NEA's Position on IDEA: Funding

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reaches every public school. Approximately 12 percent of public school students receive assistance through special education. These children require special attention and additional resources.

When IDEA was passed in 1975, the law included a commitment to pay 40 percent of the average per-student cost for every special education student. That commitment has never been met. Congress is currently funding IDEA at less than 18 percent.  See the impact on your state of proposals to reduce the federal share.

School districts are being forced to redirect more and more dollars from their general education budget to cover the federal shortfall, which hurts all students — those in general education and those in special education.  Since 1975, the unfunded federal portion has cost local schools and taxpayers more than $300 billion.

 NEA supports this proposal.

Urge your U.S. Senators and Representative to help achieve mandatory full funding of the federal share of IDEA costs.

I'm ready to take action:

I need more info:

• Issue Overview: IDEA
• NEA on the Issues: Special Education

The final Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization bill requires the following:

A. For ALL special education teachers:

• State special education certification or license;
• At least a bachelor's degree;
• Has not had a waiver of licensing requirements "on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis"

B. For new and veteran special education teachers who are "teaching to alternate achievement standards," the above (A), plus:

• Meet the "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB) requirements for an elementary school teacher (i.e., test of basic skills in multiple core content subjects, which may be the test taken as part of special education licensure); OR
• In the case of instruction above the elementary level, has subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction being provided, as determined by the state, needed to effectively teach to those standards.

C. For VETERAN special education teachers teaching multiple subjects (two or more core academic subjects), the above (A), plus the options of:

• Complying with NCLB as is; OR
• Going through a state High Objective, Uniform, State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE), "which may include a single, high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation covering multiple subjects." (Translation: allows states to develop a multi-subject HOUSSE for veteran special ed teachers.)

D. For NEW special education teachers teaching multiple subjects (two or more core content subjects): the above (A), plus be highly qualified in one core area (math, language arts, or science) AND THEN:

• Comply with NCLB, as is, for demonstrating competency in other core subjects they teach; OR
• Go through a state HOUSSE, "which may include a single, high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation covering multiple subjects, not later than two years after the date of employment." (Translation: NEW addition to NCLB — allows states to develop a multi-subject HOUSSE that can be used by NEW special ed teachers and gives them two years from the date of hire to go through it.)

There is also report language that reiterates the guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education, which states that special education teachers who are not providing core content, but are instead providing consultative services to a highly qualified core content teacher, are exempt from the subject matter requirements (for that subject) of the "highly qualified" definition in NCLB and IDEA. This most often occurs when special education teachers go into general education classrooms to adapt instruction or give other instructional or behavioral supports to students with disabilities.

November 19, 2004

On behalf of the National Education Association's (NEA) 2.7 million members, we would like to offer our support for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (H.R. 1350). We believe this legislation includes a number of positive provisions that will help students with disabilities and the educators who serve them, and we urge its passage. Votes associated with this legislation may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 108th Congress.

From the start of this reauthorization process, NEA members have expressed their hope that federal IDEA law could be re-focused on improved learning and services for students, rather than its current focus on paperwork and process. We are delighted that this bill focuses significantly on increasing professional development for educators and reducing the extreme paperwork burdens that keep educators from doing what they love — helping students be all they can be.

We are particularly pleased with provisions that enhance the focus on professional development, early intervention, and paperwork reduction, and with the balanced approach to simplifying IDEA's discipline provisions. We are also impressed with the bill's attempt to improve the partnership between parents, educators, and schools, and to reduce the potential for acrimonious litigation.

While we appreciate the added flexibility this bill offers to teachers in meeting the definition of a "highly qualified" special education teacher , we do remain concerned that the bill's approach will not alleviate the burdens placed on special education teachers, particularly in some states. We look forward to working with the U.S. Department of Education as these provisions are implemented, and hope that states will proceed with approaches that help attract and retain teachers in the special education field, rather than exacerbate current shortages.

In addition, we are disappointed that the federal government continues to fall far short of its commitment to full IDEA funding. We will continue to fight hard for these essential and long overdue resources, and we hope that you will support those efforts in this and future appropriations cycles.

Given the overall positive impact for students with disabilities and special education professionals, we urge Congress to pass this important legislation. NEA applauds the commitment on the part of Members and staff to a bipartisan legislative process. We believe this process has resulted in a positive bill that will make a real difference for special education. We will do our part in ensuring that the law's potential will be harnessed for the benefit of all students with disabilities and their families.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust, Director of Government Relations

Randall Moody, Manager of Federal Policy and Politics

FY05 IDEA Funding

The President's proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 [Oct. 1, 2004 - Sept. 30, 2005] would bring the federal share of IDEA funding only to 20 percent, or one half the 40 percent promised when the legislation was first enacted in 1975. Two bills in Congress seek to remedy this shortfall.

S. 939, IDEA Full Funding Act of 2003

Senators Hagel (R-NE) and Harkin (D-IA) have introduced S. 939 to fully fund IDEA in eight years. See how this bill would benefit your state if it became law.

(All of the state files below are in  PDF Format.
Use Acrobat Reader version 4.0 or higher to view these charts.)

All Fifty States ( PDF, 1 p)
National Totals ( PDF,  1 p)

H.R. 3802, Mandatory IDEA Full Funding Compromise Act

Representatives Bass (R-NH), Bradley (R-NH), Ferguson (R-NJ), and Simmons (R-CT) introduced a similar bill in the House, H.R. 3802. See how this bill would benefit your state if it became law.

(All of the state files below are in  PDF Format.
Use Acrobat Reader version 4.0 or higher to view these charts.)

All Fifty States ( PDF, 1 p)
National Totals ( PDF, 1 p)

No Child Left Behind: Improving Results for Children with Disabilities

Testimony of Rosemary King Johnston

Submitted to the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee

March 3, 2004

Good Morning Chairman Boehner, Mr. Miller, Mr. Van Hollen, and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Rosemary King Johnston and I am a proud veteran of nearly 30 years in the classroom. I taught my first class of children in 1968 — at a time we refer to as before the law. I taught primary age students with disabilities in Massachusetts for a few years and  most recently taught in Harford County, Maryland for 18 years. I am a member of the National Education Association's IDEA Cadre — a group of 27 education practitioners from around the country that prepares and delivers professional development to our members specifically about instructing students with disabilities. I am also the parent of an adult with a disability and actively involved in decision making for a relative who has multiple disabilities, including a significant cognitive disability. These experiences, both personal and professional, have given me a familiarity with the issues affecting educators, parents and students with disabilities in the classroom and the community.

As this Committee is aware, the amendments to IDEA in 1997 resulted in about 6.5 million students with disabilities having access to the general curriculum. This corrected a practice that was happening all too often in our nation's schools — that students with disabilities were being taught in segregated settings, regardless of their individual capabilities to be included in general education classrooms. As a parent, an educator and an advocate, I absolutely agree with the principles embodied in No Child Left Behind that move us beyond IDEA '97 and begin to focus on how we include students, including students with disabilities, in the same accountability system.

Please allow me the opportunity to commend the Department of Education for its final regulation regarding the assessment of students with significant cognitive disabilities under No Child Left Behind. As I understand it, the final regulation allows students with disabilities to be assessed in four different ways and clarifies that the student's IEP team makes the determination regarding the most appropriate assessment instrument for the student. While this is a step in the right direction, there are additional challenges that must be addressed at the school and classroom level. 

The first is reaching all educators with information explaining this final regulation. This will be no small feat, as many states have been slow to implement some of the assessment requirements of IDEA '97, let alone the requirements of NCLB for students with disabilities. Many states have still not developed alternate assessments based upon the state content standards. There is little professional development available to teachers about how to write an effective IEP that is aligned with state content standards and how to include students with disabilities in standardized tests, particularly if the child needs to be assessed in an alternate manner than the state's standardized tests. As a cadre member, I have conducted many workshops for my colleagues, but this requires a national, state and local partnership to provide consistent and ongoing technical assistance and professional development.

To meet part of this challenge, I'd like to suggest to the Members of this Committee something that the Department of Education could do to make it easier for classroom teachers and support professionals to understand the testing regulation. The Department could issue a desktop guide for educators which looks at some sample content standards for a particular grade level and illustrates what a regular assessment of those standards looks like, what an alternate assessment based upon those standards looks like, and what an alternate assessment based upon alternate standards looks like. The desktop guide should also include an explanation of the array of accommodations that should be available for students with disabilities, based upon their individualized education program (IEP).

The second challenge we face is that many standardized tests do not include accommodations in their standard protocol, so any child that takes the regular assessment with an accommodation might not have their scores "counted" in a school's AYP measurement. For example, in many states, students who are blind had the state test read aloud to them. Their scores were invalidated because the test-maker did not include this as a protocol of the test administration. Accordingly, their scores whether they were 95, 100, or 75 were counted as zeroes in their school's AYP calculation.

I have no doubt that many schools, prior to the Department's final regulation, didn't have the opportunity to "count" scores like these in their initial AYP lists when they identified schools in need of improvement.  Therefore, I'd like to suggest that you urge the Department of Education to work with states to ensure that the AYP listings are corrected retrospectively in accordance with this new final regulation. Just as we seek to have students with disabilities included in the assessment programs, so should those students' scores be included in their school's calculations.

I'd also like to suggest that this Committee urge the Department of Education to convene a meeting of education stakeholders and national test developers to discuss what assessments are currently valid and reliable for students with various types of disabilities. The goal of this discussion should be to encourage test makers to update their protocols and expand their test offerings, so that the assessment options in the final regulation are a reality, not just a hope.

Finally, as the members of this Committee are aware, students with disabilities are a very diverse population, some with cognitive disabilities, some with physical disabilities, and some with behavioral issues. There are some children who are not significantly cognitively disabled, but who are currently performing well below grade level. The challenge with NCLB that is not addressed by the Department's final regulation is how to bring these students up to grade level in a way that is not punitive and does not damage the morale and reform efforts currently under way in many of our schools. NCLB gives no credit to a school that raises the level of achievement for this group of students by several grade levels, if that level doesn't meet the state's overall numerical target for all children. For example, what if a school improves the academic performance of a group of children — whether disabled or not — from "below basic" to "basic"? This school may still be labeled in need of improvement, which may inadvertently stigmatize those students who didn't make the AYP target. Shouldn't the school instead be required to develop improvement plans for just the subgroups or individual students who are not proficient? 

And for students with disabilities, why not incorporate a growth model into their IEPs that requires the student begin to close his own achievement gap, that is, his current performance level with grade-level expectations. The House's IDEA reauthorization bill (H.R. 1350) will require IEPs to be aligned with NCLB requirements, so incorporating a growth model into the IEP will require academic progress, but at a pace that is appropriate for the individual student. This individualized approach is the cornerstone of IDEA and can be made to work together with NCLB.

In closing, I'd like to reiterate what I and my colleagues of the National Education Association believe. We believe in the goals of No Child Left Behind. We believe in holding schools accountable for improving results for all groups of children. And we believe in providing parents and communities more information about how their schools and all of their students are doing academically. But in order to make NCLB work for all students — and especially for students with disabilities — we must be able to look at growth in student performance over time, not just a snapshot from a test given on one day of the year. Each of our students deserves the most advanced and accurate determination of their achievement levels, and I am concerned that the current interpretation of NCLB limits our schools' ability to document the real, everyday progress made by students. Our students are more than just a test score and so are our schools. A few common-sense changes to NCLB will not weaken accountability; they will make accountability work for every child. That's the goal of every educator:  great public schools for every child.