[Senate Hearing 107-363]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-363
IDEA: WHAT'S GOOD FOR KIDS? WHAT WORKS FOR SCHOOLS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,
AS IT APPLIES TO CHILDREN AND SCHOOLS
__________
MARCH 21, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-448 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
TOM HARKIN, Iowa BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Townsend Lange McNitt, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
Thursday, March 21, 2002
Page
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 1
Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine... 3
Jeffords, Hon. James M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont 4
Reed, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island... 5
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, a U.S. Senator from the State of
New York....................................................... 8
Gregg, Hon. Judd, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire. 8
Pasternack, Robert H., Assistant Secretary for Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC................................................. 10
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa.......... 12
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland....................................................... 26
Rangel-Diaz, Lilliam, member, National Council on Disability,
Washington, DC................................................. 30
Findley, Valerie, parent, Des Moines, IA; Robert Runkel,
Administrator, Division of Special Education, Helena, MT;
Robert Vaadeland, Superintendent, Minnewaska Area Schools,
Glenwood, MN; and Kim Ratcliffe, Director of Special Education,
Columbia Public Schools, Columbia, MO.......................... 34
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Robert H. Pasternack......................................... 52
Lilliam Rangel-Diaz.......................................... 55
Valerie Findley.............................................. 58
Robert Runkel................................................ 62
Bob Vaadeland................................................ 67
Kim Goodrich Ratcliffe....................................... 69
National Association of School Nurses........................ 75
Donna Martinez............................................... 76
(iii)
IDEA: WHAT'S GOOD FOR KIDS? WHAT WORKS FOR SCHOOLS?
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Kennedy
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Mikulski, Jeffords,
Wellstone, Reed, Clinton, Bond, Collins, and Sessions.
Opening Statement of Senator Kennedy
The Chairman. We have a full morning, and we are getting a
later start than we had hoped, so we are very grateful and
would ask all of our guests to come in. We have quite a number
of people outside who have taken a great interest in this
legislation, as we can understand, so we want to make sure all
the chairs are filled. If families have small children, we will
ask the children to come up here and be seated so they can see.
This at its best sometimes get a little technical and not the
most interesting part of a child's life, but to try to enhance
it a bit, we will bring some chairs up here in front, and the
children can come on up.
We want to thank all of you, particularly our witnesses,
and we apologize for the delay--there was a Senate vote
earlier--but we are very, very grateful for your patience, and
we thank all the guests who are here today.
We thank you for being here for our first hearing on the
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Today
we will hear testimony on one of the greatest civil rights laws
ever enacted in this country, because it guarantees the right
of every child with a disability to a free appropriate public
education.
We know that children with disabilities should have the
same opportunities as every American to fulfill their hopes and
dreams of living independent and productive lives. This
important law provides that opportunity in our public schools.
In Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court
ended segregation by race and declared that all children would
be guaranteed equal access to education under the Constitution.
But it was not until the passage of the Education for the
Handicapped Act in 1975 that we ended school segregation by
disability and opened the doors of our public schools to
disabled children. Only then did the Nation's 4 million
disabled children begin to have the same opportunities as other
children to develop their talents, share their gifts, and
contribute to their communities.
For 27 years since then, the Act now called IDEA has held
out hope for young people with disabilities so that they too
can learn and contribute their talents to our communities. IDEA
has meant the difference between dependence and independence,
between lost potential and productive lives.
We must never go back to the shameful days of warehousing
children with disabilities when most disabled children were
excluded from public education, when few if any preschool
children with disabilities received services, when
institutional placements were more common than educational
opportunities.
Today, 6.5 million children with disabilities are receiving
special education services, and 96 percent of them are learning
alongside nondisabled peers. The number of young children with
developmental delays receiving early childhood services has
increased threefold over the last decade. More disabled
children are participating in State and national testing
programs. Graduation rates and college enrollment rates are
slowly rising.
But even as we celebrate these important accomplishments,
we know there is still room for improvement. IDEA can and
should be strengthened as part of our new education reform
designed to leave no child behind.
We can strengthen IDEA in the areas of accountability,
enforcement, quality, coordinated program supports, and meet
the Federal commitment to fully fund IDEA. There is virtually
no limit to the advances that special education students can
achieve over the next quarter century.
However, it does not matter how good a job Congress does in
strengthening IDEA if the law is not implemented and enforced.
We need to ensure that disabled students are truly receiving
their individualized program services to they can progress in
the general education curriculum and meet academic standards.
We need to ensure that teachers are well-trained and have
the classroom supports to do their jobs right.
We need to ensure that agencies work together with schools
to coordinate the support services with education.
We need to ensure that parents work in partnership with
schools.
Most important, we need to explore new ways to aid children
with disabilities as they progress through life's many
transitions from early childhood to elementary school, from
elementary school to high school, from high school to college,
and on to a good job.
We are fortunate today to have knowledgeable witnesses from
across the country who will offer their insights into the
current implementation of IDEA and their recommendations on how
to strengthen this landmark legislation.
We know that many of you have made a great effort to be
here today, and we are grateful for your presence and for all
that you do. We are incredibly grateful to all of you.
I might mention that as we are here, the Budget Committee
is marking up, and the budget proposal that the Senate will
have before it will have full funding, with the mandatory
spending for the additional funds for IDEA. This is a great
tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords. There are
many leaders in this effort and endeavor, but none more so than
Jim Jeffords. And Tom Harkin, of course, has been a great
leader, and others as well. So those who are here today feel
that this is progress, and help is on its way, but the
reauthorization is a key element. We want to get it right, and
we have some excellent witnesses here to try to get it right,
and we look forward to hearing from them.
Senator Collins?
Opening Statement of Senator Collins
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 1975, Congress worked with the education community, and
together we embraced one of our most disenfranchised groups of
citizens--children with disabilities. We invited them into the
public school systems. Millions of children were for the first
time given the opportunity to attend school alongside their
peers.
No matter what else can be said about the program, no
matter what other problems still need to be resolved, we can be
proud that IDEA has helped to ensure that the educational needs
of some of our most disabled children are being met.
That said, there is still plenty of work to be done to
ensure that children with disabilities are receiving
appropriate educational services and that schools are being
provided with the necessary resources. During the upcoming
reauthorization process, I am hopeful that we can look at ways
to improve personnel training, focus in on providing more
seamless early childhood services, and decrease unnecessary
paperwork and litigation.
I would also like to explore ways to help schools deal with
children that have low-incidence, high-cost disabilities. In
the small rural town of Surrey, ME, the school district serves
just a few hundred children, but 27 percent of these children
have been identified as having disabilities, a few with costs
that exceed $100,000 a year.
Let me emphasize that there is no question that we must
continue providing appropriate services to these children, but
I think we need to take a look at crafting legislation that
would help a small school district such as this one afford
these rare but high-cost cases.
As for the funding of IDEA, I have two primary concerns.
The first, of course, is the full funding of the 40 percent
promise. As the chairman has indicated, the House and Senate
Budget Committees have each outlined a path for reaching full
funding, and I am hopeful that we can finally resolve this
issue by the end of the year. After Congress has had the
opportunity to reform IDEA, those who have opposed full funding
of the Federal share will have no argument to continue to block
this very necessary funding.
But I am also interested in a less talked about source of
funding for children served by IDEA. In 1988, Congress reformed
Medicaid, encouraging schools to provide services to Medicaid-
eligible students. While some States have been able to take
advantage of these funds, which approximate $2 billion a year,
other States have been denied funding by the agency that
administers Medicaid. I am looking forward to hearing the
assistant secretary's testimony, and I hope he can provide some
input as to how we can ensure that more schools are reimbursed
for Medicaid-eligible services provided to Medicaid-eligible
children.
Finally, I hope this hearing will help guide us toward
policies that will encourage more trained special education
teachers to join the profession. I have introduced legislation
that would provide loan forgiveness as an incentive to
encourage more individuals to become special education
teachers. Several of my fellow committee members--Senators
Frist, Hutchinson, Sessions, and DeWine--have cosponsored that
bill. S. 1918 is designed to recruit teachers with an expertise
in special education to work in schools with high
concentrations of low-income students by offering substantial
assistance with their student loan payments.
Providing more quality special education teachers will
bring us a great deal further toward providing quality
education to students with disabilities. In that respect, I am
delighted that the President has included $45 million in his
budget for a similar proposal.
Again, I look forward to working with the administration
and my colleagues on this very important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. If I could just depart from committee
procedure for a moment and ask our good friend, the Senator
from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, who has spent so much time on
this issue, if he would like to say a word at the opening of
this hearing. We would welcome it.
Opening Statement of Senator Jeffords
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say how excited I am to see so many wonderful
people here today letting the country know how important this
issue is.
Just to give you a little history of my involvement, when I
first arrived in Washington in 1975, it was the Watergate year,
and there were 92 freshman Senators that year, of which 17 were
Republicans. That was good news and bad news. The good news was
that you had immediate seniority because there was nobody else
around. As a result of that, I got to be the ranking member on
the committee, working with Congressman Brademus to write 94-
142, and thus, I became deeply involved in this issue and have
remained deeply involved.
Twenty-7 years ago, nearly half of all disabled children,
approximately 2 million children, were not receiving a public
education. Another 2 million children were placed in
segregated, inadequate classrooms.
Today, IDEA services approximately 6 million disabled
children. And, more than just serving children with
disabilities, IDEA is succeeding in providing the basic
constitutional right of a free and appropriate public education
for our disabled children.
Dropout rates have decreased, graduation rates have
increased, and the percentage of college freshmen with a
disability has almost tripled. IDEA has helped individuals with
disabilities become independent, wage-earning, tax-paying
contributors to the Nation.
I am proud of IDEA and how it has helped further quality of
life for families and children with disabilities. But our fight
is not over.
First, we must continue to fight for full funding of IDEA,
and we are optimistic on that. Although Congress has increased
IDEA funding in recent years, it has woefully failed to meet
its obligation to fully fund IDEA.
We must recognize that we cannot provide all of our
children with the opportunity to achieve unless we support our
children with adequate resources. Full funding would provide
our schools with those desperately needed resources, and then,
perhaps we could ensure that indeed none of our children is
left behind.
We must also better address the needs of our youngest
children with disabilities. We must make sure that young
children with disabilities and their families have access to
the full array of health, social, educational, and other
support services so that all children enter school ready to
learn and have the opportunity to fully participate in
community life.
I believe we all know the value of early intervention
services in the lives of children with disabilities and their
families, yet many barriers to participation continue to exist,
and we must remove those.
In fact, Department of Education statistics reveal that
Part C of IDEA serves only approximately 200,000 children
nationwide. In contrast, Part B serves over 6 million children.
Clearly, families of young children with disabilities are not
getting the information and support that they need.
We must look at how States identify infants and toddlers
for Part C services and strengthen the outreach and the
interagency coordination required in Part C to make sure that
all of our young children get the services they so desperately
need. We must also adequately fund Part C.
In addition, we cannot forget our older children as they
prepare to leave school. Despite significant advances, too many
of our children do not attain high school diplomas.
Unemployment among those with disabilities is far too high, and
too many of our youth end up in correctional facilities. We
need to make sure that our children receive the appropriate
services to transition out of school so that when they finish
school, they can truly become independent, self-sufficient
members of their communities.
Although we have made great strides over the years, there
is still a lot of work to be done. I look forward to working
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that
all of our children have the opportunity to achieve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
We will take an additional moment if our friends Senator
Reed and Senator Clinton want to add an observation, because
this is of such major importance.
We welcome their comments.
Opening Statement of Senator Reed
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may, I would ask that my full statement be included in
the record and would simply say that the leadership of you and
Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin has been extraordinarily
important in this effort, and I thank all of you.
The comments that my colleague Senator Collins made, your
comments, and Senator Jeffords' comments all underscore the
issues that we face. One, we have to have the resources. In
1975, the authorization language called for 40 percent Federal
share; we are at about 15. We have to do better. And as a
result of not only our insufficient commitment but an
insufficient effort at the local level, many State are out of
compliance with the basic provisions of IDEA. In this
reauthorization, we have to ensure that the resources and the
authority and the effort and the will are there to make IDEA
work for all of our children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reed follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Reed
IDEA has made a difference in the lives of children with
disabilities and their families. It has also been the key to
independence and a productive, fulfilling life for many of
these individuals. Simply put, IDEA demonstrates the positive
role Congress can play in education.
Prior to the enactment of IDEA in 1975, only 50 percent of
students with disabilities were receiving a free appropriate
public education.
Today, IDEA serves 6 million children with disabilities,
the majority of whom are taught in their neighborhood schools
in regular classrooms with their non-disabled peers.
High school graduation rates for special needs students
have also increased dramatically. And students served by IDEA
are employed at twice the rate of older adults who did not
benefit from this law.
In 1997, I worked with many of my colleagues on this
Committee on a bipartisan, bicameral reform bill. The 1997
Amendments made several improvements to strengthen the law,
including providing children with disabilities an opportunity
to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum,
promoting greater parental participation by providing parents
with regular reports on their child's progress and including
parents in eligibility and placement decisions about their
child, reducing litigiousness by encouraging the use of
mediation, and ensuring that educational services cannot be
terminated for children with disabilities.
While progress has been made, the true promise of IDEA--a
free appropriate public education for all children with
disabilities--has not yet been realized.
When enacted in 1975, Part B of IDEA authorized the federal
government to pay up to 40% of the cost of educating students
with disabilities. Today, federal funding only amounts to 15%
of that cost. Its time for Congress to honor its commitment.
Living up to this commitment is not just an important goal,
it is a necessity if we are to ensure that all children have an
opportunity to succeed.
Across this country, there is mounting frustration over the
lack of education resources. Our school districts are striving
to provide a high quality education for all children but don't
have the adequate resources to do the job.
As a result, parents of children with disabilities, who
only want to ensure their child gets the education they deserve
and need, are forced to fight for the very programs and
services to make that possible.
For too long, we have created tensions and triggered
conflicts between special education and
general education over budgeting priorities. For too long,
we have forced parents of children with disabilities to battle
principals, schools districts, and other parents for limited
educational resources.
Additionally, the law has not been well-implemented and
there are areas that need attention if we are to improve the
outcomes for children with disabilities.
Accountability and monitoring of programs must be improved.
The federal government must ensure that state special education
programs comply with IDEA. In January 2000, the National
Council on Disabilities released its evaluation of IDEA,
entitled Back to School on Civil Rights. The findings of this
report painted a bleak picture: every state and the District of
Columbia are out of compliance with one or more of the basic
IDEA requirements.
For example, 80% of the states failed to ensure compliance
with the law's free appropriate public education (FAPE)
requirements; 78% of the states failed to ensure compliance
with procedural safeguards; and 72% of the sates failed to
ensure compliance with the placement in the least restrictive
environment (LRE).
Inconsistent and ineffective federal efforts to enforce the
law over several years have forced parents to carry the burden
by invoking formal complaint procedures and requesting due
process hearings to obtain the services and supports to which
their children are entitled under the law. As we work on the
reauthorization, we need to look at these compliance issues.
We also need to ensure general and special education
teachers get the pre-service and in-service training they need
to provide high quality instruction and meet the needs of
children with disabilities.
According to the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Education Task Force, over 600,000 students with disabilities
are taught currently by special education teachers who are
unqualified or under-qualified. There are also shortages of
special education and related services faculty at institutions
of higher education, inhibiting the capacity to train special
education teachers. This shortage of qualified higher education
faculty further curtails research that is critical to the
development of the knowledge base for designing and delivering
educational and related services to children with disabilities.
We need to ensure that early intervention and pre-school
services are available to all eligible children. Programs
authorized under Part C and Section 619 of Part B allow states
to create family-centered systems of services across multiple
programs and funding streams to ensure that infants, toddlers,
and preschoolers are prepared for school and learning. To do
this effectively, states must have the resources to screen and
identify all eligible children for developmental delays. There
must also be interagency collaboration to coordinate the
provision of services. Simplifying the process of accessing
Medicaid funding to pay for some of the costs of services for
children with disabilities is another area of critical need.
Finally, we must continue to address the over-
representation of minority students in special
education. Minority students are referred to special
education at higher rates than their share of the overall
population. These data raise questions as to whether some
minority students are being incorrectly identified as having
disabilities.
I look forward to the testimony of today's witnesses, and
to the upcoming work on the reauthorization of IDEA.
The Chairman. Senator Clinton?
Opening Statement of Senator Clinton
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome all of our guests who are here today for the
beginning of this very important process. I think the way that
the chairman has titled this hearing, ``IDEA: What's Good for
Kids? What Works for Schools?'' is exactly the right formula.
I was listening to Senator Jeffords describe some of the
history of this legislation, and I was actually involved many
years ago, in 1973, with the Children's Defense Fund, going
door-to-door in communities trying to find out why children
were not in school, because we had Census tract numbers which
said there was a certain number of school-age children, and
then we had school numbers, and there was a difference, and
there were missing children.
So I literally went door-to-door and asked if there were
any school-age children who were not in school. And it will not
surprise the chairman or any of the parents and educators and
others here today that what I found is that children were being
kept out of school, were being denied schooling, because of
some disability. And many of the children whom I met were
perfectly capable of learning, were fully ready to go to
school, but because there was no place or trained teacher or
willingness or understanding, they were kept out of school.
So that work along with the work of so many others, led by
people like Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy and Senator
Harkin, has taken us to this point. I look forward to working
with my colleagues. I am very proud that on the Budget
Committee on which I sit and where I will have to return in a
moment, we do have a provision to finally fulfill the promise
that was made all those years ago for the Federal Government to
provide full funding--our fair share--and we are going to fight
hard for that, aren't we, Senator Jeffords?
A lot of us are just not going to wait another minute let
alone another year for that promise to be fulfilled. It is not
fair to the children who need the services, and it is not fair
to all the children who go to school and need to make sure that
we are meeting the needs of every, single child.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Clinton.
Before we begin I have statements from Senators Gregg and
Warner.
[The prepared statements of Senators Gregg and Warner
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Gregg
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing today
on IDEA, as we begin the reauthorization process of this law,
which provides federal funding for the education of children
with disabilities. There are a number of issues that this
committee needs to examine in the IDEA law.
In the past months, we have talked a great deal about
funding issues surrounding IDEA. I have been a fierce supporter
of IDEA full funding since I became a United States Senator
over eight years ago. I understand the burden that has been
placed on our local school districts and believe that we need
to continue our efforts to reach full funding.
However, there are many other areas of concern besides full
funding of IDEA. A number of problems plague our special
education system. Let me give just a few examples: Paperwork
requirements associated with IDEA unduly burden teachers and
administrators while failing to benefit students. IDEA's
procedural safeguards have inadvertently prevented parents and
teachers from making beneficial changes to a child's
individualized education program, and created a hostile
environment between parents and school officials.
Many children, particularly minority students, are
misidentified for special education. IDEA's definition of a
learning disability is very broad, and can create situations in
which states and school districts are left dealing with an
ambiguous guideline for identifying children as learning
disabled. IDEA creates a double standard when it comes to
disciplining violent students, as students under IDEA are not
subject to discipline in the same way as other students. Some
of the IDEA regulations have gone beyond statutory requirements
and have even conflicted with the statute.
It is disappointing and frustrating to hear that a law
intended to help children with disabilities receive a good
education is in some instances acting as a hindrance to serving
them. These problems need to be addressed in this year's
reauthorization, so that IDEA will fulfill its intended
purpose.
I look forward to hearing today's witnesses discuss these
problems, as well as propose innovative ways that we can reform
IDEA to serve special education students more effectively. I am
also interested in knowing what has worked well in the law, so
that we can build upon our successes.
Prepared Statement of Senator Warner
Chairman Kennedy and Senator Gregg, I thank you for calling
this hearing on IDEA.
The fact is that prior to the passage of IDEA in 1975,
schools in America educated only one in five students with
disabilities. Special needs students were locked out of the
school house doors. IDEA has helped these students receive a
free and appropriate education.
IDEA has been successful in ensuring that children with
disabilities have access to a free appropriate public
education. However, we all know that the law is not perfect.
As we reauthorize IDEA this year, we have an opportunity to
learn about the problems parents and educators are facing with
this law, and we have the opportunity to correct these
problems.
Today's hearing is the start of this process.
I am confident that all of us on this Committee recognize
that the funding associated with IDEA is a major problem. When
Congress passed IDEA over 25 years ago, Congress, I believe,
made a commitment to fund 40 percent of the costs associated
with this legislation.
Unfortunately, Congress has never come close to meeting
this 40% commitment--although progress has been made the last
several years.
Last year, IDEA received about a $1.2 billion increase in
funding. This year, President Bush again has budgeted over a $1
billion increase for IDEA funding. I commend President Bush for
his commitment to substantially increased funding for IDEA.
While we still have a long way to go to reach 40 percent--
we are getting there.
Nevertheless, it is important for us to recognize that this
unfunded mandate places an enormous burden on state and local
education budgets that must make up the difference. If the
federal government paid its share of IDEA costs, then local
school districts and states would have additional resources of
their own to fund local priorities, such as new school
construction. For these reasons, I have been supportive of
mandatory full funding.
While funding is one issue, it is not the only difficult
issue we as a Committee are going to be faced with during the
reauthorization of this important law.
At the outset, I would like to express my hope that we can
follow last year's model of bipartisanship that served as the
foundation for our work on the No Child Left Behind Act.
Last year, under the leadership of President Bush,
Secretary of Education Paige, Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg,
and others, we were able to achieve historic reforms in
elementary and secondary education.
It is my hope that we can again work together in the same
fashion to reauthorize IDEA.
Again, I thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Gregg for
holding this hearing.
Our first witness, Mr. Robert Pasternack, serves as
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services at the U.S. Department of Education. Mr. Pasternack
previously served as the director of special education for the
State of New Mexico, where he worked with students with
disabilities and their families for 25 years.
Mr. Pasternack is a nationally certified school
psychologist and has been both a special education teacher and
school administrator.
We have sign language interpretation on my left for those
who wish to have that service.
Mr. Pasternack, thank you very much for being here today.
We are looking forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. PASTERNACK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Pasternack. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me to talk with you about the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, the IDEA. I am pleased to be here; it is a privilege. I
would like to thank you for joining the President in bipartisan
support of the landmark legislation to reform elementary and
secondary education, the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. I look
forward to working with you in the future to develop
legislation reauthorize the IDEA.
As you have eloquently stated this morning and in the past,
over the past 25 years, the IDEA has successfully ensured that
children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate
public education. Prior to the IDEA, in 1970, for example,
schools in America educated only one in five students with
disabilities. Today, the overwhelming majority of children with
disabilities, about 96 percent, learn in schools with other
children rather that in State institutions or separate
facilities. Three-quarters of children with disabilities now
spend at least 40 percent of their day in a regular classroom
instead of in separate rooms. Half of the children with
disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in regular
classrooms.
These accomplishments reflect the dedication of lawmakers,
educators, parents, and the children themselves, to ensuring
that all students with disabilities receive a high-quality
education that prepares them for postsecondary education, good
jobs, a productive and independent life.
However, despite the many accomplishments of the IDEA over
the last 25 years, many challenges remain. We know that we will
never improve results for students with disabilities by
focusing on special education alone. We must look at the whole
education system and whether we are providing the right
services to the right children at the right time, in the right
settings, and with the right personnel to achieve the right
results.
That is why I am so excited about the sweeping reforms made
by the NCLB Act and the impact it will have on students with
disabilities. From the Reading First program to Title I, NCLB
will truly hold States and school districts accountable for the
annual progress of all children, including children with
disabilities.
In reviewing the challenges of implementing the IDEA, there
are several major issues that present themselves. The
successful implementation of the IDEA is perhaps most
critically dependent on the quality of the people who implement
the principles contained in the law--the teachers, para-
educators, related service providers, and administrators, in
cooperation and partnership with parents and the children.
We know that much more needs to be done to better prepare
and support all members of the learning community in their
efforts to educate children with disabilities.
Accountability provisions have been strengthened in the
IDEA over the years, but more needs to be done. We must build
on the accountability provisions enacted by NCLB to ensure that
States and local school districts are accountable for results
and that children with disabilities are included in rigorous
assessments of student performance.
We need to do more to provide research and technical
assistance on alternate assessments and accommodations for
children who need them.
And perhaps more importantly,we need to push for assessment
tools that are created using universal design concepts.
Universal design principles will not eliminate the need for all
accommodations but can significantly reduce the need for them
and will allow the use of accommodations without threat to the
validity and comparability of scores.
An important aspect of the 1997 amendments was the emphasis
placed on access to, and participation and progress in, the
general curriculum. Those changes raised the bar by requiring
school districts and States to provide meaningful access for
children with disabilities to the general curriculum.
The Chairman. Excuse me, Mr. Pasternack. As you have
gathered, this is a somewhat unusual day, as we were late in
starting, and there are a lot of other activities.
Our good friend, Tom Harkin, who along with Jim Jeffords
have been the real leaders on this committee, will be chairing
a very important hearing as part of his responsibilities on the
Appropriations Committee at 11 o'clock, and he has some very,
very special guests who should have the kind of introduction
that only Tom Harkin can give them. When you hear their story,
everyone will understand why.
So with your permission, I will let Senator Harkin make his
comments, and those comments will appear at an appropriate
place in the record, and then we will continue with your
testimony. So if you could hold for just a moment, I will
recognize Senator Harkin.
Mr. Pasternack. It is an honor, Mr. Chairman.
Opening Statement of Senator Harkin
Senator Harkin. Mr. Pasternack, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am scheduled at 11 o'clock to
chair a hearing with all the NIH directors on the NIH budget, a
lot of which goes for things that we are talking about here in
terms of biomedical research; so I will have to be down there
at 11 o'clock.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this
opportunity to introduce to you and those who are here a friend
of mine who goes back about 30 years or so. Valerie Findley is
one of the real stars in our State in fighting for people with
disabilities, especially kids, and making sure that each child
gets the appropriate support early in life and gets that
support on through the educational system.
Valerie got into the van with Louisa, who is sitting next
to her. Louisa and I have marched together in a few
demonstrations in the past in support of ADA and IDEA and so
forth. So Valerie is here with Louisa as well as her daughter
Hannah, who is sitting behind her, and her two sons, Jubal and
Gabriel, also behind her. They all got into a van and drove out
here from Iowa to be here for this very important hearing.
Louisa attends the Hillis Elementary School in Des Moines
where she receives special education and related services.
Valerie has told me that Louisa has received services since she
was 5 months old. She is now 9, and because the Des Moines
public schools are on spring break, they were able to come out
here during this week.
Of our group of panel members, Valerie will offer the
parent perspective--what it means from the parent's perspective
from birth through age 9--and she has worked with other kids
beyond that age, too, I know. She has worked with other
parents. She is a staff member for Iowa's Family Support
Initiative Systems Change Project and, through that project,
has worked across systems in health, human services, and
education in addressing supports for families.
Valerie has served as the family consultant for Iowa's
Statewide Deaf-Blind Project. In that role, she has provided
technical assistance to parents and training on issues related
to dual sensory impairments. Most often, this training focuses
on transition and assistive technology issues.
Valerie is a member of Iowa's Special Education Advisory
Panel and works with other parents around the State on policy
issues.
So from her experience as an advocate, as a mother, as the
parent of a child with a disability, she is acquainted with
every aspect of what it means to raise a child with a
disability, the problems that families face, the access to
services. The one thing that Valerie has always been on me
about is coordination and making it simpler, making it easier.
There are just too many cross-cutting things out there for
people to have to access. There ought to be one type of entity
or package where a family can go to get all the services they
need, and she will address that more eloquently than I ever
could.
Mr. Chairman, I am just despondent that I cannot be here
for Valerie's testimony, but I think you will find it as
powerful and as moving as everything she has said to me for the
last 25 or more years about working to get these programs in
line and to make sure that families get the supportive services
they need for their children.
And Louisa is a wonderful young woman. As I said, we have
been to a few places together, to the State Capital and others.
She is receiving her services, and she has a future ahead of
her, and it is because of IDEA; it is because of the support
that IDEA has given these kids, but more importantly, it is
because of Valerie and a lot of other parents like her who just
will not give up.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin, for
coming and making that presentation. We look forward to hearing
from Valerie in just a few moments.
Mr. Pasternack, did you have any further comments? Do you
want to conclude your remarks? I think you were fairly close to
concluding them.
Mr. Pasternack. If I may, Mr. Chairman. This is your
hearing, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Please.
Mr. Pasternack. As I was saying, sir, an important aspect
of the 1997 amendments was the emphasis placed on access to,
participation and progress in, the general curriculum. Those
change raised the bar by requiring school districts and State
to provide meaningful access for children with disabilities to
the general curriculum.
We need better research and better technical assistance to
support the focus that the 1997 amendments placed on access to
the general curriculum.
While we can point to lower dropout and higher graduation
rates among students with disabilities as significant
accomplishments for the IDEA, we still need much improvement in
the transition from school to work and from school to
postsecondary education for students with disabilities. The
dropout rate for children with disabilities is still about
twice that of their peers, and this is way too high.
There are also a number of implementation issues around the
identification of children with disabilities, including the
disproportionate representation of some minorities in some
categories of special education. We know that too many children
are referred for special education services because of a lack
of scientifically-based instruction and early educational
interventions in the regular education program. This again is
an issue of providing special education services to the right
children and having well-trained and qualified teachers and
administrators who have the knowledge, skills, and supports to
ensure that we are in fact serving only the right children--
those with disabilities who truly need special education
services.
I also want to address an implementation issue that is of
concern to many parents, educators, and certainly to you on the
committee. The discipline provisions of the IDEA are predicated
on the concept that every child in every school has the right
to be educated in a safe learning environment. As the law has
been implemented since the 1997 amendments, it is evident that
some of the requirements of the statute and regulations may be
too complicated or confusing and need to be reviewed.
Our experience with implementing these provisions has
highlighted the overall need for schools and school districts
to focus on improved classroom management, effective school-
wide models of positive behavior supports, strategies, and
interventions, and the use of functional behavioral
assessments.
I would also like to quickly discuss several issues
relating to the implementation of Part C of the IDEA, which
authorizes the Grants to Infants and Families program. As we
move toward reauthorization, we need to examine the appropriate
balance between the States' need to access all revenue sources,
such as public and private insurance programs, and the
financial burden for families. The requirements under the
program for service coordination often present significant
challenges that have not always been overcome.
In the short time I have been on the job, I have spent a
good deal of it asking questions of parents, advocates,
children, teachers, principals, university professors,
researchers, and State directors of special education around
the country. During my visits, I am frequently told that school
districts and teachers struggle to be in compliance with the
process mandates of the current law at the expense of the
quantity and quality of services provided to our children.
Under current law, compliance does not focus on improved
results for children. Instead, compliance has been too focused
on process as opposed to results. We have redesigned our
monitoring system and continue to modify that system in an
effort to focus on key performance indicators, technical
assistance and research, and on helping States develop plans
that can really lead to improving results for children with
disabilities. We want States to focus on results and compliance
with the key substantive requirements of the law.
I ask these questions to encourage all of us to think
creatively and insist on a culture of accountability within the
IDEA similar to the approach you have taken in the
reauthorization of the ESEA. I have touched on but a few of the
issues that relate to the implementation of the IDEA and
recognize that each of these topics deserves far more attention
than I have given it today in this brief statement.
It is time for all of us--the Department of Education, the
Congress, the parents in this room, and educators--to take a
serious look at the IDEA. We must look honestly to see what has
worked well and what has not worked well. We must not hesitate
to refocus the statute where necessary, and where doing so will
improve the results for America's children with disabilities.
As you are aware, the President has established Commission
on Excellence in Special Education that is charged with
collecting information and studying issues related to Federal,
State, and local special education programs, with the goal of
recommending policies for improving the educational performance
of children with disabilities. I am pleased to serve on that
commission and think that this is another example of the
administration's desire to engage in the systemic reform of
education by looking at all of its facets, asking the tough
questions that address problems and generate solutions.
I am confident that when the commission finishes its work
in July, its report will inform proposals for reauthorizing the
IDEA.
Finally, I look forward to working with all of you in the
years ahead. Your commitment to this important statute has led
to the education of millions of children with disabilities who
otherwise might never have had the educational opportunities
made possible by the IDEA.
Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee; I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pasternack may be found in
additional material.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much for a very comprehensive
and thoughtful statement.
We will have 5-minute rounds for questions, and I will ask
staff to keep track of the time.
We have been joined by Senator Sessions as well as other
members of our committee.
In your testimony, Mr. Pasternack, you talk about the issue
of numbers, and this is an issue that we are going to have to
address. You also talked about the importance of early
intervention, because with earlier intervention, we can sift
out and find out what these children need, and if you are able
to get the kinds of support services which are intended to be
available in the No Child Left Behind Act, this is a way of
getting what is necessary for children at a very early time and
getting those support services. That can be one way, an
appropriate way, of dealing with the issues where the children
are challenged.
The harsher way, obviously, is to just carve out numbers
and say, look, there are too many numbers, and this community
has more numbers than that one, and you just have to carve them
out.
You made a point in your opening statement about the
importance of early intervention and understanding, and I
imagine this is in reading and math and emotional support and
otherwise. Am I correct in understanding what you were driving
at with that point?
Mr. Pasternack. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Second, in the legislation, we have an
important--you talked about tying in in terms of the No Child
Left Behind--one of the important aspects of that is to try to
ensure that there is a well-qualified teacher in every
classroom, and that is something that we are hopeful of being
able to do. There are obviously a number of different features.
You referenced that as well, and I would be interested in what
you think can be done specifically in terms of trying to make
sure that we are going to get quality special education
teachers to help and assist in the classroom for these
children. It is a difficult enough challenge in other
situations with the shortage of teachers, but do you have some
ideas about things that could be done? It seems to me that
before even getting the legislation, we should probably be
about the business of trying to do that now.
Mr. Pasternack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clearly, if we do not have highly-qualified teachers
instructing students, we are never going to get the kinds of
results that parents have a right to expect and Congress has
the right to demand. So we are working closely with the
colleges and universities to try to improve the quality of pre-
service preparation.
One of the things that I have learned from my trips around
the country, and I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, is
that many school districts are spending a great deal of money
on professional development because teachers coming to them
from colleges and universities do not have the skills to do the
very difficult job that we are asking them to do. So we are
really looking at trying to increase the quality of personnel
preparation programs and making sure that they are rigorous,
and that they are implementing scientifically-based practices
in training these teachers.
We also know, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
that we have a critical shortage of personnel in special
education, and it is about to be exacerbated by large numbers
of people who are eligible to retire. And we are very
concerned. We have just done a national study and found out
that there are three main reasons why teachers are leaving the
field of special education. Two of them appear to be things
that we might be able to deal with in the reauthorization and
at the Federal level. One of those is that teachers report that
they are spending too much time filling out paperwork. The
second is that teachers report that they are spending too much
of their time in meetings.
If you add those two things together, Mr. Chairman, what
teachers are saying is that they got into this profession
because their passion was to teach kids with disabilities, yet
they do not have time to teach.
So we have got to try to change things so there is less
emphasis on process and more opportunity for teachers to be
able to do instruction.
The third reason is an interesting one and one that we need
to also focus on, and that, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, is a perceived lack of administrative support. I
think that that speaks to the fact that not only do we have to
have outstanding models of personnel preparation for all
members of the learning community, but we also have to look at
building the capacity of administrators to understand the needs
of kids with disabilities and their families, be sensitive,
empathetic and compassionate, and help the special educators
deliver high-quality interventions which are designed to
achieve the desired results.
The Chairman. The first two are principal contributors to
nurses leaving the profession as well, so that is interesting.
My time is up, but finally, on the accountability measures,
I am interested in how you view those. As a practical matter,
historically, we have not seen very effective accountability
going back over any period of time in education; there is a
reluctance to cut back support for States and local communities
in terms of education funding. It just has not been out there.
And I am not suggesting that we ought to be doing it,
obviously, in this area, but there are provisions in the
legislation, so to speak, where it can be done.
In a broader sense, what are the things that we ought to be
thinking about in regard to accountability so we can avoid
these kinds of ruptures in terms of achievement and
accomplishment? What do you think we should be thinking about?
We tried in the No Child Left Behind Act to have a rather
elaborate series on accountability. If we are going to be doing
that, maybe that would be something that we should try to work
with you on--I am not expecting--if you could talk in general
terms about how you see that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Pasternack. I would like to applaud the work that you
all did on the No Child Left Behind Act and particularly the
attention that was paid to kids making adequate yearly
progress.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that for too long in special
education, we have not expected students with disabilities to
make adequate yearly progress, and I think we have an
incredible opportunity to help build the capacity of the
learning community to ensure that students with disabilities
make adequate yearly progress.
One thing that we absolutely need to do is work with test
publishers and test developers to use principles of universal
design to make sure that the tests are appropriately developed.
That will ensure that kids will get accommodations when
necessary and that the tests will have the broadest opportunity
to be used with the largest number of students; and then, those
students who really cannot take the State and district-mandated
tests even with appropriate accommodations would be the right
candidates for the alternate assessments, and then we have to
work with States to make sure that those alternate assessments
are rigorous, are valid, are reliable, and are in fact
measuring the progress of students.
The Chairman. Very good. My time is up.
Senator Bond?
Senator Bond. I will pass, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I want to say to the administration that we
have been working in different groups on IDEA, and Senator
Sessions has had a very keen interest in terms of the
discipline issues, and he is working with us in trying to find
some ways, rather than having something resolved--or not
resolved--on this, to try to find constructive ways of
addressing it. It is enormously thorny and difficult, and I
want to acknowledge him here and thank him for the time that he
has taken and the way in which he has approached this whole
issue. I know it is something that he feels strongly about, and
it has been very constructive and positive, and we thank him.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your concern over this issue. We are due to review this Act
now, and we are not going to achieve progress--and that is all
we want is to have a better system after we leave here than
before we started, and your leadership will be key to that.
I think it is consistent, as you indicated, Dr. Pasternack,
with IDEA and leaving no child behind, making sure that every
child reaches his or her fullest potential. But we created an
act over 30 years ago, and it is probably time for us to see if
we cannot make it better. I know that that is the case, in my
own mind, having traveled the State and winding up being
instructed by teachers with master's degrees and doctorates in
special education issues who have taught for years, and they
tell me that there are problems--as you noted, paperwork being
one of them; lawsuits being one of them. I believe there is too
much of that.
And where a child's misbehavior is not connected to their
disability, we believe there should not be a double standard of
discipline for that circumstance only, recognizing that there
have got to be separate behavioral standards for children whose
disability makes it impossible for them to conform to normal
rules.
I think those are some things that we should take
seriously. I am impressed with your background and with your
commitment to this issue and to serving the children.
I believe that with Senator Kennedy's leadership--and I
know that Senator Clinton and others have expressed a desire to
make this Act better--together, we can make it better. I really
do believe that.
I notice that Dr. Ratcliffe in her submitted testimony
makes a point that I thought was interesting. She quoted a
lawyer at one of the conferences who quoted Gerald Ford, saying
that when he signed the bill, he was worried, and he noted that
it contained, ``a vast array of detailed, complex, and costly
administrative requirements under which the tax dollars would
be used to support administrative paperwork and not educational
programs.'' Dr. Ratcliffe is herself a parent of two children
with disabilities who have gone through the public school
system, and she was concerned about that. She says that now, as
a teacher and a Ph.D. helping other disabled children,
``President Ford's prophetic words have become the reality of
public educators across the Nation.''
Do you agree that we do have a problem with that issue of
administrative paperwork and rules?
Mr. Pasternack. Absolutely, Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. I met with a very impressive lady who had
spent quite a number of years in this area, and she told me at
the end of our discussion, with great passion: ``Jeff, let me
tell you what the problem is. The problem is that we are
focused on rules and lawyers and complying with these complex
regulations, and we are losing sight of what is best for the
child and best for education.''
Would you agree that the rules and the lawsuits and those
kinds of issue oftentimes diminish the ability to actually
serve the children we want to help?
Mr. Pasternack. Senator Sessions, I believe, quite frankly,
that some people are leaving this wonderful profession because
of exactly those issues. I think that not only do we have a
crisis in recruiting people to come and work in the field of
special education, but we need to develop strategies to make
sure we retain highly-qualified people.
The issue that you just articulated is one that is pushing
dedicated, caring, competent people out of the field of special
education. We have even heard stories of teachers asking to
have special education credentials taken off of their licenses
because of their desire not to be in special education but to
work in the general education setting rather than teach kids
with disabilities.
Senator Sessions. I am hearing that. That is what I am
hearing. I have letters from teachers who are saying they are
considering giving up the profession--poignant letters, really.
In fact, Ms. Goodrich wrote that she is concerned about the
circumstances and said that ``The perception communicated by
the Federal law is that public schools would either underserve
or stop serving students with special needs if they were not
forced to be the law. Nothing could be further from the truth.
These are our children. We have the same hopes and dreams for
them as other children.''
That is a perception, and I will just bring it to this
hearing, which is widely held among the people who are actually
caring for our children. I think you would agree with that from
what I have heard you say.
Mr. Pasternack. Yes, I would, Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a healthy
hearing. I look forward to learning more about the complexities
of this important Act. When you visit the schools and see the
special ed children and how they are being served, it does make
us feel proud that our country is investing in that, but we are
investing a lot.
We had a superintendent from Vermont here who testified
that 20 percent of his budget goes to the special education
portion of his school. So we are demanding an awful lot there,
and we want to make sure we get the very best return and that
the children we intend to help are given, under the limits that
we have, as we always have on every budget item, the very best
care that they can be given. I believe we can make it better.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Wellstone. [presiding]. Thank you, Senator
Sessions.
I am chairing now, but I arrived later, so we will go by
order of arrival.
Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. Early education is an area that concerns
me, and the lack of adequate funding for early education,
whether special education or otherwise. Every other
industrialized Nation, as you know, after the studies of the
eighties and nineties, fully funded their infants and toddlers
and early education.
What recommendations is the administration going to have to
improve the ability of funding for early education and
especially with an emphasis on special education?
Mr. Pasternack. Senator Jeffords, one of the things that we
absolutely have to do is identify what works in the area of
early childhood and make sure that we are in fact helping
people implement scientifically-based practices that are
developmentally appropriate and are designed to prepare kids to
learn in school and focus on the readiness skills that we know
are so critically important.
One of the things, among the many responsibilities that I
am proud to have, is to serve as chair of the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council. The goal of that council is
to advise the secretaries of the different Cabinet agencies on
issues relating to early childhood, particularly as it relates
to children at risk of developing disabilities or children who
are diagnosed as having disabilities.
Interestingly enough, the two goals that we are working on
this year, Senator, are child care--because we hear from many
families of children with disabilities that they do not have
access to child care, and I know that you are aware of that
issue--and the second one that we are looking at is another
issue that I know you are aware of, and that is the need to
have a good health care delivery system for families of kids
with disabilities and particularly to look at issues in terms
of the mental health needs of young children. One of the things
that we are disturbed to hear, for example, is that in Head
Start programs across the United States, the largest increase
request for technical assistance that those programs have
received is in the area of interventions for children
exhibiting behavior problems.
So we are very concerned about the rise in behavior
problems in very young children, and we would like to see what
we can do to prevent children from exhibiting those kinds of
problems and make sure that we have high-quality staff trained
to deliver scientifically-based interventions that are targeted
to deal with those problems when they are identified.
Senator Jeffords. Along with it, will there be
recommendations of Federal funding to assist with those
problems?
Mr. Pasternack. We will look at that, Senator, certainly.
As you know, we have a working group currently structured
between the Department of Education and HHS to look at child
care issues. The President's Commission includes Wade Horne, my
colleague from HHS, Beth Ann Bryant from the Department of
Education, Reed Lyon from NICHD--people with a legacy of
achievement in the area of early childhood; and Russ Whitehurst
and Susan Newman, who are assistant secretaries at the
Department and both experts on early childhood.
So clearly, we want to put the best and the brightest minds
together and work with you to come up with appropriate
proposals, understanding that it is not always about money,
although resources are critically important. It is also about
doing the right thing and making sure we have highly-qualified
people to deliver the services.
Senator Jeffords. Right now, as you know, there is really
no help from the Federal Government with respect to funding. I
know from talking to my young people who have children that
they are spending about $5,000 a year per child in order to get
an appropriate quality education. And obviously, there are not
many young people who can pay that much for their children, so
I hope that at some point, we will be able to have adequate
funding as every other Nation in the world has for that age
group.
Mr. Pasternack. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Jeffords. I also am concerned and want to talk a
little bit about accountability and adding more accountability
requirements to IDEA, especially before we know what the
fallout will be with respect to the present AYP requirements in
No Child Left Behind. It kind of disturbed me when you ere
talking about more accountability requirements, because as you
know, we had terribly shocking results from the AYP tests that
were done before we implemented the bill. So I just hope you
are aware that this is a very difficult area that could really
make things look bad.
Mr. Pasternack. Senator Jeffords, I know of your legacy of
commitment to kids with disabilities, and I would just suggest
that we really need to measure that kids are in fact making
progress.
I hear, as I am sure you do, from many families that they
are frustrated because their kids are not making progress, that
they have the same goals and objectives on IEP year after year,
and I think it is just something that we really need to focus
on. I am proud of the work that you all did to focus on the
concept of adequately yearly progress, and I think the
challenge to us in special education is to build the capacity
of the learning community to make sure there are good
assessment tools used to in fact document that kids are making
progress, because I believe that that is the goal of providing
the specially-designed instruction.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Bond?
Senator Bond. I will pass.
The Chairman. Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Pasternack, for your testimony today. Let me
raise one general issue and perhaps follow up.
During the debate last year on the No Child Left Behind
Act, I worked to include language in the Teacher and Principal
Quality title to ensure that professional development provided
to teachers in general education included instruction in
special education. We have been talking today about preparing
special education teachers, but I think it is incumbent to
ensure that general education teachers have a much better grasp
of special education in every phase--in their preparation, in
in-service, and in their continuing education.
In fact, in 1998, only 21 percent of teachers said they
felt prepared to address the needs of students with
disabilities in the general education population. How can we
extend this effort in IDEA to reach out to the general
education teacher population so they feel fully aware of and
knowledgeable about special education? Can you comment on that?
Mr. Pasternack. Thank you, Senator Reed.
I think there are several things that we can do. One is to
continue using the resources through Part D of the IDEA and
investing and being good stewards of those dollars, making sure
that we are working to develop high-quality professional
development opportunities for people in general education.
As I said in my opening remarks, it is not about special
education or regular ed, it is about kids, and we clearly need
to build the capacity of the general education system, because
we are never going to fix special ed by only looking at special
education.
Another thing that I am concerned about, sir, is that when
we put teachers through professional development, we have not
really developed the technology yet to measure that the skills
that they are learning are being used when they leave the
professional development opportunity and that those skills are
in fact leading to increased academic achievement in the kids
who are then being taught by those teachers who have been
trained.
So I think that is kind of a paradigm shift that we need to
help people make in the future.
Senator Reed. Mr. Pasternack, in your comments and echoed
by many of my colleagues on the inordinate amount of time in
paperwork and meetings, may some of that be the result of not
fully understanding the rules, assuming that you have to do
more, bogging yourself down in paperwork?
Cutting to the chase, is that one aspect of education that
we can promote in this reauthorization, knowing the rules and
knowing how far you have to go?
Mr. Pasternack. Senator, I think that the most eloquent of
the thousands of parents whom I have met with in the eight
cities that we visited recently summed it up by asking could we
please make it simpler. It is just too complicated. The intent
is noble, and we have come a very long way, but I think we
really have to work hard to make it simpler and streamline it.
Senator Reed. In some cases, and not just with respect to
special education, but many things, a rule is passed, and it is
not so much the rule, it is the misunderstanding, it is the
perception, it is overcompensating so that what starts out as
something simple, people think, becomes more complicated. I
again return to the point that perhaps we can think about ways,
either through education or explanation, that we can, I would
guess, eliminate some of the encumbrances that exist today
without dramatically changing a lot of things. Maybe that is a
hope and not a fact, but I think we should work on it as we go
forward.
There is one other point I would raise before my time
expires. One of the important aspects of any education is the
role of parents. I would hope that in this process, we would
specifically and consciously and determinedly try to ensure
that parents have a role in this reauthorization and have a
role in all education and in special education. I think you
also feel that way.
Mr. Pasternack. Senator, I am an evidence-based
policymaker. If I were not from New Mexico, I would be from
Missouri. The last three people whom we have brought into the
Office of Special Education Programs have all been parents,
including our new director of the Office of Special Education
Programs, who is the parent of a child with a disability.
I believe that parents are the true experts on their kids
and know more about their kids than anybody else, and we should
be resources and consultants to those parents. So thank you for
that comment.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Pasternack.
The Chairman. Senator Clinton?
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pasternack, I greatly appreciate your testimony. You
touched on many different issues in your written testimony and
the answers that you have given to the questions.
Will the administration be coming forward with specific
recommendations concerning the reauthorization?
Mr. Pasternack. Yes, Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. And what is the timing on that?
Mr. Pasternack. I believe that we will wait, Senator
Clinton, for the conclusion of the activities of the
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and
they are tentatively scheduled to release their report at the
beginning of July. Then, we will use the work that is being
done by the fine commissioners to help inform our approach to
reauthorization and then hopefully be able to have something to
you during the summer.
Senator Clinton. So you think that we will have your
recommendations by sometime this summer?
Mr. Pasternack. I would hope during the summer and
certainly no later than early fall, Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. And will the administration be taking any
position with respect to the mandatory funding for IDEA?
Mr. Pasternack. I know that that is an issue of great
concern to many, Senator Clinton, and I am sure we will be
looking at that.
Senator Clinton. With respect to the issues that we are
going to be concerned with, certainly the funding issues, the
early appropriate interventions and education issues, the work
force training and availability of qualified teachers, the idea
that you present in your testimony about a process versus
progress kind of conflict as to whether we are just spinning
our wheels or actually making progress on behalf of the
children, are all very important.
One issue that has come to our attention in a New York
Times article in the last week is that there is concern given
the Leave No Child Behind Act, with its emphasis on
accountability, that there will be implicit incentives to over-
identify even more children as special needs children as a way
of buying more time for those children to respond to any
testing requirements that the State or the national Government
have imposed.
Has the administration and the Department given any thought
as to how States and districts can try to prepare for that?
Mr. Pasternack. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
We have given a great deal of thought to that, and we are
going to be working very hard. We believe it is about building
capacity to implement the law, making sure that the right kids
are in special education. I think that with Reading First, we
really see a significant opportunity to help States improve
their ability to deliver scientifically-based reading
interventions to very young children which will hopefully
prevent some students from being identified as having a
disability, when in fact the problem to us seems to be that
they were not taught how to read.
We want to make sure that the kids who wind up in special
education are in fact those kids with the intractable reading
problems who cannot benefit even from scientifically-based
instruction delivered by highly-qualified personnel.
So we are going to be working very hard on that, and we are
very aware of the increased demand for accountability. In your
State, we are very proud of the data which suggest that right
now, more kids with disabilities passed the Regents' exam than
actually took the Regents' exam 4 years ago.
So that kind of progress is laudable and commendable, and
we need to spotlight that and help other States emulate what
seems to be happening in the great State of New York.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pasternack, I have got to excuse myself. We are
introducing some legislation today on tracking chronic disease,
the health tracking bill that Senator Reed and I have been
working on. And with respect to that--I am very encouraged by
your comment about being evidence-based; I refer to Washington
at times as ``an evidence-free zone,'' so anyone who actually
pays attention to and is concerned about evidence is someone I
admire and respect--I am very much convinced that adequate
medical screening would demonstrate that many of our children
have environmentally-affected if not caused issues that lead to
learning disabilities. The largest causes of birth defects are
environmentally connected. Many of the continuing studies show
high levels of lead in children's blood, high levels of
mercury.
So I would hope that in the process of reauthorizing this
bill, we will also look below the surface at what is the reason
why we have so many children with learning disabilities. From
my perspective, it is a combination of genetics, the
environment, and behavior, and if we do not start sorting that
out, we are going to continue to see increasing numbers of
children who are going to be held back because of disabilities
that could have been prevented or could have been remediated
very, very early.
So I hope the administration will work on that issue as
well.
Mr. Pasternack. Thank you, Senator.
I know that you are aware of the National Academy of
Sciences report that was released that talked about teratogens
and particularly adverse impact that that has on kids in
poverty and overwhelmingly, kids of color. So it is something
that we are very aware of, and we want to work with our
colleagues and other Federal agencies that may have a role in
helping us deal with it.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. I have one additional question. You use
the phrase ``right children'' very frequently. What is the
definition of ``right children''?
Mr. Pasternack. These are children who really do have
disabilities, Senator Jeffords. As you know, half of the
students in special education are in the category of specific
learning disability; and while there are seven types of
learning disabilities, and while we know that learning
disabilities are real, we know that many of those students--we
are not quite sure how many of them--may be instructional
casualties. They might not be kids who have a disability, but
they may be kids who were not taught how to read who really
could have learned to read if they were taught by highly-
qualified teachers using the scientifically-based approaches
that have now been identified.
To me, that is the easiest example of some of the kids who
may not be the right kids because these are kids who could have
been instructed and do not necessarily have a disability.
I think it has been our diagnostic approach; it has been
the discrepancy model that we have used since 1975 to look at
the discrepancy between expected and actual academic
achievement as indicative of a learning disability. And as you
well know, sir, there is a two-tiered approach. Not only are we
supposed to identify the existence of a disability, but we are
also determining the need for special education. I think that
in some instances, we have not done that.
So the language that I have been using is just an attempt
to make sure that kids who are in special education are really
kids who do have a disability, and those are the kids that I
mentioned earlier, for example, in the area of reading who
would have intractable problems and would need specially-
designed instruction delivered by highly-qualified personnel.
Senator Jeffords. So what happens to the ``nonright''
children who are way behind in their skills, and who is
responsible for them?
Mr. Pasternack. Well, I think we clearly do not want to
push kids out of special education who are currently in special
education. We want to improve the quality of the services that
those kids are receiving so we can get better results for those
kids.
What we are talking about, I think, rather than the
proximal issue is a distal issue, one of making sure down that
road that we are in fact taking a look at the taxonomy that we
are using in our classification system and our assessment
strategies to make sure that we are in fact helping identify
the right kids by saying to the general education system,
please document the failure of students to benefit from highly-
qualified people delivering scientifically-based instructional
interventions that did not work, and then and only then should
kids be referred to special education. So it really is kind of
strengthening the general education system's ability to educate
all kids so that we in special education would not over-
identify or be inappropriately identifying some students as
having a disability.
Senator Jeffords. Well, it makes me very nervous, the
utilization of the ``right'' children in that respect, because
it looks like more of an attempt to reduce the cost rather than
to help the kids. That worries me.
The Chairman. Senator Mikulski?
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome Mr. Pasternack and look forward to
working with him.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my opening
statement be included in the record.
The Chairman. It will be so included.
Opening Statement of Senator Mikulski
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
calling this hearing on the reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. I also want to thank each of
the witnesses for coming here to share their expertise. I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
We are at the beginning of a long process. As we look at
reauthorizing IDEA, I urge my colleagues to remember why we
have this law in the first place. Congress first passed IDEA in
1975 to ensure a public education for children with
disabilities. The goal was to include students with
disabilities in the classroom in order to help them succeed in
school and in life.
During this reauthorization, we should focus on three
goals: giving disabled students a quality, individualized
education; preparing them to live full, productive lives; and
fully funding IDEA, so special ed is not a hollow promise.
Last year we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which
emphasized accountability for student achievement. And guess
what--students with disabilities are included in these reforms.
Yet these children need special attention. We should think
about the education system as one system, with accommodations
for students with disabilities, but not as two separate
systems.
How do we do this? First and foremost, we need to provide
adequate resources. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, the
federal government promised to pay up to 40% of the costs. Yet
we currently only pay 16.5%. In Maryland, the federal
government pays only around 10%.
The federal government must pay its full share of IDEA
costs. Let me tell you why. Our state and local governments are
facing shrinking budgets. They are already cutting education
spending. Yet they must make improvements in education in order
to meet new federal standards.
We have heard that 90% of states are not complying with
IDEA. How can they comply if they don't have the money improve
the quality of teachers, the success of early intervention, and
everything else? How can they comply when they have to cut
corners in order to save money? Without the proper resources,
how can we expect schools to be able to provide a quality
education for students with disabilities?
IDEA is a success story. The dropout rate for these
children has decreased and the graduation rate has increased.
The number of college-bound students with disabilities has more
than tripled. Yet IDEA services are extremely expensive. In
Maryland, we spend an average of $13,000 to educate a child
with special needs.
Students with disabilities require special attention and
special services, but for these children, these services are
not ``extras.'' They're essentials that mean the difference
between self-sufficiency and a life of dependence.
We also need better coordination between special education
and regular education, since the purpose of IDEA is to help
disabled students achieve in school. We must make sure that
IDEA is in line with the requirements in the No Child Left
Behind Act. We must make sure that the special ed teachers and
regular ed teachers are working together. This means additional
training in special education for regular classroom teachers,
so that they are able to handle children who are ready to join
the regular classroom. It also means training in special ed for
school administrators, so they know how to support the staff.
Ninety percent of special ed students spend at least some
time in regular classes. Yet teachers are only required to take
one broad survey course in special education. This does nothing
to prepare them for the practical problems of having disabled
students in their classes.
Finally, we need to focus on outcomes for the children--
achievement in school and success in life. This begins with
making sure children are identified with the proper disability,
and identified early. We must also address the shortage of
qualified special ed teachers. 98% of US school districts
report a shortage and there are several thousand vacancies
across the country. 10% of special ed teachers are not fully
qualified, but not nearly enough students graduating with
degrees in special education.
IDEA has done a lot of good, but it could be a lot better.
The only way it is going to get better is by providing adequate
resources for services to students, for teachers, and for
coordination. I look forward to today's testimony and to
working with the Chairman and my colleagues on this important
issue. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. I also want to say to the parents, first
of all, a very cordial welcome to you. To the parents and to
the children who are here, when you see us coming and going, it
is not because we are not interested--we are like airplanes
stacked up over LaGuardia as we try to get to all of our
hearings.
So I want to welcome you. Your testimony is important, and
we are proud of you and what you do.
And to Ms. Rangel-Diaz, the National Council on Disability
report I think really offers some very excellent guidance to
the committee.
Mr. Pasternack, first, I think the issues that you raised
in your testimony are exactly the issues that we need to
pursue, but I would like to raise some that are not usually
covered in the discussion. That is the issue of caregiving for
the parents and burnout of the teachers.
We know that anything effective to help these boys and
girls here depends upon their parents and upon their teachers,
and of course, we in the community who support them.
Could you share with us what thoughts you might have given
to the whole issue of--let me give some background. I chair the
Subcommittee on Aging, and we were looking at issues related to
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, where people in the same
generation, particularly usually women, provide care--the whole
issue of caregiving where someone in the family has a chronic
condition that requires very special attention.
What we provide in the area of aging are things like
respite care and other things to support them in caregiving.
Has anyone thought about how we can help these parents
essentially--I do not want to call it burden-sharing; I mean
responsibility-sharing--and in the whole funding of the
disability act, while we look at full funding, that issue,
either to help them with that and issues around caregiving,
even to take a breather; have we thought about that, or is this
new territory?
Mr. Pasternack. Senator Mikulski, we have thought a great
deal about that, but not within the context of the IDEA. As
Senator Kennedy knows, I have a brother with Down's Syndrome
who is 58, and many years ago, the life expectancy of people
with Down's Syndrome was not expected to be that long. Now, God
bless him, I am glad he is alive, but he has Alzheimer's; he
broke his hip, he is in a wheelchair. I think that issues
affecting the aging of people with disabilities are things that
we have not developed good policies for as a country, and we
need to be working with other Federal agencies who have the
primary responsibility for those kinds of programs that you
just articulated like respite care and make sure that we have
supports in place so that we are helping families meet the
needs of their children with disabilities as those children
age.
I think that is one issue among many. There is an
incredibly high prevalence of Alzheimer's in older adults with
Down's syndrome, and I believe it is an issue that requires the
best and brightest scientific minds that we have.
Senator Mikulski. And I agree, but I am not talking about
the aging Down's syndrome. I am talking about these parents,
right here, right now, who have a tremendous responsibility and
the whole issue of counseling, another whole issue--how do we
give help to those families practicing self-help? That is my
question, and I hope they even speak to it there, because I
think it is a significant issue within the family and also a
significant impact on the other children when there is a
particular child who needs the extra attention and love and
help. We are talking about the whole family here. So that is
one thing.
The second thing is teacher burnout. Special education and
even just general education is enormously challenging, and my
question is as we look at teacher training--sometimes we are
schoolmarmish in mandating credentials, and that they meet this
requirement--it is exhausting.
So my question is in teacher quality improvement, are we
looking at what to do with burnout. And number two, when you
say there are some teachers who even want their credentialing
removed, if you want to be an administrator or move up, should
we have a rotation through special education so that if you are
going to be a principal or a school superintendent and so on,
you have taught all of the children? And again, I do not want
to be acting like the chairman of Baltimore City's Board of
Education, but have we thought about burnout and helping the
teachers--and of course, I am worried about the burnout of
parents.
Mr. Pasternack. Well, Senator, I know that time is short,
but I will tell you that the issue of compassion fatigue that
we sometimes call burnout is one that we are very concerned
about, and we want to make sure----
Senator Mikulski. I think that is a better phrase, and I
will substitute that phrase.
Mr. Pasternack. That we have a system of supports in place
to retain the highly-qualified, competent, dedicated,
compassionate, empathetic people that we need to have in our
profession.
And your issue about parent supports, we can when we have
more time talk about our system of parent training and
information centers and the community parent resource centers
that we fund through Part D that do try to address those
issues.
I like your idea very much and would like to talk to you
more about it.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Wellstone?
Senator Wellstone. Thank you.
I am going to be very brief, because you have done just a
superb job, Mr. Pasternack; you really have--and I know there
are others who want to testify.
Just to be really brief, rather than asking questions, I
think I will just say a couple of things, and you can respond
in any way you wish. And again, thank you for your testimony. I
thought your answers to the questions were just superb.
I hope that when we are talking about accountability, we
will have multiple indicators, that you will look at multiple
indicators of student achievement. I think it is a huge mistake
to rely on a single standardized test, and I think that people
in the testing field say that as well.
The second appeal I want to make to you--and I do not want
to just put this at your doorstep, but I would make an appeal
on IDEA Part C and the whole question of mental health
concerns, mental health needs--and of course, this is one of
Senator Domenici's big priorities--yesterday I was in and out
of a breakfast briefing by the National Mental Health
Association in which they were saying that the President's
budget has some really rather severe cuts in children's mental
health services. I would just say for the record here today
that I think we are going in the wrong direction if that is
what we are doing. I think that if we can figure out ways of
getting help to these kids--sometimes--and my wife and I do a
lot in the area of trying to prevent violence in the home--
sometimes, where children witness violence in their homes, that
domestic violence affects their behavior. We have got to figure
out ways of connecting to these kids and help them early on
before they get into even more trouble. So I would just appeal
to you in whatever way you can be a voice for making sure that
we get the resources and services and support to kids at the
community level that we do so.
My final point is going back to a question that Senator
Clinton asked you--and again, I know it is hard for you to give
a ``yes'' or ``no''--but I also want to go on record--and we
are pushing very hard now in the budget resolution--on the
issue of making IDEA mandatory and having full funding--I think
we do it in 6 years--and then we keep that full funding. For my
State of Minnesota and for many other States here, it is a huge
issue--a huge issue--and I think we just absolutely need to do
it.
Going to Senator Mikulski's point, I also think it ties
into teacher burnout, because the truth of the matter is that
part of it is the paperwork. You are absolutely right. I hear
about that all the time. But I also think the teachers just
feel like sometimes it is a matter that salaries are not
necessarily that high, school districts are now having to make
horrible tradeoffs where they are cutting here, cutting there,
prekindergarten programs are not what they should be, buildings
are dilapidated, there is no money--it is just a lot more of a
comment that we have to make. And frankly, this Leave No Child
Behind Act has a great name, but the resources are not there.
The funding is not there. We have not received the funding that
we need from this administration.
So I am counting on you, given the great testimony you have
given today, to change all that right away and make everything
right. [Laughter.] That is it.
Mr. Pasternack. Thank you, Senator Wellstone.
The Chairman. Mr. Pasternack, thank you very, very much for
being here and for a very impressive and thoughtful series of
responses to the questions. You have obviously given these
issues a lot of thought and have come to this with very broad
personal experience as well.
I think all of us feel enormously reassured as we go
forward in terms of trying to develop this legislation. We are
going to be calling on you frequently for your help and
assistance.
Thank you very much for your appearance.
Mr. Pasternack. Senator, I would just like to thank you and
Senator Jeffords and the other members of the committee for
your legacy of support. Clearly, the work that you have done
has dramatically improved the quality of life for people with
disabilities in this country, and on their behalf, I thank you
very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We welcome our next witness. Lilliam Rangel-Diaz is a board
member of the National Council on Disability, an independent
Federal agency representing people with disabilities. Ms. Diaz
also serves on the Advisory Board of the Center for Child
Development and Preschool Inclusion at the University of Miami.
A recognized expert in the field of special education, Ms.
Diaz is also the mother of five children, including a child
with developmental delays.
Good morning. Thank you very much for being here. We look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LILLIAM RANGEL-DIAZ, MEMBER, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON
DISABILITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Rangel-Diaz. Good morning, Chairman Kennedy and
distinguished members of the committee.
Good morning, children and parents. Thank you for being
here today to remind us that you are the consumers and that
this is all about you.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing. I
am a proud member of the National Council on Disability, and I
am humbled to be here today on its behalf. I am also most proud
to be ``mom'' to six wonderful boys, two of them with
disabilities, and to serve the families of children with
disabilities in my community as a professional advocate.
As an independent Federal agency, the NCD's charge is to
make recommendations to the President, Congress, and Federal
agencies on equal opportunity for all individuals with
disabilities. We welcome the opportunity to share our
recommendations about IDEA with you this morning.
Unfortunately, students with disabilities and their
advocates continue to fight some of the same battles that were
fought in Brown v. Board of Education to put an end of the myth
that ``separate is not equal.'' Congress crafted the precursor
to IDEA in 1975 to halt these practices. If IDEA were
faithfully implemented and enforced across the country, it
would work well. However, 27 years later, we are still seeking
solutions.
NCD has identified four critical issues in the
implementation of this civil rights law--monitoring and
enforcement, full funding, discipline, and other representation
of students form culturally divers backgrounds. Most of our
comments this morning will be on the first--monitoring and
enforcement--for we believe it to be the key to all others.
In January 2000, NCD released ``Back to School on Civil
Rights,'' reporting on a study that established how the Federal
system of monitoring and enforcement has been working in
enforcing the basic requirements of IDEA--FAPE, LRE, IEP,
transition, general supervision, procedural safeguards, and
protection in evaluation of student with disabilities.
The study found every State and the District of Columbia
out of compliance with the law to different degrees. Eighty
percent of the States failed to ensure compliance with FAPE; 78
percent failed to ensure compliance with procedural safeguards;
and 72 percent failed to ensure compliance with the least
restrictive environment, thereby unnecessarily relegating the
students to segregated settings.
We found students from diverse populations
disproportionately represented in separate classrooms.
Basically, we found that too many students did not receive
FAPE; were not educated in the least restrictive environment--
meaning inappropriate placements in separate, segregated
settings or the lack of services for students served in regular
classrooms; did not receive related services reflected in their
IEPs; could not access transition services, and did not receive
procedural safeguards and protections.
We also found that the real enforcers of the law have been
parents, and as I will discuss later, they are not provided the
tools they need to do this important work.
We have other studies as well. In a Social Security
Administration Commission study on the implementation of
transition mandates, postsecondary education, and employment
outcomes, we found poor graduation rates, low employment rates,
low postsecondary education participation, and an increasing
number of youth stuck on the Social Security benefit rolls.
At the same time, we identified a host of effective
practices and research that should be more widely utilized, as
well as promising Federal initiatives that deserve more
support.
Our follow-up activities have included collaboration with
OSEP, supporting a group of stakeholders who are reviewing
OSEP's continuous monitoring improvement system and
recommending performance benchmarks and enforcement triggers.
An NCD Youth Advisory Committee informs us on the needs of
you with disabilities, particularly related to IDEA.
Parents of children with disabilities are enthusiastic
supporters of the law. They think it is a good law, but they
also outline problems that emphasize the importance of strong
Federal enforcement. When students do not receive IEP services
and supports, they cannot achieve outcomes. Students
categorically and unnecessarily placed in restrictive
educational settings are stigmatized and have difficulty
learning. Under such circumstances, school systems do not
maximize the use of scarce Federal education dollars.
We understand the need to explore the question: Doesn't
such a high level of noncompliance point to the fact that it is
clearly a bad law that States cannot comply with and whose time
for change has come?
However, from our work, we can only conclude that this is
not the case. We believe that altering the basic educational
rights in IDEA would devastate the promise of FAPE for students
with disabilities. From Back to School, we know that 20 percent
of the States are in compliance with FAPE. What is their story?
The same applies to LRE. WE need to look to the 28 percent
of the States that were found to be in compliance for guidance.
There are beacons out there that we need to follow. The issue
is not the law. Our data clearly identify the major issue--that
implementation of IDEA has been inconsistent and lacking any
real teeth.
Currently, OSEP relies on compliance plans and technical
assistance for States found out of compliance with IDEA. There
are no clear objective criteria for additional enforcement
options for States that persist in substantial noncompliance.
Without standards defining limits and providing appropriate
sanctions, the incentives for corrections are not compelling
enough to stop the cycle of noncompliance. The result is
devastating for students and their families, who continue to be
denied the protections of this civil rights law.
My written testimony contains several recommendations that
NCD is making.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and welcome
any questions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rangel-Diaz may be found in
additional material.]
The Chairman. I want to thank you very much for giving
focus and attention on the noncompliance. This is really an
extremely important aspect. You also observed other features in
terms of funding and discipline and the other cross-cultural
kinds of issues. But compliance is obviously a key aspect, and
we tried in the last reauthorization to provide some ways of
doing this, which have not been successful, through the
Department of Education being able to go to the Justice
Department to get them involved, and they have not used any of
these tools.
I do not know if you have a sense that the tools that we
provided are not good, or they have not been utilized. Could I
hear you on that, please?
Ms. Rangel-Diaz. I would be happy to. That is one of my
favorite subjects.
It is not that they are not good; it is that they have not
been utilized. We strongly believe at NCD and through the work
that we have done that there is an inherent conflict of
interest in having the Department of Education be the agency
that provides technical assistance to States and school
districts on the implementation of the law and also being the
agency required to enforce the law, which we have found has not
been done very well.
So one of our recommendations is to expand the role of the
Department of Justice. We ask that Congress authorize and fund
the Department of Justice to independently investigate and
litigate IDEA cases as well as to administer a Federal system
for handling individual complaints. I hope this answers your
question.
The Chairman. So you think that if the Justice Department
independently did a review, this would be a way of proceeding
to ensure the monitoring and also the accountability?
Ms. Rangel-Diaz. This is what we think. We also think that
the Departments of Education and Justice should together
develop national compliance standards and improvement measures
and enforcement sanctions to be triggered by specific
indicators of a State's failure to ensure compliance and that
it is really important that the stakeholders are involved in
the development of this national compliance, of course,
including parents and youth with disabilities.
We recommended around these activities for a State-level
technical assistance network, self-advocacy, and monitoring and
training for students, parents, and other partners, and low-
cost legal services for families, and that there be an increase
of 10 percent whenever Part B of IDEA is increased for these
specific activities related to enforcement.
The Chairman. Well, you make a very, very important point,
and that is that even if we get the other provisions right, if
we do not get this one right, we are not really doing our job.
Whatever we do, whether in the funding or in the discipline or
the other kinds of cross-cultural issues, education competency
of special ed teachers, parental involvement or any of the
others, unless we have enforcement, then it is really an empty
promise.
This is a very important and significant study that you
have done, with very important and significant recommendations,
and we want to try to ensure that whatever we do here, we have
the kind of effective accountability that you feel is necessary
to make sure that we have compliance. This is very important
subject matter, and you have served us very well in your
presentation, and we are going to be looking forward to working
closely with you to try to get it right. So thank you.
Senator Wellstone?
Senator Wellstone. Ms. Rangel-Diaz, thank you for your
testimony.
I agree with what Senator Kennedy said. I think your words
that, ``altering the core educational rights in IDEA would
devastate the promise of a free and appropriate public
education for students with disabilities,'' ring loud and
clear, and I thank you for it.
Do you have some ideas about how we could better reduce the
overidentification of children with disabilities?
Ms. Rangel-Diaz. If IDEA were faithfully implemented, that
would definitely take care of the overrepresentation. If we
were to use the protections available for children with
disabilities in the evaluation process, it would take care of
decreasing the overrepresentation. If we use the evaluation
tools that are available and develop those that we may need to
develop to truly evaluate children who have limited English
proficiency and who belong to diverse cultural groups, we will
be decreasing the overrepresentation of children in special
education.
Senator Wellstone. And the other question I have for you--I
absolutely share your commitment to the core rights that are
provided under this legislation. I am also persuaded that
teachers do spend too much time on paperwork and not enough
time with the students.
Is there a way to reduce the paperwork without sacrificing
the core rights of the children or the students?
Ms. Rangel-Diaz. We live in an era of technology, and I
think we need to use the technology that we have available to
us to make sure that children's outcomes to not suffer because
of paperwork.
I must say that I live in Miami, FL, and I must live in a
different world, because I do not see our teachers spending
that much time doing paperwork. I think that if teachers are
trained, and principals understand, and we spend the time
really implementing IDEA, there is not really that much
paperwork.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we have yet another panel, and I do not want
them to run out of time and all of us have to go vote or
whatever, so I will conclude my questioning.
I want to thank you. I believe that your testimony is
extremely important, and I thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very, very much.
Ms. Rangel-Diaz. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. We will now ask Valerie Findley if she would
be good enough to come up. Senator Harkin gave a very stirring
introduction of you.
Then, we welcome Bob Runkel, who is Montana State Director
of Special Education in Helena, MT; Bob Vaadeland, who is
Superintendent of the Minnewaska Area Schools in Glenwood, MN;
and Kim Ratcliffe, who is Director of Special Education for
Columbia Public Schools in Columbia, MO.
STATEMENTS OF VALERIE FINDLEY, PARENT, DES MOINES, IA; ROBERT
RUNKEL, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, HELENA,
MT; ROBERT VAADELAND, SUPERINTENDENT, MINNEWASKA AREA SCHOOLS,
GLENWOOD, MN; AND KIM RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL EDUCATION,
COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COLUMBIA, MO
Ms. Findley. Bad timing--my daughter Louisa was going to
sit up here with us and may return any minute.
The Chairman. It has been a long morning. She has been
enormously patient. All these children have been.
Ms. Findley. She has done a very good job.
Chairman Kennedy and other distinguished members of the
HELP Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today.
Although Senator Harkin's introduction was certainly
glowing, I am not an expert on all the technicalities of each
section of IDEA, but I am, like most parents, an expert on the
strengths and the needs of my own daughter, and that is what I
will speak to today--our family's experience with IDEA and
special education services.
How do you relate 9 years of joy, grief, confusion, and
success in just a few minutes? I would like to start off by
helping you know my daughter a little. Louisa's favorite things
are swimming, horseback riding, and eating foods. She loves
spicy and sour things; her favorites are guacamole and lemon
meringue pie and garlic bread. She loves to dance with her
daddy, and she loves to sing with mom, which beats me.
She has an infectious laugh; she is very sociable; and she
has been described by some as a ``love machine''--she just
makes you want to cuddle.
Louisa has a very small verbal vocabulary with words
including ``go'', ``more'', ``cold'' and my favorite,
``Mamama.''
Louisa uses a wheelchair for mobility; she uses hearing
aids and wears glasses, and she receives the majority of her
nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. She wears braces on her
legs for some of her activities, and she uses switch-controlled
deices for basic communication, choice-making, and to entertain
herself, as well as to help out with simple chore at home.
Although she often appears inattentive, do not let her fool
you. Louisa is very aware of what is going on around her, and
she will do her best to make known her wants, her needs, her
interests, and her frustrations.
Every journey has a beginning. Ours started when, during a
healthy pregnancy, I suddenly developed toxemia. Louisa
underwent a series of prenatal tests, and it was determined
that she had fluid that had accumulated in her lungs and was
experiencing fetal distress. At that time, she was delivered by
emergency C-section a little over 7 weeks prematurely. During
the delivery, Louisa aspirated meconium, and because of the
immature development of her lungs, suffered brain damage.
She spent the next 2\1/2\, almost 3 months, of her life in
the intensive care units of two hospitals in Des Moines, where
she was born, and in Omaha, NB, where she was life-flighted
after 3 days. While she was at the medical center in Omaha, it
was determined that she had what would be considered a Type 2
cerebral palsy, and we were told at that time that Louisa would
probably have difficulty with gross motor skills, things like
walking and being able to dress herself.
When Louisa was returned to the hospital in Des Moines, our
home town, we realized that her challenges were going to be
much more severe and lifelong. Our family was moving into
uncharted territory.
Since then, Louisa has been given additional diagnoses of
mental retardation, cortical visual impairment, central
auditory processing disorder, and being chronically adorable.
[Laughter.]
When Louisa first came home from the hospital still on
oxygen, we immediately began to seek out information and
support for what we knew was going to be an entirely new
journey for all the members of our family. When we left the
hospital, we really received very little information or
resources about where to go and find out how to help Louisa
best.
One of the places where we looked to educate ourselves in
order to help her achieve the best outcomes and the fullest and
most satisfying life possible was to our education system and
Iowa's Early Access Program.
At the age of 5 months, Louisa began receiving Part C early
intervention services through the Des Moines School District,
first at home and later in her day care setting. I will never
forget the first two women that we encountered. They walked
through our door and changed our lives. Jean Linder was an
occupational therapist and Georgia Woodward an early childhood
special education teacher. They inspired and supported us
through the nearly 3 years that we worked with them. Over cups
of tea in our living room, they worked with Louisa and provided
our family with information, strategies, and the moral support
that helped us move from broken dreams to new hope and
understanding.
Through the Individualized Family Service Plan, or IFSP
process, the helped us to identify our family's and Louisa's
needs and strengths and secured the coordinated services and
resources we would require. The whole notion of coordinated
services was mentioned a couple of times earlier today, and I
want to stress how very, very important that is, that education
systems are working with medical systems, are working with
public health systems, are working with other systems of
community support for families raising children with
disabilities..
While in the early access Part C process, our family was
allowed to retain our privacy and as much normalcy as
possible--which is not an easy thing when you have therapists,
respite care workers, teachers, all sorts of people coming into
your home. These individuals, like many who have followed,
served as the guideposts along our way. One of the most
important things they taught me was that we were Louisa's
advocates, that we would be required to speak for her and
defend her rights to secure the services she would need in
order to reach her fullest potential and a meaningful life. I
will be forever indebted to them for their honesty and
compassion.
I believe that extending the IFSP process through at least
age 5 would be a good thing, as the family-centered approach to
service coordination is valuable during this time of early
intervention.
When Louisa was 2 years old, she was registered on our
State's deaf-blind registry. This gave us access to our Deaf-
Blind Project staff, who provided technical assistance to
families and school staff in order to address the very unique
challenges that children with both vision and hearing
impairments face.
When Louisa was still a baby, we were provided with
strategies for sensory integration, communication by touch
cues, and even tips for creating a home environment that would
encourage her to use and maximize her vision and hearing.
When Louisa was 3, she attended and inclusive preschool in
a shared program that included both typically developing
neighborhood children, other children with disabilities, and a
Head Start program. She remained in this setting for 3 years,
receiving early childhood education and related services to
work on goals that were identified through the Individual
Education Plan, or IEP, process.
One thing that families with children with disabilities
face and has also been mentioned is the very difficult time of
trying to find preschool and day care settings for our
children. I hope that is something that we can work on more and
more in the future.
As Louisa was ready to transition to kindergarten, we
visited principals and staff at three neighborhood schools
closest to our home as well as a private school for children
with disabilities in order to determine which setting would be
most beneficial for her. We decided that Hillis, where she
currently attends, was the place for Louisa. We were most
impressed by the welcoming attitude of the principal, Larry
Streyffeler, and the other staff there. He did not flinch when
we described Louisa and the services she would require, which
are considerable. And he let us know that together, we would do
whatever it takes to ensure Louisa a positive school
experience.
Another factor of our choice was the physical accessibility
of Hillis School. We realized that under IDEA, we would have an
opportunity to press that issue if the school that she was
supposed to go to had not been accessible, but you have to
choose your battles, and that was one that was easy to make at
Hillis.
So Louisa was enrolled in a regular kindergarten classroom.
On the last day of school that year, Louisa came home with her
first invitation to a birthday party. Such joy. Our Louisa
would have friends in her life. We were worried about that.
Louisa is now in the third grade where she continues to be
included in the general education classroom with friends she
has known since kindergarten. Her classroom teacher has the
support of a special education teacher who is assigned to the
entire classroom, as well as two one-on-one half-time
associates who assist Louisa personally with her schoolwork,
transfers, and personal cares, and work with the other children
in the classroom when Louisa is occupied with her peers or is
doing therapeutic services.
Louisa has an extensive IEP team, including her father and
me, the principal, her classroom teacher, a special ed teacher,
the associates, a physical therapist, an occupational
therapist, a speech and language pathologist, a vision
itinerate teacher, a member of the district's assistive
technology team, a district special education consultant. Her
IEP team has also included a school psychologist, social
workers, Louisa's horseback riding therapist, her respite care
worker, and anyone who has played a role in her life.
The IEP process is working for my child. It allows our team
to paint the entire picture of Louisa for school programming.
It has confirmed to me the importance of partnerships. The
older she gets, the more important it is that we build on
Louisa's capacities and capabilities and not just those things
she cannot master.
It is even more important that the players who are involved
in painting this portrait are looking at her from several
angles. I have been impressed with the teamwork and commitment
of the district and school staff that we have worked with.
Challenges with multiple disabilities can hide true
abilities and talents. Cognitive evaluation of children who are
hampered by severe physical and communication impairments is
often difficult, and we as parents have asked that when
conclusive evaluations have been impossible, that Louisa be
given the benefit of the doubt. This has been the foundation of
our IEP process.
IDEA provides the entitlement of every child to a free and
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.
IDEA calls for the continuum of services and access to the
general education curriculum. Not all kids will succeed in the
same way or at the same pace, but they can all benefit from the
educational experience, gleaning those things that impact their
lives.
The original focus of the law was to create access to
educational opportunities for students with disabilities. It is
also a civil rights law. All kids need to experience school and
extracurricular activities that promote peer relationships,
respect for differences, and the pride that comes from
extending a helping hand to others.
Louisa loves school and is in turn well-loved by her
classmates and other students. Her peers take turns being
Louisa's helper because everyone wants to be her special
friend. Staff have related that Louisa's presence in the
classroom has been a motivation for children who have
behavioral issues. Being allowed to help Louisa is used as a
reward for these kids' good behavior in class. I think that is
a wonderful way for Louisa to contribute.
Louisa's favorite classes are music, PE, and art. She also
enjoys reading the spelling list to her peers with the help of
a switch-controlled tape recorder. Her friends include her in
their play at recess, clamor to sit next to her at lunch, and
often have wonderful ideas for accommodations in the classroom
so that Louisa will not feel left out of things. For the last 2
years, Louisa has also attended a half-day summer school
program where her IEP activities are continued.
Louisa receives support from her related services staff on
either a direct or consultative basis, with most services
integrated into the daily class schedule so that she can
participate in regular classroom curriculum activities with her
peers while working on her own IEP goals. I acknowledge that
this can be a challenge sometimes as we strive to balance
Louisa's needs with the needs of the other children in the
classroom, but I have been overwhelmed with relief and delight
when parents of the other children have approached me to say
that their son or daughter often talks about Louisa and how
much their child appreciates and enjoys her. I have several
times experienced them thanking me for her being there, as they
feel that her presence is a positive thing and has helped their
own children be more kind and accepting human beings.
IDEA ensure that an array of service options are available
based on the unique and individual needs of the child,
determined with the input and expertise of the child's parents
or guardians. The IEP process ensures that parents have the
opportunity to participate as equal partners in decisions being
made. An ``M.O.M.'' is recognized as equal in expertise to a
Ph.D. or a master's of education when it comes to the
determination of appropriate services and placement for our
children.
I realize that Louisa and our family have been very, very
lucky to have had the opportunity and the overwhelmingly
positive experience that we have had. I think one of the factor
is that we live in our capital city and have lots of resources
available to us. I realize that families in some other areas
have not fared so well, and when we are talking about IDEA, I
think we need to remember that it is not the law that is
broken; it is the funding that needs to be in place that will
allow for proper implementation.
I also realize that we have been lucky because we have
gained and understanding of our rights as parents and our
daughter's right to a free and appropriate education.
My most important and best-loved job is parenting, but I
have also been able to work with hundreds of other Iowa
families who have children with special needs. My own area of
expertise is community-based family support services, but when
I speak to family members who have issues about special
education implementation or ideas about what is going on in
their school and ways to make it better, I often consult with
our Parent Training and Information Center, which we share an
office with. Promoting parent participation and parent-
professional partnership is crucial to the success of our
children. When problems occur, we should encourage mediation
and resolution of the dispute at the lowest level. Resolution
facilitators should be available to all families as a vital
component of due process.
Lawsuits should be the last resort. We have been hearing
this morning about the prevalence of lawsuits, but I think what
we need to realize is that lawsuits are always the last resort
of parents when things are not happening according to the law,
and the law is there to protect them.
It is hard to imagine that only a generation ago, many
children did not have the opportunity to go to school at all,
were routinely institutionalized, or had no other option than
``special'' or segregated schools and classrooms. Many students
had disabilities that were not identified, and they struggled
and failed in a system that was not meeting their unique needs.
These children were frequently subjected to cruel taunts and
insults, told they were stupid and that they simply needed to
try harder. I know because two of them were my siblings.
My brother Hank, who is 11 months older than I, and my
sister Audrey, who is 2 years younger than I, both had learning
disabilities, including dyslexia. In addition, my brother Hank
had only partial hearing in one ear and had lost the use of one
eye as the result of an accident. These challenges also
affected his learning.
When Hank was held back to repeat kindergarten, our parents
enrolled him in a parochial school though we were not Catholic,
and they got him tutors for extra help. They worked very hard
at trying to help him with reading and math and basic learning.
The next year, when he returned to public school, he and I
were now in the same grade and would continue throughout our
schooling years. Because learning came easy to me, it was
heartbreaking to watch my brother struggle in class and to hear
our peers make fund of him, call him ``Dummy'' and ``Cyclops''
and other mean things. I knew he was smart. I knew he was kind.
Senator Wellstone. Ms. Findley, your testimony is so
powerful, but I have one worry. That is if we have a vote, and
all of us have to leave, the committee will then disband. So I
might ask you if you could quickly bring it to a conclusion. It
is very powerful, and I hate doing what I am doing, but I am
just worried that we will have to leave before we have heard
from everyone.
Ms. Findley. I understand completely.
Senator Wellstone. And I thank you for your eloquence.
Ms. Findley. You bet.
The story of my brother and my sister, to make a not very
long story even shorter, is that their experience was not a
good one in school. They wound up going to private school in
Florida, a residential school, very expensive, very difficult
for our family to be broken up in order for them to have the
opportunities that they needed to have.
When Public Law 94-142 was passed in 1975, it was a huge
victory and a time of celebration in our household, but it was
too late for my brother and my sister. My brother went on to
have much difficulty in life, and I believe sincerely that it
was as a result of his early experiences as a child and a
complete erosion of his own self-esteem.
A success story that I would like to relate is that when my
sister graduated from high school, her high school counselor
told her that she should very seriously consider food service
as a career because that was one of the few things that she
would be able to succeed at. My sister now has a master's
degree in counseling psychology. She is a licensed marriage and
family therapist, and she has gone back to the Learning
Disabilities Conference to provide a measure of hope to those
families and children.
We have to be careful when we are defining the goals of
education. I have heard people say that productive,
contributing citizens should be the end result of the
investment of public education dollars--but how do we define
``productive''?
Louisa has provided our family with a gift we never could
have anticipated. She has helped us and other members of our
community to grow and become better people through
understanding her unique and sometimes hidden gifts and
contributions. That is why we are here today, to maintain an
educational system where truly no child is left behind.
On behalf of Louisa, Hank, Audrey, my mom and dad, and
every other parent and child with special needs in America, I
want to thank you for listening, for keeping the faith in our
kids, and for pursuing excellence in an educational system that
serves and includes all children.
And if I may have your indulgence, I think Louisa has a
short message she would like to express.
Ms. Findley. [via voice-assistive device]. Hello. My name
is Louisa. Thank you for inviting my family to come here today.
I am in the third grade at Hillis School with all of my
friends, and I really love it.
Ms. Findley. Thank you.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Louisa, and thank you, Ms.
Findley.
I know that you came by van a long way as a family, and I
think you have spoken for many, many families all across the
country. As you well know, with Senator Harkin who serves on
this committee, you do not have a stronger champion.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Findley may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Wellstone. We will hear from all of you and then go
to questions, hopefully.
Mr. Runkel?
Mr. Runkel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, and our families, and Louisa.
I would ask that you please include my written statement in
the record.
Senator Wellstone. We will do so.
Mr. Runkel. My name is Robert Runkel. I have served as the
administrator of the Division of Special Education for the
State of Montana since 1987. I also currently serve as
president of the National Association of State Directors of
Special Education.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
committee and share my thoughts and recommendations for the
current reauthorization of IDEA. In the short time that I have
this morning, I want to take a moment to honor the efforts of
this committee, the involvement and support of parents, and the
quality and dedication of teachers and related service
providers.
Let me begin by emphasizing that special education is not a
sperate system of education; it is a service provided to
students. I ask your help to craft legislation so that every
child will have the opportunity to achieve his or her potential
through a seamless education system that supports learning for
all children.
IDEA 1997 refocused efforts on accountability for outcomes
with students with disabilities. I cannot emphasize enough how
valuable it has been for children with disabilities to be
included in each State's accountability system. However, in our
efforts to focus on outcomes, it is important to remember that
results of academic achievement tests tell only part of the
story. While State standards measured by achievement tests have
great value, it is important that these tests are kept in
balance with a number of other key outcome indicators.
The system of special education includes tens of thousands
of parents, teachers, and administrators working together to
prepare our students for a bright future. Children with
disabilities are now included more than ever with their
nondisabled peer group.
Important procedural legal protections contained in the law
are being implemented, and parents are now more involved in
important decisions regarding their children's services. This
is both gratifying and commendable.
The basic principles of IDEA are sound. There are, however,
a few areas that we need to address that I believe would
produce improved outcomes for our students. For many school-age
children with mild disabilities, or at least, less visible
disabilities, eligibility for special education is determined
on a ``wait to fail'' model. Too many of our children need to
be so far behind before they are able to access the services
that they are likely to never catch up.
And for the sake of reporting requirements, we continue to
find it necessary to label our children. Labeling can reduce
expectations, affect the self-concept of the child, and change
the dynamics of the relationships between people. It is just
too easy to blame lack of success on the characteristics of the
student instead of the effectiveness of the services offered.
Often, our parents and students do not understand the need
for the label or the necessity for waiting for failure--nor do
I. It is time that our children have rights without labels.
The day has come for our special ed system to allow our
children to access on-time delivery of services based on
educational need. I would respectfully suggest that the
reauthorization of IDEA is the appropriate time to reexamine
the fundamental concept of how and when children become
eligible for services.
Montana's State and local education agencies, like many
State and local education agencies around the country, faces
significant funding issues that can and should be addressed
through reauthorization. Let me mention a few.
First, full funding of IDEA. I want to particularly thank
the members of this committee for their strong support last
year for an IDEA full funding amendment that Senators Hagel and
Harkin offered to the No Child Left Behind Act. In Montana, a
State that has significant economic challenges with low
salaries and a low tax base, the failure of present law to
provide this level of funding is particularly onerous.
Local Montana school district financial contributions to
special education have grown by over 900 percent in the past 10
years. I will be thrilled to go home tomorrow with the news of
this week's progress toward full funding.
Next, maintenance of fiscal effort. The value of increased
funding to Montana schools is tied directly to the need for
more flexibility in the area of maintenance of fiscal effort.
Montana educators feel strongly that added flexibility is
necessary to rebalance the relative local, State, and Federal
partnership in covering the costs of special education.
Next, the cap on administrative expenses. The cap on
administrative expenses is limiting States, especially small
States, in their ability to guarantee quality education
services to each and every child with a disability. I urge you
to allow State education agencies to use up to 15 percent of
Part B funds for technical assistance and direct support to
schools, and up to 5 percent for administrative expenses.
Finally, as far as money is concerned--Medicaid. Better
linkages between IDEA and the Medicaid program must be
established. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
should be required by law to work with the Department of
Education on policies and procedures that will enable school
districts to be reimbursed for services more consistent with
the Federal, State, and local partnership.
I am pleased with the emphasis of the Bush Administration
on early identification and intervention. The Part C Infants
and Toddlers Program and Part B Section 619 Preschool Programs
clearly support this priority and deserve to be well-funded.
It is critically important that the new early intervention
programs in the No Child Left Behind Act are coordinated with
the early childhood programs in IDEA. Federal education
programs supporting early childhood development and programs
supporting academic progress for school-age children must
include common data definitions, common procedures for
collection of information, and common reporting and analysis of
program effectiveness. Schools simply cannot afford multiple
accountability and school improvement activities for each
Federal program.
Coordination in these areas will result in a reduction in
paperwork for both State and local education agencies.
And, speaking of paperwork, our current preoccupation in
special education on process has contributed to the paperwork
burden you hear so much about. Much of our paperwork burden is
due to the need for documenting compliance with regulations. I
believe that the paperwork burden can be reduced and still
retain all the rights and protections of current law.
Because so many of our colleagues share this concern, the
National Association of State Directors of Special Education
will be convening a meeting of its members and other
stakeholders this spring to come up with specific suggestions
for a reduction in paperwork. We invite your involvement in
this effort and will of course share the results with you.
Today represents an opportunity to take a good law and make
it better; an opportunity to establish a true financial
partnership between schools, the State, and the Federal
Government; and an opportunity to move forward to a unified
education system for all children.
Thank you for your time this morning. I would be pleased to
answer your questions.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you, Mr. Runkel. Spoken like a
true educator. I got exactly what you wanted to emphasize.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Runkel may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Wellstone. I talked with Senator Bond, and what I
will do is take a point of personal privilege and introduce
Bob, and then, I know that Senator Bond would like to introduce
Ms. Ratcliffe.
I have about 80 students from Minnesota waiting for me, so
I am going to excuse myself, and what we will do is hear the
testimony and then, if there are any questions, we will get
them to you in writing. Everything you have said will be on the
record.
Is that all right with you, Kit?
Senator Bond. Yes. I think under the current time
situation, yes, because we all have some deadlines.
Senator Wellstone. And Bob, I could actually give you a big
introduction, and then I could take a lot of time, but from
Minnesota--do I need to say anything else? And superintendent
of Minnewaska School District, which is in west-central
Minnesota, with about 1,600 students. Bob is a special
education teacher and director and has a 27-year career. He has
done a lot of different work in this field.
We welcome your testimony and thank you for coming--and
thanks to all of you, actually for being here.
Mr. Vaadeland. Thank you, Senators.
It is with great pleasure and humility that I come before
you today to bring some thoughts and perspectives from a rural
school administrator regarding the current Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
In my opinion, this Act has had a great impact on services
to children over the years, and without it, I believe with
emphatic conviction that many children in years past would not
have been and even today would not be the benefactors of
specialized services needed to meet their individual needs.
This is not to say, however, that everything is or always
has been perfect in regard to implementation. However, by
taking the available opportunities to analyze the positive
results of the Act along with the glitches that appear along
the way, I believe very strongly that we can all work together
to improve services for children with disabilities.
My career as a special educator began in 1975, the year
after the original Public Law 94-142 was enacted by Congress.
Since that time, I have observed many changes in the provision
of special education services for children with disabilities..
As a special education instructor with licenses in learning
disabilities, mild to moderately impaired, and emotional-
behavioral disorders, I had the opportunity to get involved
with the day-to-day tasks of pre-referral, referral,
assessment, identification, IEP program development,
implementation, and program review. These steps were all
completed under the jurisdiction of the due process laws as
originally written into the original public law and yet refined
over the years for greater clarification.
Following my original experiences working the law as a
special education instructor, I then had the opportunity to
work with nearly 30 school districts in southwest and west-
central Minnesota in multiple capacities. To clarify, over the
past 27 years, I have served not only as a special education
coordinator but also as a special ed director, an elementary
principal, and for the past 12 years, as a superintendent. In
addition, I have also served as president of the Minnesota
Administrators for Special Education and presently represent
the Minnesota Association of School Administrators on the State
Special Education Advisory Committee.
From a very personal perspective, I know that this Act has
had a great impact on the provision of special education
services to children identified with disabilities. I can recall
a group of seven young men in a rural Minnesota school district
that I had the opportunity to work with a number of years ago
who had a variety of needs.
The young men's identified disabilities varied from mild to
moderate cognitive impairments to learning disabilities to
those with emotional-behavioral disorders. There were times
when I questioned that I was truly able to meet their diverse
needs based on the variety of identified handicapping
conditions. However, in the end, these students completed their
high school education and graduated. The difference that these
services made to them personally was exemplified by one
graduate in particular who wrote to me following his graduation
and said: ``Thank you. I could not have done it without you.''
Touching, yes, but I knew that the services that this student
had received had made a difference.
I also recall two other young high school students in years
past who had not only cognitive impairments but also some very
involved physical impairments that required developmental
adapted physical education, along with related services such as
occupational therapy and physical therapy.
These particular children also had cerebral palsy and had
both required rhizotomy surgeries on several occasions. I
cannot say enough about the strides that both of these young
individuals made due to the provision of specialized special
education services. I particularly recall when one of these
young individuals, a young lady, walked forward and presented
her work experience employer with an award of appreciation for
supervising her on a job site.
A second such occasion occurred when she walked forward and
received her high school diploma. That is truly when it hit me
that the services provided to her as a result of IDEA had made
a great impact. The heartfelt thanks from the parents upon this
young lady's graduation were also overwhelming as they publicly
thanks us while tears trickled down their cheeks.
One final example is that of a very young child who was
diagnosed very early with ``autistic-like'' tendencies, who had
a habit of being very withdrawn as well as exhibiting
perseverating behaviors. Through early intervention services,
however, with a great team of early childhood special education
professionals, this student made unbelievable strides and was
able to move with much greater ease into a transition
kindergarten program and did so with success. In this
particular situation, the parents were so pleased with the
services that had been provided that the family even delayed a
move which was a career advancement for the parent in order to
continue receiving the benefits.
These are only several examples of the times when we knew
that the specialized special ed services had made a difference
and that, had it not been for IDEA, these ultimate successes
may not have occurred.
A final comment to make under this section before looking
into some of the existing problems of the Act is that in my
opinion, most schools really do try to do the best they can to
educate all children in the least restrictive environment. In
my world, that means educating them as close to their homes, to
their peers, and to their communities as entirely possible.
Although this is not always possible, I can think of very few
situations where this is not at the forefront in the
decisionmaking process.
I know there are examples where cessation of services or
simple discontinuance of appropriate services is suggested and
implemented. However, I would have a very difficult time
finding superintendents in my peer group who believe in their
hearts that it is the best for students. For this reason, the
concerns of exploring avenues of appropriate service provision
are of great concern.
These successes, however, did not occur without
consternation at times and without some frustrations with
program implementation which still need to be addressed. I
would like to take just a couple of minutes and this
opportunity to address those areas, with some suggestions for
improvement into the current law.
In most instances, schools will do the best they can to
provide appropriate special education services based on
identified needs in order for the child or children to receive
the appropriate benefit from their educational programs. These
types of services sometimes requested, however, are viewed by
schools as noneducationally-related and beyond the scope of
FAPE. In some instances, it has become the school district's
responsibility to provide a service whether or not it is viewed
as a school's obligation.
While examples are few, and most parents and school
districts have positive relationships, the fear of litigation
when these types of differences arise is threatening to staff
and causing some of them to look at other alternatives in
education. This impacts a district's ability to recruit and
retain staff.
The State Special Education Advisory Committee in
Minnesota, along with the State Special Education Department,
have been studying this problem in depth over the past several
years, and a number of State and local initiatives are being
implemented to address these concerns. For example, schools
have begun to offer signing bonuses, extended contracts without
classroom assignments, State aid reimbursements for clerical
staff, increased staff development opportunities for all staff,
and electronic options to enhance communications between
families and districts. In essence, increased options for
alternative dispute resolution systems and improved staff
training would help to ease concerns regarding due process
requirements.
A second item I would like to address is the process of
complaint investment as well as avenues to avoid hearings as a
result of the complaints.
It is the view of many that this system works very well. In
2001, for example, the number of hearings across the Nation
totalled 3,020. This statistic, when compared to the 6.2
million children on IEPs, is not staggering. In comparison to
these national percentages, Minnesota only had 10 hearings
based on 110,000 IEPs. This may be due in part to the fact that
in Minnesota, there is an initial step of informal
conciliation. It has been my personal experience to approach
situations from a perspective of ``What can we do to make this
work out?'' This is different from taking a stand that
agreement cannot be reached.
By approaching situations like this and exploring avenues
for agreement, I was personally fortunate to never be involved
in a hearing. The channels of communication opened by this type
of process have been very rewarding and helped to implement
IDEA with greater ease.
This conciliation step, however, is not a requirement of
IDEA. Based on the current status of IDEA, a parent may file a
complaint at any time, at which point an investigation begins
to unfold. It is my perspective that if IDEA could be changed
to incorporate conciliation or other informal dispute
resolution processes, it would significantly reduce the number
of complaints and hearings. It is also my perspective that the
steps would help to work through difficult situations with much
greater ease.
A second step that could help to strengthen IDEA would be
to institute an enhanced mediation process. In initiating this,
a greater understanding of the perspectives of both school and
the parents would be the end result.
Another promising example is that in Minnesota, we are
piloting facilitated IEPs, where a State-trained independent
facilitator actually facilitates the IEP meeting. We think this
could be a huge step in reducing adversarial situations and
litigation and help the process become more user-friendly for
everyone involved.
A third item I would like to briefly touch on is that of
interagency collaboration in regard to the provision of
services. As it presently stands, school districts are the
payer of last resort, meaning that the present Act allows for
an unequal sharing of responsibility when it comes to service
provision.
Just as educational systems are strapped to stretch their
ability to provide services to clients, so are health, welfare,
and rehabilitation. It is the district's perspective, however,
that the services which could often be provided by some of
these agencies should be provided under their jurisdiction and,
more appropriately, at their expense, based on the expertise of
the service they can provide.
Based on the present IDEA language, school districts are
obligated to provide services even if it is believed that they
do not have the dollars to pay for them. I also believe that
this premise should hold true for all agencies involved in
interagency collaborative agreements. As a collaborative group,
agencies should collectively become the payers of last resort.
A model for this is the Minnesota Part C model, in which there
is a goal to reach interagency funding from birth to 21.
Minnesota presently has a birth to 5 mandate in place as well
as a birth to 9 interagency mandate in place by this coming
summer. This exemplary model, if implemented by all interagency
collaboratives, could help to spread the costs, which now often
become the responsibility of one single agency.
Senator Wellstone. Thank you so much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vaadeland may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Wellstone. Senator Bond?
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Wellstone.
It is my pleasure to present a very good friend, Dr. Kim
Ratcliffe, who is Director of Special Education, Columbia
Public Schools in Columbia, MO.
A 30-year veteran in the field of special education, she
began her career in 1971, 4 years before the original special
education language at the Federal level was passed and a couple
years before we passed our special education bill that I signed
into law as Governor of Missouri.
Dr. Ratcliffe has many, many qualifications, including a
master's degree in learning disabilities, a degree in special
education administration, a doctorate in educational leadership
and policy analysis with a focus on special education. She
serves as a special education administrator but also as an
adjunct professor at both the University of Missouri and at
Stevens College.
She is a trained hearing officer and mediator for the
State. She has served on a variety of panels, committees, and
has received distinguished service awards, and is the first
recipient of the Outstanding Special Education Administrator
Award given by the Missouri Language and Hearing Association.
Dr. Ratcliffe is the mother of three children, two of whom
have educational disabilities and receive services through the
public schools.
Kim, I have read your testimony with great interest; I
trust that my colleagues will, as well as your summary of it
today. You have been an invaluable advisor and counselor to me,
and you have been a great advocate for children with special
needs and their families. We are not going to have time for
questions, but perhaps in your remarks, you might tell us just
a little bit about the Missouri School Board Association's
Special Education Advocacy Council and why it was formed and
what you are doing with that.
With that, Dr. Ratcliffe, welcome to Washington.
Ms. Ratcliffe. Thank you. I would like to say thank you to
you and to other members not in attendance at the moment, and
all of those in the gallery behind me.
I will speak to the Missouri School Board Association
Special Education Advocacy Group. This is a group that came
about 3 years ago as a result of networking among colleagues in
the State who had been in special education for a number of
years. Many of us had been there to push for the original
legislation, out there, getting kids with disabilities to come
to school, and were practitioners, as teachers, psychologists,
speech therapists. We had lived the law for 27 years to be
exact, and we were very concerned because we saw today as the
best of times and in some ways the worst of times in that 27-
year period for special education.
We are in positions today where we do not have quality
people to hire. I have 50 positions that I fill every year. I
have over 400 position in my district, but I have 50 places
that I have had to fill every year for the last 4 or 5 years,
and I do not have applicants for those positions. Last year
alone, the special school district in St. Louis had more
vacancies for special education teachers than were produced by
every college within the State of Missouri. Those educators
simply do not exist today.
We have to analyze why that is happening. If we do not have
quality teachers, we can turn out the lights and go home when
it comes to educating children with disabilities.
So I would like to direct my remarks this morning in an
abbreviated fashion--I know everyone has time constraints. I
would like to draw your attention to this booklet. Many of you
know this; you recognize the small print which Government
documents have. You recognize that they usually come in
multiple columns and extremely small print. I want you to focus
on the fact that this is the law that Congress built.
These documents are the regulations that define the law
that Congress built.
This document represents a State plan which is individually
approved by the Office of Special Education Programs. It
describes how States will comply with the regulations that
define the law that Congress built.
This represents a local compliance plan that each public
board of education in the Nation must approve to affirm that
they will fully implement the State plan, which is there to
describe and ensure compliance with these regulations that
define the law that Congress built.
Then, we have a set of standards. They are monitoring
standards, very detailed, that outline procedures for the
purpose of examining districts to determine if they are
following their local compliance plans, which conform to the
State plan, which describes how the States are going to comply
with the regulations that define the law that Congress built.
Special education teachers, regular education teachers,
public school administrators, counselors, and parents are
expected to know and understand the details of these manuals.
As you have heard from a prior panel member, the States in this
Nation are not in compliance with that. I can agree with my
colleague to the left that we are doing our very best. What you
need to understand is that children with disabilities in this
Nation are community members. They are people we go to church
with. They are people who are friends of our children. They are
our friends. They live next door to us. We are committed to the
success of those children at school. We are committed to them
being functioning, contributing members of our society. We want
them to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in high achievement with all
children in this Nation. That is our commitment as public
school administrators and as regular and special teachers.
Today, our hands are tied behind our backs. We are still in
the ring, fighting, but our hands are tied behind our backs.
What are we going to do to change that situation?
First of all, paperwork mandated by the Federal law and
regulations must be significantly reduced in volume and
complexity. The paperwork burden is fundamentally detracting
from the education of students with disabilities. At times, the
process is so burdensome that changes that could benefit a
student are simply not made--and I have given an example of
that in my written testimony.
The focus should be on normalizing communications between
parent and teacher as much as possible as they are striving to
provide for the unique and sometimes changing needs of students
with disabilities.
Another problem with the complexity of the regulatory
aspects of the IEP process is the time it takes teachers,
counselors, therapists, and administrators away from the
instructional focus of education. School officials know that
one of the characteristics of outstanding schools in this
Nation is the amount of time that school staff spend on
instruction. Pulling school staff out of classrooms for all the
meetings required by the current special education process
significantly decreases the time that special and regulator
educators spend in direct instruction.
With increased accountability for the progress of students
with disabilities, there is a need and a desire on the part of
teachers to have updated research-based training on effective
practices. Students benefit when regular and special education
teachers have time to be trained together and time to
collaboratively plan instruction to meet the needs of students
with disabilities. The possibility for these opportunities is
significantly diminished by the ongoing need to do compliance
training and fulfill obligations under the IDEA.
No. 2, we must revise due process procedures to include
regulations that promote trusting, positive, long-lasting
relationships with parents and prevent catastrophic drain of
finite resources. Reform needs to occur when a law is so
vaguely written that litigation is required to give it
definition. The IDEA is such a statute. Due process is a brutal
system; it paralyzes the educational system, it paralyzes
individuals. The focus is shifted from the child to the battle.
The cost of litigation is extraordinary in terms of time,
money, personnel resources, and relationships.
Under the IDEA, there is no safeguard for frivolous
lawsuits, although the vast majority of children with
disabilities are served successfully through collaborative
teamwork between parents and teachers. A single due process
hearing can cost a district in excess of the year's
instructional budget even when the district prevailed and was
found at no fault.
It is imperative that the IDEA is fully funded. Many times,
the cost of specialized instruction, equipment and materials is
significant. Special education services frequently constitute
an entire infrastructure, as Mrs. Findley has described from
her experiences. Districts embrace the concept of leveling the
playing field to allow students with special needs an equal
opportunity for high student achievement. Without adequate
funds and relief of procedural excesses, limited funds will
quickly dissipate, ultimately resulting not only in a lack of
sufficient resources for students with special needs but also
diminish regular teacher resources, materials, and equipment.
All students suffer under this reality, for the majority of our
students with special needs spend the majority of their
educational day in regular classrooms with nondisabled peers.
An additional strain on teachers and drain on resources
comes as a result of public schools being the only zero-reject
agency in this Nation. Suggestions for collaboration are fine
in spirit but insufficient in practice. Other agencies must
share in the mandated responsibilities to serve children in
their areas of expertise. I have also spoken to examples of
this in my printed text.
All of the issues that I have mentioned today impact on the
decisionmaking of teachers staying in the field. I have never
in my career experienced a teacher who left special education
because of the children. They leave because of the system.
Special education works well for the vast majority of
students with special needs. We must preserve what works and
fix what does not through common sense reform.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this very
important issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ratcliffe may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Bond. [presiding]. Dr. Ratcliffe, thank you very
much for that very, very telling testimony. Anyone who wonders
why quality teachers are leaving the field needs to look at the
demonstration that you gave us.
I will urge all of my colleagues on the committee to review
the oral and written testimony of all the witnesses, because
you have given us some very real concerns that we must address.
I was stunned to read Dr. Ratcliffe's analysis of how
difficult it is to make a minor, common sense change in an IEP.
On page 7 of your testimony you say that just preparing one IEP
per student in the Columbia School District results in a yearly
equivalent of 89,375 hours of lost instructional time, the
equivalent of 78 years of school instruction. Obviously, we are
going to have to do something so that the time can be spent on
serving the children directly and less time on the paperwork,
or we are going to lose even more quality teachers.
To all of you, our sincere thanks for your great interest
and commitment and for joining us here today. This should give
us a lot of things that we must think about and consider in
reauthorization.
Thank you very much, and on behalf of the chairman, I now
adjourn the hearing.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Robert H. Pasternack
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gregg, and members of the Committee.
Thank you for inviting me here today to talk with you about
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). I am pleased to be here with you, and would like to thank you
for joining the President and supporting, in a bipartisan way, the
landmark legislation to reform elementary and secondary education, the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. I look forward to working with you in
the future to develop legislation to reauthorize the IDEA.
Over the past twenty-five years, the IDEA has successfully ensured
that children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate
public education. Prior to the IDEA, in 1970 for example, schools in
America educated only one in five students with disabilities. Many
States had laws excluding certain children with disabilities such as
those who were blind, deaf, emotionally disturbed, or mentally retarded
from school. Over one million students with disabilities were excluded
from public schools altogether, and an untold number of students had
disabilities that were never detected or were incorrectly diagnosed.
Almost 200,000 children diagnosed with mental retardation or mental
illness were institutionalized.
Today, the overwhelming majority of children with disabilities
about 96 percent learn in regular schools with other children rather
than in State institutions or separate facilities. Three-quarters of
students with disabilities now spend at least 40 percent of their day
in a regular classroom with their non-disabled peers, instead of in
separate rooms. Half of the students with disabilities spend 80 percent
or more of their day in regular classrooms. Additionally, more students
with disabilities than ever before are participating in the same State,
district-wide, and national standardized testing programs as other
students. College enrollment rates among students with disabilities
have more than tripled in twenty years. Young adults with disabilities
are employed at higher rates, and in more competitive jobs, than their
older counterparts who didn't have the benefit of the IDEA, although
unemployment rates for adults with disabilities remain unacceptably
high.
This list of accomplishments reflects the dedication of lawmakers,
educators, parents, and the students themselves, to ensuring that all
students with disabilities receive a high-quality education that
prepares them for post-secondary education, good jobs, and a productive
and independent life. However, despite the many accomplishments of the
IDEA over the last twenty-five years, many challenges remain. As with
any successful program, the IDEA must evolve to meet changing needs and
new demands. Although the 1997 amendments included many important and
needed changes , I believe that we have learned much since then. We
must use these lessons to guide our approach to improving results for
students served though the IDEA.
We know that we will never improve outcomes for students with
disabilities by focusing on special education alone. We must look at
the whole education system, and see whether we are providing the right
services to the right children, at the right time, in the right
settings, and with the right personnel to achieve the right results.
What happens in the regular classroom is vitally important for all
children, including those with disabilities.
That is why I am so excited about the sweeping reforms made the
NCLB Act and its impact it will have on students with disabilities.
From the Reading First Program, which will help States implement
scientifically based reading programs for all students, to the Title I
accountability provisions that, for the first time ever, will truly
hold States and school districts accountable for the annual progress of
all students, including students with disabilities, the NCLB Act makes
great strides in improving educational opportunities for students with
disabilities and holding schools specifically accountable for their
achievement. NCLB also focuses on professional development to ensure
that all students, including students with disabilities, are taught by
highly qualified teachers. This will enable us to focus our attention
in special education where it should be on providing high-quality
special education services to those students whose disabilities prevent
them from responding to scientifically based instruction delivered by
highly qualified teachers. With these and other changes to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) in place, we must
now turn our attention to the IDEA and determine what we need to do to
further improve that law.
implementation issues
In reviewing the challenges of implementing the IDEA, there are
several major issues that present themselves.
We know that having highly qualified and well-trained teachers and
administrators is central to providing appropriate services to children
with disabilities. Both regular and special education personnel must be
well prepared to meet the challenges of educating students with
disabilities in both regular and special education.
Recently, the President launched an initiative to provide a high-
quality teacher in every classroom in America. Over the next decade,
school districts will face the daunting challenge of attracting a
greater quantity of people to the teaching profession while also
ensuring teacher quality. The NCLB Act provides States and localities
multiple tools to help them improve teacher quality. We must continue
to improve professional development and teacher quality for both
general education and special education teachers. Under the IDEA, we
must examine our Part D programs to ensure that we are able to help
improve the education that aspiring teachers are provided at the
college and graduate level as well as examine our professional
development programs to ensure that these programs use sound research
as the foundation to help existing teachers gain the needed skills to
provide a high-quality education.
The successful implementation of the IDEA is perhaps most
critically dependent on the quality of the people who implement the
principles contained in the law the teachers, para-educators, related
service providers, and administrators, in cooperation with the parents
and the students. Unfortunately, many regular and special education
teachers, as well as the administrators and other school personnel who
work with them, are often ill prepared to meet the needs of students
with disabilities. We know that much more needs to be done to better
prepare and support all the members of the learning community in their
efforts to educate students with disabilities.
Accountability provisions have been strengthened in the IDEA over
the years, but more needs to be done. The 1997 IDEA amendments required
States to include students with disabilities in their State and
district-wide assessments. Even so, the inclusion of children with
disabilities in these assessment programs does not necessarily mean
that these children are part of accountability systems that are
designed to ensure improved results. The requirements in the NCLB Act
present us a great opportunity to make sure that children with
disabilities are part of these accountability systems. We must build on
the accountability provisions enacted in NCLB to ensure that States and
local school districts are accountable for results and that students
with disabilities are included in rigorous assessments of student
performance.
Closely linked to accountability is the issue of assessments. While
the IDEA requires that children with disabilities be included in
assessments, States and school districts have struggled to implement
those requirements. We need to do more to provide research and
technical assistance on alternate assessments and appropriate
accommodations for children who need them. And, perhaps more
importantly, we need to push for assessment tools that are created
using universal design concepts that can significantly reduce the need
for alternate assessments. Universal design, as applied to curriculum
and assessments, means that materials and activities are designed to
achieve their purposes for the widest possible range of students,
including students with disabilities and other special needs. For
example, curriculum and assessment materials can be designed for
maximum flexibility, by allowing information to be presented in a
variety of visual or auditory modes, and by designing assessment tools
that are accessible for the widest variety of students (e.g., Braille).
Another important aspect of the 1997 amendments was the emphasis
placed on access to, and participation and progress in, the general
curriculum for children with disabilities. Those changes raised the bar
by requiring school districts and States to provide meaningful access
for children with disabilities to the general curriculum. However, we
know that many regular and special education teachers are not well
trained in how to make that happen. We need better research and better
technical assistance to support the focus that the 1997 amendments
placed on access to, and participation and progress in, the general
curriculum. Much of what we have done so far has been targeted to the
provision of reading and language skills, but we also must focus on
math, science, social studies, and other areas of the general
curriculum. Teachers need strategies that will enable children with
different learning needs to benefit from instruction and participate
and progress in the general curriculum to the maximum extent
appropriate.
While we can point to lower dropout and higher graduation rates
among students with disabilities as significant accomplishments for the
IDEA, we still need much improvement in the transition from school to
work and from school to postsecondary education for students with
disabilities. The dropout rate for children with disabilities is still
about twice that of their peers, and students with disabilities are
still far less likely than other students to graduate from high school.
Transition services, which require coordination with other agencies and
entities, are an implementation challenge, requiring serious study that
may lead us to innovative, statutory solutions.
There are also a number of implementation issues around the
identification of children with disabilities, including the
disproportionate representation of minorities. We know that too many
children are referred for special education services because of a lack
of effective instruction and early interventions in general education
classrooms. While many children are appropriately classified as having
learning disabilities, we know, for example, that many are classified
as such because of the lack of effective reading instruction using
scientifically based instructional approaches in the regular classroom.
Many children with learning and emotional disabilities are identified
and served too late for services to lead to maximum positive results
for these children. This, again, is an issue of providing special
education services to the right children and having well-trained and
qualified teachers and administrators who have the knowledge, skills,
and supports to ensure that we are, in fact, serving only the right
children those with disabilities who truly need special education
services. We must make sure that no child is determined to be eligible
for special education services merely because of a lack of good
instruction or because our teachers and administrators do not have the
skills, supports, and technical assistance needed to properly serve
them in regular classrooms where they can learn to high standards.
I also want to address an implementation issue that is of concern
to many parents, educators, and certainly to many of you. The
discipline provisions of the IDEA are predicated on the concept that
every child in every school has the right to be educated in a safe
environment, and that school teachers and administrators have the tools
necessary to keep their schools safe. As the law has been implemented
since the 1997 amendments, it is evident that some of the current
statutory and regulatory requirements may be too complicated or
confusing and need to be reviewed.
More importantly, however, our experience with implementing these
provisions has highlighted the overall need for schools and school
districts to focus on improved classroom management, effective school-
wide models of positive behavior strategies, and the use of functional
behavioral assessments. As we have looked at the issue of discipline,
we have learned that appropriate use of these strategies, models, and
techniques has had significant results in reducing discipline problems
for the entire school community and keeping students safe.
Next, I would like to discuss several issues relating to the
implementation of Part C of the IDEA, which authorizes the Grants to
Infants and Families program. I believe that the Part C program is a
vital part of the IDEA which deserves thoughtful consideration as we
move toward reauthorization of the statute. We know that early
intervention in the lives of children with disabilities works and can
result in more positive outcomes for a child later on. Still, I have a
number of concerns with how the current statute is being implemented.
We need to examine the appropriate balance between the States' need to
access all revenue sources, such as public and private insurance
programs, and the financial burden Part C services impose on some
families. The requirements under the program for service coordination
often present significant challenges that have not always been
overcome. There are also IDEA Part C implementation challenges relating
to how States identify infants and toddlers who could benefit from
services, and how we can improve the transition of children with
disabilities from the more family-centered Part C program to the Part B
preschool program. We also know that the States have had difficulty in
monitoring and measuring success of the Part C program. Finally, the
IDEA's requirements toward providing early intervention services in
natural environments has raised issues around home-based versus center-
based services. I believe that we need to review these issues carefully
and explore ways to improve the implementation of Part C, and improve
this part of the law itself.
Finally, in the short time I have been on the job, I have spent a
good deal of time asking questions of parents, advocates, students,
teachers, principals, university professors, researchers and State
directors of Special Education around the country. If, as some have
argued, no State is in compliance with the IDEA, is it possible that we
have constructed a statute and regulations where no State can be in
compliance and where we are too focused on process and not enough on
progress? Are we too focused on process and not enough on academic
achievement? I think this may be the case. When the IDEA was first
enacted, its primary purpose was to guaranteed access to education for
students with disabilities. Today, I believe we need a stronger focus
on how we can improve the academic achievement of students with
disabilities.
I ask these questions to encourage all of us to think creatively
and insist on a culture of accountability within the IDEA, that focuses
on improved results and outcomes for students with disabilities
receiving special education.
Building a culture of accountability within the IDEA is two-fold.
First, we must continue to insist on holding school districts and
States accountable for ensuring that children with disabilities have
access to early intervention services and a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment. Second, we must also
hold school districts and States accountable for the annual academic
growth of students with disabilities. The provisions of the NCLB Act,
supported by the changes we need to make to the IDEA, will ensure that
the IDEA adheres to a culture of accountability. The question we must
address over the next several months is how best to create this
cultural change. I look forward to continuing that conversation with
you in your efforts to reauthorize this critically important
legislation.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I have touched on but a few
of the issues that relate to the implementation of the IDEA and
recognize that each of these topics deserves far more attention than I
have given today in this statement. But I want to be clear in stating
my belief that the IDEA is a law that has made, and must continue to
make, a difference in the lives of our nation's children and youth with
disabilities. It is time for all of us the Department of Education, the
Congress, parents, and educators to take a serious look at the IDEA. We
must look honestly to see what has worked well and what has not worked
well. We must not hesitate to refocus the statute where necessary and
where doing so will improve results for America's children. We must
build on the gains made for students with disabilities in the NCLB Act.
We must be bold in our solutions, committed to change areas that need
improving, but steadfast where the law works well.
As you are aware, the President has established a Commission on
Excellence in Special Education that is charged with collecting
information and studying issues related to Federal, State, and local
special education programs, with the goal of recommending policies for
improving the educational performance of students with disabilities. I
am pleased to sit on that Commission and think that this is another
example of the Administration's desire to engage in the systemic reform
of education by looking at all its facets, asking the tough questions
that get us to the heart of the problems, and generating solutions that
address the need for reform head on. When the Commission is finished
with its work in July, we will have taken a thorough look at all facets
of special education and am confident that the Commission's report will
inform the proposals that are put together to reauthorize the IDEA.
Finally, I look forward to working with all of you in the years
ahead. Your commitment to this important statute has lead to the
education of millions of children with disabilities who otherwise might
never have had the educational opportunities made possible by the IDEA.
I hope that we can continue to work closely together to extend that
legacy.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
Prepared Statement of Lilliam Rangel-Diaz
Good morning, Chairman Kennedy, Senator Judd and distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you very much for inviting me to
participate in this hearing. I am a proud member of the National
Council on Disability, and am honored to be here today on their behalf.
I am also most proud to be ``mom'' to six wonderful boys, two of them
with disabilities, and to serve the families of children with
disabilities in my community as a professional parent advocate. From
personal and professional experience, I am happy to be this morning to
talk about why we at NCD believe the IDEA is a good law and what we
have found to be fundamental flaws in its implementation.
NCD is an independent federal agency representing all people with
disabilities, regardless of severity, and from all cultural, racial and
ethnic backgrounds. Council members are appointed by the President of
the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Our charge is to
make recommendations to the President, Congress and federal agency
officials concerning ways to better promote equal opportunity for all
individuals with disabilities. We view this testimony to be one way
that we are fulfilling our responsibility to Congress.
Unfortunately, students with disabilities and their advocates
continue to be fight some of the same battles that were fought in Brown
v. the Board of Education. In 2002 students with disabilities are still
discriminated against in our school systems. Congress crafted the
precursor to IDEA in 1975 to halt these practices, and, if IDEA was
faithfully implemented and consistently and effectively enforced across
the country, it would indeed halt the discrimination. However, twenty-
seven years later we are still seeking solutions.
One might ask, ``doesn't such a high level of non-compliance point
to the fact that it is clearly a bad law whose time for change has
come?'' To the contrary, again, we believe it is a good law, with
absolutely essential protections for students with disabilities.
Altering the core educational rights in IDEA would devastate the
promise of a free and appropriation public education for students with
disabilities. While we will take you through startling non-compliance
data, please let me point out that there is indeed compliance with the
law and we believe where basic rights are implemented, the outcomes for
students are good. We believe the issue is not the law. Our data
clearly points to the same problem that families and other advocates
have expressed concern about for over two and a half decades:
enforcement and accountability. Never popular concepts, but ones, that
are, nonetheless, essential to the implementation of any basic civil
right.
My statement today and recommendations are based on a number of NCD
reports and other activities focused on IDEA implementation.
In January 2000, NCD released its evaluation of federal enforcement
of IDEA. Entitled Back to School on Civil Rights, this study evaluated
federal monitoring and enforcement of basic IDEA requirements in the
areas of free appropriate public education (FAPE), least restrictive
environment (LRE), individualized education plans (IEP), transition
services, general supervision, procedural safeguards and protection in
evaluation of students with disabilities. It examined the major
leadership role that the Department of Education is required to play
with regard to IDEA. Our findings indicate that every state and the
District of Columbia out of compliance with IDEA requirements: 90% of
states failed to ensure compliance in the category of general
supervision; 88% of states failed to ensure compliance with the law's
secondary transition services provisions; 80% states failed to ensure
compliance with the law's FAPE requirements; 78% of states failed to
ensure compliance with the procedural safeguards provisions of the law;
and 72% of states failed to ensure compliance with the placement in the
LRE.
And, what is the result of this non-compliance and lack of
enforcement? This study confirmed what children with disabilities and
their families have repeatedly told NCD, namely, that too many
students: (1) did not receive FAPE; (2) were not educated in the LRE
meaning inappropriate placement in separate, segregated settings and a
lack of services for students served in regular classrooms; (3) did not
receive related services such as speech therapy, physical therapy, or
psychological counseling as reflected in their IEPs; (3) had not been
able to access critical transition services; and, (4) did not receive
the benefits of procedural safeguards and protections in evaluation in
some states. In addition the report told us that students from diverse
backgrounds are disproportionately represented in separate educational
settings.
NCD has also recently completed a study commissioned by the Social
Security Administration on the status of the implementation of the IDEA
transition mandates, as well as post-secondary education, and
employment outcomes for 14 to 22 year old youth and young adults with
disabilities. The study tells us that transitioning youth experience:
(a) poor graduation rates from high school; (b) low employment rates
after high school; (c) low post-secondary education participation; and
(d) an increasing number of youth receiving Social security benefits
and not leaving the benefits rolls. Again, we see lack of federal
enforcement and accountability in IDEA transition service requirements.
In addition, NCD is working in collaboration with the Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) and a group of stakeholders to review
OSEP's Continuous Monitoring Improvement System, and develop
recommendations regarding performance benchmarks and enforcement
triggers.
And, NCD supports a Youth Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee)
established as a non-paid advisory body to include youth and young
adult perspectives in carrying out the mission of NCD. This is to
ensure that NCD's activities and policy recommendations incorporate the
needs of youth with disabilities, particularly as they relate to the
implementation of critical civil rights legislation such as IDEA.
During IDEA reauthorization, NCD will use a variety of strategies
to solicit community input. We will use this information to advise the
Administration and Congress regarding issues that go to the heart of
education reform for over 6 million students with disabilities and
involve: (a) accountability in federal education spending, (b)
achievement and progress in the K-12 arena, and (c) fidelity of
implementation in all aspects of the IDEA entitlement program.
During the course of five studies on the IDEA, from 1989 to 2000,
NCD learned that parents of children with disabilities are enthusiastic
supporters of the law. They think it's a good law. They also told us
there is room for improvement on the basics, with enforcement and
accountability being a major issue. If, as we found in NCD, 80% of the
states fail to ensure compliance with the law's FAPE requirements, that
tells us that 20% of the states are in compliance. What can we learn
from those in compliance that will lead to the needed improvements? The
same goes true for LRE compliance; we need to look to the 28% of the
states that were found to be in compliance for guidance. Likewise, we
need help from the 22% of the states that fully follow the procedural
safeguard requirements. There are beacons out there that we need to
follow.
Information from the NCD studies is readily available to you, and
we trust it will useful to you during the reauthorization process.
what does this mean for idea reauthorization?
As a result of our work, NCD has identified four critical issues
for reauthorization: (1) monitoring and enforcement; (2) full funding;
(3) discipline; and, (4) eligibility and over-representation of
students from culturally diverse backgrounds. Most of my comments this
morning will be on the first, monitoring and enforcement, for we
believe it to be the key to all others.
The findings of Back To School were not a surprise, but a
confirmation and documentation of what so many have reported
anecdotally for two decades or more, i.e., that the statute is strong,
but implementation and enforcement are thin and inconsistent. When
students do not receive the IEP services and/or supports for which they
are deemed eligible, they cannot achieve outcomes. When school systems
categorically and unnecessarily place students (particularly those from
diverse backgrounds) in more restrictive educational settings, students
will be stigmatized and will have difficulty learning. Under such
circumstances school systems do not maximize the use of the scarce
federal education dollars. Without clear and effective reforms in IDEA
implementation, too many students with disabilities will continue to be
left behind.
ncd recommendations for reauthorization
Monitoring and Enforcement. NCD findings indicate that over 25
years and and through several administrations, federal IDEA enforcement
efforts have consistently lacked ``teeth.'' When a state is found out
of compliance with the Act, the Office of Special Education Programs
works with the states on the development of a compliance plan and
provides technical assistance on the implementation of that plan. This
strategy has not solved the problems, especially when there are no
clear, objective criteria for additional enforcement options. There are
currently no clear and effective (positive or negative) for a state
that continues substantial and persistent non-compliance. The result
has been devastating for the students with disabilities and their
families who are denied the protections of the law. Without standards
that define the limits and provide appropriate sanctions, the
incentives for corrections have not been compelling enough to stop the
cycle of noncompliance.
NCD believes this issue has reached a crisis point, and we
recommend bold steps to correct it.
1. The Department of Education should not be the sole enforcement
agency. The Department has a long-standing and collaborative
relationships with state education administrators. This is an important
relationship that is jeopardized when the Department threatens
sanctions. Partial solutions were included in the last reauthorization
when enforcement authority was also given to DOJ, but only following
referral of cases from the Department of Education. This has not worked
for there have been no referrals to DOJ since that authority was added
to the Act. To address non-compliance problems, NCD recommends an
expansive role for DOJ. Congress should authorize and fund the
Department of Justice to independently investigate and litigate IDEA
cases, as well as administer a federal system for handling pattern and
practice complaints filed by individuals.
2. The lack of national standards is at the root of the enforcement
problems. NCD recommends that the Departments of Education and Justice
be directed to develop national compliance standards, improvement
measures, and enforcement sanctions that will be triggered by specific
indicators and measures indicating a state's failure to ensure.
Stakeholders, including students with disabilities and parents, should
be consulted by the
Departments for consistency and clarity as they develop and implement a
range of enforcement requirements.
3. Families members and students are very strong stakeholders in
the enforcement of IDEA. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, they have
been the true enforcers of the law. However, critical to their
effectiveness is the availability of free and low cost legal advocacy,
through public and private legal service providers. Equally important
are training and technical assistance programs for students to expand
their self-advocacy skills. Finally, there are other important partners
in this process; collaborative participation should be encouraged by
special and regular education teachers and agents of relevant systems
such as INS, child welfare and juvenile justice systems. NCD recommends
that Congress authorize more funding for Department of Education-
sponsored technical assistance programs to support the development of
state-level technical assistance networks, self-advocacy and monitoring
training for students and parents, other partners, as well as free and
low-cost legal services for families. To fund these activities, we
recommend IDEA include a formula that triggers additional funding (10%)
every time IDEA, Part B is increased.
4. Culturally Appropriate Training Materials. NCD recommends that
the law encourage Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services in the Department of Education to expand its initiatives to
serve non-English speaking groups and/or people with limited English
proficiency and create culturally appropriate training materials.
5. Over-representation of Students from Diverse Backgrounds in
Special Education. We echo the multiple concerns expressed over the
past few years about the serious problems caused minority students who
are wrongly placed in special education. These problems were verified
in our Back To School on Civil Rights report through testimony of
parents at public hearings, consultation with special education
advocates serving rural, Native American, and other communities around
the country, as well as studies by various government and advocacy
organizations. It is useful to note that the most recent 2001 report of
the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Minority Students in Special
and Gifted Education, echoes these findings. We know you are committed
to addressing this issue and NCD stands ready to help.
6. Funding and Discipline. Full funding and discipline are issues
that are new to no one in Congress following last years prolonged
debates on these two issues. We voice the concerns of individuals with
disabilities, their families, and their advocates across the country
about inadequate funding for special education. NCD urges Congress to
adopt mandatory funding in keeping with the original commitment from
the Federal government to fund 40% of the per pupil cost of special
education.
We are alarmed that the discipline of students with disabilities
has become such a controversial issue. The law as currently written
includes a strong and effective balance of protections for students and
the school system. The recent GAO study on discipline and IDEA confirms
our position. NCD strongly recommends that the current provisions on
the discipline of students eligible for Part, B IDEA remain unchanged.
7. Professional Development. Teachers are still not receiving
adequate training in special education issues. NCD recommends an
increased authority for personnel preparation funding, with assistance
to states to increase the mandated level of college-level teacher
training 'special education' coursework beyond the all too general
'Introduction to Special Education' undergraduate-level course for all
teacher preparation programs.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to share these
thoughts with you today on behalf of the National Council on
Disabilities. NCD stands ready to provide you with any assistance that
might be useful to you as you move through the reauthorization process.
Statement of a Valerie Findley
Chairman Kennedy and other Distinguished Members of the HELP
Committee: I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today. Though I am not an expert in the technicalities of each section
of IDEA, I, like most parents am an expert on the individual strengths
and needs of my child and so our family's personal experience with
special education is what I will speak to.
How do you relate nine years of joy, grief, confusion and success
in just a few minutes? I'd like to start off by helping you know my
daughter a little. Louisa's favorite things are swimming, horseback
riding, and tasting foods--she loves eating spicy or sour things
(garlic bread, guacamole and lemon meringue pie are her favorites). She
loves to dance with her Daddy and sing with Mom. She has an infectious
laugh, is very sociable, and has been described as a ``love machine''.
She has a small verbal vocabulary including ``go'', ``more'', ``cold'',
and ``Mamama''--my favorite word! Louisa uses a wheelchair for
mobility, wears hearing aids and glasses and she receives the majority
of her nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. Louisa wears braces on her
legs for some activities and uses switch-controlled devices for choice
making, entertainment and basic communication, as well as to help out
at home with simple chores. Though she often appears non-attentive,
don't let her fool you--Louisa is very aware of what occurs around her,
and though she needs extra time to respond, she will make her needs,
her interest, her frustrations and her amusement known.
Every journey has a beginning. Ours started when during a healthy
pregnancy I suddenly developed toxemia from causes we will never
understand. After a series of prenatal tests determined that Louisa was
experiencing fetal distress and fluid in her lungs, Louisa was born by
emergency C-Section seven weeks prematurely. During the delivery,
Louisa aspirated meconium, which along with immaturity of her lung
development resulted in a lack of oxygen and her brain being damaged.
Louisa spent her first two months of life on a respirator in the
neonatal intensive care units of hospitals in both Des Moines and
Omaha, where she was transported by life flight when she was three day
old. While at the Medical Center in Omaha she was diagnosed with
microcephaly and Cerebral Palsy. We were told that Louisa would likely
have problems with gross motor skills, things like walking and dressing
herself. Upon her return to the hospital in Des Moines, we began to
understand that her life challenges would be more extreme and our
family was moving into uncharted territory. Louisa has since been given
additional diagnoses of mental retardation, Cortical Visual Impairment,
Central Auditory Processing Disorder and being chronically adorable.
When Louisa first came home from the hospital at three months old,
still on oxygen, we immediately began to seek out information and
support for what we knew was going to be an entirely new adventure for
our family, hoping to educate ourselves as to Louisa's future needs,
exploring all avenues in order to help her achieve the best outcomes
and the fullest and most satisfying life possible. One of the first
places we looked to was the education system and Iowa's Early Access
program.
At the age of five months, Louisa began receiving Part C Early
Intervention services through the Des Moines School District, at first
at home and later in her day care setting. I will never forget the
first two women we encountered: Georgia Woodward, an early education
teacher, and Jean Linder, an occupational therapist who inspired and
supported us throughout the nearly three years we worked with them.
Over cups of tea, in our living room, they worked with Louisa, and
provided our family with information, strategies and the moral support
that helped us move from broken dreams to new hope and understanding.
Through the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) process they
helped us identify our family's and Louisa's strengths and needs and
secured the coordinated services and resources we would require. They
explained Louisa's rights to a free and appropriate education in the
least restrictive environment. This was accomplished in a way that
allowed our family to retain our privacy and as much normalcy as
possible, not an easy thing when you have therapists, respite care
workers, and others involved in your life and in your home. These
individuals, like many who have followed, served as the guideposts
along our way. One of the most important things they taught me was that
we were Louisa's advocates, that we would be required to speak for
Louisa and defend her rights to secure the services that she would need
in order to reach her fullest potential for a meaningful life. I will
be forever indebted to them for their honesty and compassion. I believe
that extending the IFSP process through at least age five would be a
good thing, as the IFSP family-centered approach to service
coordination is invaluable during this time of continued early
intervention.
When she was 2 years old, Louisa was registered on the state
Deafblind registry. This gave us access to our Deafblind Project staff
who provide technical assistance to families and school staff in order
to address the unique challenges that children with both vision and
hearing impairments face. When Louisa was still a baby, we were
provided with strategies for sensory integration, communication by
touch cues, and even tips for creating a home environment that
encourages her to use and maximize her vision and hearing.
When Louisa was three she attended an inclusive pre-school in a
shared program that included both typically developing neighborhood
children, other children with disabilities and a Head Start program.
She remained in this setting for three years, receiving early childhood
education and related services to work on goals identified through the
Individual Education Plan (IEP) process.
As Louisa was ready to transition to kindergarten, we visited
principals and staff at the three neighborhood schools closest to our
home, as well as a separate school for children with disabilities, in
order to determine which setting would be most beneficial to her. We
decided that Hillis was the place for Louisa. We were most impressed by
the welcoming attitude of the Principal, Larry Streyffeler. He didn't
flinch when we described Louisa and the services she would require, and
let us know that together we would do ``whatever it took'' to ensure
Louisa a positive school experience. Another factor was the physical
accessibility of the building, which we realized was an issue we could
press had we chosen another school setting, but not having to face that
challenge made Hillis an even more attractive choice. Louisa was
enrolled in a regular kindergarten classroom. On the last day of school
that year, Louisa came home with her first invitation to a birthday
party. Such joy! Our Louisa would have friends in her life.
Louisa is now in the third grade where she continues to be included
in the general education classroom with friends she has known since
kindergarten. Her classroom teacher has the support of a special
education teacher who is assigned to the class, as well as two half-
time one-on-one associates who assist Louisa with her schoolwork,
transfers and personal cares, as well as supporting other students when
Louisa is occupied with her classmates or working with her therapists.
Louisa has an extensive IEP Team, including her father and I, the
principal, her classroom teacher, the special ed. teacher, her
associates, as well as her physical therapist, occupational therapist,
speech and language pathologist, vision itinerate, a member of the
district assistive technology team, a district special education
consultant. Other team members have included a school psychologist, the
state DB specialist, her Hippotherapy (horseback riding) therapist, a
district audiologist, the district special education supervisor, the
case manager for her Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Waiver
and her Supported Community Living helper (a Waiver provider).
The IEP process is working for my child. It allows our team to
paint the entire picture of Louisa for school programming. It has
confirmed to me the importance of partnerships. The older she gets, the
more important it is that we build on Louisa's capacities and
capabilities and not just those things she cannot master. It is even
more important that the players who are involved with painting this
portrait are looking at her from several angles. I have been impressed
with the teamwork and commitment of the district and school staff that
we have worked with. Challenges with multiple disabilities can hide
true abilities and talents. Cognitive evaluation of children who are
hampered by severe physical and communication impairments is often
difficult and we, as parents, have asked that when conclusive
evaluations have been impossible Louisa be given the ``benefit of the
doubt''. This has been the foundation of our IEP process.
IDEA provides the entitlement of every child to a free and
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. IDEA calls
for the continuum of services and access to the general education
curriculum. Not all kids will succeed in the same way, or at the same
pace, but they all can benefit from the educational experience,
gleaning those things that impact their lives. The original focus of
the law was to create access to educational opportunities for students
with disabilities. It is also a civil rights law. ALL kids need to
experience school and extracurricular activities that promote peer
relationships, respect for differences and the pride that comes from
accomplishment and extending a helping hand.
Louisa loves school and is in turn well loved by her classmates and
other students. Her peers take turns being Louisa's helper because
everyone wants to be her special friend! Staff have related that
Louisa's presence in the classroom has been a motivation for children
who had behavioral issues. Being allowed to help Louisa is used as a
reward for these kids' good behavior in class. I think that is a
wonderful way for Louisa to contribute! Her favorite classes are music,
PE and art. She also enjoys ``reading'' the spelling lists to her peers
with the help of a switch-controlled tape recorder. Her friends include
her in their play at recess, clamor to sit next to her at lunch and
often have wonderful ideas for accommodations in the classroom, so that
Louisa will not feel left out of things. For the last two years, Louisa
has also attended a half-day summer school program for six weeks in
June and July, where her IEP activities are continued.
Louisa receives support from her related services staff on either a
direct or consultative basis, with most services integrated into the
daily class schedule so that she can participate in regular classroom
curriculum activities with her peers while working on her own IEP
goals. I acknowledge that this can be a challenge sometimes, as we
strive to balance Louisa's needs with the needs of other children in
the classroom, but I have been overwhelmed with relief and delight when
parents of other children have approached me to say that their son or
daughter often talks about Louisa and how much their child appreciates
and enjoys her. I have several times experienced them thanking me for
her being there, as they feel that her presence is a positive thing and
has helped their own children be more kind and accepting human beings.
IDEA ensures that an array of service options are available, based
on the unique and individual needs of the child, determined with the
input and expertise of the child's parents or guardians. The IEP
process ensures that parents have the opportunity to participate as
equal partners in decisions being made. An M.O.M. is recognized as
equal in expertise to a Ph.D. or M.Ed. when it comes to the
determination of appropriate services and placement for our children. I
realize that Louisa and our family have been very lucky to have had the
overwhelmingly positive experience that we have, and also know that
part of that comes from having an understanding of our daughter's
rights and our rights and responsibilities as parents.
My most important and best-loved job is parenting, but I have been
lucky to be able to also work with hundreds of other Iowa families who
have children with special needs. My area of expertise is community-
based family support services but when I speak to family members who
call for information or have questions about special education and IDEA
implementation, I often refer them to the staff at Iowa's Parent
Training and Information Center and our state Parent-Educator
Connection Project for technical assistance. Promoting parent
participation and parent-professional partnerships is crucial to the
success of our children. When problems occur, we should encourage
mediation and resolution of the dispute at the lowest level. Resolution
facilitators should be available to all families as a vital component
of due process.
It is hard to imagine that only a generation ago many children
didn't have the opportunity to go to school, were routinely
institutionalized or had no options other than ``special'' schools or
segregated classrooms. Many students had disabilities that were not
identified or who struggled and failed in a system that was not meeting
their unique needs. These children were frequently subjected to cruel
taunts and insults, told they were stupid, that they simply needed to
try harder. I know this because two of them were my siblings.
My brother Hank, eleven months older, and my little sister Audrey,
two years younger than me, both had learning disabilities, including
dyslexia. In addition, Hank had only partial hearing in one ear and had
lost one eye in an accident and so had physical challenges that also
affected his learning. When Hank was held back to repeat kindergarten,
our parents enrolled him in a parochial school, though we were not
catholic, and hired a tutor for extra help. The next year, when he
returned to public school, Hank and I were now in the same grade.
Because learning came easy to me, it was heartbreaking to watch my
brother struggle in class and to hear our peers make fun of him,
calling him ``dummy'' and ``Cyclops'' and other mean things. I knew he
was smart and he was so kind--he was always explaining neat things he
had discovered when we took hikes in the park behind our house, he was
a wonderful artist and could play the piano by ear as I plodded through
my lessons. Audrey fared better because she had less apparent learning
problems when young, she was good at ``faking it'', and was well liked
by her teachers and classmates--she was a little cutie pie and fit in
socially. She has related to me how terrified she was each day to go to
school, afraid that her friends would find out she was ``stupid'',
because she thought that she was.
When Hank was thirteen and Audrey ten, my parents enrolled them for
three years in a residential school for children with learning
disabilities in Florida. This was very expensive, but they had
experienced too much frustration and hurt, it was their last resort. My
parents, tireless advocates for their own and other children, were
founding members of the Iowa Association for Children with Learning
Disabilities who participated in hearings like this one, to support
creation of an equal educational opportunity for all children. When
PL94-142 was passed into law in 1975, it was a time of celebration in
our household--but it was a bittersweet victory. It was too late for
Hank, and Audrey would graduate one year later, with her high school
counselor advising her to consider food service as a career, as that
was one of the few things she could succeed at. I am happy to report
that after seven years of hard work, with accommodations provided by
her community college and universities, my little sister completed her
Master's degree in Counseling Psychology and is now a Marriage and
Family Therapist, who has spoken at several learning disabilities
conferences to provide inspiration and hope to parents whose children
who are striving to learn.
Hank eventually dropped out of school, had trouble getting or
keeping a job and was very depressed. He eventually pulled himself
together with the encouragement of a wonderful and supportive wife. He
is now a doting grandfather who still takes walks in the woods and
shares his knowledge of nature and music and art. I am so proud of him
and the man he has become, but feel much heartache knowing that his
self-esteem and confidence was destroyed as he was growing up, because
his disability was not recognized early, his learning needs were not
met, and he was ridiculed and harassed by not only his peers, but his
teachers when he was in school. This should never happen to another
child.
We must be careful when defining the goals of education. I have
heard people say that productive, contributing citizens should be the
end result of the investment of education dollars. But how do we define
productive? Louisa has provided our family with a gift we could never
have anticipated--she has helped us and other members of our community
grow and become better people through understanding her unique and
sometimes hidden gifts and contributions. That is why I am here today,
with Louisa as witness that IDEA does work. We must maintain an
educational system where truly NO CHILD IS LEFT BEHIND.
On behalf of Louisa, Hank, Audrey, my Mom and Dad and every other
parent and child with special needs in America, I want to thank you for
listening to my family's story, for keeping the faith in our kids and
for pursuing excellence in an educational system that serves and
includes ALL children.
Prepared Statement of Robert Runkel
My name is Robert Runkel, and I am pleased to be here this morning
in my capacity as Administrator of the Division of Special Education
for the state of Montana. I have worked in the field of special
education for 25 years, beginning as a school psychologist for rural
schools on or near the Fort Peck Indian reservation in Montana. Since
1987, I have served as Montana's director of special education. I also
currently serve as President of the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), the professional organization
representing the state administrators of education programs for
children and youth with disabilities in the 50 states and federal
jurisdictions. My five years as a member of NASDSE's Board of Directors
has afforded me the opportunity to learn much about the administration
of special education programs in other states, and my testimony will
reflect in some places general concerns of all state directors. In
addition, recently a number of directors from small states have begun
talking together to focus on issues that are specific to them, and my
comments will reflect their concerns as well.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to
talk about what is working and what is not working with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), particularly in light of the
changes that were made when the IDEA was last reauthorized in 1997. My
testimony will include specific recommendations for the current
reauthorization.
Late last year, families, service providers, policymakers and many
others celebrated the 25th anniversary of the IDEA. In celebrating the
advances made possible by this law, we recognized that special
education is a complex system with many challenges. The major changes
made in the 1997 amendments to the IDEA were necessary for individuals
with disabilities to be able to fully participate in the educational
process and achieve post-school success. At the same time, these
changes significantly raised the bar of expectations for students,
parents and schools.
My position as a state director of special education is to provide
leadership to assist local school districts to meet these higher
expectations. In order to be successful, a school district's enhanced
special education system must (1) have effective collaboration with
general education; (2) focus on student and system results; (3) ensure
that there are sufficient numbers of properly trained teachers and
other service providers; and (4) have sufficient funding from a
partnership of local state and federal governments to provide the
programs our children need and deserve. School districts must also
address with assistance from their communities the specific challenges
that students with disabilities face in transitioning from school to a
post-school environment.
For over 25 years, the IDEA has provided important guarantees of
access to public education for children with disabilities. Just as
important, the law has helped to ensure that educational programs
offered to students with disabilities are appropriate to their needs.
Generally, children with disabilities are receiving the services they
need to help them be successful and most parents are satisfied with the
results.
The system of special education includes tens of thousands of
parents, teachers, and administrators, working together to prepare
students with disabilities for a bright future. Parents of children
with disabilities are involved in their children's education,
dedicated-compassionate professionals are providing high-quality
services, and our children are receiving the benefit. Children with
disabilities are now included more than they ever have been with their
nondisabled peer group; the relatively recent focus on accountability
is beginning to produce results; important procedural/legal protections
contained in the law are being implemented; and parents are now more
involved than ever in important decisions regarding their children's
special education programs.
For the first time, the IDEA '97 refocused efforts on
accountability for outcomes with students with disabilities. This was
definitely a positive step for students with disabilities. Local school
districts in Montana and local school districts in other states are
working hard to include all students with disabilities in the general
curriculum, assessment and accountability systems. My colleagues
throughout the country are adamant in their support for the inclusion
of all students in state and local education agency accountability
systems. The recently enacted ``No Child Left Behind Act,'' with its
emphasis on accountability, should help ensure that students with
disabilities are included in state and local assessment systems.
At the same time, Montana's state and local education agencies,
like many state and local agencies around the country, face significant
issues that can and should be addressed through reauthorization. The
following are specific issues that need to be addressed in the
reauthorization of the IDEA:
funding
There are several funding issues that must be addressed in the
reauthorization of the IDEA. The following are the most critical:
1. The 40 Percent Promise
In regard to funding, I want to particularly thank the members of
this Committee for their strong support last year for the IDEA full-
funding amendment that Senators Hagel and Harkin offered to the ``No
Child Left Behind Act.'' I cannot overstate the need for increased
federal funding for the IDEA. In Montana, a state that has significant
economic challenges with low salaries and a low tax base, the failure
of the present law to provide this level of funding is particularly
onerous. Local Montana school district financial contributions to
special education have grown by over 900 percent in the past 10 years.
This growth shows the commitment of Montana schools to meet the needs
of children with disabilities, but it also shows, in part, the effect
of the unfulfilled ``40 percent promise.'' Attached to my written
testimony is a chart that dramatically demonstrates this impact.
The impact of substantial growth in local expenditures has had an
adverse effect on the quality of education for all children, including
children with disabilities. These necessary expenditures for special
education have forced school boards to consider making cuts in
everything from building maintenance to increasing class size.
Fulfilling the ``40 percent promise'' would improve the quality and
quantity of educational services available in public schools for all
students. We have more than 400 local school districts in Montana, many
of them in small, rural communities. Each school can tell its own story
of the impact of the cost of special education on their district
budget.
2. Distribution
In my state we have found that the current funding formula, based
on census (85 percent) and poverty (15 percent), is an effective means
for determining allocations of federal dollars to state education
agencies. However, more flexibility is needed by states in their
distribution to local districts.
3. Maintenance of Fiscal Effort
As much as Montana is in need of the 40 percent funding level, the
value of the increased funding to schools in Montana is intricately
tied to a necessary change in the law in the area of maintenance of
fiscal effort. The maintenance of fiscal effort provision in current
law limits the ability of federal funding increases to rebalance the
relative state, local, and federal partnership in covering the costs of
special education. Under current law, only 20 percent of any year's
increase in federal special education funding can be treated as local
funds for purposes of maintenance of fiscal effort. Montana educators
feel strongly that this 20 percent limitation should be changed in
order to provide more relief from the restrictions imposed by the
provisions of maintenance of fiscal effort. The added flexibility is
necessary to reverse the increases over the past decade in local
expenditures for special education.
Many Montana schools are experiencing declines in student
enrollment, resulting in declining general fund budgets. While
maintenance of fiscal effort protects the special education portion of
state and local general fund budgets, other areas of the budget are
forced to absorb more than their share of cuts. Simultaneous to the
cuts in the general fund budget, schools are experiencing growth in
federal special education funding. This circumstance exacerbates the
tension between special education and general education over limited
resources and it triggers conflicts and jealousies between programs.
These tensions and conflicts are already limiting Montana schools'
ability to take advantage of recent increases in federal funds. This
situation will be amplified if the ``40 percent promise'' is fulfilled
without a corresponding and necessary change to maintenance of fiscal
effort requirements of the law.
4. State Share of Funding
Additionally, the '97 amendments to the IDEA capped the state share
of Part B funds. This has proved to be a significant problem for many
states, but especially in smaller states, such as Montana. Small states
are capped at $500,000 (plus inflation) for administration of the IDEA
. Yet, small states are expected to have in place the same
infrastructure necessary to ensure accountability for results. This
infrastructure includes systems for data collection, maintenance,
analysis, and reporting of key outcome indicators.
With this background, I would like to propose the following
changes:
1. Provide federal funding equivalent to the 40 percent full
funding promised by the Congress when P.L. 94-142 was enacted.
2. Provide flexibility in maintenance of fiscal effort similar to
the Hagel and Harkin amendment to the IDEA that was previously proposed
during the debate on the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''
3. Allow state education agencies to keep up to 15 percent of a
state's Part B funds to provide direct support and technical assistance
to local education agencies and to conduct monitoring activities.
4. Allow state education agencies to keep up to an additional 5
percent of a state's Part B funds for administrative activities. At the
very least, increase the minimum amount of funding for small states and
federal jurisdictions to enable them to support their administrative
services to local education agencies. I would propose that the minimum
amount of funds available for administration should be increased from
$500,000 (with inflation index) to $750,000 (with inflation index).
In addition to changes in the IDEA, it is important for Congress to
address corresponding changes in the Medicaid program. States and, more
importantly, local school districts are grappling with the complexities
of the Medicaid system. Medicaid imposes such complexity in its
policies, documentation, and billing procedures that states often have
to resort to utilizing private firms just to understand what revenue is
available. These procedures were often appropriately designed to avoid
the potential for fraud and geared to working with corporations and
individuals in private practice. More appropriate systems need to be
designed so that they are tailored to the nature of shared governmental
activities. As a result of current complexities, reimbursement
procedures are not uniform throughout the country and this lack of
uniformity has created widely varying Medicaid support between states.
This results in variability between states in resources and services.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should be required
to work with the Department of Education on policies and procedures
that will enable school districts to be reimbursed for services more
consistent with a federal state and local partnership.
paperwork
Our current preoccupation in special education on process has
contributed to the paperwork burden that you hear so much about. Much
of our paperwork burden is due to the need for documenting compliance
with regulations. This comes in the form of creating a ``paper trail''
of notices, permissions, description of services, eligibility
determination, and student goal statements. Most parents I know are
more concerned about the benefit their child is receiving from the
program than they are about the number of parental rights brochures
they have received. Perhaps as our accountability system becomes
stronger, we will have the opportunity to reduce the mountain of paper.
Simultaneously, some parents fear that a paperwork reduction could mean
the loss of certain procedural rights now afforded under the
protections of the IDEA. It is our job to maintain the protections of
the IDEA while solving our dilemma with paperwork.
I believe there are solutions that can retain all of the rights and
protections of current law while dramatically reducing the paperwork
burden. Because so many of my colleagues share this concern, the NASDSE
will be convening a meeting of its members and other stakeholders this
spring to come up with specific suggestions for paperwork reduction,
and I would hope that you will allow the NASDSE to share the results of
this effort with you.
balanced accountability
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to focus on outcomes
for students with disabilities. A local education agency can be in
total compliance with every procedural step and still not guarantee
positive educational outcomes for its students. That is why it is so
important to continue to strengthen our focus on outcomes.
However, in our efforts to focus on outcomes, it is important to
remember that results of academic achievement tests tell only part of
the story. While I do not deny that state standards measured by
achievement tests have great value, it is important that these tests
are kept in balance with other key outcome indicators. Along with
achievement scores, these outcomes include: graduation rates, dropout
rates, numbers of discipline referrals, rates of employment following
graduation, rates of enrollment in postsecondary education programs,
and parent and student satisfaction.
discipline
Everyone seems to agree that the compromise discipline language
included in the IDEA '97 is too cumbersome and too difficult to follow,
let alone enforce properly. School personnel are frustrated with the
complexity of the provisions and, therefore, they complain that
students with disabilities cannot be disciplined even though they can.
The process of disciplining students with disabilities must be
simplified.
Many of my colleagues across the country agree with me, that no
student should be denied access to educational services. Rather, we
should afford all students the opportunity to engage in learning
activities designed to enable them to progress in school. If this basic
principle were followed, perhaps the complexity of the process and the
double standard of treatment of students with disabilities could go
away.
coordination with early childhood programs and the ``no child left
behind act''
I am pleased with the emphasis of the Bush Administration on early
identification and intervention. The Part C Infants and Toddler Program
and Part B Section 619 Preschool Programs clearly support this priority
and deserve to be well funded. Two new programs Reading First and Early
Reading First authorized by the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' have the
potential to provide an infusion of both funding and new programs to
help target this at-risk population. New Title I resources will clearly
benefit our efforts to meet the academic needs of children. As we
review the provisions of the IDEA, it is important, wherever possible,
that the objectives and reporting requirements of these various federal
programs complement one another.
Never has it been more important for federal programs supporting
child development and programs supporting academic progress for school-
age children to include common data definitions, common procedures for
collection of information, and common reporting and analysis of program
effectiveness. Schools cannot afford multiple school accountability and
school improvement activities within the same school for various
federal programs. Common standards must be applied to school
improvement planning efforts and accountability in order to avoid
contradiction, duplication of effort, and simply overwhelming people.
Coordination in these areas will lead to a reduction in paperwork for
both state and local education agencies and serve as a gentle reminder
that special education is not a separate system of education it is a
service provided to students.
costs related to resolution of controversies
The rights and protections afforded by the IDEA are significant and
must be preserved. They provide parents ample opportunity to influence
important decisions regarding their child's education along with our
local school personnel and the ability to appeal decisions that they do
not agree with. These safeguards are intrinsic to ensuring students'
needs are being met. It is often natural and appropriate to have
disagreements. Further, we should not equate disagreements between
parents and school personnel with noncompliance with the law. It is
important to remember that the educational services and supports
provided to students are meant to be individualized there is no ``one
size fits all,'' and I would strongly urge Congress to avoid mandating
specific services for specific disabilities for the sake of avoiding
controversy.
At the same time, there is little doubt that the extensive
litigation surrounding the IDEA is extremely costly to both parents and
school districts and states. These costs are draining resources from
state and local education agencies that would be better spent on
providing services to students and their families. Mediation was
encouraged in the 1997 IDEA amendments and mediation efforts appear to
be meeting with some success. We need to examine additional
opportunities to resolve controversy at lower levels. Early assistance
to parents by providing informal problem resolution through the state
agency has been particularly effective in Montana. Some states could be
interested in providing options for binding arbitration. Additional
training in communication skills of collaboration between schools and
families could also be part of the solution.
personnel
The quality and availability of special education personnel are
critical issues demanding immediate attention. In Montana, we have
approximately 70 people who are currently participating in our Special
Education Endorsement Project. This project is designed to respond to
circumstances where schools were unable to hire a fully qualified
special educator. For a small rural state to have this many teachers
obtaining their special education credentials while teaching special
education speaks to the importance of this issue.
Just as important as the move to inclusion in the classroom, we
need to move to a system of personnel preparation that trains all
teachers to work with students with special needs. At the same time,
those teachers that are specially trained to work with students with
disabilities need more familiarity with course content areas. Higher
education teacher and administrative preparation programs must be
restructured to meet current needs in schools. These issues can begin
to be addressed in the IDEA through the Part D personnel preparation
programs by providing grants coordinated with state agencies to
institutions of higher education to meet training needs for serving
students with disabilities. I also recommend that Part D include
noncompetitive funds to states to provide inservice training and
technical assistance to help states in maintaining qualified personnel
at all levels.
part d programs
The Part D programs provide funding for personnel preparation,
research, and technical assistance programs and provide critical
support to schools in Montana. Montana is fortunate enough to have a
state improvement grant. It is helping us focus on key strategies that
will improve outcomes for children with disabilities. Unfortunately,
Montana had to compete for this grant against other states. Since
school improvement activities are necessary in all states, it seems
wrong to selectively finance a state's school improvement effort. A
stable formula-driven revenue source for all states is necessary to
help states meet their obligation and to successfully engage in long-
range improvement activities.
These programs provide the backbone of support for quality services
under the IDEA. Of the many Part D programs that Montana benefits from,
perhaps the one most worthy of mention is our Mountain Plains Regional
Resource Center. Through this Center, Montana acquires specialized
technical assistance that enables me to do my job in improving the
quality of education for students with disabilities. It deserves and
needs your generous support.
conclusion
The history of special education has proven that the program is
very effective in including students with disabilities in our public
school system and while they are there, providing them a quality
education. The future of our special education system will now depend
on our ability to design a special education system that works in close
coordination with services provided in general education. Special
education needs to become more of a support structure to general
education a system of services and not a place. Many of the problems of
our present system are attributable to a legal/procedural emphasis and
the separate or parallel structures we now offer in the delivery and
design of our special education services. The ``No Child Left Behind
Act'' will provide a safety net protecting our children from failing
schools. Special education can be the safety net of services for
children.
Unfortunately, our present system of special education is built
upon a ``wait to fail'' model. Literally, our children need to be so
far behind before they are able to access
the services of special education that they are likely to never
catch up. And, for some reason, we continue to find it necessary to
``label'' our children. The act of labeling can reduce expectations,
affect the self-concept of the child, and change the dynamics of the
relationships between people. It is just too easy to blame a lack of
success on the characteristics of the student instead of the
effectiveness of the services offered. Often, our parents and students
do not understand the need for the label or the necessity of waiting
for failure. Sometimes neither do I. At our most recent special
education advisory panel meeting, a parent told the story of how her
child, in the middle of a special education IEP meeting, stated:
``There's nothing the matter with me, it's who I am.''
Perhaps the day has come that our special education system will
allow our children access to services before they fail. Perhaps our
students will be able to access services based on educational need
alone and not some label. Perhaps someday our general education
teachers will see the special education support system as critical to
their success with their students.
To achieve these important goals, we need to listen to educators,
parents, students, and the broader public. When teachers and parents
are comfortable with the quality of services and the outcomes that they
are producing, it seems silly to burden one another with meetings,
documentation, signatures, notices, and so on. We should honor the
judgment of parents and teachers. At the first sign of a child falling
behind, we must offer help.
I ask your help to craft legislation so that every child will have
the opportunity to achieve his or her potential.
I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today and
will be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Prepared Statement of Bob Vaadeland
Good Morning! Chairman--Senator Edward Kennedy, Senators: Dodd,
Harkin, Mikulski, Jeffords, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Reed, Edwards,
Clinton, Gregg, Frist, Enzi, Hutchinson, Warner, Bond, Roberts,
Collins, Sessions, and DeWine, Assistant Secretary Pasternak, and other
distinguished guests.
It is with great pleasure and humility that I come before you today
to bring some thoughts and perspectives from a rural School
Administrator regarding the current Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. In my opinion this act has had a great impact on
services to children over the years, and without it I believe with
emphatic conviction that many children in years past would not have
been and even today would not be the benefactors of specialized
services needed to meet their individual needs. This is not to say
however, that everything is or always has been perfect in regard to
implementation. However, by taking the available opportunities to
analyze the positive results of the act, along with the ``glitches''
that appear along the way, I believe very strongly that we can all work
together to improve services for Children with Disabilities.
My career as a Special Educator began in 1975, the year after the
original Public Law 94-142 was enacted by Congress. Since that time I
have observed many changes in the provision of Special Education
Services for Children with Disabilities. As a Special Education
Instructor, with licenses in Learning Disabilities, Mild to Moderately
Impaired, and Emotional Behavioral Disorders, I had the opportunity to
get involved with the day to day tasks of Pre-referral, Referral,
Assessment, Identification, IEP Program Development, Implementation and
Program Review. These steps were all completed under the jurisdiction
of Due Process laws as originally written into the original Public Law,
and yet refined over the years for greater clarification.
Following my original experiences working with the law as a Special
Education Instructor, I then had the opportunity to work with nearly 30
school districts in Southwest and West Central Minnesota in multiple
capacities. To clarify, over the past 27 years, I have served as not
only a Special Education Coordinator, but also as a Special Education
Director, an Elementary Principal, and for the past twelve years as a
Superintendent. In addition to this, I have also served as the
President of the Minnesota Administrators for Special Education, and
presently represent the Minnesota Association of School Administrators
on the State Special Education Advisory Committee.
From a very personal perspective, I know that this Act has had a
great impact on the provision of Special Education services to children
identified with disabilites. I can recall a group of seven young men in
a rural Minnesota school district that I had the opportunity to work
with a number of years ago, who had a variety of needs. The young men's
identified disabilities varied from Mild to Moderate Cognitive
Impairments, to Learning Disabled, to those with Emotional Behavioral
Disorders. There were times when I questioned that I was truly able to
meet their needs based on the variety of their identified handicapping
conditions. However, in the end those students completed their high
school education, and graduated. The difference that these services
made to them personally was exemplified by one graduate in particular
who wrote to me following his graduation, and said ``Thank You, I
couldn't have done it without you!"
Touching yes, but I knew that the services that this student had
received, had made a difference.
I also recall two other young high school students in the past six
years, who had not only Cognitive Impairments, but also some very
involved Physical Impairments that required Developmental Adapted
Physical Education, along with related services such as Occupational
and Physical Therapy. These particular children also had Cerebral
Palsy, and had both required Rhyzotomy surgeries on several occasions.
I can't say enough about the strides that both of these young
individuals made due to the provision of specialized Special Education
services. I particularly recall when one of these young individuals, a
young lady, walked forward and presented her Work Experience Employer
with an award of appreciation for Supervising her on a job site. A
second such occasion occurred when she walked forward and received her
high school diploma. That's truly when it hit me that the services
provided to her as a result of IDEA had made a great impact. The
heartfelt thanks from the parents, upon this young lady's graduation,
were also overwhelming as they publicly thanked us while tears trickled
down their cheeks.
One final example is that of a very young child who was diagnosed
very early with ``autistic like'' tendencies, who had a habit of being
very withdrawn as well as exhibiting perseverating behaviors. Through
early intervention however, with a very good team of Early Childhood
Special Education professionals, this student made unbelievable
strides, and was able to move with much greater ease into a Transition
Kindergarten program, and did so with success. In this particular
situation, the parents were so pleased with the services that had been
provided that the family even delayed a move, which was a career
advancement for the parent, in order to continue to receive the
benefits of these special education services.
These are only several examples of the times when we knew that the
specialized Special Education Services had made a difference, and that
had it not been for the IDEA, that these ultimate successes may not
have occurred.
A final comment to make under this section, before looking into
some of the existing problems of the Act, is that it is my opinion that
most schools really do try to do the best they can to educate all
children in the Least Restrictive Environment. In my world, that means
educating them as close to their homes, to the peers, and to the
community as entirely possible. Although this isn't always possible, I
can think of very few situations where this isn't at the forefront in
the decision making processes. I know that there are examples where
``Cessation of Services'' or simple discontinuance of appropriate
service is suggested and implemented, however I would have a very
difficult time finding Superintendents in my peer group that believe in
their hearts that it's the best for students. For this reason, the
concerns for exploring avenues of appropriate service provision are of
great concern.
These successes, however, did not occur without consternation at
times, and without some frustrations with program implementation, which
still need to be addressed. I would like to take this opportunity to
address just a few of those areas, with some suggestions for
improvement into the current law.
1.) In most instances, schools will do the best they can to provide
appropriate Special Education Services, based on identified needs, in
order for the children to receive the appropriate benefit from their
educational program. The types of services sometimes requested,
however, are viewed by the schools as non-educationally related, and
beyond the scope of FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education). In
some instances, it has become the school district's responsibility to
provide a service whether or not it is viewed as a school's obligation.
While examples are few and most parents and school districts have
positive relationships, the fear of litigation when these types of
differences arise is threatening to staff and causing some of them to
look for other alternative fields in education. This impacts a
district's ability to recruit and retain staff. The State Special
Education Advisory Committee in Minnesota along with the State Special
Education Department have been studying this problem in depth over the
past several years, and a number of state and local initiatives are
being implemented to address these concerns. For example, schools have
begun to offer signing bonuses, extended contracts without classroom
assignments, state aid reimbursement for clerical staff, increased
staff development opportunities for all staff, and electronic options
to enhance communications between families and districts. In essence,
increased options for alternative dispute resolutions systems and
improved staff training would help to ease concerns regarding due
process requirements.
2.) A second item I would like to address is the process of
Complaint Investigation, as well as avenues to avoid hearings as a
result of the complaints. It is the view of many that this system works
very well. In 2001, for example, the number of hearings across the
nation totaled 3020. This statistic when compared to the 6.2 million
children on IEPs is not staggering. In comparison to these national
percentages, Minnesota only had 10 hearings based on 110,000 IEPs. This
may be due in part to the fact that in Minnesota there is an initial
step of Informal Conciliation. It has been my personal experience to
approach situations from a perspective of ``what can we do to work this
out?'' This is different than taking a stand that agreement can't be
reached. By approaching situations like this, and exploring avenues of
agreement, I was personally fortunate to never be involved in a
hearing. The channels of communication opened by this type of process
have been very rewarding, and helped to implement IDEA with greater
ease. This conciliation step, however, is not a requirement of IDEA.
Based on the current status of IDEA, a parent can file a complaint at
any time, at which point an investigation begins to unfold. It is my
perspective that if IDEA could be changed to incorporate conciliation
or other informal dispute resolution processes, that it would
significantly reduce the number of complaints and hearings. It is also
my perspective that the steps would help to work through difficult
situations with much greater satisfaction, and to enhance the
implementation of IDEA. A second step that could help to strengthen
IDEA would be to institute an enhanced mediation process. In initiating
this, a greater understanding of the perspectives of both the school
and the parents would be the end result. Another promising example is
that in Minnesota we are piloting Facilitated IEP's, where a state
trained independent facilitator actually facilitates the IEP meeting.
We think this could be a huge step in reducing adversarial situations
and litigation, and to help the process become more ``user friendly''
for everyone involved.
3.) A third item that I would like to touch on very briefly, is
that of Interagency Collaboration in regard to the provision of
services. As it presently stands, school districts are the payer of
last resort, meaning that the present Act allows for an unequal sharing
of responsibility when it comes to service provision. Just as
educational systems are strapped to stretch their ability to provide
services to clients, so are Health, Welfare, and Rehabilitation. It is
the district's perspective, however, that the services which could
often be provided by some of these agencies should be provided under
their jurisdiction, and more appropriately at their expense based on
the expertise of the service they can provide. Based on the present
IDEA language, School Districts are obligated to provide services even
if it is believed that they don't have the dollars to pay for them. I
also believe that this premise should hold true for all agencies
involved in Interagency Collaborative Agreements. As a collaborative
group, agencies should collectively become the payers of last resort. A
model for this is the Minnesota Part C Model, to which there is a goal
to reach interagency funding from birth to 21. Minnesota presently has
a birth to 5 mandate in place, as well as a birth to age 9 interagency
mandate by this coming summer. This exemplary model, if implemented by
all Interagency Collaboratives, could help to spread the costs, which
now often become the responsibility of one single agency.
4.) A final item I would like to touch on is that of resources.
Ever since the original Public Law 94-142 came into effect, it has been
the intention of the Federal Government to fully fund Special
Education, typically meaning the 40% of the excess cost for such
services, which would achieve appropriate funding levels. The national
per pupil expenditure has averaged $6,296 (for 1999-2000) for most
students on an annual basis, with an additional $6,296 for identified
Special Education students. Based on IDEA, if the 40% of the second
$6,296 were to be paid out to states, it would mean an additional
$2,518 per pupil. This is what would be considered ``Full Funding''
based on the agreement in the original Public Law 94-142, which was
adopted in 1974 and scheduled for funding reality by 1982. To date,
this is still only being funded at 15% to 17%, in order to meet the
state and federal requirements of the law. As a result, state
governments are annually being put in positions of allocating more
state dollars to fund a program that is federally mandated. Due to the
scope of how services have changed over the years, and the ages of the
population of students who are receiving these services, we know that
there are significantly many more students receiving Special Education
service. We have many more children who are medically fragile,
physically involved, and those with mental health needs, etc., that are
utilizing an increased amount of funding for services they may require.
I don't hear people saying that those services shouldn't be provided if
they are necessary. I do hear them saying, however, that there should
be an increase in federal support to meet the mandates of the federal
law.
With this I am going to close my remarks. I want to take this
opportunity to again thank Senator Kennedy and the distinguished
committee members of this Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee for extending me this invitation to speak. I truly appreciate
the opportunity given to bring not only my accolades for the law, but
also some of the concerns, which I was also asked to express. Again,
thank you!
Prepared Statement Kim Goodrich Ratcliffe
Good morning, Chairman Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Senator Bond and
other distinguished members of the committee. I am honored and
privileged to come before you today to speak on behalf of parents and
their children with disabilities and public school educators of this
nation. I come before you today as a parent and as an educator. I am a
parent of two children who have had individualized education programs
known as IEP's. They are representative of the majority of students
with disabilities in this nation. One had an IEP for speech services
while in elementary school. She required services for several years and
was successfully remediated and no longer required special education
services. The other daughter was diagnosed with epilepsy in infancy
that resulted in educational diagnoses of speech/language disorder and
learning disabled. She received multiple services and a change in the
type of services as she progressed through school. She received speech
therapy, occupational therapy, and specialized instruction in
elementary school. As a secondary student and college student, she
required accommodations as outlined in a 504 Plan under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to address continued math deficiencies
and ADD. I am proud to say she is graduating from college in May 2002.
She exemplifies what the vast majority of children with disabilities
have experienced in this nation-the IDEA works well for them.
As an educator, I come to you today with a historical perspective
on special education. My career began in special education four years
before the original statute, the Education for All Handicapped
Children's Act, was passed in 1975. With the exception of leaves of
absence at the birth of each of my three daughters, I have been either
a teacher of children with disabilities or an administrator of programs
for children with disabilities for the past thirty years.
I became a teacher of students with disabilities in 1971. I was
there when Public Law 94-142 planted its roots firmly in the soil of
prejudice. Before 1975, we as a people of this nation prejudged and
unknowingly misjudged who could benefit from public education. In our
ignorance of how to educate, we assumed that some children could not be
educated. The original P.L. 94-142 was enacted to provide keys to the
schoolhouse door. Today, the doors to the schoolhouse are opened wide
to all children. Our reality is all children can learn. Early
intervention services have provided a positive start for many young
children with disabilities. Many children have received services that
enabled them to return to the general education curriculum. IDEA has
been very effective in supporting the educational needs of children
with disabilities. It is time to embrace the spirit of the original
statute and move forward with common sense reform. The original
language of the statute that provided an impetus for change in the
1970's appears unnecessarily contemptuous of educators in the twenty
first century. Dr. James Ritter, Superintendent of Columbia Public
Schools, stated, ``The perception communicated by the federal law
(IDEA) is public schools would either under serve or stop serving
students with special needs if the law was not forcing us to do
otherwise. There could be nothing further from the truth. These are our
children. We have the same hopes and dreams for them as all children in
our community and the same commitment to excellence in education. The
law perpetuates a gross misrepresentation of the commitment of the
citizens of our community to leave no child behind.''
The spirit of Public Law 94-142 must be preserved. Common sense
reform of the IDEA must happen. It is long overdue. In a presentation
by attorney Elena M. Gallegos of Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze &
Aldridge P.C. at the Education Law Association's 47' Annual Conference
in Albuquerque, N.M. on November 17, 2001, she remarked on comments
made by President Gerald Ford on December 2, 1975 upon his signing of
P.L. 94-142. President Ford stated in part, ``[T]his bill promises more
than the federal government can deliver, and its good intentions could
be thwarted by the many unwise provisions it contains.'' In the March
2002 Special Education Law Update, Ms. Gallegos points out the negative
aspects of P.L. 94-142 observed by then-President Gerald Ford that have
proven true: ``There are other features in the bill which I believe to
be objectionable and which should be changed. It contains a vast array
of detailed, complex and costly administrative requirements under which
tax dollars would be used to support administrative paperwork and not
educational programs. Unfortunately, these requirements will remain in
effect even though the Congress appropriates far less than the amounts
contemplated in [the law].'' President Ford's prophetic words have
become the reality of public educators across the nation. Although
Congress has been either unable or unwilling to financially support the
original statute as envisioned by its creators, Congress must now
strive to preserve what is working and remove the harm in the statute.
Paperwork mandated by the federal law and regulations must be
significantly reduced in volume and complexity
The paperwork burden is fundamentally detracting from the education
of students with disabilities. Teachers of students with disabilities
have the same paperwork requirements as all teachers-i.e. lesson plans,
grading papers, report cards, and normal written communication to
parents. In addition, teachers of students with disabilities create
individualized education plans, send legal written notices regarding
the convening of IEP meetings, send written legal notices of any change
in services or changes in placement, and document all written and/or
verbal communication to parents. At times the process is so burdensome
that changes that could benefit a student are simply not made. An
example of the nature of the problem is demonstrated in the following
scenario of an actual event. A teacher called her local director of
special education to ask a compliance question. The teacher reported
speaking with a parent about an academic problem her son with a
learning disability was having. The teacher and the parent had put
their heads together and came up with a possible solution-the special
education teacher would pull the student aside for an additional 20
minutes of one-on-one instruction two or three times a week as needed
to pre-teach or re-teach vocabulary words. They were both excited about
the possibility of reduced frustration on the part of the student and
the potential for real academic gain. The question was whether the IEP
team had to be reconvened or whether the agreement of the parent and
teacher was enough. The common sense response would be to document the
changes on the IEP and proceed. The reality is that the teacher must
give the parent notice of the IEP meeting with all required components
including a copy of Procedural Safeguards for Parents and Children
under the IDEA. A properly constituted IEP team with all required
members must be coordinated and an agreeable meeting time scheduled.
The parent must take off work or otherwise arrange to attend the
meeting. If an emergency should prevent the parent from attending on
the scheduled day or time, another legal notice of a rescheduled
meeting must be provided to the parent with a second copy of procedural
safeguards. Once' at the meeting, if all members are in agreement with
the parent and teacher to add some minutes of service, the IEP must be
rewritten in its entirety to incorporate the change. If service minutes
are changed even by one minute, a legal notice of change of services
must be provided in written form to the parent complete with all
required components. If the student was currently in a modified regular
education placement and the additional minutes resulted in the total
service minutes away from non-disabled peers totaling more than 21% of
the time, a change of placement would be necessary. A change of
placement requires consideration of a reevaluation. The team must
complete all the paperwork necessary to document consideration of
reevaluation and proceed with the evaluation if deemed necessary by the
IEP team. An additional written legal notice is required to fully
inform the parent in writing of that decision as well. The end result
of a good idea shared in a ten-minute conversation between parent and
teacher that could benefit a child's educational progress has now taken
over two-and-a-half hours of meeting and paperwork time under the
requirements of the IDEA. Is it any wonder that both parents and
teachers, at times, say, ``it just isn't worth the hassle?'' Legally,
the director could not have responded with the common sense answer of
simply documenting the change agreed upon by the teacher and parent in
the existing IEP. To meet the legal definition of a free appropriate
public education, the district must meet both the excessive procedural
and substantive requirements. We need to have the flexibility to change
IEP's during the time span covered by the IEP without sending legal
notices of a meeting, without convening the full committee or rewriting
the entire IEP document. A recommendation for addressing the excessive
time and paperwork burden illustrated in the above scenario would be to
limit the requirement for a comprehensive IEP meeting to once annually.
A parent and teacher could agree to make changes, if necessary, in a
parent-teacher conference during the one-year period of the IEP. Any
changes to which a teacher and parent agree can be documented in the
existing IEP with parents receiving a copy of the changes. The focus
should be on normalizing communications between parent and teacher as
much as possible as they are striving to provide for the unique, and
sometimes changing, needs of the student with disabilities.
Another problem with the complexity of the regulatory aspects of
the IEP process is the time it takes teachers, counselors, therapists
and administrators away from the instructional focus of education. Who
is teaching the children during times when all of the staff are
involved in marathon IEP meetings, diagnostic conferences, mediation,
preparation and participation in due process hearings and other
meetings required by the current special education process? No matter
how good the substitute teachers are (if you can find one), they can
never provide the quality of services provided by the child's special
education teacher. School officials know that one of the
characteristics of an outstanding school is the time the school staff
spends on instruction. Pulling staff out of the classroom for all of
the meetings required by the current special education process
significantly decreases the amount of time special education teachers
spend in direct instruction. Children with disabilities do not learn by
simply being there. Children with disabilities require direct,
personalized instruction. The child's teacher can best provide such
instruction. An illustration of the extent of time away from
instruction required to conduct one IEP meeting per year, of average
length in time, for all children diagnosed with a disability in the
Columbia Public School District totals 89,375 hours of lost
instructional time or the equivalent of 78 school years of instruction.
Although the extent of the paperwork in special education varies
from child to child based on the number of IEP meetings, reevaluations
and notices that are relevant to an individual child's situation, it is
the complexity of the paperwork that increases the frustration of
teachers and parents and wastes valuable time and resources. The rules
are too numerous. Even after extensive training, teachers find it
necessary to stop and consult with a process coordinator or director of
special education to ensure compliant paperwork. Veteran teachers are
as frustrated as novice teachers when the rules change frequently
through litigation or changes are made at the federal or state level.
At any point in time, administrators, process coordinators and teachers
are uncertain how to properly complete the paperwork. This is equally
as daunting to many parents.
With increased accountability for the progress of students with
disabilities, there is a need and a desire on the part of teachers to
have updated, research-based training on effective practices. Students
benefit when regular and special education teachers have time to be
trained together and time to collaboratively plan instruction to meet
the needs of students with disabilities. The possibilities for those
opportunities are significantly diminished by the ongoing need to do
compliance training. The business of teachers is educating children.
The tail is wagging the dog when the focus of education is directed
toward paperwork rather than effective instructional practice. As
examples of this reality, the Columbia Public Schools has a week of
training for new teachers in the district prior to the beginning of
school. It takes the entire allocated time for special educators to
cover procedure mandated by IDEA. The district also schedules several
release days throughout the year to allow for collaboration among
educators. Out of necessity, special educators spend a majority of
those days receiving compliance training. In addition to other mandated
training, during the 2001-2002 school year the Special Education
Department of the Columbia Public Schools provided 92.5 hours of
optional training on a variety of topics dealing with compliance and
best practice. Over 56% of the training options dealt with compliance
issues and how and when to fill out required paperwork. Imagine the
innovative instructional techniques that teachers could have learned in
92 hours of training if all sessions had targeted improvement of
instructional practice. Imagine the potential for improvement in
student achievement. The preamble to the IDEA may talk about the goal
of focusing on student achievement but we are forced by the law to walk
a different walk.
At the heart of appropriate education is a comprehensive evaluation
resulting in an accurate diagnosis. This is a necessary but time-
consuming process that, according to data compiled over the course of a
year in the Columbia Public School District, takes between 55 and 87
man-hours per evaluation.
Of national concern is the over-identification of minorities in the
total population of students with disabilities. Of a troubling nature
to educators is the conflict between over-identification of minorities
in special education and the need to ensure that every child receives
and benefits from the services he or she requires.
An expressed concern has been the purposeful over-identification of
students with disabilities in order to increase school district
revenues. It is enlightening to look at data. In a district such as
Raytown C-2, a suburban school district in greater Kansas City
Metropolitan area, the district's sources of special education funding
for the 2000-2001 school year were 8% Federal Part B receipts, 20%
Missouri receipts, and 72% local receipts. In Missouri, the local tax
rate is set by a vote of the patrons in the school district. For every
dollar spent on a new child identified as eligible for special
education, the district receives eight cents from the federal
government, twenty cents from Missouri, and the other seventy-two cents
comes from the local taxpayers. The local tax levy does not
automatically go up each time a child is identified as having a
disability. The needed dollars are taken out of the local tax dollars.
Sometimes they are taken at the expense of other programs and services
for students without disabilities. School districts operate in a
limited resource model. There are only so many dollars available and an
increase in cost in one area must be offset by a decrease in another
area. There is no financial incentive to over-identify students as
needing services under IDEA.
Procedural Safeguards for Parents and Children must be rewritten
Reform needs to occur when a law is so vaguely written that
litigation is required to give it definition. The IDEA is such a
statute. Due process is a brutal system. It paralyzes the educational
system; it paralyzes individuals. The focus is shifted from the child
to the ``battle.'' The only ones ultimately benefiting are the lawyers.
The cost of litigation is extraordinary in terms of time, money and
personnel resources. Regulations need to be imposed on the right of due
process in order to provide balance and protect the integrity of the
system. Very few safeguards that exist in civil law proceedings
regulate or protect due process under the IDEA.
Paramount to this matter is the lack of disclosure of issues.
Although the statute is clear that parents must state their issues and
propose remedies at the time of filing for due process, the regulations
allow for the proceeding to move forward without doing so. It is not
uncommon for parents to choose not to disclose issues and to proceed to
due process with the district blind to the issues it must defend. In a
recent lawsuit in Missouri, a district implored the parent to disclose
their points of disagreement and mediate a solution agreeable to both
parties. The parent refused multiple attempts on the part of the
district to address their dissatisfaction, including offers of
mediation, and proceeded with the filing for due process. The parent
continued to refuse disclosure of their issues of disagreement and the
district was forced to prepare without knowledge of the matter to be
resolved-an unnecessarily costly process. A set of issues was
articulated on the first day of the hearing and additional issues were
added throughout the proceedings. The parent stated she felt it was the
hearing panel's responsibility to identify issues for the parent. Prior
to any allegation being presented at a due process hearing, parents
should be required to present their concerns in writing to the district
and the school should have an opportunity to respond in the context of
an IEP meeting.
Under the IDEA, there is no safeguard for frivolous lawsuits or
harassment. Although the vast majority of children with disabilities
are served successfully through collaborative teamwork between parents
and teachers, a single due process hearing can cost a district in
excess of a year's instructional budget even when the district
prevails. Under the current process, an unfortunate situation with one
parent, can adversely affect the quality of education for an entire
community.
The increasingly excessive number of days a single due process can
take has added to the prohibitive cost of the proceedings and the
diverting of teachers' attention away from the instruction of children.
Once again, a single child's situation can negatively impact a
teacher's ability to consistently focus on the business of educating
numerous children on his/her caseload. It is fair to speculate that in
1975 no one would have anticipated that the average due process hearing
in the twenty-first century would take in excess of a week or two of
testimony. Chief hearing officers should be trained to expedite the
process, setting reasonable number of day limitations for each side to
present their case. Stipulation of facts and uncontested exhibits
should be presented for review by the panel without tedious and time-
consuming review of each fact on each page. The toll that either the
reality of a due process hearing or the fear of a due process hearing
has on individual teachers is enormous. Teachers of students with
disabilities enter the field because of their love for children and
commitment to educating students with disabilities. A process that
devalues their expertise and calls into question their professional
judgment at every turn forces them to spend as much time documenting as
teaching and creates an environment where teachers fail to risk on
behalf of a child. It takes the joy out of teaching, destroys a
teacher's quality of life and drives teachers from the field of special
education. The contentious nature of due process destroys teacher-child
relationships and parent-teacher relationships resulting in failure to
trust for years to come. Qualified teachers committed to students with
disabilities are indispensable in this nation. The IDEA is meaningless
if we do not have qualified teachers in the classroom. Any aspect of
the statute that operates to limit that pool has the opposite effect of
that which the statute intended.
An additional area of concern under Procedural Safeguards for
Parents and Children is the provision for an independent educational
evaluation if a parent is in disagreement with a district's evaluation.
The fact that parents do not have to disclose the area of disagreement
does not allow a district the possibility of working with the parent to
resolve differences. It has become for many a fight for a second
opinion when there is neither disagreement nor reason to suspect the
district's report to be incomplete or insufficient. This has resulted
in the over testing of children adding stress to their lives and
resulting in loss of educational instruction. According to the statute,
the district has an option to take a parent to due process to defend
its evaluation. This presents no real alternative for districts. The
cost of a due process for the sole purpose of defending an evaluation
could be $25,000 to $30,000. The cost of an independent evaluation is
approximately $1500. Both are a needless drain on resources that could
be better spent on personnel or material resources to enhance the
education of children with special needs.
Parents, as well as district personnel, often criticize the
distribution of procedural safeguards numerous times within a year as
an example of either federal excess or as contributing to the
uncomfortable feeling of a legal process as opposed to an educational
practice. Such a procedure may have made sense in 1975 when the IDEA
was initiated. It does not make sense in 2002. The IDEA procedural
safeguards should be published annually for all parents, as are Section
504 and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Acts notices. It does not
make sense to provide a 14-page statement of procedural safeguards
multiple times during a single school year; at times it is required to
provide them several times within weeks of each other. In addition to
the expense to print and at times mail the extensive document, it often
creates a sense of mistrust. An annual presentation of procedural
safeguards reminds parents of their rights; multiple presentations of
procedural safeguards in close succession breeds suspicion. Parents
wonder why they are being told each time they meet that they have the
right to file a child complaint or go to due process if in disagreement
with any aspect of their child's IEP. Procedural safeguards, as
written, give the perception that special education is a hostile,
confrontational, litigious process. Often at IEP meetings focusing on
articulation disorders, parents have stated to the coordinator of
speech/language services, ``Are you a speech pathologist or an
attorney? I can't believe we have to sign all of these papers to
remediate a single error sound.'' Others question why we have to
``destroy a tree'' in order to provide services to their child.
It is imperative that the IDEA is fully funded and that districts are
relieved of excessive paperwork and temporal obligations not
clearly aimed at the target of student achievement
Many times the cost of specialized instruction, equipment and
materials is significant. Districts embrace the concept of leveling the
playing field to allow students with special needs an equal opportunity
for high student achievement. Without adequate funds and relief of
procedural excesses, limited funds will quickly dissipate ultimately
resulting not only in lack of sufficient resources for students with
special needs but also diminished regular teacher resources, materials
and equipment. All students suffer under this reality for the majority
of students with special needs spend the are fine in spirit but
insufficient in practice. When money runs out in the budgets of
agencies such as the Department of Mental Health and Division of Family
Services, services are terminated. When an agency feels a family is not
cooperating or staff of the agency is not trained to deal with a
situation, families are turned away. Children are complex human beings.
The well being of our nation tomorrow depends on the total well being
of our children today. Children bring issues to school that are well
beyond the scope of training for an educator. The concept of
collaboration needs to be replaced with mandated services for children
and shared partnerships with schools for the benefit of children. An
example of the nature of the problem is demonstrated in the following
scenario of an actual event. A young man was becoming increasing
aggressive at home, school and in the community. His behaviors were
dangerous to himself and endangered others. His parent, in
collaboration with the school, admitted him for evaluation and
treatment at a crisis treatment center operated by the Department of
Mental Health. After 24 hours, the mental health worker called a
meeting with the parent and special educator. The mental health worker
reported they were unprepared and lacked specific training to deal with
the severity of the condition of the child at the mental health center
even on the lock treatment ward. Consequently, they would not be able
to serve the child. The child returned home that evening and to public
school the next day. The question is, ``If agencies whose function it
is to address the mental health needs of persons within a community are
challenged beyond their expertise, what good does it do the child to be
returned to a far lesser restrictive environment under the supervision,
instruction, and care of those with little or no training in the area
of mental health.'' This is clearly a case where mandated zero reject
on the part of both agencies could potentially have resulted in a
combined treatment-education plan to improve the mental health
condition of the child and readiness for continued academic progress.
summary
Special education works well for the vast majority of students with
special needs. We must preserve what works and fix what doesn't through
common sense reform. The Achilles heel of special education is
comprised of complex and inter-related issues. With our sites clearly
set on student outcomes, the heart of the problem and the heart of the
solution rest with preparing and retaining quality special educators in
sufficient number to meet the needs of a diverse population of students
with disabilities. Without the teachers, we can turn out the lights and
go home. In October 2000, The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
published a report entitled Conditions for Special Education Teaching:
CEC Commission Technical Report. The informants represented a variety
of stakeholders. The conclusions are enlightening. Special education
teachers leaving the field combined with fewer pre-service teachers
being interested in pursuing a career in special education is at crisis
level in our nation. We must respond with real answers to real
concerns. According to the CEC publication Bright Futures Technical
Report-Part 5, No barrier is so irksome to special educators as the
paperwork that keeps them from teaching. The overwhelming requirements
of paperwork were ranked as the third most important concern (out of a
list of 10 issues) coming in behind caseload and time for planning.
While special educators understand the need for the IEP, both as an
educational guide and legal document, they struggle with all the time
the process requires.
As special educators we wear many hats. We are required to be case
managers, consultants, classroom teachers, secretaries, and
disciplinarians . . .
My frustration is trying to be ``all things to all people''. I am
supposed to keep perfect paperwork, collaborate with regular educator
teachers, train and grade peer tutors, keep in constant contact with
parents, and still find time to teach my students! The most effective
way for Congress to improve the quality of special education is to
increase and protect the time special education teachers have for
collaboration with regular educators and for direct instruction with
children. This would go a long way toward insuring an adequate number
of special educators in the future. Necessary components of the
solution include:
Reduce the excessive paperwork burden that materially detracts from
available planning and instructional time.
Provide full funding to employ a sufficient number of appropriately
trained special educators and to purchase specialized materials and
equipment without diminishing the quality of education for all
children.
Revise due process procedures to include regulations (mandatory
disclosure of issues, mediation, time limits and incentives for
advocacy agencies to resolve issues) and protections (frivolous
lawsuits, harassment, etc.) that promote trusting, positive, long-
lasting relationships with parents and prevent catastrophic drain of
finite educational resources.
Designate additional social service agencies, such as the
Department of Mental Health, as zero reject agencies to act in
partnership with public schools on behalf of children.
Continue to fund effective existing programs and encourage the
creation of additional programs for children in poverty, or who are
otherwise at-risk of failure in school, to prevent the over-
identification of students with disabilities. Effective existing
programs would include, but not be limited to, Head Start, Parents as
First Teachers, First Steps, Title 1, and programs for migrant workers
and homeless children.
Prepared Statement of the National Association of School Nurses
The National Association of School Nurses, or NASN, is the
professional nursing organization of over 11,000 nurses throughout the
United States. NASN is dedicated to improving the health and
educational success of children and youth in our nation. NASN supports
the health and safety of children in schools throughout the United
States. We submit this statement regarding reauthorization of IDEA.
There are currently 47,000 school nurses throughout the United
States. School nurses are hired primarily through public Boards of
Education. School nurses provide a variety of health care services to
children in school, including the increasing number of children with
disabilities who are in our schools today. NASN would like to make four
recommendations regarding the reauthorization of IDEA:
1) The professional school nurse should be added, in name, to the
related services section and included as part of the IEP;
2) Full funding of IDEA;
3) Early intervention and preschool services must be available to
all eligible children; and
4) School nurse to student ratios must be reduced.
IDEA guarantees that eligible children with disabilities have the
right to receive a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive setting. For an increasing number of children with
disabilities, access to education is only achieved through the
provision of necessary and frequent complex health services such as the
administration of intravenous medications, nebulizer treatments,
catherterization, tracheotomy care, gastrostomy care tube feeding, etc.
These are complex procedures and cannot be safely or legally done by
other personnel. Only qualified school nurses should perform these
procedures.
NASN believes that children with disabilities and severe medical
problems have the right to receive these specialized health services
required to assure their inclusion and safety in the school environment
by a nurse and not by other personnel. The recent Supreme Court
decision of Garret F reiterates the school's responsibility to provide
services for these children but has not adequately funded the process
to do this. Although in this case the child required multiple services,
the presence of a school nurse would allow a child with asthma to
safely participate in all school activities, including a PE program.
Recent newspaper headlines have shown the danger in allowing other
individuals to give medications and perform special procedures for
children with medical problems or disabilities. The rate of treatment
errors rises when non-nursing staff delivers medications. The results
of using non-nursing staff can have dangerous and life threatening
consequences. NASN believes that school nurses are a crucial component
in the successful mainstreaming of children with disabilities in our
schools.
1) NASN recommends that the professional school nurse be added to
the related services section of IDEA and that the school nurse be
included as part of the multidisciplinary team. Related services
personnel, which school nurses would be defined under, are important
members of the Individualized Education Program or IEP team. NASN
believes that school nurses must be specifically included, in name--
school nurse, under ``related services personnel'' and that a school
nurse be part of the team that confers and constructs the IEP. This
term should not be open for interpretation. It should clearly
articulate the child's right to a school nurse.
In many jurisdictions, school nurses are not included in the IEP
team. In some cases, the school nurse is not invited to attend. The law
supports this exclusion by clearly stating the school district or
parents may request the presence of related services personnel. In all
too many cases, there is no school nurse at the school to invite.
Individuals without requisite training and supervision put children
with disabilities at even greater risk than their current status.
The school nurse is a crucial member of the multidisciplinary team
that develops the IEP. The school nurse brings nursing expertise which
is critical in determining the health services necessary for successful
inclusion. Because children with chronic and special health care needs
have unique health considerations, the individual assessment, planning,
intervention and placement decisions in an IEP are critical in order
for them to attend school and fully participate in educational
activities, programs and learn. School nurses provide direct services
from initial assessment and diagnosis to treatment and maintenance of
health care for children who experience problems that interfere with
their learning. The IEP process promotes individualizing educational
approaches to the individual child. School nurses are experts in
assisting teachers and parents in identifying problems, utilizing
community resources and removing health barriers to learning within the
community of education. School nurses are the link to the medical
community. They speak the language of ``education-ese'' and ``medical-
ese''. School nurses have an integral role in developing an IEP and in
providing health care services under IDEA to students with disabilities
and should be included as such.
2) NASN believes that IDEA should be fully funded. Congress enacted
IDEA to ensure that states would educate all students with
disabilities. Part B of IDEA authorized the federal government to pay
up to 40% of the cost of educating students with disabilities. Congress
has only funded up to 15% of the cost of educating students with
disabilities. Funding for the infants and toddlers program has not even
kept pace with inflation. Full funding would allow for the provision of
needed services. Full funding should not weaken eligibility.
3) Early intervention and preschool services must he available to
all eligible children.
Programs to allow states to create family-centered systems of
services are necessary to ensure that infants, toddlers and
preschoolers are prepared for school. The earlier a health or learning
disability is found, the better the outcome will be for the child.
States must have the ability to screen and identify children in order
for this to occur. Increasing the number of school nurses that are
present in preschool areas can provide valuable assistance to assure
that disabilities are identified and that an appropriate plan is
created for these children.
4) School nurse to student ratios must be reduced or learning will
be further compromised.
NASN supports the 2010 objective for a school nurse ratio to
students of 1:750. Some schools have caseloads of 1:14,000. It is not
uncommon for a school nurse to be responsible for an entire county or
district. Case loads of 1:3000 or 1:4000 are not uncommon. Given that a
school nurse may be caring for a large number of children with
disabilities that require intensive medical procedures, care and
education will be compromised with case loads this high. High dropout
rates among students with disabilities have been correlated with the
shortage of qualified personnel. Part D personnel preparation have been
cut or level-funded over the last five fiscal years and should be
increased. Personnel preparation grants are crucial to ensuring an
adequate supply of qualified personnel, such as school nurses.
NASN looks forward to working with Congress this year on the
reauthorization of IDEA. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Donna Martinez
This is my son, Andres Martinez, but his family and friends call
him Andy. Andy is 16 years old and a freshman in Fairfax County Public
Schools, Centreville High School in northern Virginia. He is attending
his neighborhood school. Due to IDEA, the law that is in debate today,
Andy has had the opportunity and the right to be with his neighbors and
friends to go to the same school for his entire school career. He has
had access and instruction in the same curriculum that his friends have
had. Because of that, Andy is able to read, do algebraic equations,
study world history, and be expected to know more than the McDonald's
or Mall Curriculum.
Were it not for Early Intervention, Andy would have languished at
home and I would never have developed the partnering skills I now have
for being an active and integral element in the development of Andy's
school program. Early Intervention assured us that he would develop
more rapidly and be able to match the milestones that others his age
were reaching naturally and without intense interventions. As a result
of Early Interventions Andy was ready to join up with his Kindergarten
friends and learn side by side with them, developing the relationships
that mold an individual's character and personality.
IDEA has been the cause of Andy's successes in many other ways. We
have moved school to school, district to district, state to state.
Andy's IEP as defined by IDEA has been the cornerstone of his success.
It insured that each transition to a new school would be a seamless
one. And in those schools where it would appear the seams just might
unravel as the director of Special Education would claim, ``But we
don't do that here,'' they soon discovered that indeed they do and do
it well after some direction and practice as laid out in my son's IEP.
We have never had to invoke our Due Process rights, but knowing that
they were always an option, promoted, I feel a more proactive solution
to the differences of opinions that on occasion threatened the
successful completion of his IEP and school year.
IDEA has allowed not only Andy to be successful, but also the staff
of professionals who support him. IDEA's authorization for Independent
Education Evaluations for families who disagree with the school
evaluations provided us with an in-depth and accurate information from
which to develop a tremendous document that will direct Andy's
education for the ensuing year. As a result of the accommodations for
not only Andy, but the staff for further training and consultation in
the area of Inclusion and adaptation, the staff is gaining valuable
insight and instruction that will lead them to providing a curriculum
that is based on best practices. This continued support for the people
that direct my son's education has lead to exciting paradigm shifts and
effected significant changes within the systems and structures of the
school itself.
But now we face the dilemma of how to develop and sustain a
responsive curriculum and education based upon this wonderful document.
So that no child, including Andy, not be left behind, IDEA must be
fully funded, as directed when initially designed. Without the full
funding of IDEA we are burdened continuously with the concern that Andy
has the staff supports, adaptations and assistive technology that
allows him continued access to the general education curriculum,
including and through his high school and early college years. Special
Education Directors and Superintendents have become gatekeepers for the
insufficient Rinds that effect Andy's access to the curriculum. New
funding formulas must be put in place that will allow the flow of
funding to be appropriated as was promised in a speedy and direct
fashion.
Continued support in the area of training, not only for the direct
teaching staff, but for the administrative staff as well is crucial.
Administrators must realize that All means All. Their students with
disabilities need to be counted and they need to be held accountable.
Students must be counted in the classrooms, they must be counted for
access to the books and materials from which to learn, and they must be
accurately counted to show their successes.
I urge you and all on the committees and the floors of Congress to
reauthorize IDEA and assure that Andy will indeed have the education
that is his civil right.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]