Editor’s note: This is the first in a three-part series in which Miriam Kurtzig Freedman reflects back on a half-century of special education law in the United States. Part II explained that new legislation must be built on the science of learning, not the adversarial legal system, and Part III outlined the key components for better special education in the U.S.
How many presidents begin a bill-signing statement with the word, “unfortunately”? Only one—President Gerald Ford, when signing the landmark special education law on November 29, 1975:
Unfortunately, this bill promises more than the federal government can deliver, and its good intentions could be thwarted by the many unwise provisions it contains. Everyone can agree with the objective stated in the title of this bill--educating all handicapped children in our Nation. The key question is whether the bill will really accomplish that objective.
Now, after 50 years of implementing the law—known today as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA—we can reflect on its legacy: the good, the bad, and the realities that shape today’s schools and America’s future. We can ask if President Ford’s concerns were off-base or prescient—and how we might chart a path forward to fulfill the promise of education for all students.
I’m proud to have spent some 50 years in public education: first, as a teacher during the civil-rights era, when the new law inspired me; later, as a hearing officer at the dawn of the IDEA; and then as an attorney representing public schools. I’ve witnessed this law transform students, families, schools, and our nation. Now, I am compelled to share what I’ve learned—so we can do better for students with disabilities (SWD), their peers, and our nation.
Why do we have public schools?
Before we look at the IDEA itself, let’s ask what the mission of public education is. The U.S. Department of Education states that it is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and equal access.”
Before delving into that pivotal question, whether we are achieving that mission for all students, including SWD, let’s briefly review the IDEA’s implementation and achievements.
Equal access, the IDEA’s defining success
Before 1975, many students with disabilities were excluded from public schools. The IDEA changed that forever. Today, every SWD has the right to attend school and receive individualized services. The days when schools could tell parents, “We don’t educate children like yours,” are long-gone. The number of SWD served under the IDEA has risen from about 3.6 million in 1976–77 (roughly 8 percent) to nearly 8 million today (about 15 percent), a rise far greater than overall public-school enrollment. Thanks to the IDEA, schools have become more inclusive, welcoming, and accepting of learning differences. The IDEA succeeded! It’s an extraordinary achievement.
Who are today’s SWD?
To receive IDEA services, students need a disability label, even as the criteria for those labels are often subjective and imprecise. SWD are categorized as those with mild, moderate, severe, or profound disabilities. An estimated 10–20 percent of SWD have severe or profound disabilities. The vast majority have mild disabilities. This discussion focuses on students with mild or moderate disabilities. Of the law’s 13 categories, the four largest are students with (a) specific learning disability (32 percent), (b) speech or language impairment (19 percent), (c) other health impairment (15 percent), and (d) autism (13 percent). Notably, the first two labels alone make up more than half of all students that the IDEA serves.
Procedures and their paperwork
Students enter the special education system through a referral and evaluation. A team of educators and parents meets at least annually to develop an IEP—an Individualized Education Program for each student. SWD are entitled to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
It is a noble—though highly complex—process. Federal regulations now total more than 500 pages. State and local requirements add even more. Here President Ford’s prescience rings true: The law has “complex requirements under which tax dollars would be used to support administrative paperwork and not educational programs.”
Parents and rights
Parents of SWD play an integral role, as partners and legal stakeholders because Congress created the IDEA as a private enforcement system, with parents as its enforcers! Parents have the right to participate in the development of the IEP and accept or reject the school’s plan. If they dispute any of the above, they can pursue due process options, such as mediations or hearings. Parents and schools often hire lawyers for such disputes. This uncapped private enforcement entitlement program creates a house divided in our schools—between parents and schools and between general and special education. What happens to children whose parents can’t work the system? Whither collaboration and partnership?
It is important to note that SWD and their parents are the only groups in our public schools with individual entitlements. None exists for children who are poor, minority, advanced, immigrant, homeless, gifted and talented, English learners, or any other group.
Compliance cost in money and time
Special education is expensive—but surprisingly, no one knows how many billions are actually spent. The federal government pays about 15 percent of the total, with states and districts funding the rest. Whatever is spent, it’s never enough! Of course, funds spent here impact programming opportunities for all students. Again, we hear President Ford’s words: The law’s promises are “falsely raising expectations,” claiming funding levels by Congress that are “excessive and unrealistic.”
As well, a huge cost is the time and energy drained by compliance requirements. Research shows special educators have but 29 percent of their schooldays left for teaching. Many leave the field, fueling a national shortage of special educators.
Student outcomes and excellence
Since SWD have varying needs, generalizations are difficult to make, beyond noting that recent (2024) National Assessment of Educational Progress scores (“The Nation’s Report Card”) showed SWD performing significantly lower than their general education peers (as might be expected). Whither evidence of success?
So where are we now? We have much to celebrate because the IDEA succeeded in its mission to provide access and opportunity for all SWD. It’s time to declare victory, sunset this law, and create a new one for our era, a Special Education 2.0.
