Tuning up the IDEA

Teachers want a say in proposed changes.

Teachers "got blindsided" when the federal government did a major overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, says Diana Garchow, one of CTA's representatives on the NEA Board of Directors. It won't happen again.

When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) comes up for reauthorization this year, teachers will be prepared to fight ill-advised changes.

"This time we want to get ahead of the curve and see where this is going," says Garchow, a Bakersfield resource specialist who's chairing CTA's IDEA Task Force. "CTA is extremely concerned about some of the changes that may be coming down the pike this time. The things that will happen under the IDEA reauthorization are very real and could have a big effect on our lives."

Members of the newly appointed task force hope that by making their concerns known now, they can avert problems in the future. The group has been studying many of the changes already proposed for the law's reauthorization, which was supposed to be considered by Congress in 2002, but has been delayed until this year.

The IDEA, which was enacted in 1975 to ensure equal opportunities for children with disabilities, mandates that states and local education agencies provide a "free and appropriate education" for children with disabilities, that their program be based on an individual education plan (IEP), and that they be taught in the "least restrictive environment" possible. Every so often, the IDEA goes back to Congress for a tune-up, or "reauthorization." The last time it was tweaked was in 1997.

The best indication of where this year's IDEA reauthorization might be going can be found in the July 2002 report issued by the President's Commission on Excellence in Education.

"A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families" recommends that special education funding be increased, but not to the 40 percent level originally promised by the legislation. Equally unacceptable to CTA are the following recommendations:

• Link future funding increases to student results.
• Eliminate IQ testing as the primary means of identifying students as learning disabled, and instead emphasize classroom performance and student responses to intervention strategies as the determining factors.
• Offer "performance-based pay" as one of several teacher recruitment strategies.
• Simplify disabilities into three categories: sensory disabilities; physical and neurological disabilities; and developmental disabilities.
• Provide vouchers for special education students who are in "failing" schools or schools that fail to make adequate progress for students with disabilities. (The vouchers would allow students to use federal special education funds and local and state money to attend schools of their choice, including private schools.)

CTA's Task Force on IDEA will be taking positions, developing strategies and working with NEA to lobby at the state and national level.

Having student disabilities narrowed down to just three categories is particularly worrisome to Garchow. "I'm afraid students have some needs that won't be recognized," she says. "It's the ostrich approach - if you hide your head in the sand and don't see it, it doesn't exist."

She sees the Bush administration's agenda as changing the definition of special education and eventually phasing out the need to finance special education at all. Mainstreaming students without addressing their special needs flies in the face of the IDEA. "The term 'appropriate inclusion' means making certain that including a child in a regular class is the best thing for that child's education."

Task force member Judy Jacobs, president of the Ontario-Montclair Teachers Association, is irked that the report does not advocate that the federal government pay its fair share - 40 percent - of the cost of special education.

"The government has never fulfilled its obligation and it's imperative that it do so," says Jacobs, who chairs CTA's Special and Alternative Education Committee. "Funding is a matter of choice and priority. You can't create new programs when you can't pay for the ones you already have. The IDEA has been in effect since the mid-1970s, and we have yet to see the government put its money where its mouth is. At the most, it has only paid 17 percent of special education costs."

"It's time for funding - full funding - of special education," says task force member Ken Johnson, a math and reading resource specialist on CTA's IDEA Task Force and a member of the Association of Colton Educators.

"Funding of special education programs should not be linked to student outcomes, or how students perform," he says. He's worried that students who don't perform well on tests will be punished, and that district funding will be cut in accordance.

"We want to see progress, but we don't want funding tied to outcome at grade level," says Garchow. "Standardized testing is very hard on kids who have special needs. We have kids throwing up because it's so stressful. These kids have problems, and now you are giving them a rigorous test that makes them feel like they are failures."

Some members of the task force worry that the changes proposed under the IDEA reauthorization could be at odds with some of the changes already made under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization. The philosophies behind the two laws are very different, and they could be on a collision course, notes the November issue of The Special Educator.

For example, the ESEA requires all students to demonstrate proficiency, as defined by their states, by 2014 and assumes that the gap among all groups of children - including those with disabilities - will close. The IDEA, on the other hand, seeks progress for the individual child, according to his or her needs, rather than ensuring that everyone meets state standards.

"Under the IDEA, students with disabilities are to be included in state and districtwide assessment programs for accountability purposes to assure students are making progress," notes the publication. "In contrast, under the ESEA, the purpose of testing is to demonstrate students are meeting state standards. That monolithic goal is inconsistent with the IDEA's individualized determinations."

"We would like to see the ESEA and IDEA aligned," says Garchow. If they're not, she fears their conflicting requirements "will result in a huge increase of dropouts who will not be productive citizens."

Another conflict between the two pieces of legislation is the ESEA requirement for a "highly qualified teacher" in every classroom - either credentialed or having passed a rigorous proficiency test in every subject taught - which could make an already severe shortage of special education teachers in this country worse.

It is common for teachers to earn a credential in special education, but most don't hold a credential for every core subject they teach.

Special education teachers must have the ability to teach different modalities for students needing help. Not only do they have to be qualified to teach reading the way it's taught in the regular classroom, explains Garchow, but also they have to know other techniques to teach reading to students who may not "get it" the normal way.

There is a huge need for professional development for general education teachers as well. They need to be trained in how to make appropriate accommodations so students with special needs can be successful.

"There are many things teachers can do, but they need to know what and how to do them," says Garchow. "Just putting special ed students in a regular classroom and saying 'Teach them!' is not going to work."