[Senate Hearing 107-672]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-672
ACCOUNTABILITY AND IDEA: WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN THE BUS DOESN'T COME ANYMORE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT, FOCUSING ON ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
AND A COLLABORATION BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, LOCAL
SCHOOLS, AND SCHOOL FACULTIES FOR TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
__________
JUNE 6, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-206 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
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Thursday June 6, 2002
Page
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 1
Brown, Marisa C., Parent, Vienna, VA............................. 5
Gordon, David W., Superintendent, Elk Grove Unified School
District, Elk Grove, CA........................................ 10
Shaw, Stan, Ed.D., Professor and Coordinator, Special Education
Program, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT................. 12
Mayerson, Arlene, Directing Attorney, Disability Rights Education
Defense Fund, Inc., Berkeley, CA............................... 17
Gloeckler, Lawrence C., Deputy Commissioner, Vocational and
Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID),
New York State Education Department, Albany, NY................ 23
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Vernon, Nancy, prepared statement............................ 52
ACCOUNTABILITY AND IDEA: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE BUS DOESN'T COME
ANYMORE?
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Kennedy
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Jeffords, Reed, and
Clinton.
Opening Statement of Senator Kennedy
The Chairman. We will come to order.
I understand we have some very special guests here. They
just happen to be from Massachusetts and from Salem State. Do
they want to just stand up so I can see you all? We are
grateful and hope you will enjoy the hearing.
Today's hearing is on the steps that we must take to bring
the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
to every disabled child in America. With the enactment of the
Education for the Handicapped Act in 1975 and the later passage
of IDEA, we opened the schoolhouse doors to millions of
students with disabilities. We said it is the law of the land
that children with disabilities must have the opportunity to
learn alongside their non-disabled peers and ultimately live
independent and productive lives.
Before that time, more than a million children with
disabilities received no educational services at all, and
countless other remain unaccounted for. IDEA reversed those
outdated and inappropriate policies and practices that hindered
the progress of children with disabilities.
But we still have a long way to go. Education is a civil
right for every child in America, including those with special
needs. As this committee considers the reauthorization of IDEA
this year, our work on this reauthorization bill will be based
on three important principles: accountability, quality, and
coordination.
Our hearing today will focus on the importance of an
accountable educational system that ensures that children with
disabilities receive their civil right to a free and
appropriate public education. Although children with
disabilities now have a guarantee to an education, they do not
always receive the quality of education they deserve to succeed
in school or in later life.
We must work to improve the implementation and enforcement
of this law so it focuses on educational results and is
accountable for delivering the level of academic support and
instruction that children with disabilities need to succeed. We
must work to do better to improve the academic outcomes of
children with disabilities.
An accountable education system must also provide the
supports and services needed for disabled students to
successfully transition from school to employment or higher
education later in life. In order to do this, we must ensure
greater high school completion, begin working with students and
their families early in their high school years to develop a
career plan, and strengthen the relationship between schools
and vocational rehabilitation programs to provide greater
opportunities for postsecondary employment and education.
The foundation of a strong and accountable educational
system for disabled students also relies on ensuring highly
qualified and well-trained personnel to support the learning of
children and provide good instructions. We are facing the
familiar challenges of teacher recruitment, training, and
retention in reaching our goal of ensuring a highly qualified
teacher for all students with disabilities.
The special education teaching force has doubled in two
decades thanks to Federal assistance provided through IDEA.
However, too many of our general education teachers still lack
the training necessary to serve students with disabilities, and
too many school districts across the country are in need of
special education teachers. In fact, by the year 2005, we will
face a shortage of 200,000 special education teachers--200,000
special education teachers. Enormously important.
Most importantly, schools need the financial resources to
do their job. It is time for the Federal Government to be
accountable, meet the goal to fully fund IDEA at the 40 percent
promise. It has been over 25 years since that promise was made.
It is high time to fulfill it. Fully funding IDEA moves us
closer to ensuring the success of every child by supporting the
goal of public education to give all children the opportunity
to pursue their dream.
We are fortunate today to have knowledgeable witnesses from
across the country to offer their insights on how to improve
our special education system. We are looking forward to hearing
from the witnesses.
I would ask, Senator Reed, if you wanted to say a brief
word?
Senator Reed. No, Mr. Chairman. I just want to commend you
on this hearing. It is important, and I am looking forward to
hearing the witnesses.
Thank you.
The Chairman. We are joined by Senator Jeffords, who was
the real architect of the original legislation in the House of
Representatives, and who has been long committed and has
demonstrated his commitment on this by exercising extraordinary
moral courage in recent times, and at other times. Would you
like to say a word?
Senator Jeffords. I appreciate the remarks very much and am
looking forward to the testimony. I am so anxious to hear the
testimony that I will not have any opening statement.
The Chairman. Fine. Good.
Prepared Statement of Senator Gregg
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing today,
which will include very important discussions about the issues
of accountability and transition services in the IDEA law. It
is my desire that our Federal policies on special education
hold schools accountable for ensuring that disabled students
receive the education and services they need to succeed and
become educated and productive citizens when they leave high
school.
Earlier this year, we heard from the National Council on
Disability that every State and the District of Columbia is out
of compliance with IDEA requirements. This led Assistant
Secretary Pasternack, testifying before this Committee, to ask
whether ``it is possible that we have constructed a statute and
regulations where no State can be in compliance.'' Do the
statute and regulations make it impossible for any State to be
in full compliance?
I seriously doubt that States and school districts are
failing to comply with all of the 1997 provisions because they
do not want to assist disabled students. Rather, the lack of
full compliance is most likely the result of a cumbersome,
complicated, procedural driven statute and regulations.
I would also ask another question: When we talk about
compliance and accountability with IDEA, what are we holding
schools accountable for? Are we measuring the right things?
Assistant Secretary Pasternack told us that he believes we
are too focused on process and not enough on student progress.
In addition, we heard testimony from a special education
director who explained that the process and the paperwork
requirements of IDEA actually impair the ability of districts
and teachers to deliver the best educational services.
This is disturbing to me. The emphasis on paperwork and
process has taken the focus away from improving the educational
outcomes of disabled students. Educators don't merely complain
about the emphasis on process, they assert that the
overemphasis on process has hampered or taken away from
focusing on and improving academic achievement of students with
disabilities.
So it appears that IDEA holds States and districts
accountable for complying with process, but not for improving
student outcomes.
Let me give you a tragic example of this. A recent article
in Education Week describes the woes of the Baltimore public
school system's special education services. According to the
article, despite massive efforts and prolonged U.S. District
Court supervision since the mid-1980s, Baltimore's special
education program ``is still squandering too much time and
money on paperwork and bureaucracy at the expense of better
instruction.'' While the Baltimore school system has ``met or
exceeded the mandates of the IDEA and court-imposed procedural
dictates,'' its special education students ``aren't coming
close to achieving their academic potential.''
We need to review carefully the current IDEA law and find
ways to change this misplaced emphasis on form, and change the
focus to substance: measuring student improvement. As one of
our witnesses, Mr. Gloeckler, says in his written testimony,
``the primary concern of families and schools should be the
achievement of successful outcomes by students.'' I couldn't
agree more.
It is also important that our Federal special education law
generates high expectations for our special education students.
This was a major theme in the No Child Left Behind Act, and we
should carry this theme over into the IDEA law. While special
education students obviously have challenges that have
necessitated their need for IDEA services, we have done them a
disservice by failing to have high expectations of them.
Children of nearly all abilities respond well when they know
that people believe they can achieve. The IDEA law must reflect
this principle of high expectations for all our children to
succeed.
Mr. Chairman, many school representatives, policy analysts,
and even some parents of disabled children believe that the
current accountability provisions in the IDEA law focus more on
measuring compliance with legal processes, rather than gauging
student performance and results.
While they may be well-intended, the process-oriented
aspects of IDEA do not relate to improving the performance of
students with disabilities, but are often a hindrance to
improving academic achievement. We need to reform IDEA so that
schools are judged on student progress and outcomes, rather
than on compliance with overly complex due process rules and
meaningless reporting requirements that don't lead to academic
improvement.
I thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward
to hearing their testimony.
The Chairman. So we will start in with our panel, and it is
an outstanding one.
For 15 years, Marisa Brown has been an advocate for
individuals with developmental disabilities. Her volunteer
activities and roles have included serving as Chair of the
Virginia State Special Education Advisory Committee.
Professionally, Ms. Brown is a registered nurse and research
instructor in the Department of Pediatrics at Georgetown
University Medical Center. However, Ms. Brown comes today as a
mother of three young adults, one who experiences Asperger
syndrome, a form of autism. We thank her for coming and sharing
her family's personal experience with IDEA.
David Gordon is superintendent of the Elk Grove Unified
School District in Sacramento, California. Elk Grove serves
50,000 students of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds and
is one of the fastest-growing districts in the Nation. Mr.
Gordon's experience as an educator spans 30 years. He started
his career as a teacher in South Bronx, New York. Since then he
has had various positions with the California State Department
of Education. Most recently, he was deputy superintendent of
public instruction.
Dr. Stan Shaw is a professor and coordinator of special
education program, Department of Educational Psychology at the
University of Connecticut. Dr. Shaw's work focuses on
professional development for postsecondary disability
personnel, services for college students with disabilities,
transition, disability policy and law, and teacher education.
He is also co-director of the Center on Postsecondary Education
and Disability. As co-director he works towards implementing
universal design and instruction to improve college access for
students with disabilities. He is also the coordinator of the
University of Connecticut's annual Postsecondary Learning
Disability Training Institute.
Arlene Mayerson has been the directing attorney for DREDF
since 1981. She has dedicated her career to disability rights
law. She has advised Congress on major disability rights
legislation for two decades, including Americans with
Disabilities Act and Handicapped Children's Protection Act. Ms.
Mayerson has also appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court on key
disability rights cases. In addition to her position at DREDF,
Ms. Mayerson is currently a lecturer on disability law at the
University of California, Berkeley.
Finally, Lawrence Gloeckler is the deputy commissioner of
Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with
Disabilities, New York State Education Department. In his
position, he serves as both New York State's director of
special ed. and State director of vocational rehabilitation.
Mr. Gloeckler has worked in special education at both the local
and the university level and has been president of the National
Association of State Directors of Special Education. This
organization recognized him with the Heritage Award, which
recognizes outstanding contributions to special education.
We truly have an extraordinary panel here this morning, and
we are very, very grateful to all of them, and we will ask if
they will proceed in the order that they were introduced.
Ms. Brown.
STATEMENT OF MARISA C. BROWN, PARENT, VIENNA, VA
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Senators Kennedy,
Jeffords, and Reed, thank you very much for your interest and
dedication to this very important issue.
In 1990, when my son Paul was 9 years old, I read a report
about the academic achievement of students with serious
behavioral and emotional problems. What I read was chilling. In
one study, no more than 30 percent of the students were found
functioning at or above grade level in any academic area.
Another study cited that students were reading below grade
level, with deficits becoming more extreme the older the youth.
In the same study, 55 percent of the sample of students
identified as having a behavioral or emotional disability
dropped out of school altogether as compared to 36 percent for
all other disabilities. In 1989, only 63 percent of these
students were engaged in productive activities defined as
schooling, working for pay, volunteering, or receiving job
skills training. Interestingly enough, in light of current
expectations, the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity and
Reconciliation Act of 1996, the majority of these activities
measuring post-school success would not count.
I vowed that my son would not fall victim to these
statistics. Paul was already aware that his class would
graduate from high school in the year 2000, and we made that
our personal goal. Unfortunately, when Paul turned 18, he
withdrew from school. At that point, he had our full support to
do so because we had become so frustrated in our inability to
ensure the school system's accountability for the services for
which my son had been found eligible.
There are several points I will make as it relates to
accountability based on our family's experiences: First, the
importance of academic preparation; second, the importance of
keeping kids in school; and, finally, the need to strengthen
transition planning and services.
Academic preparation: Paul's IQ scores have always
indicated that he has the ability to complete grade level work.
He was placed in four different high schools in the 4 years
that he attended secondary level schools. Two of those schools
were regular high schools where Paul received more than 50
percent of his instruction in segregated classrooms. The other
two schools were very restrictive placements in which only
students that had been found eligible as students with serious
emotional disabilities were admitted.
What should students and parents expect in terms of
academic rigor when students are placed in such settings? One
would think that the ability to provide specialized instruction
should be possible given the special nature of the setting, the
smaller class size, and a setting fairly rich in resources to
provide related services. Our experience was that the academic
program was secondary to efforts to alter Paul's disability.
Schools must be accountable for delivering the academic
information to students that they need to fulfill postsecondary
school objectives.
Keeping students in school: School systems are being given
new expectations to ensure that students meet certain
prescribed academic standards. It is more important than ever
to be sure that students are, in fact, in school and able to
benefit from academic instruction. Schools certainly need to be
able to discipline students in a reasonable manner. However, it
has been our experience that schools too often use suspension,
both in school and out of school, to discipline students. For
my child, suspension was used so often that it actually began
to reinforce the very behavior that the teachers were trying to
extinguish.
What our family has learned over the past 20 years is that
the only way to ensure maintaining a child's dignity and
availability for learning is to implement positive approaches.
For students to be found eligible for special education
services, it must be demonstrated that their needs go beyond
the needs of typically developing children. So children and
youth with disabilities very often are struggling with nervous
systems that render them impulsive, anxious, unable to
interpret subtle and not to subtle social cues, and unable to
process language efficiently and accurately.
A great deal has been studied and written about positive
behavior support strategies. The IDEA reauthorization of 1997
wisely included language that asserted protections for children
with significant behavioral disruptions to benefit from
functional behavioral assessments. However, there needs to be
accountability that these tools are used in a timely manner and
that they are used to support a student to benefit from
instruction that has been individually designed to meet their
learning needs.
Transition planning: I have a lot of information at my
disposal about the transition to adult life because of my
professional work and because I am a naturally inquisitive
person. We were able to access vocational assessment and job
coaches for Paul because I knew to ask and push. When Paul made
his first visit to the Department of Rehabilitation Services,
we were told that students from his school rarely were ever
referred, although at the time he was in a school that solely
served students with serious emotional problems.
Parents and students need to be exposed to good information
about transition planning, and States need to be given
incentives to provide at least a modicum of services to young
adults who have been labeled with a disability all of their
lives but now are placed on waiting lists for services that do
not exist. I view the fact that Paul had to withdraw from high
school and pursue a GED as the biggest failure in his
transition plan. Paul had to forego the opportunity of
classroom instruction and the opportunity to fulfill his
personal goal of graduating in the class of 2000. My family is
well resourced emotionally and educationally. We have worked
diligently during the time that Paul was a student to provide
him additional resources to enrich his experiences. I feel that
we have fulfilled our responsibilities. Where is the
accountability that services agreed upon in students' IEPs will
be carried out in a good-faith effort?
In summary, I don't know that people's attitudes can be
legislated. But make no mistake: attitudes are influenced by
the strength of legislation and by the protections that the
legislation provides. It has only been 25 years that children
with disabilities have been afforded the civil rights
protection of a free and appropriate public education. While
that is a brief period in our history, that equals more than
two full generations of students passing through our public
schools. Please ensure that the legislation is tough and clear
and that appropriate resources are allocated so that truly no
child will be left behind.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marisa C. Brown
In 1990, when my son Paul was 9 years old, I read a report entitled
``At the Schoolhouse Door: An Examination of Programs and Policies for
Children with Behavioral and Emotional Problems'' by Jane Knitzer. What
I read about the academic achievement of students with serious
behavioral and emotional problems was chilling:
A study of 249 BED students, aged 9-17 found that no more than 30%
were functioning at or above grade level in any academic area, with
deficits more severe the older the students (Kauffman et al., 1987).
Another study of over 700 students, also between 9-17 found
remarkable parallel data. Seventy-three percent of the sample were
reading below grade level, again, with deficits more extreme among the
older youth (Friedman et al., 1988).
A study focused on high school students with identified behavioral
and emotional problems found that 45 percent had failed at least one
course; 18 percent had failed six or more courses (compared with 8
percent of learning disabled youth). Just over one-third were able to
pass the entire minimum competency tests, compared with close to half
of the learning disabled students. Twenty-three percent failed it
completely.
This report went on to state that in 1989, 55 percent of the sample
of students identified as having a behavior or emotional disability
dropped out of school all together as compared to 36 percent for all
other disabilities. Additional data reported on what happened to
students once they exited school was equally disturbing. In 1989, only
63 percent of these students were engaged in productive activities
including postsecondary schooling, working for pay, volunteering or
receiving job skills training. Interestingly enough, in light of
current expectations of the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity
and Reconciliation Act of 1996, the majority of these activities
measuring post-school success would not count!
I vowed that my son would not fall victim to these statistics. Paul
was already aware that his class would graduate from high school in the
year 2000, and we made that our goal. Unfortunately, when Paul turned
18, he withdrew from school. At that point, he had our full support to
do so because we had become so frustrated in our inability to ensure
the school system's accountability for the services for which my son
was found eligible.
Paul's experience as a student who received services under the
eligibility of serious emotional disability has some unique aspects.
However, there are several points I will make as it relates to
accountability based on our experiences. First, the importance of
academic preparation, second, the importance of keeping kids in school,
and finally, the need to strengthen transition planning and services.
Academic preparation: Paul's IQ scores have always indicated that
he has the ability to complete grade level work. He has learned to read
fairly efficiently, can read for pleasure, and was able to pass a
driver's education course and the State-administered written test. He
can make change, understand the basic principles of personal banking,
and complete simple Algebra. In high school, Paul passed Algebra I, but
left school while taking Geometry. During the academic year that he was
studying Geometry, he was moved from a general education classroom
where he received special education services to a self-contained class
with two other students. The rationale for this move was that Paul
needed more support because he was falling behind in the general
education classroom. I was stunned to find out from Paul one week
following this move that his teacher was ``waiting for the other two
students to catch up to where Paul was.'' When I spoke to the teacher,
he confirmed this information. I asked if the other two students were
on schedule to take the State Department of Education assessment,
because I did not think that Paul could afford to review information if
he needed to progress in his learning. Certainly with three students
and a certified teacher, Paul should have been able to receive whatever
specially designed instruction he needed in the general education
curriculum. Where was the accountability here?
Paul was placed in four different high schools in the 4 years that
he attended secondary level schools. Two of those schools were regular
high schools, where Paul received more than 50 percent of his
instruction in segregated classrooms. The other two schools were very
restrictive placements in which only students that had been found
eligible as students with serious emotional disabilities were admitted.
What should students and parents expect in terms of academic rigor when
students are placed in such settings? One would think that the ability
to provide specialized instruction should be possible given the special
nature of the setting, the smaller class size and a setting fairly rich
in resources to provide related services. Our experience was that the
academic program was secondary to efforts to alter the student's
disability.
Schools must be accountable for delivering the academic information
to students that they need to fulfill post-secondary school objectives.
Keeping students in school: School systems are being given new
expectations to ensure that students meet certain prescribed academic
standards. It is more important than ever to be sure that students are,
in fact, in school and able to benefit from academic instruction.
Schools certainly need to be able to discipline students in a
reasonable manner. Rules are essential to an orderly and productive
society, of which I want my child to be a part. However, it has been
our experience that schools too often use suspension, both in school
and out of school, to discipline students. Again, I want to emphasize,
that while this is necessary in some cases, it is too frequently used
in the absence of more effective strategies, and to simply get rid of
the problem, rather than solving its root cause. For my child,
suspension was used so often, that it actually began to reinforce the
very behavior that the teachers were trying to extinguish. Suspension
became a way for Paul to escape a situation that was very difficult for
him, and he quickly learned how to ensure swift suspensions, and ones
that would last more than one day!
Efforts that deal effectively with behaviors that get in the way of
learning need to be rooted in practices that are known to be
successful. My husband and I have had to learn strategies that not only
teach Paul, but that can be implemented within some broad definition of
``typical'' family life. We have not had the luxury of calling someone
to come and take Paul away from the home environment over the weekend
as I was so frequently called to take Paul home from school, or to keep
him home in the first place!
What we have learned over the past 20 years is that the only way to
ensure maintaining a child's dignity and availability for learning is
to implement positive approaches. Kids will make mistakes, we all do.
In fact, just as their adult counterparts do, kids even deliberately do
certain things to annoy people and gain attention. But more
importantly, we also know that for students to be found eligible for
special education services, they need to demonstrate that their needs
go beyond the needs of typically developing children. So, children and
youth with disabilities very often are struggling with nervous systems
that render them impulsive, anxious, unable to interpret subtle and
not-so-subtle social cues, and unable to process language efficiently
and accurately. A great deal has been studied and written about
positive behavior support strategies. The IDEA reauthorization of 1997
wisely included language that asserted protections for children with
significant behavioral disruptions to benefit from functional
behavioral assessments. However, there needs to be accountability that
these tools are used in a timely manner, and that they are used to
support a student to benefit from instruction that has been
individually designed to meet their learning needs.
Transition planning and services: Paul is currently making a
successful transition to adult life. He has a driver's license, makes
monthly payments on a car, is employed and attends classes at Northern
Virginia Community College. He is aware of his disability and how it
impacts his life, and can explain it to people very accurately. He has
an ever-widening circle of friends and many people in our community
know him. This transition has also made us aware of the adjustments in
expectations that we have had to make. Paul had initially intended to
major in the veterinary technician program at the community college.
His vocational assessment that was completed as part of the transition
plan on his IEP indicated that this was a realistic expectation. He had
passed his math and science classes in high school and the GED.
However, once he was attending classes at the community college, we
became aware that Paul lacked some fundamental math and science skills
to be successful. Even with individual tutoring that we provided for
Paul, he needed to re-think his career plans.
Paul is currently earning minimum wage at a movie theater. He loves
to work, enjoys his co-workers, and takes advantages of all of the
perquisites such as free movie passes. But Paul is still under-employed
for his ability, and will not be able to live independently earning
only the minimum wage. Although Paul has held various jobs since he was
16 years old, it is still very difficult to discern if, when and how he
should disclose the nature of his disability to potential employers. He
is currently seeking services through the Virginia Department of
Rehabilitation Services to assist him with additional vocational
assessment and job supports.
I have a lot of information at my disposal about the transition to
adult life because of my professional work and because I am a naturally
inquisitive person. We were able to access vocational assessment and
job coaches during Paul's high school years because I knew to ask and
push. When Paul made his first visit to the Department of
Rehabilitation Services office as a high school student, he was
attending a school that only served students with disabilities. One
would think that these students would be in particular need of good
transition planning. The vocational counselor remarked to me that they
hardly ever got the opportunity to counsel students from that school,
because no one thought to refer them!
Parents and students need to be exposed to good information about
transition planning. States need to be given incentives to provide at
least a modicum of services to young adults who have been labeled with
a disability all of their lives, but now are placed on waiting lists
for services that do not exist.
I view the fact that Paul had to withdraw from high school and
pursue a GED as the biggest failure in his transition plan. Paul had to
forgo the opportunity of classroom instruction and the opportunity to
fulfill his personal goal of graduating in the class of 2000. My family
is well resourced emotionally and educationally, and my husband and I
are privileged to be well compensated for the work that we do. If our
son had to drop out of school, is it any wonder that we are leaving so
many children behind? My husband and I have worked diligently over the
period of time that Paul attended school to be sure that he came to
school ready to learn. We provided him with a stable family and
additional resources such as tutoring, music lessons, and other
organized activities to enrich his experiences. I feel that we have
fulfilled our responsibilities. Where is the accountability that
services agreed upon in students' IEPs will be carried out in a good
faith effort?
I don't know that people's attitudes can be legislated. But make no
mistake; attitudes are influenced by the strength of legislation, and
by the protections that the legislation provides. It has only been 25
years that children with disabilities have been afforded the civil
rights protection of a free and appropriate education. While that is a
brief period in history, that equals more than two full generations of
students passing through our public schools. Please ensure that the
legislation is tough and clear, and that appropriate resources are
allocated so that truly, no child will be left behind.
Recommendations:
1. Require adequate training in positive behavioral supports at the
pre-service level for all education majors.
2. Just as clear guidelines are followed for the eligibility of
students to receive special education services, clear guidelines must
be developed and adhered to that ensure that students are able to gain
the academic, vocational and independent living skills they need to
progress through secondary school.
3. Language needs to be inserted to ensure that functional
behavioral assessments and positive behavioral support plans are
addressed for all students as identified in their present level of
performance, not only required once students have exhibited a behavior
that results in suspension or expulsion.
4. Adolescents and their families must be actively engaged in
transition planning.
5. States need to be given incentives to provide adequate services
and supports that can make the transition to adult life a viable
reality.
6. Legislative and regulatory language needs to be stronger in
support of meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gordon.
STATEMENT OF DAVID W. GORDON, SUPERINTENDENT, ELK GROVE UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ELK GROVE, CA
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for
inviting me to appear today to address an issue that is
critical to my school district and our Nation--accountability
in special education.
My district serves 50,000 students in the southern third of
Sacramento County, California. Our student population is
wonderfully diverse--reflective of all of California and of the
emerging America. We have 37 percent white students and 63
percent minority students. Our students speak more than 80
languages and dialects.
We have worked hard over the past 10 years to improve our
special education program and be sure we are focusing our
dollars on students who need services the most. For example, 10
years ago, 16 percent of our student population was enrolled in
special education. Many of these children were not really
learning disabled. They simply had not been taught to read. So
we instituted an aggressive early intervention program, begun
not in grades 3, 4, and 5 where services previously began, but
in grades kindergarten, 1, and 2 where we could catch learning
problems early.
As a result, our special education population has dropped
from the 16 percent of 10 years ago to just under 9 percent
today--not because we ``kicked children out'' of the program,
but because we prevented the need for them to be referred in
the first place. And the students who were not referred and
remained in the regular program are today performing very well
compared to their peers.
This is but one example--when we talk about
accountability--of an indicator the current compliance
monitoring system----
The Chairman. Excuse me. Which children are responding very
well in comparison to peers? The 9 percent now or the others
that were moved?
Mr. Gordon. The others that were not needed to be put in
the program in the first place.
The Chairman. I see. Okay.
Mr. Gordon. This is but one example--when we talk about
accountability--of an indicator the current compliance
monitoring system doesn't look for or even acknowledge. The sad
fact is that our current monitoring system has a voracious
appetite for procedural minutiae and little or no interest in
the real bottom line--whether or not students are achieving or
accomplishing more as a result of the programs we offer.
Consider the results of the study conducted by the Abell
Foundation in Baltimore City. It found that the district was
doing quite well in complying with procedural requirements. The
district even had a judicial consent decree that added even
more procedural requirements. But the performance of students
in the district was dismal and not improving. And, worse, the
focus of staff efforts was not on sharpening instruction and
assessment, but on generating further compliance reviews and
audits. To quote the study's summary: ``. . . the time and
money currently spent on unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy
are desperately needed to improve academic outcomes. The
excessive focus on compliance diverts attention from
instruction, impedes the essential integration of Special
Education and General Education, saps morale and makes it
harder to recruit and retain Special Education teachers.''
So what is the answer? First, let's dramatically scale back
useless and redundant compliance reviews and paperwork to allow
more time to focus on instruction.
Second, let's not be afraid to set high standards for our
special education students. The No Child Left Behind Act
started the process by requiring reporting of student
performance data on children with disabilities.
Why shouldn't we expect more of all our children--even
those with severe disabilities--and routinely measure their
performance--just as we do for general education students?
Third, let's hold me and my colleagues and States and
districts throughout the Nation accountable for results by
instituting systematic evaluation and reporting systems to let
parents and the public know what outcomes we are achieving for
students in special education.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of David W. Gordon
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to appear today to address an issue that is critical to my school
district and our Nation--accountability in special education.
My district serves 50,000 students in the southern third of
Sacramento County, California. Our student population is wonderfully
diverse--reflective of all of California and of the emerging America--
37 percent white and 63 percent minority. The students speak more than
80 languages and dialects.
We have worked hard over the past 10 years to improve our special
education program and be sure we are focusing our dollars on students
who need services the most. For example, 10 years ago, 16 percent of
our total student population was enrolled in special education. Many of
these children were not really learning-disabled. They simply had not
been taught to read. So we instituted an aggressive early intervention
program, begun not in grades 3, 4, and 5 where services previously
began, but in grades K, 1, and 2 where we could catch learning problems
early.
As a result, our special education population has dropped from the
16 percent of 10 years ago to just under 9 percent--not because we
``kicked children out'' of the program, but because we prevented the
need for them to be referred in the first place. And the students who
were not referred and remained in the regular program are performing
very well compared to their peers.
This is but one example--when we talk about accountability--of an
indicator the current compliance monitoring system doesn't look for or
even acknowledge. The sad fact is that our current monitoring system
has a voracious appetite for procedural minutiae and little or no
interest in the real bottom line--whether or not students are achieving
or accomplishing more as a result of the programs we offer.
Consider the results of the study conducted by the Abell Foundation
in Baltimore City. It found that the district was doing quite well in
complying with procedural requirements. The district even had a
judicial consent decree that added even more procedural requirements.
But the performance of students in the district was dismal, and not
improving. And worse, the focus of staff efforts was not on sharpening
instruction and assessment, but on generating further compliance
reviews and audits. To quote the study's summary: ``. . . the time and
money currently spent on unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy are
desperately needed to improve academic outcomes. The excessive focus on
compliance diverts attention from instruction, impedes the essential
integration of Special Education and General Education, saps morale and
makes it harder to recruit and retain Special Education teachers.''
So, what's the answer? First, let's dramatically scale back useless
and redundant compliance reviews and paperwork to allow time to focus
on instruction. Second, let's not be afraid to set high standards for
our special education students. The ``No Child Left Behind'' Act
started the process by requiring reporting of student performance data
on children with disabilities.
Why shouldn't we expect more of all our children--even those with
severe disabilities--and routinely measure their performance--as we
already do for general education students?
Third, let's hold me and my colleagues in States and districts
throughout the Nation accountable for results by instituting systematic
evaluation and reporting systems to let parents and the public know
what outcomes we are achieving for students in special education.
The Chairman. Very good. Senator Dodd, do you want to
introduce Mr. Shaw?
Senator Dodd. Dr. Shaw, welcome. We are very pleased to
have you with us. You have a very distinguished record and
history at the University of Connecticut, and I am particularly
interested in hearing your comments about teacher development
and your long-term work to develop curricula as well as field
experiences to enhance teachers' abilities. The University of
Connecticut is justly proud of the work that you have done, as
we all are. So it is an honor to have you here this morning to
talk about these issues.
STATEMENT OF STAN SHAW, ED.D., PROFESSOR AND COORDINATOR,
SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, STORRS,
CT
Mr. Shaw. Thank you, Senator Dodd, Chairman Kennedy,
members, for this opportunity to talk with you about
reauthorizing IDEA. I would like to note that I am a member of
the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, which is
an organization of doctoral programs in special education from
around the country. Later I would like to submit these two
policy papers for your information.
I have been privileged to serve students with disabilities
for more than 35 years. I can still vividly recall when
students were not guaranteed access to education. If they were
permitted to be in school, it was typically in segregated
settings where they were diagnosed and placed without parental
consent. My message is straightforward. Congress has made
monumental contributions to individuals with disabilities by
promulgating IDEA. At this point, IDEA needs very little
revision in its mandates, but significant upgrading of
personnel who are critical to its effective implementation.
IDEA has succeeded in assuring access for students with
disabilities. We now need skilled personnel to provide
effective instruction to assure positive outcomes.
It is no exaggeration to state that there is a severe,
chronic shortage of qualified personnel to serve students with
disabilities. Ninety-eight percent of the school districts in
the Nation report special education teacher shortages. Ten
percent of all special educators lack appropriate
certification, resulting in approximately 618,000 students not
served by qualified personnel.
In addition, our capacity to prepare teachers has been
undermined by a shortage of special education teacher
educators. The United States will need, as Chairman Kennedy
said, over 200,000 new special educators by 2005. Thirty
percent of special education faculty searches, however, do not
get filled each year, often resulting in lost positions. If
every college and university faculty position in special
education were filled, about 3,000 more special education
teachers could be prepared each year, serving 48,000 more
students.
Afterward, I would like to submit a Department of
Education-funded report regarding faculty shortages. Research
clearly links these data on unqualified and unprepared teachers
with poor student outcomes. On the other hand, special
educators who rated their pre-service training very good
consider themselves more successful than others in providing
services and found their workload more manageable.
More than a decade ago, the University of Connecticut
changed to a 5-year teacher preparation program requiring
bachelor's and master's degrees and new expectations, including
a subject area major, high admission standards, and extensive
field experiences. The outcomes are dramatic. We have
maintained a 98 percent employment record compared to a
national average of about 60 percent. More than 50 percent
choose to take positions in challenging inner-city schools, and
90 percent are still in their classrooms 5 years after
graduating compared to national figures of about 60 percent.
We have made a commitment to collaborate with local schools
that have agreed to work with our students and faculty. The
expectation is that these professional development schools will
result in simultaneous renewal, an equal partnership in which
public school teachers and teacher education students and
college faculty are transformed and enhanced. We have data
indicating that this collaborative relationship is a unique and
mutually productive vehicle for staff development and effective
preparation of teachers.
An effective teacher education program that prepares
personnel who can fully implement IDEA should include the
following: integrated preparation of general and special
education personnel; ongoing field experiences combined with
reflective seminars; intensive internships which enhance
professionalism and develop leadership skills; collaborative
relationships between institutions of higher education and
local schools, fostering simultaneous renewal; and a focus on
reflection, self-determination, and acceptance of diversity.
Such a program is costly in terms of personnel resources.
Few colleges are able to implement this type of program without
Federal support. In fact, our renewed program was created with
the support of Part D training grants. Federal support for
personnel preparation is critical.
My recommendations: focus reauthorization of IDEA on
enhancing personnel preparation so that we have professionals
who are trained to effectively implement IDEA and foster
productive outcomes for students with disabilities; provide
resources for States and institutions of higher education to
raise standards and create incentives for attracting
individuals to personnel preparation programs; and, finally,
index Part D funding to Part B so that it will be 10 percent of
Part B. This funding would be provided to institutions of
higher education to address faculty shortages and to foster
development and implementation of effective teacher education
programs.
Thank you.
The Chairman. We will come back to those questions in the
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stan F. Shaw
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I want to thank Chairman
Kennedy, ranking member Gregg and Senator Dodd from my home State of
Connecticut for this opportunity to talk with you about reauthorizing
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I would like to
note that I am a member of the Higher Education Consortium for Special
Education (HECSE) that is an organization of doctoral programs in
special education from around the country. I would like to submit two
HECSE policy papers for your information.
I have been privileged to serve students with disabilities for more
than 35 years. That perspective allows me to still vividly recall the
status of young people with disabilities before IDEA, previous to The
Education of All Handicapped Children Act, even prior the discussion of
Senate Bill One in the early 1970s. During those times, individuals
with disabilities were not guaranteed access to an education. If they
were permitted to be in school it was typically in segregated settings
where they often received little more than custodial care after they
were diagnosed, labeled and placed without parental consent or even
parental knowledge. My message is straightforward: Congress has made
monumental contributions to individuals with disabilities by
promulgating and amending IDEA in the last quarter century. That
progress is evident in the national conference I opened yesterday
regarding college services for students with disabilities that the
University of Connecticut is sponsoring in Burlington, VT. There are
participants from over 250 colleges that serve the 9.2 percent of
college students who are individuals with disabilities. That figure is
up from 2.6 percent when IDEA began in 1978. I believe, at this point,
IDEA needs very little revision in its mandates, but significant
upgrading of the preparation of personnel who are critical to its
effective implementation. It is evident that IDEA has succeeded in
assuring access for students with disabilities. We now need skilled
personnel to provide effective instruction to assure positive outcomes.
It is no exaggeration to state that there is a severe and chronic
shortage of qualified personnel to serve students with disabilities in
the schools: 98 percent of the Nation's school districts report special
education teacher shortages (ERIC, 2001; Fideler, Foster, & Schwartz,
2000) and shortages are most sorely felt in poor rural and urban
schools; a 1998 survey completed by the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT) shows that special education is the Nation's highest shortage
area in the 200 largest cities; the American Association for Employment
in Education (AAEE) lists specialty areas in special education among
six of the eight teaching fields with the greatest shortages (AAEE,
1999); and in data collected for the 23rd Annual Report to Congress
(USDOE, 2001), 39,140 individuals filling special education positions
(approximately 10 percent of all teachers) during the 1998-1999 school
year lacked appropriate special education certification. There is a
ratio of one special education teacher to 16 students. This indicates a
shortage of 39,140 teachers resulting in approximately 618,412 students
not served by qualified personnel. Projections for the future show the
situation worsening.
In addition, our capacity to prepare teachers has been undermined
by a shortage of college and university special education teacher
educators: the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) predicts that the
U.S. will need over 200,000 new special educators by 2005 (Kozleski,
Mainzer, Deshler, Coleman, & Rodriguez-Walling, 2000); 30 percent of
special education faculty searches do not get filled each year, often
resulting in lost positions; and if every college and university
faculty position in special education were filled, about 3,000 more
special education teachers could be trained annually to serve about
48,000 K-12 students a year (afterward, I would like to submit a
Department of Education funded report on faculty shortages).
Smith, Tyler, Pion, Sindelar and Rosenberg (2001) note that
research clearly links this data on unqualified and unprepared teachers
with poor student outcomes. On the other hand, special educators that
rated their pre-service preparation as very good considered themselves
more successful than others in providing services and found their
workload more manageable. I'd like to take the next few minutes to
discuss approaches to deal with these challenges based upon our success
at the University of Connecticut.
More than a decade ago, faculty of the University of Connecticut's
Neag School of Education realized that our preparation program for both
general and special education teachers was no longer adequate to meet
the needs of the increasingly diverse and challenging students in the
schools. We embarked on an intensive reform effort to develop a program
that would be driven by current research on effective teacher
education. We have continually collected data on program effectiveness
and used these findings to further enhance student outcomes. The
program is based on key components including a 5-year program of study,
integration of general and special education students and faculty,
fieldwork combined with a clinical seminar every semester, a full year
intensive post student teaching internship, collaboration with
Professional Development Schools, and an urban focus. Let me discuss
the following themes as they relate to exemplary teacher preparation in
special education.
a quality teacher preparation program with high standards will foster
recruitment and retention
We were initially concerned that few students would apply to the
University of Connecticut when we moved from a traditional 4-year
teacher preparation program to a 5-year program requiring completion of
both BA and MA degrees and the following new expectations: a subject
area major in English, history, science or math; minimum criteria
including a B- grade point average, SAT scores over 1,100 or passing a
standard assessment of reading, writing and math skills to apply for
admission to the teacher preparation program; participation in school-
based field experiences every semester including placement in inner
city schools; a year long 20-hour-per-week internship in schools as
part of the MA program; and completion of a research project as part of
the internship.
I am pleased to report that our concerns were unfounded. Indeed,
both the quantity and quality of applicants spiraled upward. We now
have two qualified applicants for every available seat in our teacher
preparation program. Students we admitted to the special education
program this year had a mean grade point average of 3.41 (A-/B+) in
their required liberal arts courses, average SAT scores of 1,180 and
extensive volunteer experience with individuals with disabilities.
These students are as good or better than any other cohort of
undergraduate students in any field of study at the University. Our
biggest problem is that we have had to reject numbers of qualified
students because of limited resources. The caliber of our students and
productivity of our program is documented by the fact that virtually
100 percent complete the program and we have maintained a 98 percent
employment record compared to a national average of about 60 percent.
What is even more encouraging to us is that more than 50 percent choose
to take positions in challenging inner city schools after their
successful experience in those schools while at UConn. The benefits of
our quality program are most evident from the data on retention
indicating that 90 percent of our students are still teaching after 5
years, compared to national figures of about 60 percent. This
commitment and professionalism is best described by one of our
graduating seniors who said: ``We're learning about how to really make
a difference in the world, and that's what I think I came here for when
I wanted to be a teacher . . . this is what I'm going to do with my
life. I'm so proud of myself. I can't believe that I'm going to make
this [kind of] difference.''
collaboration between institutions of higher education and local
schools provides for simultaneous renewal
We've made a commitment to collaborate with selected Professional
Development Schools (PDS), local schools that have agreed to work in
partnership with our students and faculty. This results in a critical
mass of juniors, seniors and graduate students working in schools as
observers, tutors, student teachers and ``change agents'' (e.g.,
internships that involve developing an after school program, revising
curricula, implementing new reading or math programs, supporting
classroom teachers work with students with disabilities). The
expectation is that this relationship results in what John Goodlad
refers to as ``Simultaneous Renewal'', an equal partnership in which
public school teachers and teacher education students and college
faculty are transformed and enhanced. As indicated by the following
comments from teachers in one of the poorest performing inner city
schools in the country, UConn has demonstrated that simultaneous
renewal has occurred.
I look at things that I see a student teacher doing and I wonder
whether I'm doing the same thing and it kind of puts checks and
balances on me, too. I say, I wonder if I did that? I have to watch
myself. If I catch them doing something wrong or good, I double check
on myself to see if I'm doing the same thing.
We've been focusing on what we've been getting out of the
University. While we were talking I thought the student teachers get a
lot from here. They all like it. I think a lot of them have never been
in a city school and they're kind of surprised how much real education
is going on and they're pleasantly surprised. Many of them choose to
come back here for their fifth year and it ends up being a tremendous
experience for them and makes us realize that there are actually a lot
of positive things that we do and usually we don't get that reputation.
The rest of the world hears about the negative, but when they're here
they realize how much good is happening.
It is apparent to us that this collaborative relationship among
teacher education faculty, teacher preparation students and school
faculty is a unique and mutually productive vehicle for staff
development and effective preparation of teachers.
effective personnel preparation is labor intensive calling for federal
capacity building
An effective teacher education program that prepares personnel who
can fully implement the mandates of IDEA and provide productive
outcomes for students with disabilities should include the following:
integrated preparation of general education and special education
personnel so they understand each other's needs and have worked
together from the outset of their pre-service program; on-going field
experiences (with an urban focus) combined with reflective seminars
that provide an opportunity to integrate college classroom instruction
with school realities; intensive internship which enhances
professionalism and develops leadership skills; collaborative
relationships between institutions of higher education and schools
fostering simultaneous renewal; and a focus on reflection, inquiry,
self-determination, and acceptance of diversity.
Such a program is likely to require 5 years rather than the
traditional 4 and is costly in terms of personnel resources. It is
likely that few schools will be able to implement such a program
without Ffederal support. In fact, our renewed teacher preparation
program at UConn was initially ``field tested'' with the support of
Part D training grants. Therefore, Federal support for personnel
preparation is critical.
recommendations
1. Focus reauthorization of IDEA on enhancing personnel preparation
so that we have professionals who are trained to effectively implement
the mandates of IDEA and foster productive outcomes for students with
disabilities.
2. Provide resources for States and institutions of higher
education to raise standards and create incentives for attracting
individuals to personnel preparation programs.
3. Index Part D funding to Part B so that it will be 10 percent of
Part B. This funding should be provided to institutions of higher
education to address faculty shortages and to foster development and
implementation of effective teacher education programs that feature on-
going field experiences with reflective seminars, integration of
general and special education students, intensive internships and
implementation of Professional Development Schools.
The Chairman. Ms. Mayerson, we welcome you here. We want to
thank you on behalf of the committee for all of your help and
work, particularly in the courts of law, in trying to reflect
some of the expression and clear intent of what this committee
was attempting to do with so many of these pieces of
legislation with regards to the disabled and also the debates
on the floor. You have really captured the sense in their
representations in the courts, and I know the whole community
is very grateful to you, and we are as well. We appreciate your
being here.
STATEMENT OF ARLENE MAYERSON, DIRECTING ATTORNEY, DISABILITY
RIGHTS EDUCATION DEFENSE FUND, INC., BERKELEY, CA
Ms. Mayerson. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, and thank you for
your continuing role as a champion for children with
disabilities and their families.
It is a privilege to be here today to share some of my
insights from 22 years of representation of children with
disabilities and their families and adults with disabilities. I
would like to thank all the members of this committee for
giving me the opportunity to share this experience with you.
The members of this panel have spoken about accountability
as it relates to measuring outcomes, the preparation of
teachers, and fiscal responsibility. All these things, of
course, are critically important. To parents of disabled
children, accountability represents a historic shift in the
relationship between parents and schools and the crux of the
IDEA.
Before the IDEA, parents had no way to hold their schools
accountable for when, where, or if their child would receive an
education. The IDEA was historic because it recognized the
critical role of parents in assuring that children with
disabilities receive an appropriate education. This is not only
because parents know their children most intimately, but also
because the parents have no competing fiscal and administrative
demands.
Parent involvement serves to keep the focus where it
belongs: on the child. Unfortunately, it is difficult for many
parents who avail themselves and their children of IDEA
protections because of the unequal position they too often find
themselves in.
There are many reasons for this. The schools not only have
control over the resources, but also have unequal access to the
language and information systems needed to make decisions. Many
parents are intimidated by professionals and are often greatly
outnumbered at IEP meetings. All of these inequalities are even
more acute when disputes arise.
It is very difficult for parents of children with
disabilities and their advocates to hear continually about the
burdens of school districts and how parents have school
administrators in their grip. Nothing could be further from the
experience of the thousands of parents of disabled children who
struggle day-in and day-out to provide their children with the
education they need and deserve.
The parent participation provisions of the IDEA were
designed to level the playing field. We know from our
experience that the concepts in the law are right. We need to
think about ways to make them work for all parents. We need to
assist and empower parents. Any reauthorization of the IDEA
should focus on how to help parents exercise their rights, and
any proposals which in any way dilute parent participation, due
process, or enforcement must be resoundingly rejected.
To give some personal insight to this parent participation
and the role of parents in assuring their children's rights, I
would like to introduce the panel to Rachael Holland. We have a
poster here for the audience and for all of you here on the
panel. I would like to show you a picture of Rachael Holland.
Here we have what looks like and what is a very happy, a
jubilant high school graduate, posing before graduation
ceremony in her beautiful robe, excited about graduating.
Unfortunately, the road to this point for Rachael Holland
has been fraught with barriers, anguish, stereotypes, and
heartbreak.
Rachael Holland is developmentally disabled. When she was
in kindergarten, she was placed in a special day class, away
from her peers. When her parents asked if Rachael could just
participate in recess with her peers, they were told, ``No, she
would be too disruptive. She would retard them.''
Rachael Holland's parents had to take her right to be with
her peers through every level of due process all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
After winning at every single level, the school district
appealed and appealed and appealed and appealed. Finally, she
had her right to go to school with everyone else. Finally, she
reached this day where she was going to graduate regular high
school with her peers. But, sure enough, she was told that
special ed. kids graduate in a separate ceremony. Her parents
brought in the law. That was fixed. Then just yesterday--
tomorrow is graduation--her parents got a message on their
machine saying ``We want you to make sure, you must, must
assure us that Rachael will act appropriately.'' Again, her
parents had to run down to the school the day before
graduation.
Parents need empowerment. I have three specific proposals
in my written testimony for increasing parent participation,
for effective monitoring that measures outcomes, and for the
use of the Department of Justice as an enforcement like in all
other civil rights laws. I would be very happy to entertain any
questions of those specific proposals. This is a civil rights
law, and we should never lose sight of the fact that we are
assuring the rights of Rachael Hollands of our country to the
civil rights that they deserve.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mayerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arlene Mayerson
accountability
The word conjures up auditors reviewing expenditures or tests
measuring achievement. To parents of disabled children,
``accountability'' represents a historic shift in the relationships
between parents and schools and the crux of the IDEA. Without
recounting the history of outright exclusion and segregation of
children with disabilities prior to the enactment of the Education for
Handicapped Children's Act (EHA) in 1975, suffice it to say that
neither the disabled child or his/her parents had any rights to hold
the district or the State accountable. ``Early legislation in many
States permitted the exclusion of any child whenever school
administrators decided that the child would not benefit from public
education or that a child's presence would be disruptive to others. The
egregiousness of some legislation was demonstrated in a North Carolina
statute that made it a misdemeanor for a parent of a disabled child to
insist that his/her child be educated in a regular public school.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Philip T.K. Daniel, Education for Students with Special Needs:
The Judicially Defined Role of Parents in the Process, 29 J.L. & Educ.
1, 6 (2000)(citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the seminal case leading up to the EHA (IDEA), PARC v.
Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa 1972), parents found out that
their child was deemed ``uneducable'' \2\ when the school bus failed to
show up on the first day of school. Parent participation is a key value
which needs to be reinforced and bolstered in any IDEA Reauthorization
proposals. In addition to participation in their own child's education,
parents rely on mechanisms set up to ensure that districts comply with
the law. State and Federal monitoring and enforcement is essential to
assuring accountability with IDEA mandates. These areas must also be
enhanced so that chronic non-compliance is curtailed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PARC v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279, 292 (E.D. Pa 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent participation is critical to the development of an
appropriate educational plan because the parent knows the child most
intimately and because the parent has no competing fiscal or
administrative demands. The parent therefore serves to keep the focus
on the educational needs of the child. However, the ability to
effectively utilize these procedures depends largely on the resources
of the parent involved. As commentators often acknowledge, ``many
parents lack the ability to be effective advocates for their children.
At the Individual Education Plan (IEP) level, these parents may be
unable to understand their children's placements, let alone articulate
different ones. They may not be aware of the extent of their children's
rights to a free appropriate education (FAPE) or the procedural
mechanisms to seek redress in case of disagreement. Second, the
environment of the IEP process is heavily reliant on technical
terminology to discuss the child's educational status and progress.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Steven Marchese, Putting Square Pegs Into Round Holes:
Mediation and the Rights of Children with Disabilities Under the IDEA,
53 Rutgers L. Rev. 333, 343, (2001)(citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, parents must face the often daunting prospect of an IEP
meeting alone. I can't tell you how many parents have told me about the
lost sleep and sick feelings due to the fear and anticipation of going
to an IEP meeting. In a survey of parents of children with
disabilities, parents recounted an almost universal experience of
intimidation and anxiety.\4\ Parents described the situation in these
ways:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ David M. Engel, Origin Myths: Narratives of Authority,
Resistance, Disability and Law, 27 Law & Soc'y. Rev. 785, 79-806.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``You feel like you're going to the principal's office.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. at 801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``It reminded me of a courtroom . . . you walk in and everybody
else is already seated and you feel so conspicuous and like you're on
trial or something. I found it really intimidating.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at 802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``I get nervous when I'm with them, because it's 12 against 1 . . .
I've got to take a tranquilizer before I go. It's totally
intimidating!'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``You can cut the air with a knife when you open the door.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one commentator has noted:
There is an asymmetry to the IEP conference that arises not only
because the parents and professionals speak different languages and
view the world through different lenses, but also because their status
at the conference table is fundamentally different. In the CSE
(Committee on Special Education) meetings, one party enters the
discussion with control over resources while the other has only needs
and rights. The party with control over resources--the CSE--has no
needs or emotions to ``share'' or to trade, just as the party with
needs and emotions--the parent--has no resources to offer in the
negotiations. The negotiating process for the parent is, therefore, a
matter of attempting to bargain for resources by citing needs--a
frustrating and sometimes humiliating process. As we have observed, the
bargaining process is further skewed by an unequal access to the
language and the information system in which needs must be articulated
in order to justify the expenditure of resources.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 819-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair and to realize the goal of the IDEA, of leveling the
playing field between parents and school districts, parents should have
assistance available to prepare for and attend IEP meetings. The
current funding for Parent Training Information Centers is woefully
inadequate to fulfill this role.
If a parent and school district have a disagreement at the IEP
meeting, the parents or school district can initiate a due process
hearing. Again, the parents and school district are in unequal
positions, and parents with the least resources are in the worst
position to effectively utilize due process. While there is much talk
about the costs and burdens of administrative due process hearings, the
reality is that they are drastically underutilized by parents. The
problem is not that school districts are burdened, but that parents are
not using an essential tool given to them in 1975 to help ensure
attainment of the substantive guarantees of the IDEA, FAPE in the least
restrictive alternative (LRE) are realized.\10\ The enactment of the
Handicapped Children's Protection Act in 1985, helped ensure parental
participation in due process hearings by allowing reimbursement of
attorney fees to prevailing parents. However, it is still difficult to
find lawyers willing to take cases on these terms.\11\ Any proposal to
dilute even further the parents' ability to utilize due process
procedures should be resoundingly rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Despite the hyperbole about the burden of due process
hearings, the actual utilization is shockingly low. Thirty-one States
had less than fifteen hearings in 2000, twelve States less than fifty.
Due Process Hearings: 2001 Update Project Forum at NASDSE.
\11\ Jonathan A. Beyer, A Modest Proposal: Mediating IDEA Disputes
Without Splitting the Baby, 28 J.L. & Educ. 37, 43 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when districts do not use lawyers at due process hearings,
their use of professional staff with hearing experience creates an
imbalance which few parents would attempt to confront unassisted. A
colleague of mine who is a partner in a big San Francisco firm told me
that he asked his litigation partner to represent him in an education
hearing for his disabled daughter. My colleague considered it
impossible to maintain the composure necessary to be an effective
advocate when his child was the subject of the dispute. No parent
should have to forgo a critical due process protection in the law
because he/she cannot afford representation.
Some believe that the solution to this dilemma is the increased use
of mediation, even mandatory mediation. While seemingly benign, these
proposals threaten to entrench the power imbalance to the detriment of
disabled children. As another commentator has stated, ``[w]ithout
attention to the context of special education disputes, particularly
for less able parents, the mediation cure has the potential to be worse
than the due process problem it was supposed to fix.'' \12\ ``Power
imbalances between families and districts, information inequities
between the parties, lack of guaranteed parental access to paid
advocacy, and the absence of uniform mediator training and
qualifications are all significant concerns.'' \13\ ``The danger is
that the rush to resolve conflict may yield results that are unfair to
the very people the IDEA was designed to empower.'' \14\ ``Further,
because there is a dependent relationship between the child with a
disability and the school district, the tendency will be for the weaker
party (in this case, the child's family) to compromise or accept
something less than desired in the face of intransigence by the
stronger party (the school district), unless the weaker party has some
means of strengthening its bargaining power.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Marchese, supra note 3, at 338.
\13\ Id. at 350.
\14\ Id. at 350-51.
\15\ Id. at 355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the power imbalances between the parties, there is high
potential for a ``compromise'' that does not adhere to the statute's
requirements for FAPE in LRE. Rather, in the guise of promoting a
``non-adversarial'' proceeding, mediation could make it easier for
districts to win concessions that would be harder to achieve through a
formal hearing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Andrea Shemberg, Mediation as an Alternative Method of Dispute
Resolution for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Just
Proposal?, 12 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 739, 279 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is for these reasons that proposals to mandate mediation are not
benign. In fact, it is the least equipped parent who would decide to
turn down voluntary mediation. A parent who turns down voluntary
mediation may very well be fearful of the power imbalance.
For mediation to fulfill the IDEA's goal of leveling the playing
field, parents should have the right to assistance. The ``failure to
require States to pay for outside assistance at mediation increases the
likelihood that less advantaged parents will make agreements without a
full understanding of the legal consequences.'' \17\ At a minimum,
mediation must be voluntary and must assure that the unequal position
of the parent does not compromise the child's right to FAPE in LRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Marchese, supra note 3, at 360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is imperative to give parents the tools necessary to hold
their school districts accountable, the IDEA never contemplated that
they would do it alone. In fact, the more the Federal and State
Departments of Education fail in their monitoring duties, the more the
burden falls on parents and private litigation.
I know the Committee has heard about the findings in the National
Council on Disabilities (NCD) Report Back to School on Civil Rights. To
quickly summarize:
Every State and the District of Columbia out of compliance with
IDEA requirements: 90 percent of States failed to ensure compliance in
the category of general supervision; 88 percent of States failed to
ensure compliance with the law's secondary transition services
provisions; 80 percent of States failed to ensure compliance with the
law's FAPE requirements; 78 percent of States failed to ensure
compliance with the procedural safeguards provisions of the law; and 72
percent of States failed to ensure compliance with the placement in the
LRE.
Even these dramatic figures don't tell the whole story. Both the
Federal and State monitoring records demonstrate that sanctions are not
employed even after repeated failures to correct violations. For
example: The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) has repeatedly found California out of compliance with
its general supervisory responsibilities under IDEA in failing to
maintain an effective monitoring and enforcement system. In the 1992,
1996, and 1998 OSEP reviews of California, CDE's deficient monitoring
system is cited as a major area of noncompliance resulting in the lack
of services to children with disabilities. OSEP has issued various
corrective action plans ordering California to correct this deficiency.
The failure of the OSEP to compel compliance by the California
Department of Education (CDE) and the failure of the CDE to properly
investigate and compel compliance by local school districts creates a
``paper lion'' mentality--since there is no real consequence to failure
to comply with mandated corrective action, the same violations are
repeated over and over again. This is not only a waste of time, money
and resources but, most importantly, has dire consequences for the
children the law was designed to protect.
In a lawsuit in which my organization is involved, the East Palo
Alto school district (Ravenswood City Elementary School District) had
been found out of compliance by the CDE numerous times. Children in the
district were not adequately or timely identified or assessed, failed
to receive adequate IEP's, IEP's were not implemented, and children
were unnecessarily segregated from non-disabled students. In October
1997, the Court found the CDE ``not up to the task of ensuring
Ravenswood's compliance with Federal law.'' \18\ The court held that
requiring the plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies ``would
only punish Ravenswood's disabled students for the CDE's past
failures.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Emma C. v. Eastin, No. C96-4179 TEH at 10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1,
1997)(order).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated by the judge, ``the injuries inflicted on the students by
the District's failure to provide adequate special education services
are often irreparable.'' \20\ Moreover, Judge Henderson underscored
``that many of the children served by Ravenswood are low-income, and
come from racial minority groups with limited English proficiency who
already face higher dropout rates and lower employment rates. For those
students who face the additional challenge of a disability, the risk of
injury from lack of special education services is even more grave.''
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Emma C. v. Eastin, No. C96-4179 TEH at 32 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4,
2001)(order re: contempt).
\21\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For OSEP to be taken seriously in assuring accountability, it must
revise it's monitoring procedures and sanctions and enforcement must be
vigorously pursued if compliance is not reached within a reasonable
time frame. As you are aware from previous witnesses, a group of
advocates, parents, educators, special education directors and OSEP
staff have been meeting to develop more efficient and effective
monitoring procedures, known as focused monitoring. Focused monitoring
envisions a broad group of people identifying significant priorities
which would be monitored using a data-based and verifiable system, with
provisions of supports and capacity-building and, when necessary,
utilization of sanctions in accord with a protocol for making decisions
about the level of OSEP intervention.
Benchmarks for compliance are established and triggers for rewards
or sanctions are established. For example, in the most recent draft the
benchmark for compliance with the least restrictive alternative (LRE)
requirements is 90 percent of students with disabilities are educated
in general education classes for 80 percent or more of the school day.
The following triggers would be established:
Trigger for Category 1:
90 percent of students or more are educated in general education
for more than 80 percent of the school day.
Trigger for Category 2:
States that do not meet the triggers for categories 1, 3, or 4.
Trigger for Category 3:
Appearance on one of the following lists:
(a) Rank in the top 30 percent of States when measuring the
percentage of students spending more than 60 percent of the school day
outside of the regular classroom.
(b) Rank in the top 30 percent of States when measuring the
percentage of students educated in public or private special education
facilities.
Trigger for Category 4:
Appearance on any two of the following lists:
(a) Rank in the bottom 20 percent of States when measuring the
percentage of students spending less than 21 percent of the school day
outside of the regular classroom.
(b) Rank in the top 20 percent of States when measuring the
percentage of students spending more than 60 percent of the school day
outside of the regular classroom.
(c) Rank in the top 20 percent of States when measuring the
percentage of students educated in public or private separate school
facilities.
Example
Using these triggers, no States would be in Category 1.
Using these triggers, thirty-six States would be in Category 2:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Using these triggers, seven States would be in Category 3:
California, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode
Island, Utah.
Using these triggers, nine States would be in Category 4: Delaware,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York,
South Carolina, Virginia.
Protocols would be established to determine how OSEP will intervene
or what other action will be taken when a State has not completed
required corrective actions and when performance goals are not met by
the identified deadline.
While these procedures should make it clearer, and therefore
easier, for OSEP to impose sanctions, other avenues must also be
available for parents who have complaints of persistent systemic
violations. As in so many other areas of disability law, we can learn
from the experience of other civil rights laws. It is essential to
always remember that these are civil rights for children with
disabilities, and this must never be lost in a bureaucratic maze.
In this regard, we propose the adoption of a provision modeled on
the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which allowed parents to complain directly
to the Attorney General in desegregation cases. This remedy exists side
by side with the Department of Education's Title VI jurisdiction over
desegregation cases.
Likewise, parents of disabled children should have the ability to
file systemic complaints directly with the Attorney General, who is
empowered to bring a lawsuit to remedy the violation. Pattern and
practice violations, such a failure to provide appropriate and timely
assessments and failure to educate children in the least restrictive
environment, could be addressed by the Department of Justice. This
would provide, like in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an avenue in addition
to fund terminations to seek compliance.
Modeled on 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000 C-6, the provision would read as
follows:
Proposed IDEA Amendment
Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing
signed by a parent or group of parents to the effect that his or their
minor children, as members of a class of persons similarly situated,
are being deprived of rights guaranteed under the IDEA, the Attorney
General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the
appropriate local education agency or State Department of Education and
after certifying that he is satisfied that such agency or department
has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such
complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil
action in any appropriate district court of the United States against
such parties and for such relief as many be appropriate, and such court
shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted
pursuant to this section. The Attorney General may implead as
defendants such additional parties as are or become necessary to the
grant of effective relief hereunder.
conclusion
It is difficult for parents of disabled children and their
advocates to hear about the burdens to school districts and how parents
have school personnel in their grip. Nothing could be further from the
reality of the thousands of parents who struggle day in and day out to
provide their children the education they need and deserve.
The due process and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in the
law were designed to recognize the importance of full parent
participation, to level the playing field and promote accountability.
To fully realize these goals, parents need training, assistance and
representation, and Federal and State agencies need to demonstrate a
commitment to the children first, through vigorous enforcement.
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gloeckler, we are delighted to have you. We note that
Senator Clinton is here as well, and we particularly appreciate
your willingness to come down and bring a very special insight
into this whole issue. We are glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE C. GLOECKLER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES (VESID), NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
ALBANY, NY
Mr. Gloeckler. Thank you for the opportunity, Senator
Kennedy, Senator Clinton, and other members of the committee. I
consider it an honor to be here, and I do want you to know that
the Kennedy name has played a role in my career. I was the
first class of future teachers to receive a Kennedy scholarship
to be able to become a teacher of the mentally retarded. I am
not going to say how long ago that was, but I appreciate that
still today.
The Chairman. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Gloeckler. I also was the first State Director of
Special Olympics in New York State when it was an unpaid
position. But I still enjoyed it. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. My sister Eunice----
Mr. Gloeckler. Yes, I know. I drove her around Rochester.
The Chairman. A lot of big spenders up here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gloeckler. You have asked me to focus my few minutes of
remarks on issues related to transition, and that is what I
will do. My written testimony outlines what we in New York
think are the issues more broadly stated, and we provide you
data in that testimony which I believe paints a very clear
picture, at least in New York, of where we have made
substantial progress in educating students with disabilities,
but also where we have areas where we have to improve.
I hope you will look carefully at those facts, but let me
move on to transition, and I premise these remarks with two
thoughts. First of all, we have almost always underestimated
the ability of students who happen to have disabilities, and,
therefore, our expectations have almost always been too low.
The measure of special education is not how many services we
provide. It is not whether a student completed school. But,
instead, did the student leave school fully prepared to pursue
postsecondary education, engage in meaningful employment, and
participate as fully as possible in a community life where they
live? If not, then we have failed.
The transition requirements are a key to that, but they
have been very difficult to implement systemically. We have
pockets of excellence in our State, but we also have gaps. So
why do we still have them?
I believe the primary burden of transition has been placed
squarely on the shoulders of a system that has been more often
than not left to do it alone. Quite frankly, the education
system is not able to accomplish the intended results by
itself. Yet we have not constructed an effective strategy for
ensuring that other systems participate in a meaningful way.
The strategy of interagency agreements, which is our primary
strategy in law, only works well when the agreements are backed
by real capacity to implement.
I have laid out a set of recommendations that come from
research we have done in New York based on extensive experience
on attempting to implement transition and follow-along studies
that we have done with students who have left school, and they
appear in the last three pages of the testimony. But I would
just like to highlight a few now.
First of all, I hope in this next reauthorization you will
recognize the need to dedicate resources to transition across
systems. We recommend that a pool of targeted money be
allocated from multiple sources, thus creating multiple
commitment and multiple accountability for ensuring that there
are successful results in transition.
The pool of money should be created from funds from IDEA,
but also the Rehabilitation Act, the Higher Education Act,
Ticket to Work, TANF, VATEA, and perhaps others. It should be
free of the otherwise restrictive bureaucratic rules each
source currently has, with two caveats: one, it be spent for
students with disabilities; and, two, it be spent for services
specified on the agreed-upon transition plan.
There must be incentives to bring both community-based and
State rehabilitation agency resources and independent living
expertise into schools to participate in transition planning.
IDEA currently forces a reliance on what often are the wrong
people, whomever the school has available in the transition
process.
We also have substantial evidence that community-based work
experience at the secondary and postsecondary level leads to
greater employment success. We also know that students with
severe disabilities are often limited from participation in
after-school and summer employment experiences. Knowing that,
let's target resources directly to establish these programs.
I want to mention particularly Ticket to Work. I think that
is a sleeping giant in the possibilities for transition. If we
were able to design creative ways to use it to support the
opportunities for employment preparation while students are
still in school, I think it could become an important revenue
incentive for schools to build capacity.
Finally, there is abundant evidence that shows that when
community-based services such as mental health and health
services are readily available to schools, indicators of
students' quality of education improve dramatically. IDEA's
structure supports collaboration through agreements, but does
little to address the funding and program conflicts that are
currently the real barriers to effective collaboration.
Last, to use a sports analogy for a Senator whose team won
the Super Bowl, today transition is often like a long pass in
football. The receiver is way down field, and the passer throws
the ball as far as he can, hoping it will be caught. It should
be like a relay race where, when the baton is passed, both
runners are holding it until the receiver has securely put it
in his grasp. I hope that we can deal with that in this next
reauthorization.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gloeckler follows:]
Statement of Lawrence C. Gloeckler
In 1995, the New York State Board of Regents and State Education
Department embarked on a reform agenda to improve educational
achievement for all students. High standards were established, progress
on the standards was to be measured and reported, and school districts
were required to provide academic intervention services where adequate
progress was not demonstrated to assist all students in achieving these
standards.
New York State's Office of Vocational and Educational Services for
Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) vision is that students with
disabilities will leave school prepared to live independently; enjoy
self-determination; make choices; contribute to society; pursue
meaningful careers; and enjoy integration in the economic, political,
social, cultural and educational maintream of American society. To
accomplish this, the State Education Department adopted the following
goals for reform of the special education system:
Eliminate unnecessary referrals to special education.
Assure that students unnecessarily placed, or who no
longer need special education services, are returned to a supportive
general education environment.
Hold special education services to high standards of
accountability to improve results for students with disabilities.
Assure that students with disabilities are educated in
settings with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent
appropriate to their individual needs.
Provide mechanisms for school districts to develop or
expand support and prevention services.
Assure that school personnel and families have the
knowledge and skills that enable them to effectively assist students
with disabilities in attaining high standards.
One of the most important aspects of the 1997 reauthorization of
IDEA is the focus on accountability and student performance. The
primary concern of families and schools should be the achievement of
successful outcomes by students. Thanks to IDEA 1997, parents of
students with disabilities now have the right to be informed about
their child's performance with the same frequency and across the same
measures as their non-disabled peers. The addition of the alternate
assessment has allowed parents of children with the most severe
disabilities that same important information and has served as a
breakthrough for creative thinking as to how children with the most
severe disabilities can be educated based on standards that are
important for all children.
Schools must now examine and treat with equal seriousness the
progress of all students. In New York State, we have moved to a
performance-based approach, which was supported by the 1997 IDEA
amendments. We now measure and report the performance of all of our
students on all of our measures of accountability--from school report
cards to measures of adequate early progress.
The value of this approach to accountability and performance is not
to improve test scores per se, but rather to ensure that students with
disabilities have the same opportunities to be prepared to live as
independent adults. The vast majority of students with disabilities
need to learn the same information contained in the general education
curriculum as any other student. We need to prepare students with
disabilities for opportunities to participate fully in society and
pursue meaningful careers, postsecondary education and as high a
quality of life as possible.
This reauthorization of IDEA should make every effort to increase
the focus of the law on supporting student performance while reducing
the reliance on procedure and process as the main focus of
accountability. The reauthorization of IDEA should be based on what we
know about the state of special education today and how we can use what
we know to determine what improvements can be made in the law. The law
should not be amended based on speculation, anecdote or emotion.
Rather, amendments should be based on factual data which, at least in
New York State, paint a very clear picture about where we are making
progress and where our attention needs to be focused.
What do we know? We know that far more students with disabilities
are being educated with their non-disabled peers and that these
students show much better results on State assessments than those
students who are placed in special classes all day. In New York State,
this change was brought about by moving away from a focus on process
requirements and instead focusing relentlessly on performance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.001
Recent data indicate that the performance of students who
participate in the general education environment for at least 40
percent of the day perform at a much high level than those who are
removed for over 60 percent of the day to receive their special
education services. On the charts that follow, scoring at Level 3 or
above reflects the attainment of all the appropriate learning standards
for that grade level, Level 2 represents partial attainment, and
performance at Level 1 indicates that none of the grade level standards
have been mastered.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.002
We know that the expectation of adults for students with
disabilities has generally been far too low. As a result, students have
often been denied an opportunity to participate in rigorous curriculum
and assessments. We know that students with disabilities, when given
the appropriate supports and opportunity to access the general
education curriculum, can achieve at much higher levels than adults
would predict. Students with disabilities are performing at
dramatically higher levels on our State Regents examinations, which are
high school exit examinations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.003
More than 11,500 students with more severe disabilities
participated in our State alternate assessment, and, for the first
time, their progress is being measured against State standards. In
elementary grades, achievement results on State assessments are
improving.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.004
In the end, the best indicator that a child will receive a quality
education is having a well-trained teacher. We have a shortage of
qualified special education personnel and we are having difficulty
retaining the personnel we have. Studies by our teachers unions have
indicated that special education teachers are increasingly frustrated
with the amount of time they must spend on process requirements. They
also feel intimidated by the adversarial environment they feel they are
placed in by the evolving quasi-judicial nature of due process
provisions. We must seize the opportunity of this reauthorization to
address this issue.
transition
We have learned that quality transition planning and implementation
make a significant difference in the likelihood of success as an adult.
We know this from our performance data as well as from what students
have told us in our post school indicators study.
In New York, we have been studying the connection between good
transition planning and supports and student success. We have collected
important information from students about how they perceive their
school experience. For instance, we know that students with
disabilities receive information in school about careers much later
than their non-disabled peers. They discuss their future plans with
their parents much later in their school years, receive career
information at schools much later and decide about continuing their
education much later in their school years than their non-disabled
peers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.005
Students who receive standards-based diplomas have much more
successful transitions into adult life. Eighty-three percent of
students with disabilities in New York State receiving Regents local or
IEP diplomas in the year 2000 made a successful transition into
postsecondary education or employment, as compared to 75 percent in
1995.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.006
By focusing on transition planning, there is an increased awareness
by schools of the post-school plans of students. In New York, from 1998
to 2001, the number of unknown plans dropped from 27 percent to 14
percent. The postsecondary education plans of seniors with disabilities
rose from 38 percent to 44 percent and post-school employment plans
rose from 22 percent to 26 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.008
More than 62 percent of our students with disabilities are
graduating with high school diplomas that require passing of exit
examination.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.009
For the class of 2000, 32 percent of graduates with disabilities
went on to college, compared to 17 percent in the class of 1995.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.010
Student participation in paid or unpaid work experiences during
high school increased from 37 percent in 1995 to 80 percent in 2001.
In New York State, special education and vocational rehabilitation
are administered within the same office of the State Education
Department. By continuing to create better communication between the
two programs, we have increased the proportion of youth served in our
caseload by 33 percent in the last 5 years.
There are also areas where date indicate we need to focus our
attention. We know there continues to be a disproportionate placement
of minorities in special education, although with the recent
performance-based focus on this issue in New York State, we are
starting to reverse these trends.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.011
When placed in special education, minorities are placed in special
classes and programs at much higher rates than are other children.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.012
Children in our poorer districts are more likely to be placed in
special education and perform at significantly lower levels of
achievement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.013
We know that middle school results for children with disabilities,
no matter what type of district, are alarmingly low.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.014
From 1997 to 2000, enrollment of students with disabilities in
institutions of higher education increased by 6,700.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80206.015
Increasing numbers of youth are being placed in jobs through the
vocational rehabilitation system. In the 2001-2002 State fiscal year,
3,063 youth with disabilities were successfully employed. We also know
that in-school work experience pays off. Students placed by our
vocational rehabilitation program who had been involved in work
experiences in school average as much as $1 an hour more in their
initial competitive employment than youth who did not. In the first
year, they generated more than $36,840,000 in annual income in return
for the $11,555,000 their services cost the system.
general recomendations
Based on what the data tell us about the implementation of IDEA,
and what we have learned about how to improve performance in key areas
of a student's educational program, we make the following
recommendations:
All students must be included in all systems of accountability for
student results.
Accountability must focus on key performance indicators.
Data must be collected on key performance indicators and
disseminated widely in plain language to stakeholders and the public
at-large.
Resources must be targeted to areas of need based on key
indicators.
The alternate assessment systems established by States as the
result of IDEA 1997 must be allowed to evolve and change for the next
several years. However, the participation of students with severe
disabilities in an alternate assessment system is a positive
development that must continue.
Monitoring and oversight for program delivery at both the Federal
and State levels must be allowed to focus on the mechanisms for
improving outcomes for students, rather than devoting such extensive
time and resources to the less significant, but numerous, process
requirements.
Prevention and intervention services must be established and
aligned so everyone in need has access to them. The reauthorization of
IDEA must be aligned carefully with the No Child Left Behind Act.
This reauthorization must focus on the looming problem of special
education staff shortages. The age of the teaching force, in
conjunction with the burdensome requirements of being a special
educator, has led to predictions of tremendous staff shortages in the
near future. To address the increasing rates of staff turnover and the
continued movement of our most talented and expert individuals out of
the special education delivery system, the IDEA must:
Support creative incentives to help attract and train the
next generation of personnel and allow institutions of higher education
to expand and strengthen pre-service programs in both general and
special education;
Provide States and LEAs with non-competitive funding to
provide in-service training and technical assistance for school
personnel and families; and
Reduce paperwork and other burdens on teachers.
Teacher preparation program content must be infused with
greater emphasis on academic achievement and performance-based
accountability approaches.
States must be able to require local districts to target
IDEA funds to specific compliance issues when evidence is available
that problems have gone unresolved.
recommendations regarding transition
In addition to the above general recommendations, we make the
following recommendations specific to transition and interagency
efforts:
The role of independent living centers and community rehabilitation
providers in the transition process should be recognized and augmented.
Funds should be directly designated to facilitate participation of
State vocational rehabilitation agencies in transition planning and to
enable community programs and independent living services to be brought
into the schools. Too much burden is placed on school personnel, who
may not be the most qualified to provide transition services.
Create a pool of targeted monies from IDEA, VR, the Higher
Education Act, TANF, Ticket to Work, VATEA, NCLB, WIA, and Medicaid.
These monies would be allocated to support the services necessary for
students to make a successful transition from school to work, post-
secondary education and independent living. The funds would be flexible
and not tied to current bureaucratic rules for each program but would
have to support the services on the transition plan.
We recommend funding of community-based work experience programs at
the secondary and postsecondary education levels to enhance the
currently limited capacities of these programs to provide such
experiences. At the secondary level, students with severe disabilities
are limited from participation in after school and summer employment
experiences. Additionally, when youth with severe disabilities attend
postsecondary education, there is a need for resources for career
internships or summer employment that could help these students learn
to apply their classroom knowledge and build their resumes for job-
seeking once they complete college.
Provide incentives to education entities to participate as
employment networks under Ticket to Work.
Allow school work experience and career training programs to be
Ticket reimbursable programs as part of a broader transition system.
Case management should be considered a core service provided to all
transition-aged youth who either are or are becoming entitled to
disability benefits. The early introduction and ongoing discussion of
benefits planning and employment strategies within the school setting
would serve to alleviate many of the issues families and youth face
when preparing for the transition to adult life.
Simplify documentation and eligibility requirements between those
systems that should be involved with transition to remove one of the
main barriers to timely and smooth transitions from one system to
another. In particular, students eligible under IDEA should be
automatically eligible under vocational rehabilitation.
Establish capacity building grants to allow SEAs to develop follow-
along data systems for youth transitioning from school so we can track
youth to determine the level of success in transition and allow States
to identify strategies that work and areas where the systems are not
succeeding.
For students with severe disabilities:
The developmental process is more complex. There is a need
to individually design accommodative services, assistive technologies
and 1:1 supports and make them available not only in school programs,
but also in community, postsecondary education and workplace settings,
with provisions to readily replace technologies as they evolve.
Career development cannot take place in the absence of the
development of independent living skills and supports. Services should
be targeted to the student as well as the families/caregivers involved
in the student's life. It is vital to keep the processes, procedures,
and requirements for benefits and services simple so that consumers can
concentrate more readily on employment options and opportunities.
The reauthorization should support innovative service delivery
models between school and agency programs. Consideration needs to be
given to how IDEA funds, as well as funds for other programs that have
obligations to young people with disabilities, can be constructed
around the needs of children. Research shows that when community-based
services, such as mental health and health services, are readily
available to schools, indicators of students' quality of education
improve. The current IDEA supports collaboration, but does little to
address funding and program responsibility disparities that are true
barriers to interagency collaboration.
The Chairman. Thank you all for very helpful testimony.
We have 40 minutes before the vote, and so we will just
divide that up between us, and I would ask the staff if they
would do so.
First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Shaw, on these
training programs, you talked at the end about moving money
from training, D to B, and we are interested in this. But what
are the qualities, what are the things that you find you have
had great success in terms of recruitment, in terms of
retention, in terms of the training, great need on that? What
is it specifically, or will you give us as specifically as you
can, what are the things that ought to be altered or changed
besides sort of resources--we want to know that, too--that you
think could be helpful to us?
Mr. Shaw. Certainly. We changed our program. We keep
hearing about higher standards. We raised the bar very, very
high. We demanded all of our students stay for 5 years and get
a bachelor's and master's degree. And I have to admit to you
that I was one who was fearful that we had just put ourselves
out of business. Why come to the University of Connecticut with
all these requirements, 5 years rather than 4 years, and so on,
when you can go someplace else and get a degree much easier and
much quicker? And I was totally wrong. Students have flocked to
quality. Students these days have lots of options on what to do
in their professional career. They are not going to go into
education if it is easy, if it is not seen as a profession, if
it is not challenging. We are attracting students from all over
the country who want to come to our program. Our students are
equal to or better than every other students in any other
program in our university. Our students in terms of grade point
average, in terms of SAT scores are comparable to chemistry
majors and psychology majors and English majors and so on.
So raising the bar, saying education, special education, as
we have heard from this panel, is a tremendously demanding job.
This is not for the faint-hearted. Unless we train people to
meet the demands that you have heard talked about here, IDEA,
with its many very productive pieces, will not succeed.
So to specifically respond, our internship has proven to be
the most effective piece of the program. In their master's
year, they spend 20 hours a week in the schools. This is after
student teaching. They are acting as change agents and leaders.
Our students learn how to be professionals, experience the
professional role, are treated like professionals before they
leave our institution. All of the follow-up data we have done
has indicated that is the best piece.
Another piece is the fact that all of our students have
extensive experience in inner-city schools. As Senator Dodd can
tell you, we are out in the country out in Storrs, and yet we
have made collaborative arrangements with the Hartford schools
and other schools so that our students have learned to deal
with the diversity, have learned to deal with other cultures,
and as the data indicates, have been so excited by the
opportunities that are afforded in those inner-city schools
that 50 percent choose--and I mean choose. Our students can
work anyplace they want. They choose to work in inner-city
schools.
So one other piece in terms of philosophy is the idea of
self-determination. It relates to what was talked about in
terms of transition. As Senators, you understand self-
determination in terms of politics and countries and other
places. Self-determination relates to students being given
control of their lives so that doesn't happen.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Gordon, I know there is a schedule
conflict, so I will ask any of our panel have specific
questions for him, feel free to ask them. One that I am
particularly interested in is: How do you envision including
the students with significant disabilities, such as with severe
cognitive disabilities, in an accountability system? You have
given us a very interesting description about what you have
done earlier, and these are things which I think are absolutely
necessary. And then how do you deal with those who are--that 9
percent, I guess, that is left behind?
Mr. Gordon. Well, what we do in our system is we ensure
that every student is assessed, and I mean every student. In
our system, 52 percent of our special ed. students are able to
take our regular State assessment; 15 percent take the regular
State assessment with accommodations. And we push to do that
because we want to make sure parents know where their students
stand. Twenty-four percent are assessed through alternative
measures, which are placed in the IEP, which the parent agrees
upon, because we are out to be accountable, we are out to help
students, as Mr. Gloeckler said, have a productive life after
they graduate. And that is our commitment.
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. I just have a quick question for you, Mr.
Gordon. I was struck by your concerns about paperwork. This is
not an uncommon complaint about almost any Federal program. But
I am curious about some of the redundancies.
We often hear that the requirements may result from over-
caution by school districts in response to a lack of clarity
about what actually is required, rather than the Federal
requirements themselves.
Could you give us some specific examples of redundant
paperwork?
Mr. Gloeckler. Yes. I think part of the extra paperwork
comes from districts which are not compliant, and the State
then ramps up the compliance requirements on everybody.
We had a review a couple of years ago, and there were a few
pages which were not signed. So that was a compliance
exception, something was not dated, that kind of thing. But I
believe that we are asking about the wrong things, and we are
wasting a lot of people's times. Let me give you one specific
example.
In the 11 years that I have been in this school district,
we have not had one single due process hearing. Not one, and it
is a district of 50,000 students. But guess what? Nobody ever
asks us about that. So, to me, the compliance isn't oriented
about asking the customer, Are you satisfied with the services?
It is about checking this, that, and the other thing. So I
think we are missing the boat there.
Senator Dodd. That is a very interesting point.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Anything else of Mr. Gordon?
Senator Reed. Mr. Gordon, when you speak to administrators
and to parents, you hear about two different systems. The
administrator is talking about one that is overly regulated,
overly bureaucratized, et cetera. Parents, on the other hand,
essentially have to fight for any service they get for their
children, and if they are not articulate and educated, the
battle is probably impossible. This suggests that at least the
perception of parents is that administrators are not actively
trying to make the system work for children and parents. To get
the education for their children, that is an effort that
parents have to make.
I don't know where the truth lies.
Mr. Gordon. I think you make a good point, and one
suggestion I would have is that we should ask parents what they
think, we should ask the customer what they think of the
services.
One other suggestion I would have. The whole adversarial
relationship that gets built up between the system and the
parent I think could be helped a lot with some requirements for
the IEP meeting, which is the parents' first encounter with the
system, to have that heavily facilitated, have someone who is
really trained. We use a system called intraspace bargaining
for our collective bargaining, and it is very carefully--the
person facilitating is very carefully trained to get to a win-
win so that the parent meets the system in a positive way so
that they are working toward a solution. Too often now,
attorneys come in and this and that. I think that could make a
big difference.
The Chairman. Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Well, I didn't have the benefit of hearing
Mr. Gordon's testimony personally, but I have read it and I am
very impressed by what you have accomplished in your district.
I hope as we move forward with this process that your common-
sense experience and examples can help guide us, because
clearly what we are trying to figure out, as Senator Reed said
so well is, how we remove the adversarial conflicts, focus on
outcomes for each child, and create the smooth transition
process that Commissioner Gloeckler talked about. So I
appreciate what you have already done to show us the way.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Just one question, Mr. Gordon. Do you believe
the overemphasis on process and the underemphasis on student
progress is anecdotal or endemic? Do we need to change the
statute or regulations in order to reorient special education
to focus primarily on student achievement?
Mr. Gordon. Well, I think the compliance system does need
to be unpacked and repacked to make sure that what is in there
is both necessary but also are we asking the right questions. I
think we can and should increase accountability for student
outcomes. Getting rid of the paperwork will allow more time to
focus on that.
The Chairman. Maybe we can be back in touch with you about
the kind of changes that ought to be made.
Mr. Gordon. Yes. Happy to help. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. You are excused. Very, very helpful.
Ms. Brown, I wanted to talk to you just about your child a
bit, if we could, about sort of at what point do you think the
school should have been addressing your son's transition needs,
how could they have been more effective, what should they have
emphasized? In retrospect now, what could we learn from this
experience?
Ms. Brown. Yes, sir. Actually, a principal in the school
that Paul was attending in fourth grade began addressing his
transition needs, except that he was ready to relegate Paul to
something that was not going to focus on the academics but was
going to focus on a functional curriculum. I said that it was
not about some kind of white-collar notion that my son had to
attend Harvard. I was really open to all of my children really
choosing career goals that were fulfilling to them. But we know
in today's society and today's work environment you must have
some kind of postsecondary education.
So that was an early address of transition, but it was one
that really, again, what other panelists have talked about,
focused and had an underestimation of the ability of students
who have been found eligible for special education.
I think for my son, because of his needs and because he was
a tremendous challenge behaviorally to the school system, the
needs were continuously focusing on his behavior. I think it is
very interesting that we compare what schools are willing to
focus on for students with physical disabilities. They are very
clear that related services are not to cure a child of their
inability to walk. They are only to improve the efficiency of
their ability to benefit from academic instruction.
When we look at children with behavioral disabilities, who
I think end up being really the hot focus around
reauthorization, our experience has been that the effort has
been to change his disability. I recently went through all of
Paul's school records in preparation for some additional
vocational testing by the adult service system, and I was
struck again at the continual efforts to change his behavior,
to extinguish his impulsivity, to completely extinguish all of
the inappropriate things that Paul will ever say. That is
really unreasonable. While certainly, especially today, when I
go to an airport with Paul, we do a lot of preparation around
what not to say. You know, I don't even tell him nowadays to
write it down. That used to be a strategy. It is just like:
Hold it. Hold your thoughts until we are home.
So it is not that, again, I would like Paul to be kind of
100 percent on that, but he is not able to. He still says
really big gaffes. They become bigger the bigger he is. He is a
big fellow, and I think is sometimes intimidating. So I think
that is another area where we have to, again, focus on not
extinguishing those behaviors and really focus on the
academics.
Then we look at the piece that was brought up by Mr.
Gloeckler around, well, what are the other agency
responsibilities? On the one hand, as a parent I feel very
comfortable that the buck stops at the Department of Education
in terms of transition, because somebody has to take that
ultimate responsibility. But we end up with a State-by-State,
how much are States willing to spend on services for adults
with disabilities. I think that is where the unevenness comes,
because there just are no services. Actually, for my son Paul,
I will be very happy if we get some job support services for
him. At the time if our family were to be all killed or
whatever, Paul would probably be homeless very quickly because
the level of his disability does not bring him to the top of
the very long waiting list. Those are State resources. I don't
know what the Feds can do about that other than, again, if
there is some type of incentive package that can be provided to
States.
The Chairman. I have just two quick ones. Ms. Mayerson, you
mentioned that States should be sanctioned for noncompliance.
Could you outline quickly what sanctions do you suggest to
bring States into compliance?
Ms. Mayerson. I think it is very important, as other
witnesses have said, that the States be held accountable for
outcomes. I am happy to report that there is a group of
stakeholders that are meeting regularly and coming up with--and
I believe, yes, Mr. Gloeckler is one of the people on that
committee--to come up with a focused monitoring plan which
would really focus on outcomes.
The important thing about focused monitoring is not only
the focus on outcomes but that there are specific benchmarks
for compliance so everyone knows what the standards are and
that there are triggers so that sanctions will be applied if
certain triggers are not met. I think it is going to be much
easier for States to understand what the rules are and
hopefully for the Department of Education to be able to
institute some of its sanctions.
I would like to add, though, that in addition to focused
monitoring, we are very specifically proposing that the
Department of Justice come into this field, like in every other
area of civil rights law. And we are suggesting a corollary to
the 1964 Civil Rights Act where students and their parents were
able to bring complaints directly to the Department of Justice
in desegregation cases. We would like the same kind of
authority in the IDEA.
The Chairman. That is very helpful.
Finally, Mr. Gloeckler, you mentioned that New York uses a
performance-based approach. What type of performance measures
does New York use? How does it measure the outcomes for
children who have more significant cognitive disabilities or
who are mentally retarded?
Mr. Gloeckler. Well, we do have a performance-based
approach, and it is based on what we think are key performance
indicators, which means that we have had to whittle down to
what we think are the most significant issues, and that is what
we focus our own accountability measures on. That includes
achievement. It also includes things like attendance. It
includes things like dropouts, disproportionate placement of
minorities in special education, transition issues, and there
are others. There are 14 all together.
We include all of our children in our accountability
system, including the most significantly disabled. We have
implemented this year for the first time the alternate
assessment for children with more severe disabilities.
By the way, I want to congratulate you for that provision
in IDEA, because for the very first time in New York, and every
other place in the country, parents who have children with
severe disabilities now have access to knowing about whether
their programs are meeting standards and whether their children
are being educated to a standard. I think that is very
important for all parents to know.
So I think performance-based approaches are much more
effective than procedural-based approaches. Procedures are
important, but only if the outcomes occur. So I think you can
apply performance-based approaches to any child and to any
system, and it is a much better way of measuring it, and the
public has a much better understanding then of what is actually
happening with their children.
The Chairman. Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try
and keep an eye on the clock.
Mr.--is it ``Glecker''?
Mr. Gloeckler. Gloeckler. Too many letters in my name, I
know that. [Laughter.]
Senator Dodd. I was curious about the figure that you cite
in your written testimony that 80 percent of the students with
disabilities have work experience. I am curious about the kind
of work experience they get, and especially as we will need a
more educated workforce in the 21st century, how those work
experiences relate to the changing economy and how those
numbers compare with work experiences for children without
disabilities.
Mr. Gloeckler. First of all, I think sometimes we think of
work experience as being instead of academic growth, and I
think you can combine the two very well. I think it is
important that we do that so that the work experience is really
career preparation, not simply work.
Again, we believe that any person--and, again, I am State
Director of Vocational Rehabilitation. We believe that any
person can work and do meaningful work. There is no person that
can't work. There are very few, literally. So we have to be
about preparing most of our students, either after or if they
don't go to postsecondary education, to work in a meaningful
career.
Those work experiences we find--summer work experiences
which are not available to very many students, quite frankly--
are very, very helpful; work experiences through school but not
necessarily in the school. We find as students who are not
going to go to postsecondary education that they are very, very
much more likely to be successfully employed if they have those
work experiences under supervision.
Senator Dodd. That goes right to Ms. Brown's concern for
her son Paul.
Ms. Brown. Right, but I think also because there has been
some discussion about students with significant disabilities,
too many of those students in school through 22 getting
services, those services are being delivered in the school
buildings.
Senator Dodd. Right.
Ms. Brown. Those are not appropriate places, so they end up
literally--in Fairfax County, they are baking cookies and cakes
for other school functions rather than being put out into the
job market where there is real work and something that can be
meaningful.
Senator Dodd. Which is what you do, Mr. Gloeckler, they are
in real----
Mr. Gloeckler. That is what we recommend strongly, that the
work be real work, meaningful work, and in a real environment.
Senator Dodd. That 80 percent, how much of that is, as you
say, ``real work''?
Mr. Gloeckler. Well, I am not exactly sure where the 80-
percent figure you are using is coming from, but for the more
severely disabled students, we do not have the opportunities
that we believe should be available. In fact, this is where I
do believe we need more help from other systems and more help
from a community-based approach.
Senator Dodd. Thank you.
Dr. Shaw, again, thank you for your testimony and your work
over the years. I am glad to hear you say how attractive you
have made the academic discipline, the admission standards, and
the academic requirements at your department at the University
of Connecticut. What did the State do to encourage this? Was
this an internal decision made at the university, or was there
also support from the State?
Mr. Shaw. It is both. The university made its own decision
in terms of running its program, but the State did an
Educational Enhancement Act in 1990 that was a major part of
this, where for the first time the State committed moneys to
school districts to raise teacher salaries. As you know, we
have some of the highest teacher salaries in the country, and
that was as a result of State involvement in terms of trying to
raise the profession. At the same time, they provided various
inducements to new teachers. In addition, they provided raised
standards, test scores and grades. They provided for increased
certification requirements, and they also--it is the best
program. It is an induction program to support and evaluate
teachers in the first couple of years.
So, yes, it is a comprehensive process, and in this case,
what the State did and what the University of Connecticut did
worked hand in hand to do a tremendous job raising what special
education could do and what those teachers could do when they
left our institution.
What I hear on this panel reinforces that special
education, fulfilling mandates of IDEA, is difficult, no
question. But the data that I shared indicates well-trained
teachers can do that. Well-trained teachers--that data boggled
my mind. Well-trained teachers found their load manageable.
Poorly-trained teachers don't last and cannot manage.
Senator Dodd. I know that this isn't specifically your
area, but I am curious about how to help achieve what Mr.
Gordon said that they have achieved in Sacramento, to reduce
the adversarial situation. To what extent do teachers play an
important role in this area?
To what extent do we help teachers to work with both
special and general education students and families to explain
what IDEA is about so that we don't have a sense of pitting
special education and general education against each other?
Mr. Shaw. I teach a course--Policy, Law, and Ethics in
Special Education--dealing with these real-world situations
that teachers find themselves in, spending an awful lot of time
on helping teachers develop their ability to work with the IEP
process and to work with parents in a productive way.
But as you point out, particularly in rural areas--I will
give you a specific example, not too far from the university, a
school district where there were two autistic twins, each twin
was a Mill in that school, in that town. What I see happening
again and again----
Senator Dodd. Please explain that, a Mill rate.
Mr. Shaw. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. A factor of budgets and tax.
Mr. Shaw. I do a lot of work with the IEP teams in schools
across the State. I have been in most of them. There is a
problem that snow removal and special education are the only
areas that the town can't control in their budgets. It is an
ongoing problem where special education is often over budget,
and school boards get pressure and school administrators get
pressure, and they put pressure on teachers.
Again, it comes down to you have the teacher at the fulcrum
between trying to meet the needs of the law, trying to do what
is right for the child, and many, many school administrators
telling them you can't do this and you can't do that and so on.
That, once again, comes down to, on one side, full funding
of IDEA and taking that pressure off of those teachers and
allowing this process to work, and also having teachers who
have the skill to deal with this very, very challenging
interpersonal and professional situation.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. There has been no
stronger champion of this than our colleague from Vermont, so
let me turn to Senator Jeffords.
The vote starts at 11 o'clock. We will probably go a little
bit over so that everyone gets a chance to speak. I apologize
for going over. Those are very important answers.
Let me go to Senator Jeffords, then you can--I apologize,
Ms. Mayerson. Go ahead.
Senator Jeffords. I am going to ask you a question, anyway,
Ms. Mayerson, so you can----
Senator Dodd. You can give any answer you would like to any
question that was raised.
Senator Jeffords. Answer his first. [Laughter.]
I was one of those that, as you know, originally wrote the
bill and, thus, was there when we went through the legal
process of examining the court cases, and then we had
established the constitutional right to a free and appropriate
education. What concerns me is that we don't seem to see that
being used in an effective way to get much more rapid
compliance with a free and appropriate education, and I
wondered what it is we need to do to try and have it broadly
ensure things and court-enforceable things. Can you give me an
answer as to what we need to do?
Ms. Mayerson. Well, I think all the things that have been
talked about today are incredibly important. I was particularly
focusing my remarks on enforcement. I do believe that there
should be an enforcement system that the school districts and
the States know what it is, they know what they have to
achieve, and they know that they will be held accountable.
As it is right now, the monitoring by the Federal
Government takes place, certain things are found out of
compliance review after review after review after review, and
nothing is done. So I pose the question to all of us: If we got
tickets for violating the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit and no
one ever came to collect and it happened over and over and over
again, how effective would that law be? So I think enforcement
is really key.
I think it is incredibly important to have knowledgeable
teachers, and I want to just for a minute go back to Rachael
Holland. The difference between well-trained teachers and
teachers that were open, receptive, and excited about teaching
Rachael and the teachers who really didn't know anything about
the field caused not only a difference in her being welcomed,
but also in how much they thought needed to be done. Because it
is often the people with the least education that are less
prepared who think that it is going to be this tremendous
burden. Then you have a well-trained teacher, and they know
exactly what to do.
So you have this situation with Rachael, where from
kindergarten on, the school district was saying she was
disruptive, she was not able to learn, she was retarding other
children. Then you have positive, educated experts that come
from programs like Mr. Shaw's, and they are saying she is an
exciting student to teach, she has got all kinds of potential,
her behavior is wonderful.
So I think it is really, really key that the
administrators, of course--and we have very good ones here--
lead the charge in terms of the attitude that people are going
to have in the district. The teachers being prepared makes a
tremendous difference. Then in the final count, it is a civil
rights law, and it has to be enforced like a civil rights law.
Senator Jeffords. Well, how do we enforce it like a civil
rights law?
Ms. Mayerson. Well, we spoke about changing the monitoring
system. It seems like there is a lot of agreement to focus on
outcomes and to make the Department of Education follow through
when it finds a district in noncompliance, actually follow
through with sanctions.
One of the sanctions that is currently in the law is
partial or total withholding of funds, and that has
historically been a sanction that is just never used.
In 1997, we put in another sanction which was referring
cases to Justice from the Department of Education. Actually,
that has never been used.
I think both of those need to be bolstered, but I think
there is another thing that I am proposing in my testimony, and
that does come directly as a corollary from the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, and that is to allow parents who have systemic
complaints that affect classes of students in their districts
to go directly to the Department of Justice with their
complaints. I think that would very much emphasize the civil
rights nature of the law, that the complaint would not
necessarily get caught up in quite as much bureaucracy as what
happens in the Department of Education, and that parents would
not be so dependent on agency effectiveness in order to make
sure that their children's rights were being pursued.
Senator Jeffords. Let me go just one step further on that,
and that is, we now have underfunding; we have what we promised
and underfundings, which the States, I guess, are obligated to
provide. How do we enforce that? What should we do here to make
it possible for the courts to get in and say, ``Hey, State, you
are not spending the money you are supposed to for an
appropriate education, do it.''?
Ms. Mayerson. Well, I think that, of course, everyone on
this panel I think would agree that more money would be better,
and there is no question about that, and I know this is being
considered.
But I also think that when you have a civil rights law, you
have procedures to measure, you have benchmarks, and then you
have triggers for enforcement if the benchmarks aren't made. I
think the thing about focused monitoring is that at least the
benchmarks are clear. Students have to be treated in a certain
way and have certain outcomes, or you are going to have to pay
a penalty, or you are going to have to correct your action
without paying a penalty. But something has to happen.
What we have right now is chronic noncompliance in certain
areas.
Senator Jeffords. I know, and that must be very, very
frustrating. It is for us. I want to figure out how we can make
it painful not to act.
Mr. Gordon, do you have any comments?
Senator Dodd. Mr. Gordon is not here. This is Mr. Shaw.
Senator Jeffords. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Shaw. Follow the money, I guess is the--if it did not
cost more money for school districts to serve students, they
would do a whole lot better job. So if IDEA was fully funded,
Part B, then the pressure on school personnel not to provide
services would be released, and good personnel working with
parents at those IEP meetings could meet all the requirements
and provide for positive outcomes. But the issue right now is
the fiscal issue, and in terms of in a regulatory way, I don't
know how you deal with that because it is done from word of
mouth from the administrator to the school personnel not to
provide free appropriate public education because it costs
money.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Gloeckler.
Mr. Gloeckler. Yes, I just want to make a comment because I
receive monitoring in New York State, and we have issues that
are longstanding and we acknowledge that. In fact, we tell
everybody else about it.
What has not happened up until now as part of the
monitoring process is the offer of support to resolve the
problems. In other words, problems are identified. People leave
it up to the situation that was already there in order to
resolve it. And you, through the IDEA, provided tremendous
resources and research and technical assistance that is
scattered all over the place right now, but not targeted to the
problems that have been identified. New York would be very
supportive of, if you find a problem, that is fine, let's fix
it; but come in and help us with resources and technical
assistance and research and expertise to get the problem
resolved.
So I think targeting the resources available in IDEA to the
problems that have been identified in a very focused way that
is strategic and is based on accountability will, I think, make
a great deal of difference.
Ms. Mayerson. Could I just add one thing to that?
Senator Jeffords. Certainly.
Ms. Mayerson. In contrast to that, in California the
Federal Government has found California out of compliance on
several issues for many years. There has been a tremendous
amount of technical assistance that has gone from the Federal
Government to the State, but there hasn't been compliance. I
think that until the States really take compliance seriously,
meaning that they know something will actually happen, you are
not going to have States come into compliance.
I think that it is very important to have technical
assistance. I think it is very important to have capacity
building. But at the end of the line, there has to be a
consequence. It is just the same as any other law.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Mr. Shaw, you have described a very progressive and
effective program that includes clinical training and
involvement in urban schools, not, the typical upscale suburban
school, which has been very effective. It seems so obvious to
me that that is the way to proceed. But I would guess you are
the exception to the rule, that most schools of education are
locked into a 1950s approach to training teachers to go into
1950s classrooms with, you know, Mom and Dad and the nuclear
family and special education children not even in the
classroom.
Can you comment on that?
Mr. Shaw. I wouldn't quite put it that way. But, yes, I
think you are correct. The program we put together, it took 5
years of effort and debate and difficult times. It is very,
very difficult to implement this kind of program. It requires
us faculty to get out into these inner-city schools. It has
required major, major efforts on the part of many folks, and
even though the literature talks about internships and
professional development schools and 5-year programs, very few
places have been able to put them into place, and those that
have put these into place--they talk about they have
professional development schools. They really don't have the
kind of activity that will provide for the simultaneous renewal
I was talking about.
So you are right, we are rare. And it is difficult. The
State, as most States, is in fiscal difficulty. I had a special
education position that was yanked from me a day before I was
going to bring people in to hire. We have been understaffed in
our special education program chronically for the last 6, 8
years.
So this program is very labor-intensive on the part of
faculty. It costs very much more than the typical program. My
institution tells us certify more teachers but you have no more
resources. And so, once again, I really urge you to increase
Part D funding, increase requirements that programs have these
kinds of strong elements in place, because everything I have
heard here today reinforces that IDEA can work but only if you
have very, very well-trained, skilled teachers.
Senator Reed. Well, I share your conclusion, and I think it
is shared by most of the panelists, if not all of them. In
fact, my view is that the greatest lever we have is
professional development, because, otherwise, it does become
simply a bureaucratic chase to find the services and the right
teacher and the right everybody who is sensitive to the needs
of the child and the responsibilities. I hope we can follow
through.
Ms. Mayerson, do you want to respond?
Ms. Mayerson. I just wanted to add to that--and I don't
know if it was clear--that you also, of course, need to work
with the regular ed. teachers and have crossover programs with
regular ed. teacher training to make sure that those teachers
are familiar with the children and the learning and the
educational strategies.
Senator Reed. That was my question, too.
Mr. Shaw. Yes, our program is called an integrated
bachelor's/master's, and the integrated is--the student's
secondary, elementary, and special education are integrated in
course work, in seminars every single semester for the 3 years,
faculty of special education are teaching general education
students and so on. These folks are learning what the other
deals with, and these folks are learning to work with each
other over the course of 3 years.
Our general education students are also--and, again, we
have some pretty good data--are also much more able to deal
with and are much more willing to work with these special
education students when they are in their classrooms.
Senator Reed. Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Shaw. Again, I
think what you are doing is probably the exception to the rule
of most college or teacher preparation schools in the country.
Mr. Shaw. Right. But, again, I do want to differentiate. A
lot of places do have dual certification, and I want to
indicate personally that is not what I am talking about. I am
very concerned when we have dual certification, which has been
the route that many places have gone to try to deal with this.
Because special education is more challenging and more
difficult, dual certification may mean we are training pretty
good general education teachers, but we are not training folks
who are staying in special education and committed to special
education as we are.
Senator Reed. Just a quick comment, because the time is
expiring--or has expired. It goes back to the perception of the
litigious nature of IDEA, and your testimony and the materials
you submitted, Ms. Mayerson, suggest that, and Mr. Gordon
indicated that in his district there were no due process
hearings over several years. We have this image, and, in fact,
this law is attacked by many people as just an invitation for
lawyers to make money off of school systems.
Ms. Mayerson. I don't know any real rich special ed.
lawyers, I have to tell you.
Senator Reed. But you realize that is the perception that
is out there, and part of this reauthorization will be to deal
with that perception. So I appreciate your data.
But, also, I think we have to be conscious about trying to
do things that aid parents to get services for their children
without availing themselves of a lawyer. Mr. Gordon suggested
earlier intervention. Ms. Brown, you might have a comment.
Ms. Brown. I think about the litigation, I mean, in all the
years that we were working with the school system, we actually
could have gone to court on many issues. We probably had more
resources than most people to do that. But we didn't because it
is a big step to do. It really oftentimes does not help. We
even had a situation where our son and other children in his
school were being categorically denied the ability to run for
student government, and another time where none of the children
in the BED program were going on the trip to Philadelphia. The
principals passed that on to the teachers, and rather than--I
think I had a legitimate right to go to the Office of Civil
Rights. I actually figured, What are they going to do? They are
going to sit down with these people and have a meeting, and
basically I did that. I brought in a colleague. We sat down
with the people who were responsible, and we discussed what is
going to be their corrective action plan, which I understand
that has been corrected.
So I think while we talk about what could be the litigious
nature, I think we have to also realize that there are many,
many, many more instances where people are trying to work
things out or, in the case of people who just don't have the
emotional resources, are kind of letting it go.
Senator Reed. I want to yield back my time. My colleagues
have been most kind.
Senator Dodd. Senator Jeffords had another question.
Senator Jeffords. I would like to ask Mr. Gloeckler about
the Ticket to Work. How do you see that working in our schools?
Is it? What do we need to do, if anything?
Mr. Gloeckler. It is not working now in the schools. I
believe the rules--you know better than I do, but the rules
are, I believe, starting at 18. I think it should be younger
than that. I think it is a missed opportunity to basically
reinforce the idea that schools educate children to be prepared
for work, and if we can do that well and have the students then
move on to meaningful employment and not benefits, then the
school should be rewarded with that reimbursement just like any
other employment entity would be.
So I think we should revisit that whole thing.
Senator Jeffords. What would you suggest, 16, 14?
Mr. Gloeckler. You know, picking magic numbers is very
hard, I have to say. I wish that what we could do is say let
the decision be made collectively by the parents and the school
as to when the child is ready to begin that journey into career
preparation. But it would certainly at least be the age of, I
would say, 15, 16, perhaps 14, depending on the student.
What I don't want to see happen and I would really hope
that if this--if you look into this, that you craft it
carefully, that we are not having students tracked into an
employment program inappropriately when they should be moving
on to postsecondary education and higher academic standards.
So I think there is that thing that has to be carefully
crafted, but I think you can do that.
Senator Jeffords. Well, I would like to work with you
further on that. I am on the Finance Committee, so I have an
opportunity, and I also sponsored the bill.
Mr. Gloeckler. We would love to do that.
Mr. Shaw. Can I make a suggestion?
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
Mr. Shaw. If you tied that into the transition planning
process, which is clearly timed, and just put that into that
process and say the transition planning team can use Ticket to
Work, that would, I think, do a wonderful job.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. We are now in the process of--Massachusetts
is one of the States now implementing Ticket to Work, and it is
just working well up there; seeing the additional kinds of
possibilities and tying it into here will make a big
difference. I don't know why it took us so long to get that,
Senator Jeffords, who was the leader, and others, Senator Dodd.
So it is something we want to try and--these are good, helpful
suggestions on that as well.
We want to thank you all. It has been very, very helpful. I
think what you have done is given us some very important
recommendations. We are going to be back in touch with you. We
wanted to let you know that this door is wide open, and as you
see this taking shape and following it, we want your
recommendations and suggestions. Don't just wait until we pound
on your door. Just submit them to us here, to me, to any of our
Members, and our staffs, because we have a very good panel here
that have thought about this and have seen what is working out
there. And we want to benefit from this extraordinary
experience and get this law as correct as we possibly can.
We thank all of you, and the committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Vernon
The following recommendation is intended to provide equal
protection for students with disabilities in cases where there have
been procedural errors made by a public entity affecting a child's
ability to receive a free appropriate public education and the least
costly grievance procedural requirements have been attempted. In cases
involving disagreements with educational placement, types of services,
etc. or requests for a due process hearing made by the public entity,
the issue of parental/guardian legal fees paid at public expense needs
to be further explored.
Recommendation for improving compliance: The people of the United
States of America believe that no state be allowed to ``deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.'' Laws have been established by Congress to protect the
rights of children with disabilities to achieve the following:
(a) To ensure that all children with disabilities have available to
them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special
education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and
prepare them for employment and independent living;
(b) To ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and
their parents are protected;
(c) To assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and
Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with
disabilities; and
(d) To assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate
children with disabilities.
Children with disabilities as defined in 34 C.F.R. Part 300 shall
be provided equal protection to receive an appropriate education at
public expense as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The term Free
Appropriate Public Education, or FAPE, is defined as special education
and related services which:
(a) Are provided at public expense, under public supervision and
direction, and without charge;
(b) Meet standards of the State educational agency, including the
requirements of this chapter;
(c) Include preschool, elementary school, or secondary school
education in the State; and
(d) Are provided in conformance with individualized education
program (IEP) requirements of this chapter.
In the event that a parent, guardian or other believes a child with
a disability is being denied a free appropriate public education, it is
written in Federal law that a child be entitled to receive due process
of law. The Federal provisions defining the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, provides measures to ensure each
child is afforded his or her due process rights. The procedural
safeguards have been established; however, children with disabilities
are still being denied their constitutional right to receive an
appropriate education at public expense. The laws established to
protect the rights of children with disabilities are not lacking in
explanation or clarity, nor does ignorance of the law play a
significant role in preventing a child from receiving his or her
entitlement. It has become apparent that the laws protecting children
with disabilities, at times, are literally and flagrantly ignored or
disregarded, and it has become common practice to ensure enforcement
and implementation of the law through the litigious process for those
able to financially support the legal fees incurred as a result of
retaining legal representation. A child's economic situation is the
determining factor of whether he or she will receive an appropriate
education at public expense, and should a child's parent(s) or legal
guardian(s) have the financial support to initiate the litigious
process, then it could be argued that a child is not receiving an
appropriate education at public expense. The cost incurred could be
astronomical, due to the high cost of legal representation and the
limited availability of free or low-cost attorneys. Even though parents
are legally able to initiate and proceed with a due process hearing
without legal representation, it does not afford the child with fair
representation, due to the fact that most parents or guardians are not
legal experts and the public agency being challenged can and will most
likely retain appropriate legal representation afforded at public
expense.
In order to ensure that a child with a disability has appropriate
legal representation and provided equal protection of the laws, it is
necessary to establish legal guidelines that will afford a child
appropriate legal representation should the need for a due process
hearing be necessary to enforce and implement the laws protecting the
individual rights of a child with a disability. It shall be written
into law that a parent(s) or guardian(s) may request the public entity
to pay for their legal representation in the case a due process hearing
is initiated; however, this request shall be made in writing and not
until after the parent(s) or guardian(s) has filed a citizen's
complaint with the State Educational Agency, or SEA, in accordance with
Federal and State law, and if the SEA found the district to be non-
compliant, ordered corrective action, and then before or after the
complaint process the parent(s) or guardian(s) attempted to resolve the
dispute through mediation, and still the district is non-compliant with
the ordered corrective action and/or the mediation agreement, a parent
can then require the public entity pay their attorney fees to ensure
the child is fairly represented. And the public entity shall pay for
all reasonable legal fees as the fees are incurred by the parent(s) or
guardian(s), rather than being dependent on the Administrative Law
Judge's order that the public entity pay the prevailing parent's or
guardian's legal fees as defined in 34 C.F.R. Part 300.
In no event shall this requirement prevent a parent(s) or
guardian(s) from requesting a due process hearing at any time; however
it is necessary that the least litigious and costly procedures be
initiated first to ensure effective and efficient use of public
resources; therefore the legal fees shall be awarded only after the
parent or guardian has attempted to resolve the dispute by using the
citizen's complaint process and mediation process.