IDEA ‘97
Calls for Change
by Debbie Gilmer
With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 have come a number of changes that will affect the education of children with disabilities, including children with severe communication impairments. Many of the changes will become effective on July 1, 1998 while others will become effective over the next few years.
While there has been much discussion and debate on the changes, it is important to note what did not change. The six fundamental principles articulated originally in the landmark 1975 legislation (PL 94-142) remain: (1) Free and appropriate public education (FAPE); (2) Appropriate, non discriminatory evaluation; (3) Individual Education Program (IEP); (4) Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); (5) Parent and student participation in decision making; and, (6) Procedural Due Process.
Other areas remain intact, as well. For example, Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) remains one of the most important components of the law. States are required, through CSPD, to "acquire, adopt and disseminate promising educational practices" in support of the staff development needs of educators, parents, and related services personnel to assure that students with disabilities are taught by staff prepared to meet their needs using up to date information and resources. With the new law, states may now compete for State Improvement Grants (up to two million dollars will be awarded to 20 states in the first round later this year) to enhance their efforts to implement their State Improvement Plans which articulate a state’s CSPD needs and plans.
The changes in IDEA ‘97 are significant and are consistent with general education improvement initiatives underway in Maine and across the country. That is, there was a true recognition that children with disabilities must participate in and benefit from general educational reform designed to assure that all children have access to high quality and meaningful education to prepare for their lives in the 21st century.
I have selected a number of changes to highlight here:
• The changes include an enhanced focus on student involvement and access to the general education environment, in fact, the general education curriculum is to drive the development of the IEP.
• There remains a requirement on the IEP for a statement of present levels of educational performance but a new element to the statement was added: how the student’s disability affects his/her involvement and performance in the general education curriculum.
• A new requirement of the IEP related to annual goals includes "benchmarks" or short-term objectives related to meeting the student’s needs that result from his/her disability to enable him/her to be involved and progress in the general curriculum.
• New elements to the statement of services to be provided now will require the statement to include (a) special education and related services; and (b) supplementary aids and services as well as a description of the program modifications or supports (including assistive technology) that the school will provide to its own staff so that the student may achieve three new benefits:
(1) advancement appropriately toward attaining the IEP annual goals; (2) involvement and progress in the general curriculum and participation in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and (3) education and participation with other students (those with and without disabilities).
• It is now required that the regular education teacher be a member of the Pupil Evaluation Team (this is one area that Maine has long recognized as critical—the regular educator has been a required member of the PET in Maine).
• Additionally, while the LRE requirement remains in the new law it now requires placement neutral financing (in many states out of district and restrictive placements actually cost schools less money and funding formulas created incentives for placement outside the regular classroom).
• All students with disabilities must now participate in statewide and district/local assessments. States must develop guidelines for assuring alternative assessments for students unable to participate in statewide assessments.
• Performance goals and indicators: States must now set concrete, system-wide objectives for students with disabilities that states and local districts must meet, including graduation rates, rates of graduates going on to postsecondary education, rates of competitive employment, etc.
The 1975 enactment and subsequent implementation of P.L. 94-142 provided assurance that students with disabilities would be served in the schools of the nation. Access to schools has largely been achieved. The shift in the 1997 reauthorization is toward student outcomes that must be based upon the general education standards and school assessments. The reauthorization gives school districts the responsibility and obligation and provides them with the funding to take a giant step toward quality education for all students. (Gartner and Lipsky (1998), The National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of