As the Administration and the new Congress come together on budget priorities for the Education Department, special education funding should be at the top of their list. In the 35 years since the law’s passage, IDEA has never received the funding that the original legislation promised. In fact, funding has never reached half of the promised amount. With the exception of the infusion of funds included in ARRA, the federal government has never come close to meeting its IDEA commitment. Despite years of advocacy, federal support for IDEA has been a series of broken promises. Students, parents and families, and local taxpayers have been shortchanged for decades.

The challenges of federal funding are completely understandable; we are in the midst of an economic crisis. But this chronic shortfall forces states and local districts to dig deeper into their budgets to cover funding for students in this critical program. This is now untenable as states and cities face their own economic cliff and contemplate the possibility of defaults and bankruptcies.

Before IDEA, many states had laws that excluded students with certain disabilities from attending public schools. IDEA ensured these students were not shut out and provided opportunities to learn. Today, more than six million students in the U.S. receive special education services, and IDEA has dramatically changed how schools support these students. Over the past three decades, more students with disabilities spend all or part of their day in general education classrooms, more graduate from high school, and more attend college.

In order for states and local districts to support successful public schools – and fulfill the nation’s commitment to provide equity for students with disabilities – federal funding for students in IDEA must be made predictable, sustainable, and guaranteed. Our students have waited 35 years too many.

Let’s first look at the premise. Can anyone in this country deny the fact that special needs children require additional resources above and beyond what is provided for regular education students? Take a look at some of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) across the country and you will find services costs way above what we spend for regular education students. And, in fact, you will find most districts spend more general fund dollars to meet the obligations of the IEP mandated by IDEA. This “extra cost” represents what most districts call “encroachment.” I prefer to call it the federal government’s reneging on its promise to fund IDEA.

Before the federal dollars are allocated to new programs, let’s fully fund those which are on the books now. Or perhaps Congress should lessen the burden of IDEA mandates to more closely align with the funding it is willing to provide.

Here is a response from Lindsay Jones, Senior Director for Policy and Advocacy for the Council for Exceptional Children.

Last year, we celebrated the 35th anniversary of IDEA. Over the last 35 years, students with disabilities have received increased supports and services, and access to the general education curriculum–resulting in increased gains in achievement and higher expectations for their performance. While these gains are not entirely due to funding increases, the reality is that appropriate supports and services cost money.

Thus, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and its members have worked tirelessly throughout the last 35 years to convince Congress to keep its promise and fully fund special education. Sadly, today, special education only receives 17.2% of the 40% promised. Moreover, this number only addresses what is known as Part B of IDEA (serving ages 6-21) the remaining portions of special education Part C(serving ages 0-2), Part B 619 (serving ages 3-5) and Part D which supports technical assistance and development and personnel preparation are all important parts of special education and necessary to lead to gains in achievement.

We commend Chairman Kline for his unwavering support for special education funding and agree with the statement he often makes that increased funding for special education would help every school in the nation. The lack of appropriate funding for special education remains an immediate and urgent need. CEC hopes Chairman Kline and this Congress will consider this need while tackling the difficult fiscal realities our nation faces.

While funding directly for special education is important, it is impossible to ignore the impact that funding for general education also has on special education students. Currently, nearly 60 percent of students with disabilities are in general education classrooms for 80 percent or more of their school day. For example, recent data indicate that 95 percent of 6- to 21-year-old students with disabilities are served in regular public schools; 3 percent are served in a separate school for students with disabilities; 1 percent are placed in regular private schools by their parents; and less than 1 percent each are served in a separate residential facility, private home, hospital, or a correctional facility. The increased integration of students with disabilities into the general education environment is the result of substantive legal changes to both IDEA and ESEA requiring the inclusion of students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems and requiring them to receive access to the general education curriculum. It is important and it must continue.

Thus, today more than ever before students with disabilities are impacted by all education funding. When any of this funding is cut, students with disabilities lose, and divorcing special education from the entire education budget will not come without negative financial repercussions for schools and students with disabilities.

CEC and its members encourage Congress to consider the long term needs for all students when education funds are cut. We not only urge lawmakers to fulfill their promise for funding special education, but to remember that special education students are general education students first.

Duncan and Kline’s dilemma begs a bigger, unanswered question about NCLB/ESEA: Why is it necessary to frustrate and humiliate some of our most vulnerable, at-risk children in order to gather data on the quality of their education or the functioning of their schools? Answer: It isn’t.

One of the most profound and disturbing discussions I’ve had on this subject was with a young mother I'll call Debra. Fourteen years ago, Debra had been in my high school English class, and managed to graduate just a few days before her daughter was born. Debra's life, which had never been easy, took a deeply tragic turn five years ago when that child was murdered.

Sitting next to me at the health program, we watched her other child, 9 year-old Donnell sit passively through what was otherwise a lively group discussion. She shared with me her concerns that he was growing increasingly frustrated with school, and more and more withdrawn. Donnell had serious learning disabilities that affected his language and reading skills. According to Debra, his Individual Education Plan (IEP) and previous tests indicated that he could handle the equivalent of first, maybe second grade work. But the newly enacted changes in special education placement and testing to meet NCLB required that he be moved to inclusion setting and tested with the fourth graders. She had tried, unsuccessfully to talk with the special education staff, even the superintendent, along with some other concerned mothers of special needs children, about giving him a more gradual transition.

"I don't understand," she said nearly in tears, "why they insist on giving him work and a test that they know he's not ready for yet? He thinks he is stupid, and he's ready to give up on school," at nine years old.

She's been to the school 15 times this year already. His new teacher, with an already overcrowded classroom is struggling to give Donnell the extra help he needs while not neglecting the others. Both women are frustrated and angry with the system.

What could be more hypocritical than demanding that children with disabilities meet all the same academic requirements of their peers, while simultaneously refusing to fully fund the services and supports they need to do it? Rep. Kline and President Obama have both promised they would seek full funding for IDEA. One way to accomplish that goal might be to divert funds being wasted on improper testing of these students and excessive testing of others into providing them the educational supports to which they are legally entitled. Then, when we assessed them more appropriately and humanely, they could show real progress. And we could show that we actually do care about the children.

I find it deeply disturbing that some of the key players go first to the subject of money when discussing special education.

While IDEA may not be funded at levels expected when the program was first introduced, there have been steady increases in appropriated funds over time. This includes a hefty boost when NCLB was passed.

Yet, improved education for students with disabilities (SWD) in recent years was not achieved so much by more money. It was made possible by the unique and special demands of NCLB and the constructive response of effective educators across the land.

No longer can the performance of SWD be swept under the rug. These students must be assessed as rigorously as possible, and, for the first time ever, their academic results matter to the success of schools. As a result, states, districts, and schools have significantly improved the education of SWD.

What difference has this transformation made? It's huge.

In fourth grade math, the NAEP scores of SWD grew from 198 to 221 from 2000 to 2009, a remarkable improvement of 2.3 grade levels in achievement. During this time, the results for non-SWD grew considerably, too, but the gap between SWD and non-SWD still closed by roughly a grade level. (By the way, SWD scores in 4th grade NAEP math had dropped by 6 points from 1996 to 2000.)

In 8th grade math, SWD NAEP scores also rose impressively from 230 to 249 from 2000 to 2009, reversing a drop of 1 point from 1996 to 2000.

In 4th grade reading, SWD NAEP scores rose dramatically from 167 to 190 from 2000 to 2009, corresponding to a closing of the gap with non-SWD of 14 points, or roughly a grade and a half. (This was a total reversal from the trend in 1998-2000 in which 4th grade SWD scores had fallen 9 points.)

8th grade reading is relatively flat, as with all students.

So, while many of the key players today are talking about more money for IDEA, most of them are also proposing ripping up the foundation upon which SWD gains were built. This would be catastrophic.

The Administration has proposed focusing accountability only on the bottom 5% of the schools.

What will that mean for SWD who are in the other 95% of the schools? Here's exactly what it means: they will be treated exactly the same way they were treated before 2001. Their results won't matter at all unless results for all students drag the school into the bottom 5%.

Will all the progress we've made over the past decade be lost? Probably not. But as the pressure eases, it's only natural that attention and focus will shift elsewhere. This would be a shameful step backwards for disabled students.

Certain Republicans also don't like AYP and want to return all authority over accountability to the locals. I realize many locals complain about the pressure and don't like having to do things differently. But results for SWD here in Texas and most places in the country are much better today than they were a decade ago, showing that the pressure, however challenging, made a positive difference.

It's a lot more fun to spend more money than it is to leverage change through accountability. But it will be no fun for the future of our kids if we gut the foundation of accountability and return the debate mostly to favorite spending programs.