Order Code RS21226
May 23, 2002
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act: Paperwork in Special Education
Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Richard N. Apling
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
Congress is currently considering reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). The amount of paperwork special education teachers have to
complete has been an issue for many educators and Congress is examining whether
changes to the federal statute are necessary to reduce the paperwork burden. This report
will discuss some of the requirements of the law that give rise to paperwork, reviews of
the paperwork issue by the Department of Education, the available statistics on the time
special educators spend on paperwork, and related commentary. This report will not be
updated.
Introduction
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)1 both authorizes federal
funding for special education and related services2 and, for states that accept these funds,3
sets out principles under which special education and related services are to be provided.
1 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq. For a more detailed discussion of IDEA see Nancy Lee Jones and
Richard N. Apling, “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Statutory Provisions and
Selected Issues,” CRS Report RL31259.
2 Related services (for example, physical therapy) assist children with disabilities to benefit from
special education (20 U.S.C. §1401(22)).
3 Currently all states receive IDEA funding.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
The requirements are detailed, especially when the regulatory interpretations are
considered. The major principles include requiring that:
! States and school districts make available a free appropriate public
education (FAPE)4 to all children with disabilities, generally between the
ages of 3 and 21; states and school districts identify, locate, and
evaluate all children with disabilities, regardless of the severity of their
disability, to determine which children are eligible for special education
and related services;
! Each child receiving services has an individual education program
(IEP) delineating the specific special education and related services to be
provided to meet his or her needs; the parent must be a partner in
planning and overseeing the child’s special education and related services
as a member of the IEP team;
! “To the maximum extent appropriate,” children with disabilities must be
educated with children who are not disabled; and states and school
districts must provide procedural safeguards to children with
disabilities and their parents, including a right to a due process hearing,
the right to appeal to federal district court and, in some cases, the right to
receive attorneys’ fees.
Although paperwork is required to implement many of these statutory provisions, the
area that has attracted the most discussion regarding paperwork is that relating to the IEP.
The IEP is described by the Department of Education (ED) as the “cornerstone of a
quality education of each child with a disability.”5 It “creates an opportunity for teachers,
parents, school administrators, related services personnel, and students (when appropriate)
to work together to improve educational results for children with disabilities.”6 Once a
child is identified as a child with a disability, an IEP meeting is scheduled to discuss the
child’s needs and write an IEP. School staff are required to contact the participants,
including the parents, and to provide the parents with certain information including the
purpose, time and location of the meeting, and who will be attending. The IEP must
contain certain information:
4 It should be emphasized that what is required under IDEA is the provision of a free appropriate
public education. The Supreme Court in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central
School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 177 (1982), held that this requirement is satisfied when the
state provides personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit a child to benefit
educationally from that instruction and that this instruction should be reasonably calculated to
enable the child to advance from grade to grade. IDEA does not require that a state maximize
the potential of children with disabilities.
5 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, “Guide to the Individualized
Education Program,” [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Products/IEP_Guide/].
6 Id.

---

CRS-3
! how the child is currently performing in school (usually gleaned
from evaluation of tests);7
! annual goals;8

! the special education and related services to be provided to the
child, and the extent (if any) to which the child will not participate
with children without disabilities in the regular classroom;9
! any modifications in state or district wide testing;10
! when services will begin, how often they will be provided and how
long they will last;11
! beginning at age 14 the IEP must address the courses the child
needs to take to reach his or her post-school goals;12
! what transition services are necessary;13
! changes in rights at the age of majority;14 and
! how the child’s progress is to be measured and how the parents are
to be informed of the progress.15
The IEP team may also need to consider certain special facts such as behavior
management strategies, needs related to limited English proficiency, communication
needs, needs for braille materials, and needs for assistive technology devices or services.16
Although some teachers have noted that the IEP requirements may necessitate a
voluminous IEP,17 the Department of Education’s sample IEP form is five pages.18 The
7 34 C.F.R. §300.347(a)(1); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(i).
8 34 C.F.R. §347(a)(3); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(ii) and (viii).
9 34 C.F.R. §347(a)(3); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(iii).
10 34 C.F.R. §347(a)(5); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(v).
11 34 C.F.R. §347(a)(6); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(vi).
12 34 C.F.R. §300.347(b)(1); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(vii).
13 34 C.F.R. §347(b)(2); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(vii).
14 34 C.F.R. §347(c); 20 U.S.C. §1415(m).
15 34 C.F.R. §347(a)(7); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(viii).
16 34 C.F.R. §346(a)(2); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3).
17 CEC, “Paperwork is Number 1 Obstacle for Special Education Teachers,”
[http://www.cec.sped.org/bk/cectoday/tcsurv.html].
18 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, “Guide to the Individualized
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
Department has also responded to an inquiry regarding the paperwork requirements of
IDEA noting that it is “constantly reviewing its regulations to ensure that paperwork
burdens on States and local school districts are minimized.”19 State educational agencies
are also required to review their state requirements to minimize paperwork. ED also
noted that the IDEA Amendments of 1997 reduced paperwork in several ways by, for
example, permitting initial evaluations and revaluations to be based on existing evaluation
data and reports.20
Time Spent on Paperwork
The most recent national data on paperwork come from a study sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Education (ED), the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education
(SPENSE). The study, conducted for ED by Westat (an independent contractor), surveyed
more than 8,000 special education and general education teachers, administrators, and
other staff. Current available data were collected during the 1999-2000 school year.
Among the many questions asked to assess teacher preparation, experiences, and
attitudes, the study asked special education and general education teachers how much time
they typically spend on various tasks. Among those tasks was time spent on paperwork,
and the study reports evidence of a significantly greater paperwork burden for special
education teachers compared with their general education colleagues. According to
special education teachers surveyed, the median number of hours per week spent on
paperwork is 4.7 hours. That is, 50% of those responding said they spend more than 4.7
hours per week on paperwork; 50% said they spent less. The median for general
education teachers was 1.6 hours per week.21
With the exception of teachers of children with visual or hearing impairments
(median of 3.9 hours per week), there was little variation among teachers who taught
various categories of children with disabilities. However there was some regional
variation. The median hours per week varied from 3.3 hours week reported by teachers
in northeastern states to 5 hours per week reported by teachers in western states. This
variation could be due to differences among states in paperwork required in addition to
requirements resulting from IDEA.
Another study, sponsored by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), also
provides evidence on special education paperwork. Special education teachers surveyed22
reported that their concerns about paperwork ranked third, after their concerns about their
caseload and about time required for planning. About one-third of special education
18 (...continued)
Education Program,” [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Products/IEP_Guide/].
19 34 IDELR 236 (Dec. 12, 2000).
20 Id.
21 Data are from SPENSE data tables available at [http://www.spense.org/].
22 The CEC study sampled, for the most part, CEC members. Thus it may not be as representative
of the nation’s special education and general education teachers as the SPENSE sample was. The
study, known as the Bright Futures for Exceptional Learners, can be found at
[http://www.cec.sped.org].

---

CRS-5
teachers who responded to the survey said they spent between 10% and 20% of their time
on paperwork related to identifying students for special education and on IEPs.23 Another
30% of special education teachers said they spent up to 30% of their time on such
paperwork. In addition, teachers reported spending substantial additional time on
meetings related to IEPs: nearly 60% said they spend 10% to 20% of their time on such
meetings, and another 25% said they spend up to 30% of their time on these meetings.
Results for special education administrators were similar.
Commentary Relating to Paperwork
In addition to the comments made by the Department of Education regarding
paperwork which were discussed previously, numerous disability groups, schools and
teachers have advanced various positions regarding IDEA and paperwork. Many
commentators have observed that paperwork relating to special education can be
overwhelming. However, commentators differ regarding whether the reason for this is
the federal requirements or those additional requirements imposed by states and
localities.24 Even if the specific details of the paperwork are not federally imposed, some
have argued that the fear of legal action has led to documenting every action.25 The
following examples of the various arguments are illustrative, not exhaustive.
The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) testified at a forum sponsored by the
Office of Special Education Programs at the Department of Education that “unnecessary
paperwork and bureaucratic requirements that obstruct the provision of effective
instruction” should be eliminated and that the paperwork burden on special education
teachers should be reduced by providing technological resources and universal
documentation processes.26 Similarly, the National Association of Secondary School
Principals (NASSP) identified paperwork reduction as one of six priority themes at the
same forum. NASSP stated that “principals and their staff members have an inordinate
amount of paperwork requirements related to the implementation of IDEA. NASSP
appreciates the inclusion of paperwork reduction provisions in the 1997 law but believes
additional action needs to be taken in order to streamline the process related to the ...
IEP.”27
23 If one assumes an 8 hour day and a 40 hour workweek, these percentages translate into 4 to 8
hours per week or ½ to 1 day per week.
24 Vermont is one state that has examined its state requirements for special education and
concluded that IDEA “is the main reason for the paperwork and procedural burden faced by
special education personnel in Vermont. The Task Force concludes with confidence that
Vermont regulations do not in any substantial way increase this burden.” Executive Summary.
Vermont Task Force on Special Education Paperwork Reduction. February 1, 2001.
25 Michelle Y. Green, “Taming the Paper Tiger,” NEAToday Online (November 2000)
[http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0011/cover.html]
2 6 C E C , “ C E C P r e s i d e n t T e s t i f i e s o n I D E A R e a u t h o r i z a t i o n , ”
[http://www.cec.sped.org/spotlight/alex_testimony_12-19-01.html].
27 National Association of Secondary School Principals, “Initial Comments Related to the
Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,” December 10, 2001
[http://www.nassp.org/services/frr/121201frr_osep_idea.html].

---

CRS-6
One commentator has found that actions taken at the local level can reduce
paperwork. One classroom teachers association bargained for standardized IEP’s and
release time and compensation for additional work. Some state organizations have helped
enact state legislation that will develop an IEP form that is standardized for statewide
use.28 It was also noted that computerized forms and internet based systems that help
teachers write IEPs have saved time.29
Another commentator has argued that the complaints about paperwork regarding the
IEP involve an attitude that the IEPs are not a part of teaching. “The IDEA paperwork,
accused of being only red tape and cumbersome by educators and administrators is there
for a purpose...to serve students with disabilities by establishing measures of
accountability.”30 The use of electronic applications and internet-based performance
management systems as well as increased funding for compensation and training were
seen as helpful ways to relieve burdens without endangering the education of children
with disabilities.31
28 Michelle Y. Green, “Taming the Paper Tiger,” NEAToday Online (November 2000)
www.nea.org/neatoday/0011/cover.html
29 Id.
3 0 “ T h e r e ’ s ‘ P a p e r w o r k ’ , T h e n T h e r e ’ s P a p e r w o r k , ”
http://specialed.about.com/library/weekly/aa020302a.htm
31 Id.

---