Law Professor Cites Lessons From Special Education, Argues For Keeping And Supporting Special Education Law

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — As the Bush administration prepares to review the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a University of Arkansas researcher argues that, despite critics’ concerns, the act can be implemented effectively to address problematic issues without dismantling or cutting the program back.

Terry Jean Seligmann, director of legal research and writing and associate professor of law, reports her findings in a recent issue of the Fordham Urban Law Journal.

Since the implementation of IDEA, the number of children identified as having disabilities who are served through the act has increased from 3.7 million in 1976-77 to 6.1 million in 1999-2000. Today about one in ten children in public schools receives some kind of special educational services. As the number of children served by IDEA has grown, so have concerns about its efficacy.

In the article, Seligmann reviewed the concerns of different constituents.

"These critiques come from all different directions," she said.

Some people think that an unclear definition of disability has led to an unjustified increase in the number of children served-particularly those with learning disabilities. Others have concerns about the cost of providing individualized education plans for children with disabilities. And some legal scholars and educators believe that the IDEA sets up a segregationist, unequal education system that detracts from the education of all students.

These issues must be addressed, said Seligmann, but before legislators make large-scale reforms to IDEA, they should look at what the act has done.

"It has proved to be an effective way of getting children with special needs an education," she said. Taking away the legal redress that makes access mandatory may be a step backwards to a time when students with special needs failed in school and, later, in life, she said.

Seligmann addresses many concerns about IDEA in her article. She sees the increased use of IDEA for students with disabilities as a testament to the need for the program rather than a cause for concern.

"Schools and parents see IDEA as a way to get services. There’s nothing wrong with that," she said. "Instead of criticizing the law, maybe we should look at the educational system and see why it is not always responsive to children’s needs."

She also explodes the myth that every dollar spent on special education is a dollar taken away from regular education. Many schools make use of special education services in regular classrooms by providing teacher’s aides, who reduce the student-to-teacher ratio in the classroom. And teachers who address the needs of learning disabled students often use teaching methods that benefit all children in their classes.

"We've learned so much more about problems that inhibit children's learning," she said. Special education teachers have learned how to reach many of these children, and their knowledge has helped the education community as a whole.

"This is not just special education money. It is also used every day to educate all kids," she said.

Seligmann agrees that more work needs to be done on the issue of segregation of special education students from the regular classroom. Despite a mandate in IDEA that students should be placed in the least restrictive environment possible, school systems often separate children in need of special education from regular classrooms. This may be in part due to funding concerns, because schools find it easier, for instance, to send special education students to a resource room rather than pay for teacher’s aides in individual classrooms.

IDEA has never been federally funded at the intended level of 40 percent, according to Seligmann. Instead, the federal government funds the program at about 12 percent, leaving states and school systems to pick up the rest of the tab.

"The commitment of the schools and the teachers is essential," said Seligmann. "But the teachers must have support." Without adequate support and funding, all students will be at a disadvantage, she argues.

"We pay lip service to the idea that all children are entitled to an education," she said. "But we don’t put our resources and our legal clout behind that."

# # #