The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Policy

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is both a grants statute and a civil rights statute. As a grants statute, IDEA provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (i.e., specially designed instruction provided at no cost to parents that meets the needs of a child with a disability). In FY2012, $12.6 billion was appropriated for IDEA. In the fall of 2009, 5.9 million children ages six through 21 received educational services under IDEA.

As a civil rights statute, IDEA contains procedural safeguards, which are provisions intended to protect the rights of parents and children with disabilities regarding the provision of FAPE. These procedures include parental rights to resolve disputes through a mediation process, and present and resolve complaints through a due process complaint procedure, and through state complaint procedures. IDEA’s procedural safeguards also address disciplinary issues. In general, a child with a disability is not immune from discipline, but the procedures are not the same as for nondisabled children.

To be covered under IDEA, a child with a disability must meet the categorical definition of disability in the act, and the child must require special education and related services as a result of the disability in order to benefit from public education. Once a child meets IDEA’s eligibility criteria, FAPE is implemented through the Individualized Education Program (IEP), which is the plan for providing special education and related services by the local educational agency (LEA). The IEP is developed by an IEP team composed of school personnel and parents. IDEA requires that children with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment. That is, to the maximum extent appropriate they are to be educated with children who are not disabled. In 2008, over 50% of all children with disabilities served by IDEA spent 80% or more of their time in a regular classroom.

To implement IDEA, states and other entities (i.e., the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Bureau of Indian Education, the outlying areas, and the freely associated states) receive grants based on a statutory formula. Most of the federal funds received by states are passed on to LEAs based on a statutory formula. IDEA also contains state and local maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and supplement, not supplant (SNS) requirements aimed at increasing overall educational spending, rather than substituting federal funds for education spending at the state and local levels.

Originally enacted in 1975, IDEA has been the subject of numerous reauthorizations to extend services and rights to children with disabilities. The most recent reauthorization of IDEA was P.L. 108-446 enacted in 2004. Funding for Part B, Assistance for Education of all Children with Disabilities, the largest and most often discussed part of the act, is permanently authorized. Funding for Part C, Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, and Part D, National Activities, was authorized through FY2011. Funding for the programs continues to be authorized through annual appropriations.


Date of Report: January 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R41833
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41833.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and Funding

Karen E. Lynch
Specialist in Social Policy

Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy

Federal support for child care and education comes in many forms, ranging from grant programs to tax provisions. Some programs serve as specifically dedicated funding sources for child care services (e.g., the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG) or education programs (e.g., the Preschool Grants Program and Infants and Toddlers Program funded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA). For other programs (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF), child care is just one of many purposes for which funds may be used. In many cases, federal programs target low-income families in need of child care, but in the case of certain tax provisions, the benefits reach middle- and upper-income families as well.

This report provides a funding overview and brief background information on federal child care, early education, and related programs (and tax provisions). The report begins with an update on funding developments for FY2013 (including congressional actions on annual and supplemental appropriations, possible sequestration, and the President’s budget request) and a summary of final funding levels for FY2012. The report concludes with a six-year funding history and brief descriptions for each of the early childhood programs and tax provisions discussed throughout.

Funding for many child care, early education, and related programs is provided each year as part of the annual appropriations process for the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education (ED). (Note that certain early childhood programs and tax provisions receive funding separate from the annual appropriations process.) For FY2013, funding for annually appropriated programs has been provided—through March 27, 2013—by a government-wide continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175), which generally maintains funding for discretionary programs at their FY2012 rates, plus 0.612%. For FY2012, funding for most of these programs was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). Compared to FY2011, the FY2012 appropriations law provided increases for some early childhood programs, such as the discretionary CCDBG, Head Start, and IDEA Grants for Infants and Families.

Several early childhood care and education programs have funding authorizations that have already expired or are due to expire soon. The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, for instance, expired in FY2002. However, the discretionary CCDBG has continued to be funded through annual appropriations laws. The authorization for many programs in the No Child Left Behind Act expired at the end of FY2008, but these programs have likewise continued to receive funding. Mandatory child care and basic TANF grants are also due for reauthorization in the 113th Congress, but have been temporarily extended through March 2013 by P.L. 112-175.


Date of Report: January 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: R40212
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40212.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Education of Students with Disabilities: Alignment Between the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Policy

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy

The largest sources of federal funding for elementary and secondary education are the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446). The ESEA provides funding and services for a broad population of students, including disadvantaged students, migrant students, neglected and delinquent students, and students with limited English proficiency. Approximately 6 million students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 attend elementary and secondary schools; however, they are not afforded special services under the ESEA due to their disability status. The IDEA provides funding and services specifically for those students with disabilities. Both the ESEA and IDEA aim to improve the educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The ways in which they do this sometimes differ, and when the laws are not fully or clearly aligned it can be difficult for educators to plan and execute an appropriate education for students with disabilities.

In the 113th Congress, legislators may consider the reauthorization of the ESEA. This report focuses on four broad policy issues within both the ESEA and IDEA, which potentially create differing expectations or requirements for schools and teachers educating students with disabilities:

• Standards. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities are taught to state academic content standards that apply to all children in the state. Under the IDEA, academic goals are established for each child in an individualized education program (IEP). 
• Assessments. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities participate in annual assessments that determine adequate yearly progress toward meeting expectations associated with state academic content and achievement standards. Under the IDEA, students with disabilities are assessed for identification purposes and for monitoring progress toward meeting goals articulated in their IEPs. 
• Accountability. The ESEA accountability system primarily measures whether schools and local education agencies are making adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics achievement. The “students with disabilities” subgroup is expected to make adequate yearly progress. The IDEA monitoring system measures whether states are meeting certain compliance and performance indicators to determine whether the law is being implemented as intended. 
• Teachers. Both the ESEA and IDEA have requirements regarding “highly qualified” teachers. The ESEA includes a definition of “highly qualified” teacher as the term relates to teachers of elementary and secondary education. The IDEA also includes a definition of “highly qualified” teacher as the term relates to special education teachers of elementary and secondary education. Because students with disabilities spend the majority of time in the general education classroom, they are affected by both definitions. 

This report highlights issues pertaining to alignment and misalignment among ESEA and IDEA provisions within these areas, describes how statutory and regulatory language has sought to clarify these issues, and addresses specific issues that Congress may want to clarify as it considers the reauthorization of ESEA.


Date of Report: January 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R42070
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42070.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Indian Elementary-Secondary Education Programs: Background and Issues

Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy

The federal government provides elementary and secondary education and educational assistance to Indian children, either directly through federally funded schools or indirectly through educational assistance to public schools. Direct education is provided by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the U.S. Department of the Interior, through elementary and secondary schools funded by the BIE. Educational assistance to public schools is provided chiefly through programs of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The student population served by federal Indian education programs consists of members (or descendants of members) of Indian tribes, not American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), as identified by race/ethnicity. Most of this Indian education population attends public schools. Most federal data on Indian students are based on race/ethnicity, however, which complicates analysis of results for the population served by federal Indian education programs.

The BIE was originally part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Interior Department. The BIA began the current system of direct Indian education in the decades following the Civil War, with congressional approval and funding. The system developed gradually to its current structure. In the late 19th century, the BIA began placing a few students in public schools, a trend that accelerated after about 1910. At present, 90% or more of the Indian student population attends public schools.

The BIE-funded education system for Indian students includes 169 schools (and 14 “peripheral dormitories” for students attending public schools nearby). Schools and dorms may be operated by the BIE itself or by tribes and tribal organizations. A number of BIE programs provide funding and services, supplemented by set-asides for BIE schools from ED programs. Federal funding for Indian students in public schools flows to school districts chiefly through ED programs, with a small addition from a single BIE program. BIE and public schools are subject to the standards and accountability provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), although not all such provisions apply to BIE schools.

Authorization for most ESEA programs ended in FY2007. The 113th Congress is likely to consider reauthorization of the ESEA and may amend BIE and BIA educational provisions in Title 25 U.S. Code. Among the issues that may be raised are the academic outcomes of Indian students in public and BIE schools, the incorporation of native language instruction, the development of academic standards and assessments by Indian tribes, the conditions of BIE school facilities, and appropriate participation of Indian tribes in public school education.


Date of Report: February 11, 2013
Number of Pages: 48
Order Number: RL34205
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL34205.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) Program

Alexandra Hegji
Analyst in Social Policy

The District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-98) was enacted on November 12, 1999, creating the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) program. The program provides grants to District of Columbia residents for undergraduate education. Grants for study at public institutions of higher education (IHEs) nationwide offset the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition and fees, up to $10,000 per year and a cumulative maximum of $50,000. Students may also receive grants of up to $2,500 per year and a cumulative maximum of $12,500 for undergraduate study at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) nationwide and private IHEs in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.


Date of Report: February 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41313
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41313.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.