private school, well, consider that a private school has the option of refusing to take students. This is the hallmark of the term "private".

In my humble opinion, the only thing the voucher system will do is to rob public schools of more and more financial resources. As far back as Thomas Jefferson, the sentiment has been that this country will not be able to maintain its freedom from dictatorial control without its population having an equal opportunity to become educated. The Public School system is critical to this balance of power. If our government allows the segregation of the "haves" and "have-nots" by siphoning off federal moneys to subsidize private schools, this equality will diminish. The quality of education for all public school students will suffer, especially those who are labeled as being disabled.

Another aspect of this IDEA, is the actual process of screening students to determine needs. There is a disproportionate number of African-Americans using special education services. Some would claim this is a new form of segregation. Others claim that this is a result of culture-biased assessments that only put minority groups at risk of failing to be white middle-classed citizens. The creation of multiple testing procedures that pinpoint specific learning disabilities must be created and used consistently throughout the country. Developing and disseminating these tests is very expensive. The question is, "Is it necessary?"

In some school districts this may cause some embarrassment to those who do not want to adjust curriculum standards to embrace different cultural values. However, allowing for any inequality within the system opens the door for additional abuses.

In some instances the lack of appropriate testing can result in services not being provided. Entitlement should not be a questionable aspect of this process. Some federal regulation of placement policies and practices would go a long way towards meeting individual needs within the public schools. Funding provided for standardized assessment and testing procedures would provide additional continuity.

This must also be the case with the use of the I.E.P.. Currently, some schools are telling parents that this document was meant to be a long-term guide, good for three years. Only until recently has this come into being. The I.E.P. has and should remain an annual report with a semi-annual, mid-year review. Changing this process has already brought strong protests from parents and advocacy groups. In many cases, the result of this change in policy has been an increased resistance from school administrator to adding or modifying elements of a student's program, despite changes in the individual's situation.

Over a three-year period, many things can change. Physical conditions, changes resulting from ongoing therapies, medication changes, the advent of new adaptive equipment, and so forth, can be cause for changes in instructional strategies. If school administrators are truly trying to reduce their teachers' burden, then why not assign additional support staff or decrease class sizes? My experience has been that many are looking for ways to get around such increasing financial obligations. Most parents and teachers agree that the I.E.P. has been the primary factor in holding the school system accountable for the services it provides. Curbing this document's responsiveness to changing conditions can only result in more frustration on the part of the parents.

Then there is the matter of recruiting and keeping qualified teachers. As I noted earlier, the special education teacher's salary is far from adequate for the amount of work expected from them. Many of these teachers depend on two salaries to manage their financial affairs. Regretfully, this is true of most teachers, in general. It is even more critical to the special education teacher who knows there is not enough time in the day. The burnout rate is tremendous! There is a desperate need across this country to provide adequately trained professionals to fill this role. Money has to go into this effort.

It is all well and good to give lip service to an area of great need. Passing this, or related policies like the No Child Left Behind federal legislation, (2001). It may have a good ring to it, but in reality it deferred most elements of dealing with public education back to the individual states and provided little additional funding for such endeavors. In the end, it will always be the families who will have to fight for the best educational opportunities for their own children.

I have only touched on a few of the basic elements of this debate in this article. I would encourage anyone interested in this matter to seek out organizations and individuals directly involved in the educational process. Then write your Congressional representatives. Express your concerns and opinions. Only in this way will every student's needs be best addressed.

(C)2003 - 2024 Michael S. True - TruEnergy Enterprises