Editorial: Waist Deep in the Big Muddy: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The first iteration of IDEA, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed more than 35 years ago, had several positive elements. Key among these was the concept of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for all children, regardless of the extent of the disability. The establishment of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) has had an even more far-reaching impact. Under the guidelines of IDEA, along with parents, professionals with appropriate knowledge and expertise, develop IEPs to meet the unique educational needs of children diagnosed as disabled in one of the thirteen federal disability categories. In recent years approximately six and a half million American children, or 12% of the total public school enrollment, receive educational services developed through IEPs.

The mandate for education in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the major provision that has caused the most confusion and controversy, especially, but not entirely, in the field of education of the deaf. Although there have been attempts, the term has never been defined over the past 35 years to everyone's satisfaction. In general, it has been interpreted to mean that educational placement of a disabled student contiguous to nondisabled peers is preferable to the greatest extent possible.

Readers of the Annals are aware of the opposing view that educational placement of deaf children with other deaf children in many instances can increase communication and access to information more efficiently than immersion in a completely hearing environment. From this perspective placement of deaf students with other deaf students constitutes the least restrictive environment. However, because the classification "Deaf and Hard of Hearing" is one of the 13 federal "disability" categories, the impact of the mainstreaming/inclusion model interpretation of LRE has been significant. For a number of reasons, educational placement of deaf students had been moving away from residential and center schools since shortly after World War II, but it is undeniable that the LRE provision of IDEA has speeded up the process. In short, the subsumption of education of deaf students under the IDEA umbrella led to a loss of independence in our field, making it more difficult to address the unique needs of deaf students. In some ways the outcome to date has been positive. For example, our educational programs to a large extent were too narrow, concentrating on speech, English, and grammar to the detriment of math, science, social studies, and literature. There has been an important change in emphasis to adapt regular education curricula, especially with the knowledge that many, perhaps a majority, of our children will find themselves in different educational environments. Quite simply, our expectations were too low.

On the other hand, we are in danger of losing our identity and being swallowed up within the far larger population of children classified as disabled. The federal government has identified approximately 70,000 deaf and hard of hearing children served under IDEA, slightly more than one child in a hundred with an IEP. If we assume one-half of these students would have severe or profound hearing loss, perhaps one child in 200 children with an IEP is deaf. Two categories—Learning Disabilities and Speech and Language Disorders—constitute the majority of disabled children under IDEA. They receive the type of attention due to them for their numbers; the parameters for them for LRE, for example, are different than they are for deaf students. If regulations for inclusion and for other elements of an IEP are based on majorities, the implications for deaf students may be of concern. Although I know that IEPs, by definition, are individualized, I also know they can be generated by computer. In sum, I think that IDEA has been a mixed blessing for deaf students. Our expectations and curricula are better, but our children may be overlooked and they may not be getting the specialized services they need. The 2006 Reference issue of the Annals was devoted to the challenges of conducting research that can be generalized to large groups of deaf students if they...