NEA Priorities for IDEA Reauthorization

The National Education Association is deeply committed to the notion that all students should have access to a free, appropriate public education that promotes student achievement. When parents, teachers, administrators and related service providers work and plan together, focused on matching the educational environment and appropriate supports with the learning needs of students with disabilities and those without, the IEP process yields programs and services that maximize the success of every child.

NEA has long supported the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It is a civil rights law by nature that has opened access to more than six million children who otherwise might not receive the support programs and services they need to be successful. And, it continues to hold great promise for millions more. We want to safeguard that potential by ensuring that all children continue to have access to the general education curriculum and the opportunity to achieve at higher levels.

In addition to a civil rights issue, the delivery of special education is an education policy issue. Given that IDEA '97 has just begun to show its impact, we suggest few statutory changes during this reauthorization process. We view this reauthorization as an opportunity to improve implementation.

Our proposals, which touch upon both aspects -- statutory changes and implementation enhancements -- focus upon these priorities:

• Full Funding
• Workload/Paperwork Standards
• Professional Development
• Early Intervention
• Identification and Eligibility Consistency
• Discipline

Full Funding

NEA supports mandatory full funding of IDEA.

States and localities cannot provide students with disabilities the quality of programs they need and often must cut other critical programs or raise taxes in order to provide mandated services. Congress' unfulfilled promise to fund 40 percent of the costs of special education jeopardizes the quality of education available to all students. The unpaid federal contribution has shortchanged local schools by $11 billion -- funds that could have made a real difference in ensuring that all students had the opportunity to achieve. Congress needs to live up to its original commitment to fully fund IDEA.

Workload/Paperwork Standards

NEA recommends establishing (1) a standard for paperwork that emphasizes efficiency and non-duplication and (2) a reasonable workload standard for special education class sizes and caseloads.

A recurring concern for school districts throughout the country is difficulty in recruiting and retaining special education teachers and related service providers to work with the growing special education population. While there are a number of factors that affect whether individuals select special education as a career and whether they choose to stay, special educators most often cite (1) paperwork and (2) caseload/workload and as the two prime reasons why they decide to exit the public schools.

The typical special education teacher works 53 hours per week, roughly half of that time in direct instruction of students. They spend 2 ½ times as much time on paperwork as general educators (SPeNSE Study, 2001). They feel particularly burdened by requirements to complete unnecessary or redundant administrative forms -- repeatedly supplying the same data or information that has a compliance rather than instructional purpose.

In addition, bulging class sizes and caseloads for special educators and related service providers, usually the result of poor funding or misplaced priorities, cause special education personnel to have unmanageable workloads. They find themselves trying to teach students with significant individual needs in unreasonably large classes. In response to this frustration, they move into general education positions or leave the profession entirely. In fact, special educators leave the profession at almost twice the rate of their general education peers (CEC, Bright Futures for Exceptional Learners).

It is true that many states have addressed the issue of class size and caseloads; however, inconsistency abounds across state lines, within states and between districts. A federal standard included in Part B to provide appropriate staffing practices and caseload/workload limits will ensure all educators the opportunity to successfully address the individual needs of all students.

Professional Development

NEA recommends increased funding for high-quality professional development for all educators.

Numerous reports have confirmed that a key element in student achievement is teacher experience and expertise. Both general and special educators must be well-prepared for their jobs. To provide quality instruction for the highly diverse population of students with disabilities, educators -- including general education teachers, special educators, paraeducators and administrators -- need continuing professional development that is intensive and tailored to their specific needs.

Considering that three out of four students with disabilities learn in general education classrooms for substantial portions of their school day, the roles and responsibilities of general educators, special educators and specialists are changing. Increasingly, the general education teacher is assuming greater responsibility as the primary instructor for many students with various disabilities who are in the general education classroom. Likewise, special educators and specialists find they often function as an instructional "coach" for their general education colleagues, in addition to providing direct instruction to students with disabilities within an unfamiliar environment -- the general education classroom. General education teachers, special educators and specialists need professional development to help them develop new skills in collaborative planning and a greater knowledge base in the classroom-based instructional strategies that work with a variety of learners.

Pre-service and in-service programs should provide coursework and experience for all prospective and practicing educators and service providers in collaboration skills and effective classroom-based instructional methods to meet the diverse learning needs of today's classrooms. To accomplish this, a greater share of Part D monies must be devoted to focused professional development activities.

Early Intervention

NEA recommends increased focus on (1) building shared responsibility for students served during the preschool and early childhood years and (2) enhancing early intervention efforts that provide classroom-based instructional strategies and supports within the general education classroom.

Early intervention is critical. High quality early childhood programs can mitigate the negative effects of biological and environmental factors on child development. Clearly, the early childhood educational programs and support services provided through Part C (Birth to 2) and Part B (ages 3-5) make significant differences in the lives of children and their families. It's important to recognize that a smooth, seamless transition is just as necessary for preschool children moving into kindergarten as it is for students who are in high school moving toward the end of their school career. Interagency and intra-agency coordination is essential as children with disabilities move from Birth to three programs to preschool programs and then into their kindergarten year. NEA believes that building a shared responsibility among all the school and community agencies that service children prior to entrance into kindergarten is essential for their success as public school students.

In addition, many schools now utilize intervention teams (e.g., teacher support teams or child study teams) that assist general educators to analyze student performance and strategize about classroom-based interventions for struggling students. Early intervention teams can assist a general education classroom teacher to provide classroom-based interventions that resolve learning difficulties before they develop into significant learning problems. These teams can also help the classroom teacher to discern whether a student should be referred for an evaluation to determine his/her eligibility for special education services.

Effective early intervention strategies have been shown to substantially decrease the special education referral rate. Yet, many schools don't have early intervention teams or adequate professional development for classroom teachers in early intervention strategies. Furthermore, IDEA does not specifically address the need for quality early intervention efforts in schools.

Strengthening early intervention vehicles -- by building shared responsibility for young children (Birth to 5) and emphasizing the need for classroom-based early intervention efforts -- we can lessen the need for special education in later school years.

Identification and Eligibility Consistency

NEA encourages consistent application of standardized eligibility and identification criteria. Currently, the eligibility criteria used to identify students under certain categories can differ significantly from state to state, district to district and IEP team to IEP team. Where a child lives should not determine whether or not he or she is identified as having a disability.

While upholding the responsibility of IEP teams to make decisions based upon the individual needs of students, IDEA needs to provide consistency across school and district lines. For example, consistency should apply for the maximum age for employing the category of Developmentally Delayed. (300.313). Labeling a child as Emotionally Disturbed or Learning Disabled prior to the age of 8 flies in the face of what we know about neurological development.

In addition, while families are dealing with their child's need for special education services, defining labels at such a young age produces unnecessary stress between families and school IEP teams. Yet, IDEA '97 allows one state to use Developmentally Delayed only to 5 years of age, while another may choose to use it until the age of 8. To resolve this disparity, IDEA should include a common definition of Developmentally Delayed that applies to all children through age 8 and remove the age range variability.

Some populations are disproportionally represented in certain special education categories and may be inappropriately placed in special education programs. We believe that there are many, many others who are not getting the services they need and deserve. Disproportionality is as much affected by where children live as by the incoherent eligibility criteria used for certain disabling categories, particularly Learning Disabled and Emotionally Disturbed. It is inherently discriminatory that a student who moves from one district to another is considered disabled and eligible for special education services in the first and not in the second. IDEA should clearly define a standard for identification and eligibility with distinct criteria -- one that is consistently applied no matter where a child lives.

Discipline

NEA recommends changes in the discipline provisions to provide for removal of dangerous and chronically disruptive students to quality alternative education sites.

Discipline provisions need to be revisited to ensure that the safety of students, teachers and staff are balanced with the best interests of students with disabilities. While dangerous and chronically disruptive students need to be removed from the classroom, we do not support complete cessation of education services. Simply removing students from the classroom without another alternative just moves their problems from the classrooms into the streets.

NEA believes that all students deserve access to the general education curriculum. In addition, the alternative education sites and settings must provide the supports necessary to re-integrate the student into the general education environment successfully. To that end, we recommend increased funding for alternative education sites and the high-quality services that make them effective, including low student-teacher ratios, ample support staff and training, on-site counseling services and a case management approach to student services.

SUMMARY

NEA's priorities for the 2002 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) spotlight issues that are both statutory changes and implementation enhancements. We focus upon these priorities:

• Full Funding
• Workload/Paperwork Standards
• Professional Development
• Early Intervention
• Identification and Eligibility Consistency
• Discipline
  

We recognize that there are several other important issues, such as transition and the inclusion of students with disabilities in state assessments. Furthermore, we urge Congress to maintain strong parent/family involvement. NEA views parents as key partners with school personnel in addressing student needs and developing appropriate programs for student success.