Special education: key concepts and practices

¶ … Authorization

The new authorization of IDEA has very significant implications for teachers, educators and students. It addresses a wide variety of special education issues in a variety of ways.

The new IDEA provides guidelines regarding special education, and ties certification to "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB). However, although one clear goal of IDEA is for regular education and special education to work together more seamlessly, the special education certification does not consider the many ways in which special education services may be delivered. This will complicate compliance with this part of the law . It requires that special education teachers have full certification from their state or pass a special licensing exam along with any level of state certification. This is problematical because it will allow states to classify marginally prepared teachers as "highly qualified based on a test. This is contrary to how states have handled teacher certification in the past. The Council for Exceptional Education (CEC) fears that this part of the law may actually lead to lowered rather than raised standards for teachers. In addition, it will classify a teacher as "highly qualified" from the first day the teacher enters a preparation program.

Another goal of IDEA is to reduce the burden of paperwork placed on special educators by the prior IDEA authorization. They intend to test the effects of proposed changes, which is good, because perhaps no one fully anticipated the burdens 1997's authorization would place on educators at all levels. This re-authorization will allow 15 states to pilot approaches to paperwork that should allow special educators to focus on education rather than procedures and without putting the students' rights to a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) at risk.

IDEA addresses the issue of special education funding. However, it does so inadequately. The CEC points out that when the first law mandating special education and IEP's was passed, in 1975, the intention was that the federal government would fully fund the program by 1981. This has not happened, and in fact funding has lagged behind dramatically, directly impacting what educators can do and the quality of programs parents can obtain for their children with special needs. State and local school districts have had to make up the sizeable slack for this federally ordered program. The new authorization of IDE still does not make it an "entitlement" program, meaning that while Congress can provide funds for it, they do not have to provide full funding. Thus special education will continue to be a financial burden at the state and local levels.

Another fiscal section appears to simply shift expenses rather than provide extra funds. It allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to move up to 15% of their IDEA monies to work with students who haven't yet been formally identified as needing services, with the hope that they can be helped within the regular classroom without formal special education diagnosis. This is a concern because those funds will have to come from other educational fiscal needs.

Another very serious issue addressed in this re-authorization is the problem of children from certain groups being over-represented in special education. It will take more research to develop positive, effective behavioral interventions that can be used at the local regular school level so fewer children with behavioral problems will be found eligible for special education. Similar efforts will have to be made to find students whose education can be supported adequately in the regular classroom without the addition of special education services.

However, this portion of the law clashes with another section where the goal is to rely less on a failure model to identify students in need of special services. The re-authorization encourages school districts to find research-based alternatives to the discrepancy model of diagnosis. Schools do not have to compare achievement and cognitive ability if they have a research-based alternative approach. Depending on how this is done, it might either reduce or increase the number of minority students receiving special education services. While both parents and staff would prefer to see students receive help that prevents failure instead of intervening afterwards, it's not clear from the law how this can be accomplished.