NCLB & IDEA make room for creative learning tools and alternate approaches: federal mandates alert educators of a shift from process to student academic accountability.

WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH LAST YEAR signed the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) into law, legislators appeared in front of cameras to inform the public that their goal of aligning the federal special education law with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signed into law in 2002, had been met. This was considered an important accomplishment during a short post-election session of the U.S. Congress, after two years of Congressional consideration, and considerable compromise on the part of both Houses.

Changes in IDEA include reduced paperwork for teachers, flexibility in how funds may be used for early intervening services, directives for using scientifically based research, and emphasis on a "highly qualified" definition for those in special education. The theme throughout the new law is a shift from process to academic accountability.

As educators compare and study these laws they find opportunities for celebration and causes for concern. One finding remains clear, technology continues to play a role in achieving success, and is encouraged and suggested throughout both Acts. Handheld computers solve the issue of equity, as the lower cost per system allows more students and parents to have access to tools for learning. IDEA finds that "education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by ... supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities."

IDEA builds on the mandates of NCLB, including accountability for results, parental choice, and the requirement for "highly-qualified" teachers for approximately 6.6 million children with disabilities.

AN IMPORTANT REASON FOR EDUCATORS to celebrate is that test scores appear to be moving in the right direction. In a recent speech by Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, to the American Council on Education Annual Meeting, said,

"No Child Left Behind is working. It calls for annual testing by the states of every child in grades 3-8 in reading and math. And it calls for the data to be disaggregated so we can see how traditionally under-served student groups are doing, and help children before it's too late.... In just three years, we've managed to put a real dent in the "achievement gap."

Under the new law, students with disabilities, based on reauthorized IDEA, will have access to NCLB benefits such as the ability to transfer to a better performing school or receive supplemental education services, as in tutoring, if they are currently attending a school that is classified as "in need of improvement," or "under corrective action." Title I schools under corrective action in NCLB must make systemic change in how they provide education, and programs of school-wide reform encourage the use of technology as an important consideration for success. Handheld computers may be used to teach proven curriculum and to assist in giving student assessments against state standards, because their effectiveness is based on scientific research.

Funds from IDEA may also be co-mingled with NCLB funds, as in the case of Title I school-wide programs, so long as the IDEA funds are used to pay the excess costs of providing special ed and related services to children with disabilities. This allows schools in the process of providing comprehensive reform to use both Title I and IDEA funds.

Concern voiced about the new IDEA has been mainly focused around confusion between the conflicting requirements of the two Acts. For example, under NCLB, a disabled eighth grader, working at a lower grade level, must take the examinations for eighth graders. IDEA however requires that students with disabilities be taught according to ability, and that each special education student have an individualized education plan (IEP.) That stands in stark contrast to the rule under NCLB that special education students are considered a subcategory whose test results count toward whether a school makes adequate yearly progress, the benchmark for being accountable under NCLB guidelines. As a result, the two laws are creating some confusion for schools nationwide.

A RECENT LAWSUIT FILED by two Illinois school districts claims that some of the accountability measures of NCLB need to be overturned because of the conflict with IDEA. The lawyer representing the districts, Raymond A. Hauser, said IDEA's requirement that each special education student have an individualized education plan is contrast to the requirement under NCLB law that special education students count as one subgroup whose test results help determine whether a school makes adequate yearly progress, the key measure for holding schools accountable under the law.

Another concern voiced by those in special education is the requirement for "highly qualified" teachers. Many who teach disabled students, are certified in special education and have an undergraduate degree in elementary education. In middle and high school, special education teachers often teach multiple subjects. The new law requires that they must be highly qualified in special education as well as every other core subject they teach. The reauthorized IDEA requires that teachers of special education students must meet the same standards of quality as teachers of general education classes. For NCLB and IDEA purposes, this needs to happen by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

New special education teachers who teach multiple subjects exclusively to disabled students and are considered "highly qualified" in math, language arts or science will have two years after their employment date to demonstrate competency in the other core subjects they teach. The core academic subjects as defined in NCLB, are language arts, math, foreign languages, history, science, civics/government, economics, and arts.

States also have the option of administering licensing exams that could work in place of a special education certification. Teachers would still have to demonstrate subject-area mastery but if they passed the exam, they could meet the criteria for certification.

Many educators are relying on on-line certification classes in order to meet the additional requirements. Teachers will be allowed to demonstrate competence in core academic subject areas based on taking a high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) as defined in NCLB. Technology will play an important role in online professional development and testing for teachers preparing to meet state requirements and using at home and after hours network access to garner additional knowledge and credentials.

Both NCLB and IDEA stress a need and desire for increased parental involvement in student achievement. This provides yet another opportunity for technology to contribute in closing the achievement gap for all children, including students with disabilities and English language learners. After school programs, such as those offered through 21st Century Learning Centers, involve parents and students in learning activities through on-line courses, practice exercises and the Internet.

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION Spellings has indicated a strong willingness to work with states and find solutions to areas of concern between IDEA and NCLB. As a bold indication that this is true she recently visited Utah and declared that Utah's 8,500 veteran elementary school teachers may be considered "highly qualified. In doing this, the Secretary reversed a preliminary finding issued last year. Utah had asked for consideration in declaring elementary teachers with degrees in early childhood education or elementary education, but not a core subject, "qualified" if they had been teaching for three years and earned positive evaluations from their principals. This ruling has given hope to many that the Department of Education is listening and making decisions that will help and not hinder in building partnerships to accomplish important mutual goals.

The case for improving our nations' schools is clear and compelling. We need to assure that all children have access to the best possible education, delivered by qualified professionals, with reasonableness as our guide.