Thursday, November 12, 2009

Changes to IDEA - Principals Weigh In; What Changes Would You Make?

It is time to begin thinking about what changes you would like to see in the special education laws. IDEA will be reauthorized soon. I know that Congress has been busy with a lot of other stuff, but it is eventually going to come up. In our great democracy, the laws should reflect the input of the people. Too often though, the special interests, who are organized and who have political action groups and paid lobbyists and big time financial contributions, are the only ones communicating with members of Congress and the Administration regarding changes they would like to see in the law. I'd like to change that pattern.

The readers of this blog are a diverse group of special education stakeholders. They include: special education teachers, regular education teachers, students who will become teachers, parents of kiddos with disabilities, special education directors, hearing officers, school administrators, advocacy group members, lawyers for school districts, lawyers for parents, children with disabilities, adults with disabilities, law professors, law students, related service providers (like school psychologists and speech/language pathologists), paraprofessionals (like aides), professors of special education, employees of the technical assistance network, feds (like OSEP staff), state education staff, mediators, ALJs, staff of policy makers, school district personnel, and policy wonks. (NOTE: every time I try to list the types of readers, I unfortunately forget some. I'm sorry if I omitted you; please let remind me if I did.)

My thought is that now that we have a large number of subscribers (thanks for that) and legions of folks joining the related social networking groups, we ought to compile our own list of changes we want to suggest for IDEA and present them to the Administration and the congressional committees. So what changes would you like to see? If you could make any changes in the special education laws, what would they be?

One group is already in high gear. On November 3, 2009, The National Association of Secondary School Principals issued their list of recommendations for changes to the main special education law, IDEA. You can read their entire report here. They recommend some good changes including assessing children with disabilities for AYP/NCLB purposes at their instructional level rather than at their grade level, earlier transition planning, expanded professional development, assistance with teacher recruitment and fully funding IDEA. One of their suggestions, though, troubles me some. The principals organization suggests that standards of care be developed for each disability category recognized under IDEA. This suggestion seems to imply that there should be a standard autism program or a standard hearing impairment program. The cate

Keyser's 1898 Bas Relief For State Nor..." style="border: medium none ; display: block;" width="180" height="240">Image by takomabibelot via Flickr

gory of disability under IDEA is only legally relevant for purposes of the eligibility determination. Once a student is eligible, the only question is what are the child's educational needs. That is the function of the IEP. See eg, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320. Indeed, IEP stands for individualized education program. To have standardized programs would defeat one of the key policies and themes underlying the Act.

So what changes would you make? I'm making a list!


  1. I can't say I know the IDEA word for word but I would like to see any school with a disabled child be required to provide ALL of their teachers a certain amount of education around differences in learning as well as requirements to have differences as a significant part of their curriculum. Hope that is helpful...

  2. Thanks Starlife.

    I appreciate your comment.


  3. Advocate 524 was having difficulties, so I agreed to copy & paste his comment. Here it is:

    I would like to see several changes to IDEA. The most urgent, I feel, is the need to finally level the playing field. Procedural safeguards mean nothing if parents are up against bullying school attorneys and administrators who stop at nothing to wear them down. If we are going to have "justice for all," then parents who cannot afford legal representation need better resources.

    Nobody knows how many children are denied FAPE due to a parent's inability to afford an attorney. When going to Due Process, either (a) a parent who cannot afford one should be appointed one, or (b) the hearing should take place under the same rules as the Resolution Session - if the parents do not have an attorney, then neither should the school.

    The other change I see that needs to take place right away is ensuring that compliance divisions, and hearings officers, are not housed under the state's department of education. In addition, those who investigate state complaints should not be the same people who serve as advisers to districts. When schools are found to be out-of-compliance, the decision of a compliance investigator should not end with "have another IEP team meeting." Remedies, like compensatory education and changes to the IEP, should also be addressed.

    I would also like to see more integration between IEPs and 504 plans for students who qualify for both.

    Thanks for allowing me to share. Please sign me "Advocate 524"

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. I think that teachers should be quilified to teach students with any disablility they should have the training,. All teachers should be educated in medical needs as well. I feel that school should have to show what money is coming in for the special education program as well as where all the money is going.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. Special education is defined as "specially designed instruction...." and as such, must be clearly defined and written in the individualized education program(IEP). School personnel who refuse to include such specifics in the document contribute to confusion, repetition, and educational neglect. Without the methodology being included in the IEP, it becomes a useless piece of paper, rather than a tool for promoting consistency and growth.

  8. Hi Anon,

    Thanks for your viewpoint.