A Better IDEA

The reauthorized federal education law should help educators reach students faster, more effectively, and with less pointless paperwork.

By Carolyn White

Photos by Greg Pearson

When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) on November 19, Daryl Gates, a middle school teacher from Shreveport, Louisiana, felt like Christmas had come early. "This IDEA will put a smile on the face of the average educator and improve the chance his or her students will get a good education," says Gates, who teaches reading and language arts to seventh- and eighth-grade special ed students at Youree Middle School.

While the new law is far from ideal, it's a big improvement, Gates says. He was following the action in Congress very closely because he's one of 26 educators who make up the NEA special education "cadre." They make sure that NEA lobbyists go armed with real classroom stories when they lobby Congress, and that classroom educators know the latest developments in the law.

An improved IDEA was a top priority for NEA, and to achieve it, Gates and other cadre members helped to mobilize educators as citizen lobbyists working with their own Washington legislators to make sure those writing the law understood the views of those who will carry it out.

In 2002–03, to prepare for the IDEA reauthorization battles that were sure to come, NEA conducted focus group sessions with general educators, special educators, and members of the public, and also received 1,845 surveys from members. The feedback helped to frame strategy for the long legislative campaign.

The campaign resulted in improvements in paperwork rules, early intervention, discipline for violent students, and reducing parent-school litigation (see "What Will the New Law Do? at right).

Other important wins:

• More funding for professional development, both for teachers and paraeducators.
• A new guarantee that instructional materials must be provided to kids in a timely manner. "That should get rid of the horror stories about blind students having to wait eight months for a textbook in Braille," says Patti Ralabate, the former Connecticut speech and language pathologist who heads up NEA's special education efforts.

On the other hand, the law falls short in some important areas, Ralabate says. "They missed the mark with funding and on the definition of highly qualified for special ed teachers," she says.

On the "highly qualified teacher" issue, NEA got half a loaf—more reasonable rules, but not reasonable enough. On funding, there is still no guarantee that Washington will live up to its 1975 promise to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education any time soon.

Some of NEA's biggest victories were in keeping some proposals out of the new law, especially vouchers and a proposal to make all special education instructional paraeducators meet the "highly qualified" requirements of the so-called No Child Left Behind law. Those requirements continue to apply only to Title I paras. 

For more, go to NEA Today Extra.

What Will The New Law Do?

Reduce paperwork.

Before: The paperwork burden ranged from moderate to extreme and teachers complained about having to say the same thing many different ways.

Now: Special ed teachers will report to parents quarterly—a big reduction for many teachers. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) won't have to include any information that is not required by the federal government. The Department of Education is responsible for helping states reduce repetition on forms. Daryl Gates is really excited about this one. "Earlier this week I completed a 25-page IEP," he says. "The new forms should cut down on the reiteration of the same old info over and over again."

The Department of Education is required to develop a model IEP form within two years. Ralabate says the new forms should be "to the point, focusing on what we need to work on, where we need to go, and how to get there." Simple, right? Now we just have to make sure the new idea gets implemented. NEA is asking to have input into the design of the model form.

Encourage early intervention.

Before: Some states and districts provided help for students before formal special education services kicked in, but others didn't. There was no federal funding for pre-special education intervention, Ralabate explains.

Now: School districts can use up to 15 percent of their federal special education dollars for this purpose. "The new law will put teachers in a stronger position to get help when they want it," says Ralabate. "Schools are put on notice that they are supposed to intervene early and not wait until a student has fallen so far behind it's hard to catch up."

Teachers can ask psychologists, social workers, and special ed teachers to come into their classrooms, observe the students in question, and help them devise solutions—all without doing a full special education evaluation.

Create new criteria for getting special education help.

Before: Students were identified as needing special ed services when their IQ scores were much higher than their performance on a standardized achievement test. The rationale: the student has the potential but something is holding him or her back.

Now: The IQ-achievement test difference can still be used, but not as the sole criterion for IDEA eligibility. Teachers will have more flexibility to argue that a student is not learning the curriculum well enough and fast enough.

Some students will get help who would not have been eligible under the old system, Ralabate says.

Improve 'highly qualified' rules.

Before: The No Child Left Behind law implied that secondary school special education teachers had to be "highly qualified" in every subject they taught.

Now: NEA was not successful in getting Congress to agree that a special education teacher who is certified in special education is highly qualified, period.

But the new law at least is better than the old situation. Special education teachers will have a number of ways to demonstrate their competence in academic subjects. Details can be found at NEA Today Extra. 

Provide stronger protection from violent students.

Before: Any student could be removed from class for up to 10 days for dangerous conduct, but a student with a disability could then come back until a decision was made as to whether the conduct was caused by the disability. "In one case, two students, one disabled and one not, stabbed another student in class," Ralabate recalls. "The non-disabled student was immediately expelled. The disabled student was sent back to class pending a determination of whether the disability had caused the behavior. The teacher and the other kids were frightened to death, but it took several days to get that student out of the class."

Now: An extremely violent student can be removed for up to 45 days while the IEP team figures out what to do next.

"There's only a small percentage of students who might cause physical harm in a class, but this change will definitely help teachers feel less helpless when dealing with them," says Mary Binegaer, an NEA special ed cadre member who  teaches in Ohio.

Reduce litigation between parents and schools.

Before: Disputes over the right program to help a child could have escalated quickly into the courts.

Now: After a complaint is filed, school boards and parents or guardians will have a last-chance, face-to-face meeting before the case goes to court. Both sides must present their positions at this point. They generally can't bring up new areas of conflict later on if they do wind up in court.