NAPAS National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems

Contacts: Diane Smith or Kathy McGinley (202) 408-9514

IDEA Myths and Realities

The IDEA reauthorization process is being driven by myths and anecdotes rather than facts, such as:

Myth:              The IDEA results in too much litigation.

            Reality:             Actually, few due process hearings are requested each year (approx. .16 % of the total number of Part B students in 1998 requested a hearing¹).  Fewer still actually proceed to hearing (approx. .054 % of the total number of Part B students in 1998).  This works out to about 1 in 622 students who request a hearing and 1 out of 1844 whose cases actually proceed to hearing. We have no statistics regarding how many of these hearings are requested by school districts and how many by parents.

            Myth:             The IDEA requires too much paperwork.

            Reality:             Much of the paperwork that is perceived as complex or otherwise overly burdensome is actually not required by the IDEA statute. Rather, it is a function of OSEP requirements, state or local practice.  One example– IEP forms that run more than ten pages in length.  A much shorter IEP form could be effective and meet the legal requirements of the IDEA.  Some states such as Alabama already use a shorter form (4 pages) quite successfully.

            Myth:             The IDEA requires too many meetings and too many staff people at the meetings.

            Reality:            School districts frequently invite participants who are not legally required to attend meetings.  The reality is that only 3 to 4 people are required by the IDEA to be at IEP meetings, and the IDEA does not require that any meetings take place in order to evaluate or re-evaluate a student. 

.

            Myth:             Provisions of the IDEA that are perceived as complex or burdensome were included in the statute at the request of parents.

            Reality:            In fact, many were requested by school officials, such as the exceptions to stay put in  §615(k)(1) and (2) for cases involving weapons, drugs and dangerous behavior.

            Myth:             The IDEA prohibits LEAs from adequately disciplining students with disabilities and insuring the safety of staff and students.

            Reality:            Among other actions, school districts may suspend students immediately for short periods, without an IEP meeting. They may also place a student who has brought a gun or drugs to school, or who is determined to be dangerous, into an alternative educational program for up to 45 days.  Often the need for placement change is resolved at an IEP meeting with parental consent.  Students with disabilities can be and routinely are expelled if their misbehavior is not a manifestation of their disability. In fact, students with disabilities are suspended/expelled at a higher rate than general education students are. [2]

            Myth:             All of the problems with special education are caused by the IDEA statute and regulations.

            Reality:            In order to improve student outcomes, some key problems must be fixed that are not caused by the statute, such as:

·        Poorly or inadequately trained staff.

•         Insufficient funding, which results in special education diverting funds from general education.

•         Insufficient funding of general education has decreased the quality of the system for public school students overall,

•         Poor and/or disrespectful communication between parents and school officials.   (Communication between parents and schools would be enhanced if the IDEA required district officials to share information with parents, such as evaluation data, in advance of IEP meetings and other decision points.  This would also expedite the IEP meeting itself.  Poorly planned IEP meetings generally take far longer than well-planned ones.)

•         Too many students receive poor academic instruction and/or inadequate behavioral supports at school.

•          Weak compliance enforcement by agencies charged with that responsibility has greatly reduced the statute’s effectiveness.  For instance, parents lose faith in the system overall when a good due process hearing decision is never implemented and they see that the district is never penalized for this failure.