1

As Erich Fromm once said, “Education is helping the child realize his

potentialities”. Who is to tell educators when a child potential is to start? Those students

with the most educational needs, disabled students, are calling to action educators around

the globe to get at these children earlier to make the difference. The Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was expanded in 1986 to include a Part C, to assist

any child under the age of three. IDEA part C is a fundamental part of early education in

children. Although it may prove to be the topic of many arguments, legislation and

current partnerships with local organizations will set the standard that will make IDEA

part C a staple in early education for children with disabilities.

What is IDEA Part C; Federally and Locally

IDEA part C is a federal grant program that assists states in operating a

comprehensive statewide program of early intervention services for infants and toddlers

with disabilities birth to age two years***add at risk youth (pg 1 of internet). IDEA part

C was enacted by Congress in 1986 as a response to increasing public concern for the

development of the children left out of the original Education for All Handicapped

Children Act (EAHCA), the rising costs of special education, and the desire to increase

independent living. The enactment of IDEA part C was a collaborative effort by law

makers to expand the already newly named IDEA, and to service a smaller group a

children who have different needs of school age children. In December of 2004, Present

Bush signed legislation reauthorizing IDEA. The current regulations and statues are

calling into question the requirements that states need to meet, including the minimum

components of the early intervention system in place statewide. As of 2008, over 321,000
 2

children nationwide have been served under this act with over $436 million dollars

appropriated across the nation (http://www.nectac.org/idea/idea.asp)*.

According to the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center*, there

are minimum components under IDEA for the statewide comprehensive system of early

intervention services to infants and toddlers with special needs. While many of the

components can be interpreted state to state, the components are set at a minimum so that

states can customize early intervention services according to the funds they have been

appropriated. One of the most widely interpreted minimum components is that of a

rigorous definition of the term “developmental delay” Although the IDEA statute for Part

C specifies the developmental areas that are to be included in states’ definitions of

developmental delay, states must identify appropriate diagnostic instruments, procedures

(including the use of informed clinical opinion), and levels of functioning or other criteria

that will be used to determine eligibility. Indiana uses two factors to determine their

definition: the difference between chronological age and actual performance level

expressed as a percentage of chronological age and delay as indicated by standard

deviation below the mean on a norm-referenced instrument — and qualitatively — such

as delay indicated by atypical development or observed atypical behaviors

(http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/pubs/nnotes21.pdf)**. Indiana’s level to receive services

under IDEA part C are 2.0 SD in one area or 25% below chronological age; 1.5 SD in

two areas or 20% below chronological age in two areas; or an informed clinical opinion

(http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/pubs/nnotes21.pdf, page 9)*.

Indiana’s designated lead agencies are The Division of Disability and

Rehabilitative Services (DDRS) and the Bureau of Child Development Services (BCDS)
 3

of the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA). Indiana is grouped into

clusters for distributing services, central Indiana is cluster G. The agency serving this

cluster is Central Indiana First Steps. All nationwide agencies like this one are centered

on community and home based coordination plans that assist the child and that child’s

family in early intervention and education. This plan is called an Individualized Family

Serviced Plan (IFSP). Under Sections 636 of IDEA part C there are strict federal

guidelines for what this plan must include, the most important of that is that all services

must have parental consent. Only services in which parental consent is obtained can be

provided.

Importance of IDEA Part C

From 1987 until 2004, annual federal appropriations for IDEA part C have been

increasing along with the number of children being served by this act. As of 2005, annual

federal appropriations have tapered off, however, the number of children being served has

still continued to increase (https://www.ideadata.org/PartCData.asp)**. This trend in data

is suggesting that with an increased number of children being served, that states are

streamlining funds to provide more services to more children. While the definition of

children being served has not changed, more agencies within central Indiana are

providing services to these children at lower costs to the state.

The original IDEA act services children from ages three to twenty-one. At that

time the child enters the educational system and an Individualized Education Plan (IEP),

is developed. A child who has received services through IDEA part C will already have

an IFSP in place and have an early intervention plan in action. Thus, the transition to the

education system in that child’s state will be the least disruptive to the student. When the
 4

child enters the formal educational system, this IFSP is combined with the IEP. By

incorporating EAHCA (Public Law 94-142), a child is required to the least restrictive the

least restrictive environment (LRE) in which to learn. IDEA part C is taking this early

intervention and making the transition into mainstream public education. Educational

funds are the most important but the hardest to come by, IDEA part C is looking to lower

the per student special educational costs. IDEA part C is starting the educational services

at a younger age with the hope that having an early intervention plan will lower the

overall costs to the educational system by identifying a special education child’s needs

earlier on to ease the burden on the school system at a later date.

Arguments within IDEA Part C

Many educators are opposed to such an early intervention system being in place

under IDEA part C. The argument is that since these students have been identified as

being such low functioning, what good will it do to spend so much hard to find

educational funds on something that has yet to be a proven advantage? Money in this

economy could be put to better use within in the educational system. Our society places

so much emphasis on its productive members and what they can produce for the society

at large. We are a society of instant gratification and taking the time to identify these

children at such a young age without knowing the outcome is a risk.

Discussions with Part C early intervention experts supported the concern that

early intervention providers do not have extensive experience or training to work with

children and particularly adults with mental health issues. Even for service providers

experienced with such families, service provision can be difficult. Providing Part C
 5

providers with knowledge and professional support can greatly increase the likelihood of

effective service provision with the end result of better child outcomes.

A major concern expressed by experts was that Part C early intervention primarily

provides therapeutic services that are child-focused. Family-focused services in Part C

are centered on family involvement in supporting child development. Part C does not

typically provide services that include services for other family members, though Part C

services may be adult focused; it is generally in the form of training for the parent to

work with the child. In most cases, Child Welfare Services emphasize providing family-

centered services because research, past experience, and theory suggest this will be the

most effective intervention model for resolving behavior and mental health problems in

the child and promoting a strong sense of ‘connectedness’ among family members

(http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/devneeds/ch2.htm#B)**.

If we take a look at the opposition we can find another argument for the IDEA

part C. In a study done by the Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health, it has been shown that

with Home based psychosocial intervention in the first 12 months for infants at risk of

developmental delay is effective and feasible. For the autism spectrum it has been found

that with such early intervention programs, educators are focusing on inclusion both in

and out of the classroom. Many of these programs are costs effective to the state due to

the fact that they are federally funded.