Congress on Verge of Reauthorizing Special Ed. Law

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

“Congress Passes IDEA Reauthorization,” Nov. 22, 2004.

Congress was poised late on Nov. 19 to reauthorize the main federal special education law, after a House-Senate conference committee hammered out a bipartisan compromise designed to improve the educational opportunities of some 6.7 million children with disabilities.

The House voted 397-3 on Nov. 19 to approve the latest version of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Senate was expected to follow suit later that day before the lame-duck session of Congress adjourned.

The reauthorized IDEA would mandate quality standards for special education teachers, streamline disciplinary actions involving students with disabilities, and attempt to reduce the number of lawsuits stemming from the statute.

A conference committee approves the renewal of IDEA.
Rep. John A. Boehner, right, shakes hands with Sen. Tom Harkin after a conference committee approved a renewal of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act on Nov. 17. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, left, and Sen. Judd Gregg, second from right, look on, as do congressional aides.
—Allison Shelley/Education Week

At their Nov. 17 session, conference committee members applauded the measure as an example of bipartisan work to reconcile differing bills that passed the House and the Senate during the past two years.

“We have approved what I think is an extremely strong piece of legislation that will move the ball down the field,” said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said changes in the bill would bring the special education law closer to the provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

“The process of education reform did not end with the No Child Left Behind Act. It just began,” Rep. Boehner said of the wide-ranging school improvement measure adopted three years ago.

Two Years Overdue

The IDEA is the current shorthand for the landmark law that Congress first enacted in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. It was last revised in 1997, and its latest reauthorization—two years overdue—was long hung up in partisan tensions.

The Senate passed its original bill by a vote of 95-3 in May. The House’s initial bill, however, was approved by a narrower margin, 251-171, in April 2003, and only 34 Democrats voted for it. The conference committee hammered out significant differences in the two versions.

But the measure still does not lock Congress into any funding commitments, an omission that prompted a “no” vote in the conference committee from Sen. James M. Jeffords, the Vermont Independent who left the Republican Party two years ago in large part over disagreement about the party’s commitment to funding special education.

Sen. Jeffords had voted against the Senate version of the bill in May, calling it then a “hollow promise” and an unfunded mandate. His was the only no vote among the 28 House and Senate conference committee members voting last week.

This year, the federal government is estimating it will pay 19 percent of the costs of educating students with disabilities, and it has set a goal of funding 40 percent of the national average of per-pupil spending by 2011.

On one of the most sensitive policy issues, the bill would allow school districts greater flexibility in dealing with special education students who have behavior problems.

If students with disabilities required discipline for misbehavior that was not related to their disabilities, they could be moved to another setting. Under the current law, schools are required to prove the need for a change of placement. In the conference committee’s bill, the burden would now be on the parents to appeal the school district’s decision.

The change is intended to eliminate separate punishment tracks for students once it has been determined that their behavior is not related to their disabilities.

Michael Carr, a spokesman for the National Association of Secondary School Principals, said that disciplinary change was one sought by members of his organization.

“It comes back to if we believe that these students can be in the classroom with all the other kids, the student needs to know how to act appropriately,” Mr. Carr said.

The bill’s provisions on “highly qualified” teachers would parallel those of the No Child Left Behind Act. To be highly qualified under the revised IDEA, teachers would have to be fully certified in special education or pass state special education licensure exams. They also would have to hold a bachelor’s degree and demonstrate knowledge of each subject for which they were the primary teacher.

Veteran teachers would be required to meet the standards by the end of the 2005-06 school year, even if they were teaching multiple subjects to students. New special education teachers would have extra time to become certified in different subjects, as long as they were fully credentialed in at least one.

The topic of teacher qualifications was the only one debated during the Nov. 17 conference committee meeting. Some committee members floated the idea of giving veteran special education teachers an extra year to meet the “highly qualified” standards, putting them off until the 2006-07 school year. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., asked fellow lawmakers to consider the one-year postponement, particularly because special education teachers often teach multiple subjects.

The amendment, however, was rejected on a voice vote.

“A highly qualified teacher is probably the most important person in this entire process” aside from parents, said Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House education committee. He noted that the states have had time to create programs to help teachers meet the federal standards.

“If [states] decided to gamble on whether we would eviscerate the standard of a highly qualified teacher, they have lost,” Rep. Miller said.

Kim Anderson, a lobbyist with the National Education Association, said the teacher-qualification provision was a disappointing part of the IDEA bill. States have been waiting for guidance from the Department of Education on creating certification rules for special education teachers, she said.

If flexibility can be provided to rural teachers who instruct students in multiple subjects, as the department has done, the same flexibility should be afforded to special education teachers, she said.

“To us, it seems like it’s slapping the wrong party here,” she said.

Paperwork Reduction?

The bill also includes a provision for teachers and parents to make “minor” adjustments of a child’s individualized education plan—required for all students receiving special education services—without reconvening a full IEP meeting. The change is intended to make it easier for parents to be involved in the IEP process without attending numerous meetings. And under a pilot program, 15 states would be given the opportunity to develop plans to reduce paperwork and free up more instructional time for teachers.

Lawmakers also tried to devise a way to reduce the number of lawsuits that special education placements often generate. The committee’s bill encourages the use of mediation whenever possible. Parents and school officials would have to meet and try to solve problems before convening a due-process hearing. A two-year statute of limitations would be placed on a parent’s ability to file a complaint, with a 90-day limitation on appeals.

Also, hearing officers would have to make decisions based on whether a child was denied an appropriate education, not because of procedural mistakes.

Vol. 24, Issue 13, Pages 1, 29

Published in Print: November 24, 2004, as Congress on Verge Of Reauthorizing Special Ed. Law
Related Stories
Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories