The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) of the U.S. Department of Education has prepared materials to explain the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), which were signed into law on June 4. Below is an overview of the law, a set of answers to common questions, and a summary by section number. More information is available from the web address www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS Jamal Mazrui National Council on Disability Email: 74444.1076@compuserve.com ---------- AN OVERVIEW _________________________________________________________________ The Progress ______________________________________________________________________ The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has a long history. Prior to its implementation in 1975, approximately 1 million children with disabilities were shut out of schools and hundreds of thousands more were denied appropriate services. Since then, the legislation changed the lives of these children. Many are learning and achieving at levels previously thought impossible. As a result, they are graduating from high school, going to college and entering the workforce as productive citizens in unprecedented numbers. Ninety percent of children with developmental disabilities were previously housed in state institutions. Today, they are no longer in those settings. As compared to their predecessors, three times the number of young people with disabilities are enrolled in colleges or universities, and twice as many of today's twenty-year olds with disabilities are working. Unfulfilled Promises ______________________________________________________________________ While this is significant progress, we can and must do better. The status of children with disabilities still falls short of our expectations for them. * Twice as many children with disabilities drop out of school. * Drop outs do not return to school, have difficulty finding jobs and often end up in the criminal justice system. * Girls who drop out often become young unwed mothersłat a much higher rate than their non-disabled peers. * Many children with disabilities are excluded from the curriculum and assessments used with their non-disabled classmates, limiting their possibilities of performing to higher standards of performance. Strategies for Success ______________________________________________________________________ The new IDEA legislation is an attempt to remedy these and other problems that contribute to the barriers children with disabilities face. IDEA will make these changes by: Raising expectations for children with disabilities; * Increasing parental involvement in the education of their children; * Ensuring that regular education teachers are involved in planning and assessing children's progress; * Including children with disabilities in assessments, performance goals, and reports to the public; * Supporting quality professional development for all personnel who are involved in educating children with disabilities. IDEA Accomplishments ______________________________________________________________________ Over the past four decades, special education research has provided practical answers to questions about how best to educate infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. These accomplishments have translated into benefits for all our citizens. * Over 1 million children, many of whom would have been placed in separate schools and institutions 25 years ago, are being educated in neighborhood schools, saving an average of $10,000 per child per year. * Nine percent more children with disabilities graduated from high school between 1984 and 1992. * Youth served under IDEA are employed twice as often as their predecessors, older American with similar disabilities who were not served under the law. * Nearly half of all adults with disabilities have successfully completed course-work in colleges and universities. * Although less than 1% of the annual expenditures to educate children with disabilities is spent on research and development to improve practice, these dollars have had exponential results. They support programs that allow children with disabilities to become independent learners and self-supporting adults. * New knowledge has resulted in technologies that have enriched all our lives. For example, the Kurtzweil Machine, originally developed for taking written text and translating it into Braille and speech was the forerunner of the fax machine. Captioning, an aid for the deaf, has become a boon for older Americans with poor hearing and for those who are learning to read and speak English. ---------- QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 1. How will the new law help children with disabilities reach higher levels of achievement? ______________________________________________________________________ The 1997 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act which will be signed into law by President Clinton aims to strengthen academic expectations and accountability for the nation's 5.4 million children with disabilities, and bridge the gap that has too often existed between what those children learn and the regular curriculum. From now on, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) -- the plan that spells out the educational goals for each child and the services he will receive for his education -- must relate more clearly to the general curriculum that children in regular classrooms receive. The law will also require regular progress reports to parents, include children with disabilities in state and district assessments and in setting and reporting on performance goals as they do for non-disabled children. Teachers will benefit from advancements in research through professional development initiatives. 2. What about parents? How are parents involved in decisions about their child's education? ______________________________________________________________________ Parental involvement will increase under the new law. In all states, parents will now be included in groups making eligibility and placement decisions about children with disabilities. Previously, in some states, parents only had a right to be included in IEP meetings. Parents also have a right to consent to periodic re-evaluations of their children's program, in addition to initial evaluations. Currently, parents of children with disabilities rarely get regular reports from schools on their child's progress in achieving academic goals set forth in the IEP. The new law aims to increase parental involvement by requiring regular progress reports, that are commonly made for other children. 3. Will more children with disabilities be placed in regular classroom settings under the law? ______________________________________________________________________ The new law is designed to remove financial incentives for placing children in more separate settings when they could be served in a regular classroom, and it will include regular classroom teachers in the meetings at which the academic goals of children with disabilities are set. The new law also eases some of the restrictions on how IDEA funding can be used for children served in regular classrooms. Specifically, such funds can be used for providing services to children with disabilities in regular classroom settings even if non-disabled children benefit as well. 4. How does the new law change the roles and responsibilities of regular classroom teachers? ______________________________________________________________________ A critically important feature of the new law specifies that regular teachers will be part of the team that develops each child's IEP. That is especially important since the law removes barriers to placing disabled children in regular classroom settings and ties the education of children with disabilities more closely to the regular education curriculum. The law requires that IEP's include the program modifications and supports for the child and teacher to enable the child to succeed in the classroom. The law also provides continued federal support to improve teacher training nationwide, and adds support of teacher training programs in geographic areas with acute teacher shortages. 5. How will IDEA 97 prevent inappropriate placements for minority children? ______________________________________________________________________ Whether the child is a minority student or not, IDEA 97 emphasizes that for most children with disabilities, special education is not a place. Rather, special education is a set of services to support the needs of children with disabilities to succeed in general education classrooms. For the first time, states will be required to gather data to ensure that school districts are not disproportionately identifying and placing children with disabilities from minority or limited English proficiency backgrounds in separate educational settings, and that such children are not being disproportionately suspended or expelled. In addition, in determining their education services, schools will be required to address the language needs of students who have limited English proficiency. Teachers will be provided training and research based knowledge to meet the special needs of these children. 6. How will this law help school districts meet the costs of special education? ______________________________________________________________________ The new law directs more federal dollars to school districts and allows them greater flexibility to meet the needs of children with disabilities in their schools. States and other public agencies will continue their level of support to school districts. Unnecessary assessments will be eliminated, saving school districts an estimated $765 million per year. 7. How does IDEA promote safe, well-disciplined schools? ______________________________________________________________________ All children deserve safe and well-disciplined schools. For the first time, the new law sets out and clarifies how school disciplinary rules and the obligation to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to disabled children fit together. The law explicitly requires that children who need it receive instruction and services to help them follow the rules and get along in school. However, the law also recognizes that if students bring a weapon or illegal drugs to school, schools have the right to remove children with disabilities to an alternative educational setting for up to 45 days. The new law permits schools to go to a hearing officer for an injunction to remove a child for up to 45 days if the child is considered substantially likely to injure himself or others. Previously, only a court had that authority. And the law also recognizes the right of schools to report crimes to law enforcement or judicial authorities. At the same time, the law guarantees that children under suspension or expulsion would still receive special education services elsewhere. 8. How does the law affect infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities? ______________________________________________________________________ The law allows federal funding to rise to $400 million for infants and toddlers programs from current appropriations of $315 million. For preschoolers allowable funding is up to $500 million up from current spending of $360 million. It clarifies that infants and toddlers should receive services in the home or in other natural settings where possible. It also improves the coordination and transition for children from infant and toddler programs to pre-school programs. 9. Will these changes and new requirements affect the number of lawsuits and due process hearings by parents and legal bills for school districts? ______________________________________________________________________ When parents and schools districts collaborate on childrens' education, conflict is minimized. IDEA 97 recognizes and encourages these positive relationships and non-adversarial methods of resolving disputes. The new law includes parents in placement decisions and requires schools to report regularly to parents on their child's progress. Under IDEA 97 states will make effective voluntary mediation available to parents and school districts as a far less costly alternative to lawsuits. In the rare instances when it is necessary parents can still choose due process procedures. ---------- A SUMMARY _________________________________________________________________ Summary of Key Changes to the IDEA Made by the Bill Note: Section references are to the IDEA as it would be amended in its entirety by section 101 of the bill, not to sections of the bill. Formula ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the formula for distributing Part B funds to the States would be modified to eliminate the use of counts of children with disabilities receiving services as a basis for distributing funds among the States. This change would occur once the appropriation provides about $850 per child (about $4.9 billion). The new formula would first allocate to each State an amount equal to its allocation in the prior year. Additional funds would be distributed on the basis of total population of children (85 percent of the new funds) and number of children in poverty (15 percent of the new funds). The formula would include caps and floors to avoid abrupt redistribution among the States, including a small-State minimum. All States would be guaranteed additional funding in any year in which the funding for the program increased over the prior year. (§611(d) and (e)) State Set-aside ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would "cap" the amount of funds that could be set aside by the SEA for administration and other State-level activities at the amount authorized in FY 1997, plus inflation. (§611(f)(1)(B)) The bill would require SEAs to set aside funds for grants to LEAs in years in which the appropriation increases by more than the rate of inflation. These grants would be used primarily to stimulate best practices. (§611(f)(4)) Placement-neutral Funding ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, each State would be required to ensure that its formula for distributing State funds for special education does not violate the least-restrictive-environment requirements, if its formula uses the type of placement in which a child is educated to determine the amount of State funding for the child (a common situation). (§612(a)(5)(B)) Private School Children ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would clarify current law by explicitly adopting the Department's view that States and school districts are required to use only a proportionate amount of Federal funds to provide special education services to children whose parents voluntarily placed them in private schools. (Unlike services under Title I of the ESEA, which are fully paid for by the Federal Government, the Department provides only about 8 percent of the cost of providing special education.) The inclusion of this language should dispose of a number of conflicting Federal appellate court decisions, three of which are awaiting possible Supreme Court review, in which parents assert that the IDEA makes public schools responsible for the full the costs of special education for children whose parents choose to have them attend private schools. (See Fowler v. Unified School District No. 259, 107 F.3d 797 (10th Cir. 1997), Russman v. Sobol, 85 F.3d 1050 (2nd Cir. 1996), and K.R. v. Anderson Community School Corp., 81 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 1996); see, also, Cefalu v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 103 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1997)). The bill also affirmatively states that services provided to these children may be provided on-site at the private school to the extent consistent with law (i.e., the Establishment Clause). (§612(a)(10)(A)(i)(I) and (II)) Non-educational Services ______________________________________________________________________ The bill amplifies and strengthens the current requirement relating to interagency agreements by requiring States to establish written mechanisms to ensure that non-educational agencies that are otherwise obligated by State or Federal law to provide or pay for services (such as health-related services) that are called for in a child's IEP do so. (§612(a)(12)) Personnel Standards/use of Paraprofessionals ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the bill would clarify that nothing in the IDEA prohibits the use of paraprofessionals who are appropriately trained and supervised in meeting the requirements of Parts B and H (the program for infants and toddlers, to be redesignated as Part C). (§§612(a)(15)(B)(ii) and 635(a)(9)) The bill would also clarify that, in the case of shortages of personnel who meet State standards, the State would be required to hire the most highly qualified available personnel who would, in turn, have to undertake the necessary coursework within three years to meet those standards. (§§612(a)(15)(C) and 635(b)) Performance Goals and Indicators ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, all States would be required to establish performance goals and indicators for children with disabilities and to report regularly on their performance to the public and the Secretary. (§612(a)(16)) Suspensions and Expulsions ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would require States to monitor LEA data on suspensions and expulsions. (§612(a)(22)) Assessments ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the bill would require States to provide for the participation of children with disabilities in all State and district-wide assessments and, by July 1, 2000, to provide alternate assessments for children for whom regular assessments would be inappropriate. (The Administration's 1995 proposal called for these assessments by July 1, 1999.) (§612(a)(17)(A)) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would require States to maintain State financial support for the costs of special education at the prior-year level, but would permit a waiver in exceptional circumstances, such as natural disasters. Current law does not require States to maintain fiscal effort. (§612(a)(19)) The bill would also provide some financial relief to LEAs by permitting them to replace local expenditures for the education of children with disabilities with up to 20 percent of new Federal dollars each year, once the appropriation reaches $4.1 billion. (The FY 1997 level is $3.1 billion and the President's request for fiscal year 1998 is for $3.25 billion.) (§613(a)(2)(C)(i)) The bill would also include other exceptions to the current local maintenance-of-effort requirement, such as when a teacher retires or a student who was being provided a high-cost program leaves the area. (§613(a)(2)(B)) Paperwork Reduction ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the bill provides that SEA and LEA applications must be submitted only once to the Department and the SEA, respectively, and thereafter only necessary amendments would be required. (§§612(c) and 613(b)) Schoolwide Projects ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would permit an LEA to use IDEA funds to carry out a schoolwide project under Title I of the ESEA, except that the amount of the IDEA contribution would be limited to the number of children with disabilities in the school multiplied by the Federal per-child share. IDEA requirements could not be waived for children participating in Title I schoolwide programs. (§613(a)(2)(D) and current ESEA, §1114(a)(4)) Local Flexibility Local Flexibility ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the bill would permit Part B funds to be used to provide special education and related services for children with disabilities in the regular classroom, even if one or more nondisabled children benefit from those services. (§613(a)(4)(A)) As proposed by the Administration, the bill would allow LEAs to use up to five percent of their IDEA allocation, in conjunction with other funds, to develop and implement a system of coordinated services for all children and their families, including both disabled and non-disabled children. (§613(a)(4)(B) and (f)) Charter Schools ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would require an LEA to provide IDEA funding to charter schools in the same manner as it provides funding to other public schools, and to serve children with disabilities in charter schools in the same manner as it serves children in other public schools. (§613(a)(5)) Charter schools that, under State law, are LEAs would be entitled to subgrants from the State under Part B. Charter schools would also be eligible to apply for discretionary grants. (§§611(g), 602(15), 661(b)) Each State's Advisory Panel under Part B would have to include representatives of public charter schools. (§§612(a)(21)(B)(viii)) A State could not require a charter school that is also an LEA to jointly apply for Part B funds with other LEAs (as is otherwise permitted for certain reasons such as economies of scale), unless it is explicitly permitted to do so by the State's charter school statute. (§613(e)(1)(B)) Evaluation ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would require parental consent for all evaluations. (§614(a)(1)(C) and (c)(3)) The bill would also clarify the importance of using evaluation methods that produce information that is instructionally relevant during the evaluation process. (§614(b)(2)(A) and (B), (b)(3)(D)) As proposed by the Administration, the bill would reduce unnecessary testing by allowing schools to dispense with unneeded testing at the "triennial evaluation" (the evaluation required every 3 years) to determine whether the child still needs special education, unless the parents disagree. (§614(c)(4)) Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) (effective starting with school year 1998-1999) ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the bill would revise the requirements concerning the content of an individualized education program (IEP) to better focus it on enabling the child to participate and progress in the general curriculum. (§614(d)(1)(A)(i)(I), (ii)(I), and (iii)(I)) As proposed by the Administration, the IEP would have to explain the extent to which the child is not participating with nondisabled children in the regular classroom and in extracurricular and other activities. (§614(d)(1)(A)(iv)) As proposed by the Administration, at least one regular education teacher would be on the IEP team, if the child is (or may be) participating in the regular education environment. (§614(d)(1)(B)(i)) The bill would require consideration of braille for blind children, and the provision of assistive technology and behavioral interventions, where appropriate. (§614(d)(3)(A)(iii), (v), and (i)) The bill would give teachers the option of establishing benchmarks for progress, instead of short-term objectives required by current law (§614(d)(1)(A)(ii)). The Administration proposed to eliminate the requirement for written short-term objectives as unnecessarily burdensome, but parent groups vigorously objected. The bill would require State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) to include parents in any group that determines a child's placement (§614(f)). Currently, parents are entitled to participate in the IEP meeting, but not the placement decision, which is often handled separately. As proposed by the Administration, the bill would require schools to report periodically to parents on the progress of their children toward achieving their annual goals, at least as frequently as parents receive reports on nondisabled children. (§614(d)(1)(A)(viii)) Due Process/Mediation ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the bill would require States to make mediation available to parents of children with disabilities when they have requested a due process hearing, both under Part B and under the Part H program for infants and toddlers with disabilities, which would be redesignated as Part C. (§§615(e)(1), 639(a)(8)) Mediation would be voluntary on the part of both parents and school officials. (§615(e)(2)(A)) If parents declined to participate in mediation, they could be required to attend a meeting with a third-party representative designated by a Parent Training Center or other alternative dispute resolution entity who would explain the benefits of mediation. (§615(e)(2)(B)) The bill would provide that attorneys' fees are not available for an IEP meeting (except if conducted as a result of due process) or, if a State chooses, for pre-complaint mediation. (§615(i)(3)((D)(ii)) The bill would provide greater specificity on the information that must be included in a complaint and would require either party to disclose an evaluation to be used at a hearing five days in advance of the hearing. (§615(b)(7) and (f)(2)) Discipline ______________________________________________________________________ As proposed by the Administration, the bill expands current law, which allows school officials to unilaterally transfer a child with a disability who brings a gun to school to an interim educational placement for up to 45 days, to apply to other types of weapons. This authority could also be used when children with disabilities bring illegal drugs to school, an addition supported by the Administration. The period of removal could not exceed the period of time for which nondisabled children would be disciplined for the same offense. (§615(k)(1)(A)(ii)(I) and (II)) As proposed by the Administration, the bill would give hearing officers the authority currently held only by the courts to transfer a child with a disability to an interim educational placement, for up to 45 days, if the LEA (or other public agency) demonstrates by "substantial evidence" that the child's continued presence is "substantially likely" to result in injury to the child or others. "Substantial evidence" is defined as "beyond a preponderance of the evidence". (§615(k)(2)(A), (k)(10)(D)) The bill would also specify how schools are to make a "manifestation determination" to determine whether a child's behavior that violates school rules is related to the child's disability. This determination is important because if the child's behavior was a manifestation of the child's disability, the child may not be disciplined for that behavior. If the behavior was not a manifestation of the child's behavior, the child may be disciplined. This determination must be made before a school can suspend a child for more than 10 days or expel a child. Finally, the bill would explicitly require a school district to continue to make special education and related services available to children who have been suspended or expelled from school. This provision would effectively override the recent decision in the Virginia case (Comm. of Virginia Dept. of Education v. Riley, 106 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 1997)), which permits cessation of services within the 4th Circuit, and codify the Department's long-standing understanding of current law. (§612(a)(1)(A)) Prisons ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would authorize the Governor to transfer, from State and local educational agencies to another agency (such as a State correctional agency), responsibility for educating juveniles with disabilities who have been convicted as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons. (§612(a)(11)(C)) The bill would also relieve the State from complying with certain requirements relating to assessments and transition services, and, for legitimate security or penological reasons, would permit modification to such a student's IEP or placement. (§614(d)(6)) If the SEA is not the responsible agency for those incarcerated in adult prisons, any withholding of Part B funds for failure to serve those individuals would be limited a proportionate share of those funds connected with those individuals, although the Secretary could use other means, such as a request for an enforcement action by the Justice Department, to seek compliance. (§616(c)) Racial Disproportionality ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would require States to monitor racial disproportionality in the identification and placement of children with disabilities and examine and revise their procedures and policies as necessary to comply with the IDEA. (§618(c)) Services for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would require each participating State to have policies and procedures to ensure, that to the maximum extent appropriate, early intervention services are provided to the child and family in natural environments. (§§632(2)(4)(G), 635(a)(16), and 636(d)(5)) Discretionary Grant Programs ______________________________________________________________________ The bill would consolidate the existing 14 programs into 6 new authorities: a State Improvement Grants program, as proposed by the Administration, and authorities for Research and Innovation, Personnel Preparation, Parent Training and Information Services, Technical Assistance and Dissemination, and Technology Development and Media Services. The consolidation provides the Department with a much more coherent and flexible set of authorities for carrying out critical national activities. (Part D, Subparts 1 and 2) The bill also authorizes the Secretary to set aside funds under the State-grant programs to conduct a much-needed national assessment of the IDEA and other studies and evaluations. (§674(e)) ---------- End of Document