It's been reassuring to see the Congress and the White House finally realizing two things school administrators long have known about serving children with disabilities: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act isn't perfect, and it costs a lot of money to comply.
Congress has spent much of the last year deciding whether to fully fund IDEA as part of this year's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. School leaders have been anxiously waiting 26 years for the day when Congress would live up to its commitment to finance 40 percent of excess special education costs. Unfortunately, as Congress has finally come closer to full funding, new roadblocks are being tossed in the way.
The concept of mandatory IDEA funding is simple: Instead of allowing congressional appropriators to decide how much funding special education will receive each year, mandatory funding designates spending levels for the next 10 years. Schools would know years in advance exactly how much would be in their special education budgets, allowing for long-term planning and better use of resources. More importantly, mandatory funding guarantees schools would finally receive a federal contribution at the levels promised when the Education for All Handicapped Act was passed in 1975.
The opponents to mandatory funding say it costs too much. The mandatory funding proposal laid out by Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., has a 10-year price tag of $181 billion. This has caused some long-time supporters of IDEA full funding to suddenly experience a bad case of sticker shock.
A Reading Resolution
The White House has repeatedly argued that many children are assigned to special education only because they did not receive good reading instruction. The Bush administration claims its new Reading First initiative will dramatically reduce special education enrollment. The House Education and Workforce Committee, following suit, put out a statement suggesting Reading First "will also reduce the cost burden on all levels of government as fewer children are diagnosed as needing IDEA services simply because they did not receive proper reading instruction during the early years."
Early reading intervention will benefit many students, but reading instruction is no substitute for special education. Of the 46 percent of children nationally with mild learning disabilities, a tiny percentage has trouble solely with reading. Most have communication problems and comprehension difficulties that preceded their inability to read. Specialized reading instruction is already included in those students' individual education plans.
Even if Reading First dramatically reduces the number of children needing special education services, it will take years before schools experience relief. Most children currently served by IDEA will continue to receive special education for the rest of their elementary and secondary years.
The most expensive aspect of IDEA is educating children with the most severe developmental disabilities and providing them with related services. Reading First will do nothing to decrease costs for those children. Schools need help now to pay more than $50 billion a year for IDEA. Reading reforms and IDEA full funding should be sought simultaneously.
Troubling Choices
Perhaps the most disturbing argument against IDEA funding has been made by Republican members of the House education committee. In the midst of the debate, the committee argued that IDEA reforms should ensure federal money be spent effectively "for those disabled children who need it the most." One wonders if Congress wants educators to rank disabilities and only provide services to those judged to be most severely disabled? Is cerebral palsy more debilitating to a youngster than a speech and hearing problem? Rationing special education funds is not the solution to escalating costs.
Ironically, the opponents of full funding have issued some familiar refrains about the shortcomings of IDEA-principally the over-identification of minorities and overly-burdensome paperwork requirements. The opponents of full funding have used school leaders' own long-standing complaints about IDEA as a reason to fight against full funding.
In a press release, the House Education and Workforce Committee states, "Due to flaws in IDEA's current structure, minority children are over-identified for special education services, and local school districts that serve them are enmeshed in paperwork rather than service delivery."
While it is reassuring that Congress and the White House finally realize these two things that school administrators have known for a long time, IDEA remains a federal mandate and schools must continue to comply.
School districts do not have the option of waiting for the program to be perfected before they pay for it. Congress should not have that option either. Even with the best estimate, it will take more than six years to reach full funding. There's time to work out reforms along the way.
Jordan Cross is a legislative specialist at AASA.