Congress gears up to address IDEA legislation

2/5/02 – The major education priority on Capitol Hill this year will be the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

IDEA mandates a "free appropriate public education" for all children with disabilities. It requires placement decisions to be made on an individual basis and that children be placed in the "least restrictive environment."

The Bush Administration is not expected to propose legislative language until after the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education submits its final report, slated for July, although it might release a document outlining its priorities before then.

"NSBA hopes we'll end up with legislation that recognizes the federal financial commitment and that gives local school districts greater flexibility in addressing the needs of students with disabilities," says Reggie Felton, NSBA's director of federal programs.

"The legislation also should recognize that the responsibility and accountability rests with local school districts and recognizes the rights of individuals," he says.

Neither the House nor the Senate education committees have introduced legislation on IDEA or announced a schedule of hearings.

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, hopes to start hearings this month. Boehner "has made it clear IDEA is a priority," a committee spokesperson says.

A spokesperson for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, predicts the IDEA reauthorization "will be very contentious," particularly with regard to "funding, discipline, and the overidentification of minorities in special education." Kennedy will again fight for a funding increase, the aide says. "He believes the program is working well but some things may need to be dealt with."

Boehner issued a paper last fall opposing a funding increase for IDEA until efforts are made to "correct the program's flaws," including the overrepresentation of African-American students.

NSBA argued that any attempt to address programmatic issues should not stand in the way of the federal government's agreement to pay its fair share.

Robert Pasternack, assistant secretary for special education and rehabilitative services at the U.S. Education Department, told a meeting of educators and parents last month that one of the biggest problems with IDEA is that teachers spend too much time filling out paperwork. He also says the preparation of special education teachers needs to be improved.

At the first meeting of the President's Commission Jan. 15, Education Secretary Rod Paige directed the group to "discover what works to improve the performance of students with disabilities receiving special education. Talk to other experts. Examine research. Study preventive reading programs, and tell us how Washington can help state and local communities provide excellent special education services."

The commission, chaired by Terry Branstad, former governor of Iowa, is expected to focus on these issues: improving the educational performance of students with disabilities, the benefits of early intervention in reading instruction, funding formulas, research, teacher quality, assessment, and red tape.

The main issue for NSBA is the cost. The federal government has committed to pay 40 percent of local districts' costs for educating students with disabilities, but currently pays only 17 percent. That means many districts must make cuts in other areas of their budgets to meet their obligations under IDEA.

Another issue NSBA will urge Congress to address is the need to transfer financial responsibility for non-educational "related services" to service providers outside school districts. These services include audiology, counseling, early identification and assessment, medical services, occupational therapy, psychological services, recreation, social work, and transportation.

"'Related services' has become one of the more expensive and fastest-growing areas of expenditures in addressing the needs of students with disabilities," Felton says, "and local and state education revenues are not keeping pace with the needs." NSBA believes state and local non-educational agencies–not school districts–should be held accountable for funding these services.

NSBA will propose that costs for due process, hearings, and litigation be reduced by capping the local district portion of plaintiff attorneys' fees.

A typical case involving parents who insist on a private placement while the school district believes it can best serve the students–which is ultimately settled out of court–could result in attorney fees that are greater than the costs of the additional services.

"The real issue for us is that these excessive fees reduce the available funds that could be directed to education services for all children," Felton says. "We believe that capping the plaintiff attorney's fees will not reduce the availability of highly qualified competent lawyers any more than reducing the availability of competent medical services via managed care."

Another priority of NSBA is to "create a safe learning environment" by eliminating the dual discipline policy. Under the current IDEA, it is difficult for educators to suspend disruptive students for more than 10 days if they are in a special education program.

"If two students bring a gun or dangerous weapon to school, should we have to follow separate discipline systems because one student has a disability and the other does not?" Felton says.

According to NSBA, local school districts need to have a single, clear message about weapons and explosives in school, and administrators should have the authority to address violators of this policy without interference from the federal government.

And, Felton adds, "School districts should not have to pay for additional alternative education settings for students whose behavior is not a result of their disability and whose behavior warrants expulsion."

While NSBA wants to improve IDEA, Felton makes it clear that NSBA "does not seek reduced requirements for special education services, less accountability for academic achievement, a return to placing students in more restrictive environments, or federal funding beyond what was promised 25 years ago."