DINF Web Posted on December 15, 1997

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1995

Achieving the principles we have outlined for all students with disabilities--aligning IDEA with State and local school reform efforts; promoting high expectations for students with disabilities and access to the regular curriculum in the regular classroom whenever appropriate; and more effectively addressing individual students' needs in the least restrictive environment--will not be possible without improved practice by teachers and administrators and better communication between teachers and families. Implementing these strategies in assessments, IEP practice, evaluation, eligibility, and other critical areas will not be possible unless families, teachers, and principals have the knowledge and training they need to work effectively with students and with each other.

Developing knowledge, training, and better working relationships will require new approaches that build on our increased knowledge of what works for improving the education of children with disabilities. First, the support programs authorized under Parts C through G of IDEA should be strengthened to better support research, technical assistance, parent training, and to better coordinate with research, training, and technical assistance done by others, including other federal agencies. Second, the provisions governing professional development in the support programs should be transformed to create a powerful and coherent system for training all educators working with children with disabilities. Third, specific steps should be taken to strengthen working relationships between families and schools in four critical areas: (1) increasing involvement of families in decision-making, (2) improving information available to families, (3) linking families to other resources and supports in the community, and (4) reducing adversarial dispute resolution by using mediation. Finally, the provisions should assist States in their efforts to improve implementation of IDEA in the context of local and State reform efforts.

The support programs under IDEA have played a critical role in supporting the development of knowledge about the needs of children with disabilities. Each of the 14 programs was created to address a specific need that the field had identified as important. Many of the programs have helped to address those needs. For example, the "systems-change grants" in the areas of transition and severe disabilities have been instrumental in directing attention to, and improving practice in, these critical areas. Research funded by the Office of Special Education Programs, particularly the recent National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education, has greatly expanded our knowledge about how to improve educational results for children with disabilities. The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System (NEC*TAS) has provided coordinated, comprehensive, research-based technical assistance that has effectively assisted States in implementing the preschool grants program under section 619 as well as the infants and toddlers program authorized under Part H.

Why Change in the Programs Is Necessary

While the 14 support programs have made important contributions over the years, most would agree that they are not achieving their potential. The programs could and should do far more in supporting the efforts of families, teachers, schools, administrators, researchers, and institutions of higher education to work together to improve educational results for children with disabilities. Under current law, the 14 separate support programs are free-standing and self-contained. The multiplicity and narrow focus of the programs promote fragmentation. Few programs manage to provide substantial support to, or to have a substantial impact on, more than a few States or districts. Having developed separately over the years to address specific issues, they bear little relationship to each other or even to the key challenges that classrooms, schools and States are facing in the implementation of Part B. Moreover, there are significant gaps in current authorities (e.g., model projects for students with learning disabilities are limited to children under 8 years old; model projects for drop-out prevention are limited to students who are in high school or who are severely emotionally disturbed). In addition, administering the numerous support programs requires significant federal staff. As we work to make government smaller and more efficient, there will be fewer staff to administer these programs--making effective administration problematic and leading to more fragmentation.

We envision a streamlined, comprehensive, and coordinated approach for the support programs that will make more effective use of the resources of the support programs. This new approach would have the following elements. First, the explicit goal and focus of the programs would be to assist in the improvement of the quality of the two major IDEA programs for children age 3 through 21 (Part B) and for infants and toddlers ages birth through 2 (Part H). Second, to meet that goal, the programs would concentrate on developing meaningful and timely information on improving results for students with disabilities and then putting that information into the hands of those who need it: States, school districts, educators, and parents. Third, recognizing the key role that the States play in implementing the law, the programs would enhance the ability of State agencies to carry out their own plans for program improvement by providing flexible resources for reforming and improving critical areas of their education system, with special attention to professional development, based on their IDEA State Improvement Plan. Fourth, the programs would link support for State improvement activities to State efforts to address critical compliance issues such as shortages of adequately trained teachers. Finally, the programs would support the alignment of IDEA with State and local reform efforts by ensuring linkages with other program-improvement activities funded under Goals 2000, IASA, and other efforts that support or provide services to children with disabilities and their families.

In order to promote these goals, the programs would be implemented through broad-based planning involving various constituencies (including parents, teachers, individuals with disabilities, administrators, researchers and policy-makers) to develop a comprehensive, long-range program-improvement agenda that includes research, demonstration, technical assistance, technology, and professional development, in order to improve knowledge and to create better linkages between knowledge and practice.

In recognition of the critical role that States play in implementing IDEA, this program would enhance the ability of State agencies to carry out their own plans for meeting their performance goals established under Part B by providing flexible resources for program-improvement activities based on an IDEA State Improvement Plan. Because an essential element of school improvement is trained teachers and administrators, the program would focus substantial attention and funding on professional development. The new program would build on and leverage the newly enacted program-improvement and professional-development authorities of Goals 2000 and IASA to create a cohesive approach to make effective changes in the education system. This authority would distribute funds to States on a formula basis and would be a driving force for improving the entire IDEA program, by giving States the tools to address systemic change and professional development under IDEA in return for increased accountability for attaining positive results for students with disabilities.

At the heart of this new program would be a State Improvement Plan that would be developed and implemented in conjunction with State agencies for higher education, institutions of higher education or schools of education, relevant certifying organizations, and community-based and other nonprofit organizations, and with the participation of local teachers, parents, administrators, and related-services personnel. In addition, the regional technical assistance centers supported under the Research to Practice program would be available to assist States in developing their plans, to provide them with the most up-to-date research, and to link them to other technical assistance providers who can provide specialized assistance.

The IDEA state improvement plan developed with this broad-based input would identify the critical aspects of early intervention, general education, and special education programs that must be improved to enable children with disabilities to meet the performance goals the State has established under Part B. The plan would then reflect the State's analysis of the performance and needs of children with disabilities and the special education program in the State, including: (1) data on performance of students with disabilities, including performance on State assessments, drop-out rates, and graduation rates; (2) State and local needs for professional development, including personnel shortages; and (3) major findings in Office of Special Education Programs monitoring of the State. Based on this analysis, the State Improvement Plan would include strategies for addressing critical concerns and would provide a framework for systemic efforts to meet the State's performance goals--whether funded under the new support programs, under Part B, or under other federal, State, or local programs.

Each State participating in the program would develop its own strategies to address the critical needs it has identified, including how it will hold school districts and schools accountable for educational progress for children with disabilities, how it will provide high-quality technical assistance to school districts and schools, and how it will address improving results in geographic areas of greatest need. The State would also consider how it might change State policies or procedures to address systemic barriers to improving results for children with disabilities, such as failure to provide smooth transitions from preschool to school or from school to work, or the exclusion of children with disabilities from reforms in general education. In order to track its progress, the State would report on the progress of the State and of children with disabilities, in relation to the State's performance goals, the effectiveness of the State's strategies in meeting those goals, and the strategies that need revision in order to improve its performance.

Each State would also be asked to devote considerable attention and resources to professional development in the context of its State Improvement Plan. Perhaps no other activity will be more critical in our effort to improve results for students with disabilities than ensuring that teachers and other staff serving them have the necessary skills and knowledge to address their special needs. The need for professional development is particularly acute as States, school districts, and schools provide for participation of students with disabilities in curricula aligned with State standards and the placement of more students in regular classrooms.

Historically, special education and regular education have operated as separate systems, with separate bureaucracies and separate professional-development programs, even though today the great majority of students with disabilities spend all or part of their time in regular education classes. Most regular education teachers have never been trained to work with students with disabilities. Most special education personnel are ill-equipped to work in regular classrooms or collaborate with regular educators because their preparation focuses on serving students with disabilities primarily in segregated environments. This situation is slowly changing as more States are requiring special education training for new regular education teachers, and as more institutions of higher education are combining their schools of special and regular education. However, these reforms affect only new teachers. The bulk of the educational work force remains without education or training to serve students with disabilities.

Current professional development activities too often perpetuate this status quo. States are required to develop and implement comprehensive systems of personnel development (CSPDs), but are given few resources to develop and implement them. Because professional development of regular and special education teachers proceeds on different tracks, little preparation is given regular education personnel to provide special education services. In addition, insufficient preparation is given special education teachers and other staff in the content knowledge necessary to help students with disabilities learn to high standards or the skills necessary to collaborate with regular educators or work in integrated classrooms.

Moreover, institutions of higher education are the primary recipients of Part D funding but too often function independently of the needs of States for personnel. Also, grants to develop new pre-service and in-service training programs are not linked with ongoing State personnel development activities or to broader State and national goals such as the development of model national standards or cross-categorical certification. Finally, the many separate independent awards made under Part D hinder overall reform of professional development and systemic changes (e.g., portable certification requirements and reducing over-specialization) that would help address the need for qualified personnel.

What is needed is high-quality professional development for all teachers, paraprofessionals, related-services personnel, and school administrators who work with students with disabilities that is designed to promote high expectations, access to the general curriculum, and appropriate special education services provided, whenever possible, in the regular classroom.

Because of the critical importance of well-prepared personnel in any effort to improve the education of students with disabilities, the State would be asked to address how it will ensure that personnel working with children with disabilities--including regular education teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals--have the skills and knowledge to enable these children to succeed. Thus, the State Improvement Plan would provide the framework for professional development for all teachers and administrators working with students with disabilities. The new program would encourage attention to in-service training and increasing the quality of the current work force, while also recognizing the State's obligation to take responsibility for teacher shortages, except for those few areas where federal support is required because the number of teachers needed in any particular State is too small to justify developing a State teacher preparation program. Except in exceptional circumstances, market forces should ensure an adequate supply of high-incidence personnel. However, if, in some States, that proves not to be the case, the State would be able to use its State grant to increase supply in a variety of flexible and creative ways that meet that State's particular needs.

An important element of the State Improvement Plan would be its tie to monitoring by the Office of Special Education Programs. States would be asked to show how their State-improvement strategies address deficiencies identified through monitoring, including insufficient numbers of trained personnel. Currently, there is no link among State comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD) efforts, systems-change efforts, and monitoring findings. Requiring State Improvement Plans to address monitoring findings--and giving States resources to address problems--would create a continuous improvement feedback loop that could be a significant step in our efforts to improve implementation of IDEA.

Through the State Improvement Plan program, States would be given the tools and resources they need to address their needs for high-quality personnel. However, there remains the need for programs of national significance with broad applicability that will improve knowledge and practice so as to assist all States. There also remains a critical federal role for personnel preparation in two areas where shortages exist and States are less likely to support personnel-preparation activities: personnel to serve students with low-incidence disabilities and leadership personnel.

In response to these needs, a restructured IDEA professional development program would contain the following three elements: (1) national activities to support state-of-the-art teaching and learning practices and promote portability and cross-categorical approaches; (2) grants to colleges and universities, working in conjunction with a number of States, for increasing the supply and quality of personnel to work with students with low-incidence disabilities; and (3) activities to build the capacity of colleges and universities to ensure strong leadership in regular and special education administration and teacher preparation. Each is described in detail below.

1. National activities to leverage the professional development system and build capacity of institutions of higher education and State and local professional development programs and promote state-of-the-art practices. This would be a general program for national activities such as development of exemplary measures of assessing teachers and other staff for licensure and certification; activities to promote cross-categorical approaches to teacher preparation, certification, and licensure; activities that promote portability of certification; and innovative personnel preparation projects.

2. Grants to institutions of higher education for increasing supply and quality of personnel working in low-incidence disability areas. Students with significant disabilities often have particularly intensive needs and require specialized functional techniques. In many areas of the country, there are significant shortages of teachers, paraprofessionals, and related-services personnel qualified to provide early intervention services and to work with students with low-incidence disabilities--those disabilities such as deafness, blindness, deaf-blindness, significant cognitive impairment, and other impairments for which a small number of personnel with highly specialized skills and knowledge is necessary. However, the current federal program is not effectively meeting the need. There are now myriad separate grants supporting pre-service preparation for low-incidence personnel. Not only does the geographical distribution of grants bear no relationship to the distribution of teacher shortages, but, also, most programs are extremely small--many with only one professor--and extremely expensive for universities to operate. And, since the incidence of children with particular disabilities is so low, few States have sufficient numbers of such children to justify a State effort to increase the number of personnel.

   A restructured low-incidence pre-service program would flexibly meet State and regional needs for supporting the development and long-term support of high-quality programs. Elements of the program would include: (1) grants that would be fewer and larger in order to promote high-quality programs and to prepare personnel to be able to work with children with various disabilities (e.g., if a school has both a program for teachers of deaf and blind students, it can also prepare teachers of deaf-blind students); (2) grant applicants who would have to show how their program would meet the identified needs of one or more States and show that the States served intend to accept uccessful completion of the program as meeting State personnel standards; and (3) grants that would encourage portability of credentials by supporting programs whose graduates are qualified to work in a number of States.

3. Activities to develop the capacity of institutions of higher education to ensure strong leadership in regular and special education administration and teacher preparation. An important element of the current Part D program is support for the development of special education leadership personnel, including teacher trainers, administrators, and researchers. In order to improve results for students with disabilities, this program would focus on ensuring that leadership personnel in both regular and special education have the skills and training necessary to contribute to an educational system that helps students with disabilities achieve to high standards. The new program would continue to provide scholarships and stipends, but would maximize their effectiveness in promoting effective innovation and improvement of pre-service training through giving preferences to institutions that have successfully integrated or are making progress toward integrating professional development of special education and general education personnel.

This revamped program would support research, development, model demonstrations, outreach, dissemination and technical assistance for all disability categories across all age ranges, from early childhood to postsecondary education. It would support large-scale evaluations and assessments that have the potential to increase our knowledge significantly and improve the implementation of IDEA as well as smaller-scale research on issues of critical concern. Research would be informed by the field, systematically developed through demonstrations, and disseminated through outreach that is tightly linked to federal technical assistance efforts. Coordination with the research efforts of other federal agencies in order to reduce fragmentation and focus on cross-cutting issues such as transition and the delivery of related services would be a priority. Recognizing the low quality of current State-reported data, this program would support efforts to obtain improved data on the implementation of IDEA.

In the area of technical assistance, the new program would support regional technical assistance centers that provide States with assistance in linking to other federal and non-federal technical assistance resources, accessing information on research and best practices, and developing their IDEA State Improvement Plans. In addition, it would promote linkages to the 15 comprehensive technical assistance centers that are being established under the IASA in order to promote effective attention to disability issues by these centers, which will be assisting States in the implementation of the IASA. It would also support a continued role for clearinghouses and specialized technical assistance providers or activities to ensure that critical areas of national importance are addressed.

Developing the research, demonstration, dissemination and technical assistance strategies for all disability categories and age ranges as part of a unified planning process will encourage attention to the issues the field agrees are critical for improving results for children, will reduce overlap, gaps, and fragmentation; and will make research results more easily accessible by tightly linking research to technical assistance, technology, and professional development in order to improve the translation of research into practice around the nation. The broad-based planning process would ensure that cutting-edge areas such as evaluation and assessments that are critical to improving educational results would receive appropriate attention and support.

This program also would include continued support for demonstrating and disseminating strategies for addressing the needs of students with disabilities--including those who are deaf--in institutions of higher education throughout regional areas. Support for postsecondary programs serving students who are deaf would be maintained at the current funding level.

Finally, this program would require a national assessment of the implementation of IDEA in order to determine its impact and effectiveness. This assessment, which would be conducted in consultation with parents, teachers, researchers and others, would be the first since the enactment of IDEA. Gathering information from a variety of sources, the assessment would investigate key questions such as how well schools are doing to help students with disabilities meet challenging standards, to reduce dropout rates and to promote family involvement. This assessment would provide information that will be essential to improving services under IDEA and to developing future legislation to further strengthen the law.

Family involvement in children's learning is a critical link to achieving a high-quality education. Three decades of research show that positive school-family partnerships can be built to inform and involve families in their children's learning. Studies show that all families can take concrete steps that significantly help their children succeed in school, regardless of income, education, or knowledge of the English language. Successful family involvement is not a sporadic activity, but something that happens daily at home and through schools and through the community.

The parent training program would build on the current law to ensure that parents of children with disabilities and teachers and other community members who work with those parents have the training and information they need to enable them to help children with disabilities reach challenging standards and developmental goals. The program would support both a Parent Training and Information Center in every State and a number of Community Parent Resource Centers that would assist parents to better understand the nature of their children's disabilities and their educational and early-intervention needs and to participate in decision-making processes, including the development of their child's IEP or, for infants and toddlers, their Individualized Family Service Plan. The Centers also would assist parents of students with disabilities to understand and be involved in education reform activities at the State and local levels.

Recognizing the importance of technology in improving educational results for students with disabilities and the increasing technological opportunities and challenges of our information age, this authority would support research on, and the development of, advanced technology, and promote the expanded use of existing technology, that will help improve early intervention and education services for children with disabilities. It would also address the educational needs of visually impaired and print-disabled individuals and the general welfare of visually impaired individuals through media.

Families are children's first and best teachers and their most important advocates. While IDEA creates a strong framework for family-school collaboration, more could be done to strengthen working relationships between families and schools. Building on current family training centers and heightening their focus on improving educational results for children are essential elements of our overall strategy. We believe that other key elements of an overall strategy include increasing involvement of families in decision-making, improving notice requirements, and reducing the adversarial nature of the complaint and hearing processes.

Current Barriers to Improved Family Involvement

Involvement of families in decisions about their child's education is at the heart of the IDEA framework for family-school collaboration (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1986). While families are entitled by law to participate in IEP meetings in which decisions about services and the extent of participation in the regular education program are made, the current regulations permit a group other than the IEP team to make the placement decision--and this group need not include the parents. As a result, families are often excluded from fundamental decisions regarding the placement of their child.

Detailed notice to families of their rights is a critical safeguard, yet families often receive notice of their rights in a blizzard of overwhelming and duplicative notices written in confusing "legalese" (Lynch & Stein, 1982). Current law requires a full explanation of all rights every time families receive any notice. The IDEA reauthorization proposal would ensure that families receive all necessary information--in understandable language and format, and with appropriate frequency. Streamlined notice requirements could reduce the length of required notices by two-thirds while still retaining all the information parents need to make informed decisions.

The complaint and hearing processes are central to implementation of the law. Ideally, due process hearings should be a last resort when less adversarial methods of resolving differences have failed. Due process hearings generally are very costly in terms of time and financial resources, and severely strain families' and school personnel's emotional resources and good will (Kirp, Buss & Kuriloff, 1974; Kirp & Jensen, 1983). Moreover, our experience under IDEA indicates that due process--despite legally binding timelines--can, in practice, be a very lengthy process, during which student needs are not addressed. Many States have created mediation systems that have been extremely successful in resolving family-school disputes quickly and effectively (Ahearn, 1994). (Evidence that Mediation Works) However, States are not required to offer mediation to families, and, in a number of States, families often have no opportunity to resolve disputes by mediation. Since low-income and minority families are less likely to use due process than other families (Goldberg & Kuriloff, 1991; Kirp & Jensen, 1983) in States that do not offer mediation, these families often have no accessible avenue for resolution of their concerns.

Support for families and teachers also means assistance in addressing the health and other needs of students. Many children with disabilities have significant health or social needs. And some children who are not yet identified as disabled can avoid needing special education if their problems are addressed early. Schools should not have to do this alone. So we are proposing that States and districts have the flexibility to use a percentage of their IDEA funds to help support the development of State or district-wide coordinated services systems to provide a comprehensive approach to meeting the educational, health, mental health, and social-service needs of children and their families through a community-wide partnership that links education with other public and private agencies. We also are proposing that States take increased responsibility for ensuring that State health and social-service agencies fulfill their obligations to provide services to children with disabilities.

| Top |