Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

No Child Left Behind Act Both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are fairly controversial pieces of legislation, particularly in the varying realms of public education that they affect. The former of these acts mandates that public schools must give yearly, standardized assessments of their students. The results of these assessments is largely the basis for federal funding to these schools.

IDEA mandates assessments for students with learning differences and calls for the issuance of alternative assessments for those students who cannot complete the standardized assessments (Towles-Reeves et al., 2009, p. 233). The problem is that critics of these pieces of legislation have alleged that all they do is shift the emphasis of education on testing and subsequent funding, rather than on comprehensive education. Problem Statement There are actually several different ways in which these two pieces of legislation are negatively impacting young children and their families.

Firstly, one must understand the correlation between these two mandates: IDEA reinforces the No Child Left Behind Act as the legislation that requires that even children in special education must submit to these assessments. The primary way in which the issues created by these laws are negatively impacting young children and their families is that public funds are almost entirely based on test results.

Those schools that are not able to pass state standards are not administered funds, or are given funding much less than those schools that are able to pass. The schools with the greatest need for funding do not attain funds through these laws. Current Practice Local, state, and national organizations are in some instances addressing, and in others failing to address, this issue.

At virtually all of these levels the focus is merely on test results for students, which neglects other critical aspects of education such as those pertaining to the art and recreational activities. Moreover, there are several schools and school systems that are not receiving sufficient public funds to help them. Instead, these systems get dubious free tutoring services (for students), with individuals who oftentimes are not as qualified to help these students as they should be.

At the national level, however, there are several entities that are attempting to unite and change these two pieces of legislation so that they are more equitable and can account for financial disparities implicit in them in a better way. Proposed Change The change that I would like to propose is based on the funding and the way that funds are allocated as indicated by the No Child Left Behind and IDEA acts, respectively.

Simply, I would change it so that the schools that have students that do not meet the goals of standardized assessments still receive funding. Ideally, these schools could get funding that involves "integrating federal, state, and private funding sources" (Demma, 2010). The reality is that when there are situations in which schools cannot meet these standards, those standards themselves are inherently lowered. Funding should be an incentive for schools to receive public federal funds, but it should not be the only way to do so.

There should be two sources of funds, one for public schools in general, and another based on the incentive that standardized testing provides. Proposed Change This change would help students and families by ensuring that there is much less of a chance for them to be involved with schools that lower their standards simply so that they can receive federal funding. Ideally, it would help public schools to become more well rounded and less focused on.