The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - Essay Example

Introduction The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is both a grants statute and a civil rights statute The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 (IDEIA) recognizes the important contribution that persons with educational disabilities can make to society. It seeks to enhance the structure put into place by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975 (IDEA 1975) which recognized the importance of bringing students with educational disabilities into mainstream education, and the provision of free, professional diagnosis. Improving educational results for children with disabilities2 is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities. (Sec 682, c. (1)) Not only does the 2004 Act consider the students themselves, but takes an holistic view of the developmental environment, taking into account the role of parents, pre-school services, adaptations in the classroom and supporting high-quality, intensive pre-service preparation and professional development for all personnel who work with special students and an emphasis on the use of scientifically-based instructional practices. Like its previous enactment, IDEIA 2004 makes federal funding available for the provision of free appropriate education of disabled students. It also contains detailed due process provision to reinforce free appropriate education for disabled students. However, at the same time that the Government prepared to make more money available the Wall Street Journal3 reported that The Department of Education reports that states are currently sitting on nearly $6 billion in unspent federal education funds acquired between 2000 and 2002. Some $2 billion of this is Title I money that's designated for the most disadvantaged students. History of the Law Congress enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)-formerly the EAHCA-in 1975 partly in response to Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972), and Pennsylvania Ass'n of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972). Pennsylvania and Washington allowed schools to refuse admission to students with IQ scores below 70 until said students reached 8 years old. Once admitted to school, many of these children were expelled because they could not learn how to read4. IDEA 1975 limited coverage - and funding - to students who were educationally5 disabled. Importantly, as part of the funding deal, the provider had to ensure that the child's carers had access to a due process procedure in the event they wished to challenge the child's free appropriate public education assessment. Each student was to be given an individualized education plan (IEP) and educated in the 'least restrictive environment'. Public schools were required to provide learning aids, suitable tests and assessments. There was considerable disgruntlement in some quarters, since for the first time parents of educationally disabled students were empowered to the apparent detriment of parents of able students Despite the success of the 1975 Act in providing free places in mainstream education for students with educational disabilities, there was increasing concern that low expectations and insufficient focus on applying proven methods of teaching for students with special educational needs were limiting the attainment of these students. Buried deep within the 2004 Act is the real reason - and some alarming statistics - explaining why the Government has finally moved on this matter. Sec 682, 12: (A) Greater efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities. (B) More minority children continue to be served in special education than would be expected from the percentage of minority students in the general school population. (C) African-American children are identified as having mental retardation and emotional disturbance at rates greater than their White counterparts. (D) In the 1998-1999 school year, African-American children represented just 14.8 percent of the population aged 6 through 21, but comprised 20.2 percent of all children with disabilities. (E) Studies have found that schools with predominately White students and teachers have placed disproportionately high numbers of their minority students into special education; and (13)(A) As the number of minority students in special education increases, the number of minority teachers and related services personnel produced in colleges and universities continues to decrease. In 2004 1 in 3 Americans were from an ethnic minority or was described as 'limited English' proficient. Not only does the Federal Government feel that special education personnel must increase participation of minorities in the teaching profession to provide role models for minorities and limited English proficiency students, it also is concerned that there is an 'apparent' discrepancy in the levels of referral and placement of limited English proficient students in special education. Relationship of IDEIA 2004 to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 20016 Both IDEIA 2004 and NCLB 2001 have a similar ethos - improving standards. However, whereas NCLB 2001 addressed the needs of all underperforming students IDEIA 2004 focuses solely on the needs of educational disabled students. There are two things which stand out about NCLB 2001 which may have assisted in the formulation of IDEIA 2004. Both Acts insist on the same definition of 'highly qualified' teacher. And in particular under NCLB 2001 States had to report on safety at individual school level and districts had to index their assessment and progress objectives results by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability and limited English proficiency. This seems to tie in with some of the statistics reported in Sec 682(12) IDEIA 2004. Implications of the Law for Classroom Management and Teaching The 2004 Act seeks to encourage a whole-school approach to managing and supporting students with educational disabilities. Non-specialists can expect to have the opportunity to learn the skills and obtain the resources to provide adequate tuition to this special group of learners. The 2004 Act expects teachers to have high expectations for all students in their classes and be familiar with 'scientifically based' instructional practices, positive behavioral interventions, technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for students with educational disabilities. The effective teacher will recognize that nothing new needs to be done with regard to best-practice in classroom management and teaching7. Until one gets to know the students well, it is usually best to be over-prepared. The teacher should be cognizant of a particular student's personal limitations, particularly with regard to discipline. A student with AHAD for example should not be punished because of this, but - like any student - be taught how to control his condition, without being allowed to use the condition as an excuse for disrupting the learning/teaching zone. Effective teachers will be cognizant of the environment in which their students are to learn, and ensure that it meets the needs of all students. Schemes of Work and lesson plans should take account of the needs of all students by ability range. It would be sound departmental policy to ensure that all students had IEPs, which form the basis of lesson planning. Teachers should routinely use visual, auditory and kinetic method of teachings - as every student in the class learns differently. All assignments should be 'graded' in such a way that the easiest task appears first: all students should have the opportunity to achieve at their ability level. There should be enrichment work for all students - from gifted and talented through to educational disability. In the mixed ability classroom, careful and detailed exposition is extremely important. Students should know what is expected of them. They should be given the opportunity to check their personal progress against their IEPs as well as against the lesson objectives. In the mixed ability school, less experienced teachers benefit from peer-support from more experienced practitioners during lessons. All teachers should share best-practice examples and constantly reflect on their practice - and prejudices. Conclusion No legislation can remove poverty, socio-economic marginalization or prejudice by itself. It can only set the frame of reference. We continue to marginalize the differently-abled and 'blame' them for being different. The UK's Education Act 1981 took a completely different approach. The main architect of that Act, Baroness Warnock had this to say 24 years later: I think what we did make possible was the realisation that education, not just care, not just shoving away into a corner to keep quiet but education, teaching, was possible for all children.8 References Cortiella, C. (2006) IDEA 2004 Close Up: Evaluation and Eligibility for Specific Learning Disabilities. Available at: http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspxr=1063&f=search Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004: Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/zc108:h.1350.enr: Jones, NL and Apling, RN (2004). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Comparison and Analysis of Selected Provisions in H.R. 1350 as Passed by the House and by the Senate, 108th Congress. Available at: http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs//data/2004/upl-meta-crs-6125/RL32415_2004Jun15.pdfPHPSESSID=7b85f9e323f246ef2f49a1cd272a2fa5 NCLB Act 2001: Executive Summary - Available at: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html Woodward, A. (1998)"Education for All Handicapped Children Act". Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence. 20010406. FindArticles.com. Available at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2602/is_0002/ai_2602000217 Read More