The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Comparison of Key Provisions of IDEA 1997 and IDEA 2004

This document is no longer timely and may be only of historical value. For current information, visit our Education Issues page.

On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (P.L.108-446) which reauthorizes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The legislation, now known as IDEA, was first enacted in 1975. Since that time it has undergone periodic revisions (known as reauthorizations.) The most recent reauthorization was completed in 2004 and culminated in the recently signed law. We are comparing this new law with the previous version of IDEA which was enacted in 1997.

What follows is a brief explanation and analysis of key provisions included in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Each section includes links to tables containing side-by-side comparisons of the specific provisions. Because the full text of IDEA is quite lengthy, we have chosen to provide information about the provisions that we believe are of greatest interest to parents, students who are blind or visually impaired, and the professionals who serve them. For more on changes in the new law see www.cec.sped.org and www.wrightslaw.com/idea/index.htm.

Access to Instructional Materials

As a result of the 2004 amendments, IDEA, for the first time, includes language that will help ensure that children, who are blind, have low vision, or other print-reading disabilities get their textbooks and classroom materials on time and in the accessible format they need. The new provisions establish a system for publishers to produce textbooks in a standardized electronic file format known as the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) that can be converted into books in accessible formats such as braille, large print or electronic text. States must adopt the NIMAS for the purpose of providing textbooks to students who are blind or who have other print-related disabilities. A central repository known as the National Instructional Materials Access Center will be established through the American Printing House for the Blind. The repository will be responsible for receiving, maintaining and distributing the electronic copies of the instructional material.

Each state has the option of using the central repository or assuring the Secretary of Education that it will deliver accessible textbooks to students with print disabilities in a timely manner. If states opt to use the repository they must, within two years of enactment of the 2004 law require that publishers provide copies of all newly purchased instructional materials in the NIMAS format. Alternatively, the state may elect to purchase publisher-produced instructional materials in formats that are accessible or which can be converted into accessible formats.

The 2004 statute continues to allow for federal funds to be provided to entities to produce and distribute accessible instructional materials. The funds will be granted on a competitive basis. Eligible entities are national organizations able to raise funds, use volunteers and have a record of providing accessible versions of textbooks.

Several states have laws that require publishers to provide electronic copies of textbooks in various formats upon request. It is not clear whether the requirement that state and local educational agencies adopt the NIMAS format preempts these statutes. For further information on state statutes see www.tsbvi.edu/textbooks/afb/state-laws.htm.

Side-by-side comparison of the provisions on access to instructional materials.

Narrative version of the access to instructional materials table

Individual Education Programs (IEP)

A key part of the education of any student with a disability is their Individual Education Program (IEP). The IEP lists goals and objectives, accommodations required, and services the school will provide to the student. The 2004 law provides for the continuation of bench marks and short-term objectives, but only for students who will be assessed using alternative assessments. The 2004 law calls for the elimination of short-term goals and objectives for students who will be assessed by standardized assessments required under the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2003 (NCLB).These short-term objectives are replaced with measurable annual goals which align with the standardized assessment requirements of NCLB. The IEP must set out how the students' progress toward attaining those goals will be measured. The provisions requiring that parents be informed periodically on their child's progress toward reaching the goals set out in their IEP have been continued in the new statute.

Despite our advocacy efforts, we were unsuccessful in including additional items as special factors, (disability-specific training), in the IEP. We sought to include provision for training in functional performance skills, orientation and mobility, and training in the use of assistive technology including low vision technology. This would have been a significant advance in the recognition of the need for training in the expanded core curriculum in the educational process for students who are blind and visually impaired. However, the requirement to consider the provision of training in the use of braille has been continued in the 2004 law.

Under the new legislation, not all of the members of the IEP team, (a group of people who develop the IEP), are required to attend IEP meetings in person, and may provide their input in alternative forms. The use of technology, such as video conferencing, e-mail and teleconferencing, for the purpose of convening IEP meetings is encouraged.

Up to 15 pilot programs may be established to evaluate the use of multi-year IEP's. The states participating in pilots must outline plans which ensure that parents are provided informed consent before a multi-year IEP can be developed for their child. The multi-year IEP would be considered for long-range educational goals and have breaks consistent with transition points in a student's education. Annual review is required for multi-year IEPs. The states participating in the pilots must report on a number of issues including the impact of the use of multi-year IEP on the amount of paperwork.

Side-by-side comparison of the individual education programs (IEP).

Narrative version of the individual education programs (IEP) table

Transition Services

Transition services, under the provisions of the 2004 law, will now be provided at the age of sixteen for students and will include academic and functional goals. The goals shall be based on age appropriate assessments and include independent living skills if appropriate. There are additional transition provisions under consideration for inclusion in the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act which is on the legislative calendar for the 109th session of Congress.

Side-by-side comparison of the transition services.

Narrative version of the transition services table

Personnel

Personnel Qualifications—The 2004 statute aligns personnel qualifications requirements for special education teachers to the requirements for regular education teachers provided in the No Child Left Behind Act. Now, rather than requiring that special education teachers be "appropriately and adequately trained", special education teachers teaching one or more subjects to students who will be assessed using standardized assessments, must meet the "highly qualified" standards for the subjects and levels they are teaching by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. In addition, they must possess state certification or licensure in their field of specialization. Special Education teachers who teach students with disabilities who will be assessed using alternative assessments will only need to be certified or licensed by the state in their field of expertise.

Side-by-side comparison of the personnel qualifications.

Narrative version of the personnel qualifications table

Personnel Development—Under the 2004 law that focuses on incorporating the requirements of No Child Left Behind, professionals and paraprofessionals must be prepared to provide high quality instruction to regular and special education students. Special education teachers can still obtain scholarships to pay for their education if they provide two years of service for each year of funding received.

Side-by-side comparison of the personnel development.

Narrative version of the personnel development table

Personnel Preparation Grants—To train new teachers and related-services personnel is prioritized and targeted toward programs preparing personnel serving children in more than one group of students with low incidence disabilities such as visual impairments and deafness. Also, emphasis is placed on the need for qualified personnel at all levels of instruction and administration within schools.

Side-by-side comparison of personnel preparation.

Narrative version of the personnel preparation table

Video Description

Funding will continue for video description for use in the classroom but only for those materials "designed to be of educational value in the classroom." This change is based on an interpretation of Congressional intent made by the Department of Education. We will address this definition in the regulatory process.

Side-by-side comparison of the provisions on video description.

Narrative version of the video description table

Procedural Safeguards

This section outlines the procedures state and local educational agencies must establish to ensure that parents of students with disabilities can enforce their child's civil right to a free and appropriate education. The section sets out what schools must provide to parents in order to keep them informed of decisions effecting their child's education. It also sets out the types of processes which schools are required to make available to parents. The 2004 law limits complaints to issues which the parents and school knew or should have known existed within the previous two years. One significant addition in the new statute is that parents and schools are required to provide specific information in their formal written complaints before the process can continue. Also, there are more formalized time limits within which complaints must be processed.

Side-by-side comparison of the procedural safeguards.

Narrative version of the procedural safeguards table

Attorney's Fees

In the 2004 law, as in the old law, parents may receive attorneys' fees if they prevail in their complaint against the school. However, attorney's fees may be granted to state educational agencies and charged against the parents' attorney if the attorney brought a complaint, a subsequent cause of action or continued a procedure which is, or has become frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Attorney's fees may also be charged against a parent or his/her attorney if the complaint was brought for an improper purpose.

Discipline

Under the 2004 law, a student with disabilities who has been suspended or is being considered for discipline for a violation of the student code, may be placed in an alternative educational setting. A meeting must be held within ten days of the disciplinary action if not before the action is taken, to determine whether the misconduct was a manifestation of the student's disability. If this determination is made, several actions may be taken including: giving the student a functional behavioral assessment, using behavioral interventions and/or modifying the services the student is receiving. The goal of any and all of these actions is to address the behavioral violation so that it does not reoccur. The statutory procedures include further appeals of these actions. The 2004 law has several provisions for the training, use, and research of behavioral intervention methods.

National Research

Responsibility for research and innovations to improve the services and results for students with disabilities has been moved to the newly established Institute for Education Science (IES). IES will coordinate with the Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs, which formerly had responsibility for these programs. The Institute will be examining the outcome of the instruction and services provided through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act to students with disabilities. IES will also be establishing models of instruction using methods and techniques derived from scientifically-based research to improve the outcomes for students with disabilities.

Side-by-side comparison of the national research.

Narrative version of the national research table

Conclusion

While we are pleased with the inclusion of the accessible textbook language in the statute we are concerned about its implementation through the soon-to-be promulgated regulations. In addition, we are concerned about provisions relating to personnel qualifications and procedural safeguards. The next steps will involve the Department of Education's development of implementing regulations. We will be working through the process to make the regulations favorable to the needs of students who are blind or visually impaired, their parents, and the professionals serving them. We will also be working with state networks to help make the implementation of the accessible textbook provisions as successful as possible. For more information, see www.afb.org/idea.a sp or www.tsbvi.edu/t extbooks.