This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
January/February 2005

Whatever the rewrite, pay attention to IDEA

by Pamela Jesse

Pamela Jesse is director of student services/ special education with Lockport Township High School District 205.

For nearly two years, the U.S. Congress worked at reauthorizing the federal statutes that govern the education of students with disabilities. For most of that time, the two chambers couldn't agree on a name for the pending legislation, and the two political parties couldn't agree on a number of issues contained in the bill.

But by mid-November, Congress finally passed compromise legislation and sent it to President George W. Bush for his signature.

The House of Representative's version of the Bill (HB1350) was known as "Improving Educational Results for Children with Disabilities." The Senate version (SB1248) was known as "Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003." Republicans focused primarily on attorneys' fees and paperwork reduction, while the Democrats were intent on funding issues and data on students with developmental disabilities.

But school board members should be aware that both houses agreed on several aspects of the legislation: public education must pay more attention and be held accountable for academic improvement of all students, including those who qualify for special educations programs and services.

Shifting focus

The reauthorization of IDEA '97 is intended to help districts shift from a focus on procedural compliance to a focus on student achievement. It is intended to simplify discipline procedures, reduce paperwork, and preserve student and parent rights, as well as provide some funding relief.

A considerable challenge in this revision reflected the need to author a piece of legislation that is in concert with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB is inclusive in its requirement that all students demonstrate adequate yearly progress toward

mastery of state standards for learning and encompasses students with disabilities, economic disadvantage and limited English proficiency.

This means students with disabilities will continue to be required to participate in state and district wide testing programs. And there is renewed pressure to educate all students as close to the general education curriculum as possible.

Another challenge was NCLB's requirement for highly qualified teachers. As passed, the IDEA reauthorization modifies provisions for new special education teachers, according to the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE), allowing more flexibility for those who teach more than one subject. HB1350 had recommended that special education teachers hold both general education and special education licensure. This would have created a problem for secondary-level teachers, who would need to hold certification in both the education of students with disabilities and core curriculum content. Special ed teachers would have needed to declare a curricular area and obtain the requisite number of college credit hours in that subject. This would have necessitated a five-year baccalaureate program at a minimum.

This also would have presented greater difficulty as school districts attempt to staff for unfilled vacancies. A shortage of appropriately credentialed special educators already exists without increasing the requirements for licensure.

More money … maybe

Most school board members are aware that providing services and programs for students with disabilities is an expensive endeavor. Although some state and federal funding is available, these dollars generally only cover a fraction of the actual price. If the House has its way, the new legislation may, in fact, provide additional funding for students with intense, high-cost specialized services.

In addition, for the first time grant dollars may be available for pre-referral interventions for students not yet identified as having a disability.

Nationwide, approximately 14 percent of school age children are identified as having a disability — a figure that seems to grow a few percentage points every few years. This may stem from higher standards for student achievement that leave more and more students functioning below standards. But when coupled with the epidemic number of children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and Bipolar Depressive Disorder, it is easy to see how the numbers grow and grow and grow.

Discipline issues

An area of lengthy discussion in both chambers was related to disciplining students with disabilities. Congress is committed to ease the procedural burden for school districts, while at the same time assuring that students are disciplined with regard for their disabling condition. The use of behavioral assessments and behavior management plans are recommended along with the use of positive behavior interventions. Congress continues to provide emergency placements for students with infractions of drug, weapons or physical aggression toward others.

According to ACTE, "the final legislation does protect a child from discipline if a behavior is the result of the disability, but also provides more flexibility for schools to discipline students when a behavior is not the result of a disability."

In this reauthorization, we also see a change in eligibility requirements for the diagnosis of "Specific Learning Disability." Students will not be found eligible if the determining factor is a lack of instruction in reading or math, and the district must document scientific, research-based interventions before a diagnosis can be made. This change will require educators to be knowledgeable regarding a curriculum that leads to effective gains in reading and math.

Districts will continue to monitor the rights of students with disabilities and their parents. Issues of timelines, notice, parent permission and administrative remedy through due process will be present in the next phase of special education law. Some provisions are recommended, however, to ease the paperwork burden from school districts.

This reauthorization, no doubt, reinforces that all children are entitled to a free, appropriate public education and that decisions about such education should be made collaboratively between the district and the parents in order to render educational benefit.