LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT
(6)
Statement of Law
The least restrictive environment (LRE) principle
in IDEA creates a presumption in favor of educating students with
disabilities in the same programs as students without disabilities.
Thus, to the maximum extent appropriate, a student with a disability
is to be educated with students who do not have disabilities. IDEA
requires that the student's removal from the regular educational
environment may occur only when the nature or severity of the student's
disability is such that education in regular classes with the use
of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily
(20 U.S.C. Secs. 1412 (5)(B) and 1414 (a)(1)(C)(iv)). In addition,
State and local education agencies must maintain a continuum of
placements (34 C.F.R. Part 300, Secs. 300.17 and 300.551). The continuum
includes instruction in regular classes, special classes, special
schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.
Under IDEA, a student's placement should be determined
annually, be based on the student's IEP, be as close to the student's
home as possible, take into account any potential harmful effect
on the student or the quality of services the student needs (34
C.F.R. Sec. 300.552), and the likelihood that the student will be
so disruptive in a regular classroom that the education of other
students will be significantly impaired (note to 34 C.F.R. Sec.
300.552).
Benefits of Integration
At every hearing, witnesses offered strong support
for IDEA's fundamental assumption that the first placement option
to be considered for students with disabilities should be the regular
classroom the student would attend if he or she were not disabled.
Such placement was variously referred to as "integration" or as
"inclusion" by witnesses in their descriptions regarding the benefits
of such placements.
Toni Robinson is a parent and educator at the Parent
Training and Information Center in North Carolina. Her eleven-year-old
son, Ted, has Down syndrome and is in his second year at a regular
elementary school:
Over the last year, I have learned that IDEA
works, and the least restrictive language in IDEA, in my opinion,
is just fine as it is. I can tell you that supported inclusion,
which entails support for students and parents, for my kid, I
can tell you that it works, period. I have a kid. My kid has a
life. And I can say to you honestly I really feel like now I have
a child instead of a walking disability: walking Down syndrome.
And a year later, I have those feelings corroborated by folks
at the school, who say, "I wish we could have videotaped this
child every day since he walked in the building, because no one
would believe the progress." (Toni Robinson, Charlotte, NC)
Many other witnesses described the benefits of integration:
Had I been placed in that special classroom,
would they have taught me to expect the same things for myself
that children without disabilities take for granted, or to accept
a standard that was less? Would I have learned to climb stairs,
or would they not have taught me because, like the public school
nurse, they would be afraid I might fall? Would having attended
a special classroom [have] prepared me for college, or
would it have ended my chance for a bachelor's degree before it
was begun? (Bernadette Griffin, Philadelphia, PA)
Experiences with Keith's new teacher and his
classmates leads me to understand inclusion, like education for
any typically developing child, is a process in which placement
is crucial. Disability is real. It's educational implications
cannot be ignored. However, we already have demonstrated adequately
that poor quality of life outcomes can be predicted by mindlessly
segregating individuals with disabilities. (Walter Theis,
New York, NY)
The main "benefit" Darcy drew form her experience
in segregated education was the internalized idea that she could
not do what other children could do and was somehow not equal
to them. (Leslie Reed, Denver, CO)
In every step of her education, there have been
other parents who came to me privately and thanked me for allowing
their children a first-hand human experience of the children who
for so many years were relegated to special classrooms, other
campuses, for separate--but not equal--education. (Lindsay
Merryman, Berkeley, CA)
For many witnesses, placement in the least restrictive
environment meant placement in a regular classroom in the neighborhood
school they would attend if they were not disabled:
Integration into home schools results in education
of the community to the sensitivities of children with disabilities.
(Mark March, Des Moines, IA)
While having Alex attend his neighborhood schools
has not been a popular idea, we have settled for nothing less
than being given the opportunity to go to the same school he would
attend if he did not have a disability. (Greg Omori, Des Moines,
IA)
Parents whose children were placed in local neighborhood
schools were pleased and convinced of the many benefits of such
placements. Not only does the community learn to accept the particular
student, but the student also gains socially and emotionally by
having companions in the neighborhood that attend the same school.
One little girl testified that she was very thankful that she was
able to go to her neighborhood school. She expressed sympathy for
another girl she knew who attended a segregated school because she
did not have this opportunity and has no friends to play with in
the neighborhood.
A majority of witnesses who testified on the subject
of least restrictive environment indicated strong support for integrated
placements. This support was based on a variety of factors. Many
parents of students with disabilities stated that their children
made greater gains academically and socially in integrated settings
than they had in segregated settings. Parents emphasized the friendships
their children had made with nondisabled students that would not
have occurred in segregated placements. Parents reported that their
children were happier and were eager to be doing what their peers
were doing.
Catherine Jortner, President of the Connecticut Coalition
for Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities, spoke on
behalf of the parent of a student with autism. The parent had spent
five years in due process proceedings, trying to have her son included
in a regular classroom setting. She was successful and reported
that the five years of struggle had been worth it, as it offered
irreplaceable social benefits to her son, Jay.
For the first time, at age 16, Jay went out
with friends. He went to a football game with some classmates.
It's funny, we were always told that regular education kids just
don't want anything to do with special education kids. The kids
at the high school have been wonderful. Adults could learn a lot
from them. He has friends. Now we have hope for his future.
(Catherine Jortner, Boston, MA)
Furthermore, students with disabilities and their
parents indicated that academic standards are higher in integrated
settings and that students are motivated to achieve at higher levels,
whatever their initial level of ability and functioning. Witnesses
also reported that integrated placements often led to a greater
ability to achieve independence and employment as adults.
Kathleen Fitzgerald is both a teacher and a parent.
Her daughter, Kara, who has both mental retardation and autism,
was successfully included in a regular classroom:
We saw more progress in that one year of inclusion
than we saw in six or seven years of very intensive one-on-one
special education. So I feel very strongly that IDEA certainly
helped me, and the new...recognition of autism helped me to be
able to get my district to look at including my child with very
obvious behavioral and autistic tendencies in a regular classroom.
[It] was unbelievably successful! (Kathleen Fitzgerald,
Anchorage, AK)
Both parents and students stated that they preferred
a real-life environment with a diverse population because integration
helps students without disabilities to become more compassionate
and understanding. Linda Frederick is a parent who, in 1971, worked
in an institution for people with mental retardation, including
people with Down syndrome. She now has a son with Down syndrome
and is very pleased that he is being educated in an integrated environment,
remembering the institution where she once worked. She feels fortunate
to have great teachers and services that have been especially beneficial
to her son's socialization. She says that her son will learn a lot
from the kids, a little from the specialists, and a little from
the general education teacher.
My son, our family, his friends, and his school
are all the beneficiaries of his inclusion at Columbine. I no
longer fear for his future. His inclusion in school will ensure
that he's included as an adult. There's no better feeling than
to know that. Most important of all, he will learn about finding
his place in the world, and his friends will learn about finding
their place in the world. (Linda Frederick, Denver, CO)
The costs associated with integration can be modest,
with possible savings because of fewer due process hearings, fewer
mediations, fewer referrals to special education, fewer non-public
school placements, and lower transportation costs.
Oakland's current inclusion program at the elementary
level serves 27 students at eight schools. Over 60% of the Severely
Handicapped (SH) students living in those eight attendance areas
attend regular education classes in their neighborhood school
with the support of supplemental aids and services...This year
OUSD [Oakland Unified School District] will spend about
$800 per inclusion student less than the cost of educating
them in SDCs [Special Day Classes]. This is due largely
to transportation savings ($2,310/student) offsetting additional
costs due to staffing ($1,370/student), planning, and training.
As more students are included across the
district and at all grade levels, there will be additional costs
for equipment (averaging up to $250 per included student), ability
awareness training (about $20,000 per year district-wide), and
reduced savings on transportation at the secondary level. However,
any additional costs should be completely offset by projected
savings from:
- reduced escalation to more intensive
services (e.g. about $32,000 per student per year not referred
to non-public school);
- reduced legal fees associated with
mediations and fair hearings (typically $2,000 - $10,000 per
case);
- reduced need for expansion of facilities
($55,000 per classroom);
- reduced facilities usage ($960 per
class per year); and
- the effects of economies of scale (e.g.
potential for reducing staffing at $1,370 per student per year).
Inclusion represents a more efficient
and effective utilization of educational resources. Furthermore,
the substantial benefits attributed to inclusive education can
be delivered for no additional expenditure of resources. (Mark
Polit, Berkeley, CA)
Individuals from advocacy organizations also testified
in favor of integrated settings. These advocates represented parents
(including parents from diverse backgrounds), students with severe
disabilities, and people with mental retardation. The few special
education administrators who testified generally supported the concept
of integration and emphasized the need for administrative support
for integration within school districts.
Beyond the numerous statements of support for integration,
many individuals also commented on the negative effects of segregated
settings. Ellen Laurence is the parent of a daughter who was placed
in a self-contained special education classroom after having been
in an integrated setting. In the self-contained program, she was
physically abused by staff. She testified that when she reported
this to the Colorado Department of Education, she was told that
abuse was not their problem, but that it was a personnel problem.
Students reported that they had been ridiculed and
stigmatized for going to "the special education room" and that they
were treated like second-class citizens. One student reported feeling
psychologically malnourished when placed in a group made
up only of other young adults with disabilities (Bill Rush, Des
Moines, IA).
A number of witnesses stated that a separate special
education system could never be equal to the regular system. Some
stated that children with mental retardation in segregated settings
frequently miss out on academics and the positive behavior modeling
of nondisabled peers. Others stated that segregation may encourage
nondisabled students to maintain harmful attitudes, because segregation
demonstrates that it is acceptable to treat some students under
different rules and because nondisabled students do not have the
opportunity to know students with disabilities as peers and as individuals.
Several individuals stated that segregation itself creates a further
disability, perhaps worse than the original disabling condition.
Thus, the supported integration of students with disabilities was
described as not only producing better results for all students,
but as a positive instrumental method of reducing the historical
prejudice that has been directed toward people with disabilities
in our culture.
Characteristics of Successful Integration
Once the child is there...[inclusion] sells
itself. (Jan Miller, Berkeley, CA)
The teacher that honestly believes a child is
an asset to the class and is a privilege to teach communicates
much to that child, and sets an example for the rest of the class
to value all people. (Gayle Underdown, Charlotte, NC)
Her team is creative, flexible and determined
to make inclusion work. (Janet Schmitz, Berkeley, CA)
Primarily [it is] the kids who are really
into, in fact, including Adam. They are the primary sources of
strategies and ways to include him in all their activities starting
from PE through their curriculum. (Joanna Cooper, Berkeley,
CA)
A large number of witnesses who commented about the
characteristics of successful inclusion credited staff members who
work directly with students with disabilities. Positive attitudes
were frequently mentioned as critical to the success of integration.
Staff who want to make integration work, or even a single teacher
who promotes positive attitudes about people with disabilities,
can make all the difference. The quality and training of regular
teachers, special education teachers and support teachers and staff
in successful integrated placements is an important factor. So is
collaboration among teachers, between teachers and parents, and
between schools and agencies. Some individuals stated that support
from the administration and school district is necessary, as is
provision of adequate support services to the child and classroom
teacher. Support services can include early intervention, paraprofessionals
or aides, interpreters, buses for field trips, and education for
nondisabled peers. Obviously, appropriate IEP goals and objectives
are necessary.
The role of other students is also important. Social
interactions between students with and without disabilities can
be encouraged. Peers naturally provide motivation, can suggest curriculum
modifications, and become friends of students with disabilities.
Diana Daggett is a parent and board member of the
Autism Society of America. Her 15-year-old daughter, Allison, is
succeeding in a regular school because she has proper support and
her school is complying with IDEA:
Allison is living proof that with the proper
supports and compliance by schools, children with special needs
can succeed. What's important is the reputable fact that all children
benefit from full participation of every student. There are important
lessons to be learned early in life about the rights of all people.
(Diana Daggett, Albuquerque, NM)
Barriers to Integration
While a large number of witnesses described the benefits
of integrated education, many others described the many barriers
that continue to impede (or serve to prohibit) the implementation
of IDEA's requirements.
Attitudes of Professionals in Education
I tell you in my experience, I've heard such
rhetoric as, "I'm getting tired of spending money on kids who
aren't ever going to grow up and be anything." Holy cow, and that's
coming from administration! (Mark Peterson, Des Moines, IA)
Attempts by parents for mainstreaming or inclusion
are met with disdain and indifference. (Pam Clingenpeel, Charlotte,
NC)
We've been told, "You're going to dump these
children in our class and we're going to be responsible to teach
them. If we don't, it will be our jobs." (Greg Omori, Des
Moines, IA)
One parent was told from an administrator, "[Your
son] can either go to his neighborhood school, where he will
be teased and humiliated, or he can continue to go to the segregated
school, where he will have the opportunity to be class president
and captain of the basketball team." (E.J. Jorgensen, Des
Moines, IA)
Of the approximately 50 people who discussed professionals'
attitudes, several testified that many teachers are unhappy with
inclusion and are not always receptive to having a child with disabilities
in their classroom. One parent said that her daughter who has autism
was subjected to regular classroom teachers who ignored her, blamed
her for requiring special help, and pressured her parents to segregate
her by taking her out of the integrated system. Another parent stated
that in her city, the teachers' union wants a moratorium on inclusion
and teacher "veto power" over the acceptance of students with disabilities
into their classrooms, a situation that would be intolerable in
the treatment of any other minority group. A father from Anchorage
stated that he was afraid that his child would be excluded if his
child's disability was identified due to the lack of personnel support
for inclusion. A few people testified that, although some teachers
initially support integration, they want to revert back to segregated
programs as soon as any problems arise.
People compared the situation of children with disabilities
with that of the discrimination that occurred against African Americans
a few decades ago and stated the strong hope that it will not take
decades for people to come to the understanding that children with
disabilities belong in a classroom just as much as nondisabled children.
Inclusion must be a right for all and not a
privilege for a few. (Kathie Snow, Denver, CO)
The inclusion of all of our kids hangs in the
balance until districts and LEAs and SEAs stop seeing inclusion
as a favor to be given or denied and see it as a right for all
of our kids. (Cheryl Ogle, Des Moines, IA)
Why should parents have to struggle so hard
to access inclusion when the original intent of IDEA was to make
the regular classroom the first option of choice? (E.J. Jorgensen,
Des Moines, IA)
Least restrictive placement is [considered]
an earned privilege, not a right. Children must prove that
they can attend, keep up with, and function as non-disabled students
in the regular classroom or they do not have the right to attend.
(Dawn Gloss, Des Moines, IA)
I've been watching inclusion evolve over the
last six or seven years. Inclusion works wonderfully for students
[who] have parents that have the time and energy to support
their child. (Jane Thiboutot, Anchorage, AK)
Approximately two dozen witnesses testified on the
negative attitudes of professionals as a barrier to inclusion. A
large number of parents complained of having to fight--sometimes
for years--for their child's right to integrated education. Several
complained of having to hire attorneys to fight for integrated placements
that were supposed to be their children's right. Furthermore, contrary
to the provisions of the law, witnesses stated that the burden is
often placed on students and families to "prove" they are "ready"
for inclusion, and only then do they "earn" their way out of a segregated
setting.
Parents expressed frustration that their children
with disabilities had been sent to schools away from their brothers,
sisters, and friends, especially when the appropriate services could
be made available in their neighborhood school. General resistance
to integration is a factor many believe to be the main obstacle
behind administrative reluctance to integrate students with disabilities
into regular schools.
While positive attitudes are a key element in reducing
barriers to inclusive education, occasionally a witness noted that
attitudes can be changed:
I used to think that teachers had to have the
right attitude and the right training before kids could be included
in their classroom. And what I found from experience is that sometimes
when you include a child with diverse needs into their classrooms,
their attitude changes, and they see the need for training and
they will get it then. (Charmaine Thaner, Denver, CO)
Personnel Preparation
I don't get it. Why all the opposition? Aren't
these people in a position they are in to help guide education
to be the richest it can be? These people who oversee the education
are, by example, teaching mediocrity, intolerance, and purposeful
ignorance. (Elsie Mahler Scharff, Philadelphia, PA)
The problems with obtaining integrated placements,
coupled with the poor and unsupportive attitudes of professionals,
stem at least partially from a lack of training for educators and
administrators on the purposes of integration and on techniques
to implement this requirement of IDEA successfully.
I think it's important to teach teachers disability
awareness. Non-disabled teachers probably don't have an idea of
the personal psychological effects of disabilities. (Julie
Redenbaugh, Albuquerque, NM)
[At the college I attend,] they teach that including
students with disabilities is against the LRE requirement and
that segregated classes and schools are the best environments
for students with moderate or severe disabilities. (Patty
Gilg, Des Moines, IA)
Over 20 people identified the need for improved personnel
preparation in (1) working with students with disabilities and their
families, (2) learning about disabilities in general to promote
understanding, (3) understanding IDEA and the requirements of LRE,
(4) focusing on the students' abilities as well as understanding
their disabilities, and (5) training administrators. Administrators
need to become more familiar with what is involved in including
a child in the regular classroom. It is only then that they will
have a foundation to be able to support teachers in the inclusion
of students with disabilities in their schools.
Jane Burke is a parent whose seven-year-old son experienced
successful integration in kindergarten because the teacher was accepting,
tried hard to address him in her lessons and activities, and modified
his assignments to give him work at his level. She testified, however,
that in a different grade, the teacher was inflexible and unwilling
to adopt or modify the curriculum or produce incentives for good
behavior:
In my experience, the real barrier to children
with disabilities being placed in a regular classrooms is unaccepting
attitudes of school personnel. It is difficult for people to change.
It's been easy for them to hand children over to special education
and not have to deal with anyone with different needs. It is our
job to show teachers and school administrators that we believe
all children can learn and deserve to learn together. (Jane
Burke, Philadelphia, PA)
Funding and Costs (7)
It is clear that current funding patterns create
incentives for segregated special education and disincentives for
integrated education.
If we look at the bottom line--money--Iowa's
system is set up, "The more you segregate, the more money we will
give you. We will give you more money if you separate the children."
(Greg Omori, Des Moines, IA)
These laws are wonderful, and yes, they work,
but they don't work without money. (Kathleen Fitzgerald, Anchorage,
AK)
More than 40 persons testified about the issue of
financial disincentives to integrated education. In many States,
school districts receive more State funds by labeling and segregating
students with disabilities than they do for integrating these students
into regular school environments. This type of State funding practice
causes local education agencies to segregate students with disabilities
because districts cannot afford the supports and services necessary
for quality inclusionary services with no (or reduced) State funds.
One parent commented that in order to have his son integrated, he
had to discover a way that the school district could still receive
its money while integrating his son. Another described her experience
as follows:
Our first introduction to our district came with
our son being labeled as S.H. For those who don't know, "severely
handicapped." He had never received such a label before. We were
given a cursory explanation that in California, this label was used
primarily as a funding mechanism, not as a placement tool. But we
quickly learned that our son had a bounty on his head. (Cecily
Purcell, Berkeley, CA)
To provide an incentive for schools to follow IDEA,
one witness recommended pooling the resources of different categorical
programs. The effect would be to eliminate the negative reaction
that often exists when regular education funds are used for special
education.
But [successful inclusion] cannot happen
unless the board provides the resources, the training for the
staff, and there is an attitude change in terms of staff and personnel
as to the possibilities of children being allowed to function
in a regular classroom situation. (Sonia Ortiz-Gulardo, New
York, NY)
In addition, the current lack of resources in general
and special education alike can prevent the effective and appropriate
inclusion of students, because the appropriate services are not
always available. For example, one mother said that her daughter
who has a learning disability was mainstreamed, but did not have
a consultant teacher because there was not enough money in the budget
to pay for one. While a lack of resources is not an acceptable excuse
under the equal protection provisions of the Constitution upon which
IDEA is based,(8) school districts
continue to use this excuse to deny services to students with disabilities.
Many witnesses stated that resources need to be allocated
for personnel preparation, particularly for the education of professionals
in the integration of students with disabilities and for collaboration
between regular and special education teachers in order to monitor
and improve integration efforts.
Partial Integration
Some witnesses commented specifically on the unsatisfactory
implementation of the LRE through only partial or poorly supported
integration:
I've been in some classrooms where there are
children who stay in the back of the room in the corner and are
ignored for a couple of hours at a time... that's not inclusion.
(Jane Thiboutot, Anchorage, AK)
Even though students might be physically integrated
into a regular school program, accommodations may not be made in
order for these students to access effective instruction and social
supports. For example, one witness expressed concern regarding the
lack of academic integration. Too often, children are integrated
only in classes such as art, gym and music. Another witness was
dismayed that her child was allowed social interaction only during
lunchtime.
While placement in a regular neighborhood school
does not dictate that a student with disabilities spend every minute
of the day in regular classes, it is also the case that the ability
of students with disabilities to participate in regular--and challenging--classes
within the regular school should not be prejudged.
Being Treated as a "Burden" to Regular
Education
Congress included an exception to the IDEA provisions
regarding least restrictive environment to address the rare situation
where a student's behavior in a particular placement might be considered
dangerous to the student or to other students. Unfortunately, this
exception has been sometimes used to exclude students whose behavior
would not be construed as dangerous (see the "Zero Reject" chapter).
While it may be necessary to continue this exception in the law
(although such behavior is covered under other laws), its interpretation
should at least be restricted to those situations for which it was
intended:
We feel that the IDEA adequately addresses the
issue of children having dangerous behaviors by the process that
school districts can get an injunction for a child who is dangerous.
(Teresa Holt, Anchorage, AK)
Parents reported that in some situations, they had
been made to feel that the presence of their child in a regular
school environment would hinder the progress of other students or
that the "burden" of providing services to their child would take
resources away from other (presumably, more worthy) students.
Continuum of Services
When IDEA's predecessor, the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, was written 20 years ago, Congress mandated State
and local education agencies to provide a continuum of services
in educating students with disabilities. This continuum included
a graduated series of increasingly restrictive and segregated placements
for students with disabilities, ranging from placement in regular
education classrooms to institutions. This requirement continues
in effect to this day.
[It is not possible to have] a one-size-fits-all
educational philosophy. (Stella Sanfratello, Denver, CO)
[Inclusion] is not the answer for every child
or for every parent. We have children that are benefitting from
inclusion, but we have many children who are vegetating in the
backs of classrooms. (Julia McCarthy, Boston, MA)
I have some serious concerns about the
current movement to adopt inclusionary practices as a single,
universal concept to meet the needs of deaf and hard of hearing.
(Timothy Jaech, Milwaukee, WI)
Some witnesses at the hearings testified in favor
of maintaining the continuum of services. Their comments were often
based on the type of disability that their child had. For example,
individuals who were deaf and parents of students who were deaf
constituted the majority of the individuals who wanted to maintain
the continuum. Some parents of students with multiple disabilities
also supported the maintenance of the continuum. Individual parents
and persons representing other disability groups--such as blindness
or visual impairment, mental retardation, other developmental disabilities,
attention deficit disorder or autism, and dyslexia (in decreasing
order of frequency)--also testified on behalf of the continuum.
Several witnesses offered explanations as to why
they wanted to maintain the continuum. Some stated that their child's
needs simply had not been met in the regular classroom, primarily
because the school failed to appropriately educate them by not providing
necessary services. This comment was especially frequent for individuals
who were either blind (or visually impaired) or had multiple disabilities.
Others stated a general need for flexibility and parental choice
in the matter. One woman commented that her daughter became frustrated
in the regular classroom trying to keep up with the other students,
but once she was placed in a segregated school, she started learning
again. A few parents of children with multiple disabilities commented
that they preferred separate placements because of the medical supervision
provided for their child. Individuals who were blind or visually
impaired expressed their concern that braille education simply had
not been made available in integrated settings. One individual stated
that he had been integrated and had benefitted socially, but that
he lacked a lot of necessary skills.
Witnesses concerned with students who are deaf cited
several reasons for maintaining the continuum: the lack of language
education in many integrated settings, isolation from peers because
of communication barriers, and underdeveloped self-esteem due to
a lack of role models. Additionally, they valued the availability
of direct communication with the teacher and peers without having
to rely on interpreters to communicate.
The individuals who testified in favor of the continuum
did not express a desire to eliminate inclusion. As noted above,
many indicated that they had chosen other placements because appropriate
supports and services had not been made available to them within
regular education settings. In the case of deaf students, Cliff
Moers explained that the development of communication skills was
paramount:
When there is communication, then they
will learn. There is no way to learn except through communication.
Compared with other children with disabilities, our group is unique,
and our needs are related to communication and communication barriers.
That's our biggest problem. (Cliff Moers, Denver, CO)
Thus, it is the case that 20 years after the passage
of the law, there are students who are not being served well--or
served at all--by the public schools. However, given the existence
of highly successful models of inclusive education for students
with all types and severity levels of disabilities all across the
nation, the time is long overdue that, with the possible exception
of deaf students, the focus of the placement question evolve from
the initial assumption that the nature or severity of a disability
determines a certain placement on the continuum to a focus on the
availability of appropriate supports and services within a given
local education agency.
Recommendations: Least Restrictive Environment
To date, most governmental parties involved in implementing
the requirement that students receiving special education be educated
in the least restrictive environment have consistently failed to
live up to their responsibilities regarding this requirement. Twenty
years after the passage of Federal special education legislation
requiring placement in the least restrictive environment, many local
education agencies continue to routinely place students with special
needs in segregated categorical programs with virtually no consideration
of less restrictive placements. State agencies continue to reward
this noncompliance in many parts of the country by providing financial
incentives for segregated placements. The Federal government has
failed to enforce the law in any substantive manner, thus aggravating
the situation.
In spite of this, thousands of students with all
types of disabilities, including those with the most severe levels
of disability, are being well supported--and are thriving--in full-time
regular class placements across the country every day. Clearly,
we have gone beyond the point where arguments can be effectively
made that some students simply cannot be served in integrated placements
because of the nature or severity of their disabilities. And yet,
the entire national architecture of special education continues
to be based on a structure known as a continuum, which was originally
developed on the assumption that the nature and severity of a disability
should determine the degree of integration or segregation a student
experiences in education.
Continuing noncompliance with the least restrictive
environment provisions of IDEA is particularly troubling in light
of the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA). One of the core goals of the ADA is a significant increase
in the participation of all Americans with disabilities in the lives
of their local communities. In stark contrast to this, most public
schools continue to segregate large numbers of students with disabilities
from participation in the lives of their neighborhood schools, and
sometimes even their communities. This continued segregation may
be construed as a de facto violation of the civil rights
of students with disabilities under the ADA. Clearly, special education
law should not promote service structures that justify and promote
the segregation of students on the basis of the existence, nature,
or severity of their disabilities.
Accordingly, a major goal in improving the implementation
of IDEA should be replacing the requirement that State and local
education agencies must provide a continuum of services with a requirement
that State and local education agencies must provide for an "array
of support services designed to maximize the student's participation
in regular education environments and activities." A continuum,
by definition, is constructed with a series of steps leading away
from regular class placement. An array, on the other hand, can be
conceptualized as having a wide variety of individually accessible,
discrete support services that can be accessed freely from a regular
educational environment. Under a continuum model, students are incrementally
removed from typical educational environments and they and their
parents must accept all of the features provided within their "step"
on the continuum. With an array model, students and parents can
stay where they are and access only those services and supports
they need, not the whole "package" which, in the case of special
education delivered under a continuum model, almost always involves
segregation.
The implementation of the current regulatory requirement
that school districts must provide a continuum of services has served
as a substantial barrier to achieving the overall intent of this
section of the law, namely, to promote the maximum participation
of students with disabilities in regular education, with removal
occurring only after it has been clearly demonstrated that appropriate
supplementary aids and services have failed to work. To this day,
all school districts are required to have ready a series of increasingly
more segregated options, including institutions.(9)
Over the years, a "continuum of services" has become equated with
a "continuum of placements," the result being a drainage of energy
and resources away from neighborhood schools into segregated settings.
Ironically, the implementation of the regulations has apparently
thwarted the intent of the law.
There will be situations where parents will want
substantially separate placements, usually because school districts
have not offered appropriate supports within the regular school
environment. Other times, parents might request such placements
based on the nature of their child's disability (e.g., deafness).
At this point in history, such requests might be appropriate. However,
this should not obstruct the overall process of rebuilding special
education as a high-quality support service available in every public
school building in America. The problem at present is not a lack
of options to segregate students with disabilities from their peers;
rather, it is a lack of options to include students with disabilities
in the ongoing lives of their schools and communities.
Therefore, in order to improve and strengthen the
provisions of IDEA regarding placement in the least restrictive
environment, the Federal government should implement the following
recommendations:
- The goals, purposes, rights, and protections afforded
under the Americans with Disabilities Act should be incorporated
throughout IDEA through preambular language stating this fact.
- The requirement that State and local education
agencies must provide a continuum of services should be replaced
with a requirement that State and local education agencies must
provide an "array of support services designed to maximize the
student's participation in regular education environments and
activities." While it may be necessary to maintain many of the
current features of the "continuum" as a transition to a "supports
and services" orientation takes place, and it may be the case
that a relatively small number of students might continue in substantially
separate placements (e.g., deaf students), the requirement that
a wide array of supports and services be available in regular
school buildings will better address the intent of IDEA and other
legislation in eventually reducing the number of more restrictive
placements.
- State and local education agencies should be required
to develop funding policies and procedures that are at least "placement
neutral". That is, funds should be allocated to meet the needs
of individual students, not the needs of individual programs.
At least the same amount of funding should be available to support
a student in an integrated regular education environment as in
a segregated program.
- Removal of a student with a disability from the
regular education environment should be documented with a written
report attached to the student's IEP. The written report should
include: a statement of the supplementary aids and services considered,
but rejected, by the IEP team; a statement of the reasons why
these supplementary aids and services are not capable of assisting
the child within the regular education setting; and a statement
as to when appropriate supplementary aids and services will be
made available to transition the student back to the regular education
environment.
- The IEP for any child with a disability who is
to remain in the regular education setting should list necessary
aids and services with the same specificity as the listing of
necessary related services, including the time and frequency of
delivery of such aids and services.
- The Department of Education should significantly
expand its monitoring and enforcement activities related to implementing
the least restrictive environment requirements of IDEA. Given
the extreme variability of student placement patterns from district
to district and State to State, specific plans and goals for reducing
the number of students placed outside of regular education settings
should be developed, with receipt of future Federal funding contingent
upon meeting these goals.
PARENT PARTICIPATION AND SHARED
DECISION MAKING
No parent is ready or trained to be a parent
of a special needs child. (Mary Ann Egger, Milwaukee, WI)
I looked for information. It wasn't there. I
didn't get anything from the school districts, from any of the
support people they put me in touch with. They were all bureaucrats.
I got my best information from other parents, and so I think it's
important that new parents, parents just coming into the system,
are matched up with other parents. (Lisa Reader, Albuquerque,
NM)
I have been quite a successful education story.
But I think that is only because my parents are both very well
educated and relatively wealthy, certainly upper middle class.
And they had the ability and the knowledge to essentially face
down the educational system and say, "No. You're incorrect. This
is what he needs, that will not be enough," and I was able to
get the kinds of services that I needed. (Dave Gordon, Boston,
MA)
Despite all the wonderful changes, many parents
are still not given the respect they deserve as experts about
their own children. Many fathers are still left out of the process
entirely. And many parents are subjected to humiliating, destructive
encounters with education and health care professionals. I believe
that this is because well-intentioned professionals are not sufficiently
trained on how to communicate with and collaborate with parents.
Accordingly, I urge that the reauthorization legislation mandate
training of this kind. (Stanley Klein, Boston, MA)
Statement of Law
One of the six principles of IDEA is that parents
and (where appropriate) students have a right to share decision
making with educators. This principle--sometimes called parent participation
or parent-educator collaboration--serves two purposes. First, it
facilitates informed decisions by knowledgeable people and thereby
advances the student's appropriate education in the least restrictive
environment. Second, it creates a system of checks and balances,
so that parents and students on the one hand and educators on the
other can hold each accountable for the student's education.
IDEA authorizes several types of shared decision
making. It requires the State education agency to establish procedures
for consulting with persons involved in or concerned with the education
of students with disabilities, including individuals who themselves
have disabilities or are parents or guardians of students with disabilities
(20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(7)); to make the State's special education
plan available to the public and parents (34 C.F.R. Part 300, Sec.
300.284); to hold public hearings on the State plan and to give
notice of those hearings (34 C.F.R. Part 300, Sec. 280); and to
allow the public and parents to comment on the State plan before
it is adopted (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(7)). Similar participation and
consultation requirements exist for local education agencies (20
U.S.C. Sec. 1414(a)(1)(C)(iii)). In addition, the State education
agency must create an advisory panel on special education, consisting
(in part) of parents (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1413(a)).
Parents have the right to access the State or local
agencies' system-wide records on special education, but not the
records of individual students except their own child (20 U.S.C.
Secs. 1412(2)(E), 1414(a)(3) and (4), and 1417 (c)). They have access
to their own child's records and may restrict (to a fairly significant
extent) access to those records by other individuals (20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1417(c) and 1232).
In consideration of the fact that shared decision
making creates opportunities for collaboration between parents and
educators and that part of collaboration is the provision of related
services to students and their parents or other family members,
IDEA requires early intervention programs (for infants and toddlers,
from birth to age 3) to fashion, with the parents' participation,
an individualized family service plan (IFSP) (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1477).
IDEA also authorizes some "related services" to be provided to parents
if those services are part of the student's individualized education
program (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)(17), (19), and (20); 34 C.F.R. Part
300, Secs. 300.6 and 300.16).
General Issues Concerning Collaboration
During the hearings, parents and students described
their experiences in attempting to collaborate with school districts
in various aspects of special education. Many witnesses addressed
the issues of interdisciplinary and interagency collaboration.
In many schools it is still us (regular ed)
versus them (special education). Students with disabilities in
particular lose in this meaningless conflict. The essence of the
IDEA is to move away from this mindset into one that emphasizes
collaboration. (Mike Remus, Des Moines, IA)
I go to PETs with families who have children
who have neurobiological disorders like my son, and I sit there
and I get angry, and actually I get physically sick because I
don't care what school district I sit in, what child we're representing,
I hear the same comments from education professionals that [are]
just plain ignorant. The things I hear about these children and
heard about my own child is...that they're "unwilling," they're
"manipulative," and they "don't want any responsibility," and
the parents "won't take any responsibility" and a lot of negative
things instead of, "Gee, what are we doing wrong [and]
how can we make it right. (Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)
Collaboration between schools and parents does not
happen easily. Historically, schools have been viewed as the "experts"
in education, with parents playing a minor role. To be effective,
collaboration must be planned and supported, especially through
training and sharing information between parents and professionals.
Training and Information Issues
Most of these parents are either unaware of
their rights under IDEA, or have been pressured into accepting
less than an appropriate placement for their children. Many not
only do not believe their rights, but they fear retribution if
they apply pressure for appropriate supports and placements.
(Diana Daggett, Albuquerque, NM)
[Families] are being denied their rights through
lack of being educated on their rights. (Patrick Owen, Anchorage,
AK)
In our school system parent training is virtually
nonexistent. Appropriate services for children cannot exist when
parents are without any meaningful information about their child's
participation in special ed. (Linda Speich, Charlotte, NC)
You do it yourself is what it comes down to.
And fortunately, you have your rights under the IDEA, but finding
out what they are and how they apply to your particular situation
is entirely up to the individual parents. (David LaDue, Berkeley,
CA)
There's a lot of kids that are included here
locally in school primarily because of parent advocacy. So it's
one child at a time. (Carl Evertsbusch, Anchorage, AK)
The PTI...has been an invaluable resource
to our family. We are an educated couple, and I believe that we
are relatively intelligent. However, we have needed the support
and the interpretation of all the special ed language and procedures
that have been thrown at us as a family, and PEAK [a PTI]
has been there to provide that to us. (Ellen Laurence, Denver,
CO)
To advance parents' rights to shared decision making,
Congress authorized the creation of parent training and information
centers (PTIs) more than a decade ago. The PTIs are parent-directed
and are responsible for providing education and training to parents
on their rights under IDEA. In some circumstances, they also advocate
for parents and students. There is at least one center in every
State, and recently Congress authorized centers to be created on
behalf of traditionally underserved or minority populations.
According to witnesses, the PTI Centers' roles are
indispensable. They are the major--and sometimes the only--source
for parents to learn about their children's special education needs
and rights. Many parents testified that the knowledge they acquired
through information dissemination and training activities of the
PTIs served to prepare them to be effective in their collaboration
efforts with professionals.
Witnesses had several suggestions for strengthening
parent training under IDEA:
Strengthen the discretionary programs that support
the parent resource centers...get information out to parents...create
ways for parents to network so they can share tips and things
that they've learned. (David Maltman, Anchorage, AK)
I believe we need a greater commitment to develop
parent materials through interactive technology that could accommodate
the various communication levels of parents and students. I also
believe that...the school district should give parents information
about available advocacy organizations, who may represent families
in need of such assistance. (Timothy Jaech, Milwaukee, WI)
If there were any incentives for school districts
to add parents to the team and either at the local, district,...or
even [in] region in-service types of activities, it would
be much appreciated. (Mike Remus, Des Moines, IA)
Witnesses expressed concerns regarding a lack of
successful collaboration among parents, education professionals,
and staff of disability service and other related service agencies
across all major areas of IDEA. A sampling of their comments is
provided below.
Zero Reject
The chasm between parents and the school districts
is getting wider. It's not getting closer...the needs of the child
are seldom mentioned during an IEP meeting: only, "School policy
says..." Some schools are getting no direction on how to interpret
IDEA or what it means. They have no vision for our children, nor
do they have a sense of purpose. Outcomes are seldom looked at.
Schools are not held accountable for the product, which is to
help each of our children reach their full potential. Instead,
what seems to be coming from them is to put our families through
either the judicial system or the social [service] system.
Either way, our families are spending their time fighting these
two systems instead of raising and educating their children.
(Larry Fuller, Albuquerque, NM)
Children cannot receive the education to which they
are entitled unless they are first admitted into school programs.
Family members testified that, much to their amazement, some children
are not being allowed into schools. Their testimony illustrates
how important parent participation is in the enforcement of the
zero reject principle:
Two weeks ago, I saved two children from going
to State custody because [their parents] were told that's
the only way they could access services. There is [also]
a child with MS. He has never gotten any service at all. (Michael
Kidd, Charlotte, NC)
The burden...has been totally put upon me and
my wife. And given that, I'd have to say God help the child that
doesn't have parents with the awareness, the knowledge, the commitment,
whatever it takes to do this. (Richard Curtis, Boston, MA)
Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
Unfortunately, [during] his first eight
years of schooling I didn't know as a parent that I had any rights
or any power or responsibilities. At that time I was undereducated
myself. I had a ninth grade education and I sat at PETs with people
who I perceived to have the knowledge to teach my child and felt
that, even though my gut told me it wasn't right, they must know.
(Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)
Parents want to be able to participate throughout
each step of their child's special education process, including
being a part of identifying their child's abilities and challenges.
They need to be a vital part of the evaluation and assessment process.
Appropriate Education
So I ask my team each year, "What we do? Where
do we go?" I did not go to college to come a special education
teacher, so I look to the professionals for the answers. I've
contacted my senators, my legislators, my State Department of
Education, the Board of the Blind, the New England Center for
Deaf/Blind Services, my local school system, including the head
of special services, the administrator of special education and
teachers of many special education students, and I get that same
blank stare...I find the education system to be a maze of laws,
paperwork, politics and bureaucrats. Everyone has a different
finger to point, a new evaluation to do, another meeting to attend,
and another phone call left without a response. (Catherine
Reed, Boston, MA)
Individualized Family Service Plans
and Individualized Education Programs
At every hearing, the importance of parents' participation
in developing their children's IFSPs and IEPs was reiterated. Regulations
in IDEA ensure the right to full participation for parents in the
IFSP and IEP processes. However, witness after witness offered examples
of how this right is not automatically assumed and acted upon for
families:
Referring to parents participating in IEPs without
education or training or information beforehand: it's like showing
up at a restaurant [where] you read the name over the door
and you have to decide what they serve and whether we want it
or not. That's about what happens at your typical IEP. (David
LaDue, Berkeley, CA)
We had to endure three different staff meetings
with 12 to 14 people between the spring and fall of this year
before we had an adequate IEP design. The entire IEP process was
not an exercise in team building nor reinforcement of our daughter's
strengths. We depended on the provisions of the IDEA to reinforce
our points throughout the entire course of events. I would plead
that any provisions of IDEA which discourage families from playing
an active respective role in the educational planning process
for the children be modified. Make it perfectly clear to the educational
community that families and children drive this process and not
bureaucratic requirements grounded in Federal legislation.
(Joe Wild Crea, Denver, CO)
I was one of those parents who left...IEPs like
someone who has left a foreign movie without the subtitles. I
felt a very small and incidental part of this procedure, and at
times I felt a feeling that my daughter really wasn't getting
her full share or placement of services. [It] wasn't until
I started networking with other parents that I started feeling
empowered to all the services she rightfully should have.
(Diana Sullivan, Milwaukee, WI)
Parents Are Not Professionals
Parents have not received the formal education of
professionals within the educational system, nor should they be
forced to be professionals. Yet "becoming professional" is often
part of what happens to parents:
We really need to put the responsibility again
on the educators and not make all the parents professionals, because
parents also have jobs, and the amount of time, energy, and emotions
that every parent...has put into the education of our children's
special needs [is] just tremendous. It shouldn't be that
way. We really need to distribute that kind of energy more evenly.
It's very frustrating. (Birgit Schweingruber, Berkeley, CA)
Parents, however, have to make a living and
support a family at the same time their child is in need of a
great deal of intervention. We need to find time, funding and
resources to provide those parents with the on-going process of
being a student, a student of being a parent of a person with
a disability. (Brian Charleson, Boston, MA)
Program Methods
Many parents expressed frustration with the methods
used in their children's programs. Methods such as the use of aversive
procedures anger many parents, although some approve of them:
My son, with the severe aggressive dangerous
behaviors that he has... improved, and he's learned and doing
things we never dreamed....The quality of his life has been greatly
improved by being managed on a drug-free program....I don't say
that aversive is for everybody, I'm only saying that it's working
for us. (Marie Washington, New York, NY)
However, many other witnesses testifying on the education
of students with severe behavioral disabilities were adamant in
their belief that those interventions, or other forms of behavioral,
physical, or psychological control were damaging and abusive:
That following year, we had to go to due process...trying
to force the school to stop using aversives on him...Tabasco sauce,
vinegar, soap, paper towels down his throat, and physical restraint
that was injuring him. We learned at that time that our son had
been locked in a PE equipment closet throughout the winter and
the spring. (Rainee Courtnage, Denver, CO)
He was duct-taped to a chair. His clothes were
duct-taped on him. His shoes were duct-taped on him. (Jane
Hasty, Charlotte, NC)
In the town of Cloudcroft, one kid that was
classified as having ADD, was insulted by his teacher. In front
of [the] whole class, [his teacher] called him stupid.
That was the same week he killed himself. (Judy Bonnell, Albuquerque,
NM)
When Annie was in sixth grade, she was physically
abused at school by the teacher and the paraprofessional, as documented
by the child abuse and neglect team and the local police department.
(Ellen Laurence, Denver, CO)
I would like to talk about adding an amendment
to the Individuals with Disabilities Act that would prohibit aversive
procedures, including restraints within public institutions that
educate children. (Carolyn Reed, Denver, CO)
Implementation of positive behavior modification
techniques was recommended as an alternative to the use of aversive
and other painful techniques in the education of students with severe
behavioral disabilities.(10) Another
witness noted the importance of modifying the environment in order
to foster positive behavioral change:
Teachers [of students with] serious emotional
disorders concentrate on discipline and consequences, instead
of modifying the environment, which is what our children need.
(Betty Cope, Albuquerque, NM)
Parent input can greatly improve educational programs
for students with disabilities. However, the current system has
the potential to allow parents to request and receive program methods
that are unproven, experimental in nature, or dangerous or harmful
to the physical or psychological health of their child. While it
is possible to understand the desperation of these parents, to share
their exasperation with ineffective programs and treatments, and
to sympathize with them in their frustration to locate appropriate
programs, there are limits to what society can permit in the name
of treatment. There are those in our society who would advocate
for severe physical punishment or even the mutilation of prisoners
convicted of what everyone would agree are heinous crimes. Yet these
prisoners are afforded protection under the law from this treatment,
even though there are those who would claim that such treatment
would "teach them a lesson." Students with severe behavioral disabilities
are not criminals, and yet present law allows them to be subjected
to procedures which cannot be used on the most hardened criminals,
or, in some cases, even on animals.
Public funds intended to provide positive educational
experiences and results for children should not be expended to have
these children subjected to unproven, experimental, dangerous, or
violent program procedures which--by design--result in pain, physical
injuries, psychological damage, hunger, social deprivation, or other
such negative experiences, whether they are authorized by desperate
parents or not. In any other context the use of these procedures
would be considered child (or dependent) abuse or neglect. They
should not be viewed as "treatment" just because a student has a
disability. Under the present situation, the potential for abuse
is great. Indeed, through its support of these procedures used on
children with disabilities, the United States could be cited for
human rights violations against people with disabilities under its
own Country Reports on Human Rights published annually by
the Department of State.
Beyond discussion concerning particular methods,
parents would like to have input and give consent to teaching methods
before they become a part of their child's daily life in programs
at school. Often parents' suggestions for methods are ignored or
blatantly turned down as viable suggestions. Parent participation
in determining appropriate education is probably one of the most
neglected area in special education practice today:
My wife and I are presently even discussing
her going to school with my son on a full-time basis to be in
the classroom so he can receive the support he needs in order
to survive in that classroom. (Steve Konecny, Denver, CO)
Parents still have to push far too much to get
academic skills into the curriculum in special education, and
I think more parents, because of the advocacy programs, are aware
that they can push and can get things into their child's curriculum
that they thought were not available. (Ginny Gilman, Albuquerque,
NM)
Clearly, added training and information dissemination
for parents would help them feel much more comfortable in working
as partners in the determination of appropriate educational methods
for their children.
Least Restrictive Environment
I know that last year I felt like I was part
of a creative, collaborative team, working together to figure
out what would be the most interactive environment for my son.
This year, I feel like a pest. This year, I think they are doing
the best they can, and so I've given them lots more information.
I've given them opportunities to hear people who have done it,
to be with people who know how to do the curriculum adaptations,
behavior modification, whatever it is that needs to be in place
for him to be a part of the setting. It's taking a while...I think
that people are given the opportunity to say, "No," too often
to inclusive education. (Leah Phillips, Albuquerque, NM)
The most frequent area of testimony in the area of
parent participation was the principle of the least restrictive
environment and the movement for inclusion of children into regular
education classes with supports. Many family members gave compelling
stories of children's successes in inclusive environments. Some
argued for a continuum of services. However, regardless of their
perspectives, one point that came across loud and clear was the
parents' desire to participate in decisions and to have their wishes
heard and respected when professionals are deciding upon their child's
placement in a special education program.
My daughter is eleven years old. She's autistic,
mentally retarded and up until last year...was in self-contained
classrooms. Last year we decided to attempt inclusion with lots
of support through our UAP and our local school district. Kara
had a remarkably successful year. We saw more progress in that
one year of inclusion than we saw in six or seven years of very
intensive one-on-one special education... (Kathleen Fitzgerald,
Anchorage, AK)
Procedural Due Process
Witness after witness testified that procedural due
process is one of the most important provisions of IDEA, as it is
the avenue that allows parents to enforce their participation in
their child's education. Without this part of the law, special education
would not have produced its successes to date. Still, parents testified
about problems in exercising this right:
A child's right to a free appropriate public
education should not depend on the parent's ability to advocate
for it. (Sue Endress, Milwaukee, WI)
I found that in signing my son into special
education, I might [have] just as well signed away all
my parental rights, as well as signing away my son's rights as
a human being. (Dawn Gloss, Des Moines, IA)
Recommendations: Parent Participation and Shared Decision
Making
Parent and student participation and collaboration
in the design and delivery of special education services is essential,
if these services are to be relevant and effective in maximizing
a student's academic and social development. Congress was wise in
its decision to include many avenues for parent and student involvement
in the special education process and these requirements have resulted
in a better quality of education for thousands of students. However,
many shortcomings in this area continue to exist. In order to address
these shortcomings, the Federal government should implement the
following recommendations:
- Expand funding for the Parent Training and Information
(PTI) program. PTIs can (and often do) serve as the primary information
source for parents regarding special education and offer a cost-effective
method of providing this information to parents and family members.
- Require State and local education agencies to provide
parents of students receiving (or being considered for) special
education with the name, address, and telephone number of the
PTI serving their area. This could be far more cost effective
for school districts and would result in improved comparability
of information across the State.
- Parent input can greatly improve educational programs
for students with disabilities. However, the current system has
the potential to allow parents to request and receive program
methods that are unproven, experimental in nature, or dangerous
or harmful to the physical or psychological health of their child.
Accordingly, there should be an additional State Plan requirement
which would require States to certify that no Federal funds will
be used to support any individual, program, or practice that employs
procedures such as systematic hitting or physical punishment,
the application of noxious substances, extended restraint or seclusion,
humiliation, and other techniques which--by design--result in
pain, physical injuries, psychological damage, hunger, social
deprivation, or other harm, that would otherwise be considered
as constituting child (or dependent) abuse or neglect if the student
were not disabled.
- The Department of Education should review data
regarding the use of surrogate parents under IDEA in order to
determine the frequency of use, the roles that surrogate parents
actually assume in special education, levels of satisfaction of
surrogate parents regarding their experiences with the special
education system, and ways to support surrogate parents more effectively
in their efforts to provide effective representation for students
receiving special education.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Statement of Law
For those who pioneered the right-to-education
doctrine, the procedures for implementing the right were as crucial
as the right itself. Procedural due process is a means of challenging
the multitude of discriminatory practices that the schools had
habitually followed. It also is a way of enforcing the first four
principles of IDEA and putting them to work (zero reject, nondiscriminatory
evaluation, appropriate education, and least restrictive environment)....Procedural
due process--the right to protest--is a necessary educational
ingredient in enforcing every phase of the disabled child's right
to an education. (Turnbull, 1994, p. 207 (11)
IDEA endeavors to ensure procedural due process in
a multitude of ways:
- It requires education agencies (1) to secure parental
consent before initially evaluating a child for special education
placement or placing the child in special education; (2) to notify
parents in the parents' native language or in other effective
ways whenever they propose to change or decline to change the
student's placement, evaluation, identification or appropriate
education; (3) to consider independent evaluations of the student
and, in some circumstances, to pay for those evaluations; (4)
to appoint surrogate parents for students whose natural parents
are unknown or unavailable and for students who are wards of the
State; (5) to establish procedures for administrative due process
hearings and for appeals to the State agency (after which lies
appeal to a Federal or State court); and (6) to follow a "stay-put"
rule that generally requires education agencies to leave a student
in the student's present educational placement and program during
the due process hearing and appeals (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1415(b) and
(e), 1480(6)).
- IDEA also allows (but does not require) State
and local education agencies to offer mediation in order to resolve
disagreements between the agencies and parents.
- IDEA allows parents to recover their attorney
fees if they prevail in a dispute against a State or local educational
agency (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)). These fees may be awarded for
attorneys' participation in mediation, due process administrative
hearings and appeals, and court proceedings.
- Finally, IDEA establishes various other enforcement
mechanisms, including State assurances of compliance with IDEA
if it receives Federal funding and procedures for Federal monitoring
of State compliance and withholding of Federal funds when a State
is out of compliance with IDEA (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1412, 1413, 1414,
and 1416).
In short, procedural due process is both a constitutional
guarantee and a statutory right that Congress has fashioned as a
comprehensive means for enforcing IDEA (Smith v. Robinson,
468 U.S. 992 (1984)).
Throughout the hearings, witnesses stated their distress
about IDEA's enforcement and their belief that while IDEA's due
process provisions are absolutely necessary, their implementation
has been very problematic. Most of all, witnesses expressed resentment
that they had to use due process: Why, many wondered, should they
have to use due process to secure their children's rights guaranteed
under the law? Shouldn't schools have to comply with IDEA?
Enforcement in General
I have come to the conclusion that I'm just
not going to fight anymore. But I came today to let you know that
your laws are not being followed through. (Marie Bauer, Milwaukee,
WI)
We don't need more laws regarding educating
children with disabilities; what we need is enforcement of the
laws that are already on the books. (Christine Multra Kraft,
Milwaukee, WI)
I think the issue is enforcement. Currently,
with the law in Illinois, we file complaints with the Office of
Civil Rights, and nothing ever gets done. We end up having to
go to court. (Rene David Luna, Milwaukee, WI)
IDEA is a beautiful law. However, with the State
and local education agencies' disregard of its most basic premises,
it has not as yet become the law of the land. (Wendy Luckenbill,
Philadelphia, PA)
More than two dozen witnesses testified that enforcement
was critical to the success of IDEA. Their unanimous consensus was
that, if the provisions of IDEA were enforced, due process hearings
would be rare and the quality of education for children with disabilities
would be greatly improved. All the witnesses who discussed procedural
due process offered general ideas how enforcement could be improved:
- Dianne Taylor Owens testified that monitoring
is needed to make sure children are not falling through the
cracks (Albuquerque, NM).
- Janis Symanski advocated for monitoring through
government agencies and the need for accountability of the qualifications
of professionals (Boston, MA).
- Judy Gran stated that enforcing the law under
the IDEA is extremely difficult. She added that if the State does
not adequately enforce the requirements, then students and parents
have little recourse (Philadelphia, PA).
- The March family recommended that an enforcement
agency similar to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
be established to oversee school programs and impose penalties
if needed (Des Moines, IA).
- Dee Estelle Alpert and Edris Klucher stated that
the only way to achieve implementation of IDEA by the Office of
Special Education Programs is to impose financial penalties for
violations (New York, NY; Albuquerque, NM)
- Like Alpert and Klucher, Jean Parker of Denver
also wanted a strict financial penalty for violations. She recommended
that the Federal government take back all special education funding
when a State does not comply with IDEA (Denver, CO).
- Maureen Hollowell agreed that Federal support
should be discontinued if States violate IDEA (Philadelphia, PA).
- Nancy Baesman stated that increased enforcement
from the Federal level would be more effective in bringing about
change than parents using due process (Denver, CO).
- Beverly Roberts recommended outside monitoring
to ensure compliance (Charlotte, NC).
Six other witnesses generally agreed that some sort
of monitoring is needed and that without enforcement, the law has
"no teeth." They all stressed enforcement as the key to a successful
law. However, four parents testified that there was no enforcement
even after due process had determined that there were violations.
One of them testified that even after a school district had been
found to be in violation of several laws, nothing happened to the
district (Bonnie Weninger, Milwaukee, WI).
Other witnesses stressed the importance of parents
knowing their rights and using them. Maureen Hollowell recommended
one method parents can use to enforce IDEA. She said that she finally
succeeded when she exercised her rights by refusing to sign the
IEP until it provided an appropriate education for her child (Philadelphia,
PA).
In sum, the parents who testified about enforcement
were adamant that without monitoring and enforcement, IDEA will
not be followed and individual due process attempts at securing
enforcement will be futile for purposes of systemic change. Parents
who have used due process complain that the victories are few, and
when they do occur, the remedy is limited to that case and does
not automatically cause positive changes to be implemented throughout
a local or State school system.
The due process system may be adequate to resolve
many discrete and simple issues, such as the student's classification
or the amount or duration of services, but it cannot resolve systemic
disputes. For example, disputes over inclusion, over the quality
of instruction and over the adequacy of teacher training. The
difficulty for parents in obtaining more changes in the system
through the process is only reinforcing the status quo. (Judy
Gran, Philadelphia, PA)
The general attitude of the witnesses was that parents
and the Federal government must band together to ensure accountability
in State and local agencies.
Due Process in General
Parents acknowledged that due process hearings were
essential to enforce the rights of their children:
It's clear that without this safeguard, our
son would have been relegated to a separate classroom for students
with multiple disabilities for his entire schooling. (Barbara
Buswell, Denver, CO)
Some parents were able to use the due process right
as a threat to make the schools more responsive. Other parents testified
that due process is more than a useful threat: It is, instead, a
reflection of the adversarial stance that parents are often forced
to assume when trying to work with educators. Indeed, many parents
expressed dismay that schools had forced them to resort to due process:
Why do people have to go through what they go
through to get the changes so that their child can benefit from
a free appropriate public education? That's the sin that I see...Yes,
due process protection does work, but the cost to families, emotionally,
is not fair. (Amy Goldman, Philadelphia, PA)
I looked under the table. I actually was grabbing
for a pen out of my briefcase yesterday, and found that the classroom
teacher had placed under the table a tape recorder. I said, "Jim,
what is that?" And he said, "Well, I'm protecting my civil rights."
We've tried to work as partners with our teachers and principals,
and in fact, I think that we have been extremely gentle in our
approach most times, because I myself was a teacher for many years...But
it was that teacher's interpretation of the law: that it was his
rights that were being protected here, and that as parents, we
were just pushy, unreasonable professionals rather than people
who were very concerned about our child's outcome. (Mary McDonald
Richard, Des Moines, IA)
Often families choose to ignore or forgive violations
and try to move forward to achieve a free appropriate public education
for their child. While I fully understand the decision to let
bygones be bygones, and often support families who make those
decisions, this distorts the reflection of violations when one
looks at the body of complaints filed with the State education
agency. (Maureen Hollowell, Philadelphia, PA)
Due process is accessible to those parents who
have been able to learn the rules, and who have the emotional,
intellectual and financial resources to take advantage of protection
afforded them under the law and withstand the process. Thus, children
with disabilities, of parents who are poor, or minority communities,
have other family stress or have limited English proficiency,
continue to be disenfranchised. (Amy Goldman, Philadelphia,
PA)
Look at the enormous waste of time, money, and
most importantly, the educational experience for my son. I do
not have time to wait until tomorrow and tomorrow for my son to
get the appropriate education he deserves. (Karen Robard,
New York, NY)
Parents viewed the complaint and due process provisions
in IDEA as a double-edged sword. Approximately 80 parents gave testimony
regarding their frustrations with the due process aspects of obtaining
a free appropriate education for their child. In general, however,
they viewed due process hearings as necessary tools for bringing
about the desired and intended benefits of IDEA.
Martha Beebe, a parent who also is a teacher, went
through due process to get her child's IEP changed. It took ten
months (rather than the mandated 45 days) to get a final decision:
an entire school year. She stated her belief that the IDEA is full
of promise, but must be enforced to become more than empty words
on paper (Beebe, Boston, MA). Other witnesses underscored the need
for due process and improved enforcement, a need created by school
districts' reluctance to implement the provisions of the law properly:
I have come to call myself "Bonnie the bitch"
because of what I have had to become to fight the system...I have
contacted multiple State offices. I have followed through with
every lead that anybody has ever given me. I have talked with
the Governor's office here in the State. I have gone so far as
to call the White House...I guess my feeling at this point is,
is there anybody out there who really cares? I don't know what
more to do. I, as a parent, have pursued every option. (Bonnie
Weninger, Milwaukee, WI)
We have a teacher who refuses to follow an IEP.
And then that's when the psychologist and the principal just throw
up their hands and look at me [and say], "Well, we can't
make her do it." And that is very frustrating. (Jill Rigsbee,
Charlotte, NC)
Until the Federal government compels States
and cities to comply with its mandates, IDEA will remain a haven
for the few. (Walter Theis, New York, NY)
Witnesses stated that minority families (especially
Native Americans) with children with disabilities often do not pursue
due process or even get to the mediation process because of language
barriers or cultural factors. Moreover, it was reported that many
Native American parents with children who are not receiving needed
special education services have relatives who work for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Because of this, they do not complain about inadequate
services because it may negatively impact upon their relatives.
(Martha Johnson, Albuquerque, NM)
At every hearing, parents expressed fear over retribution
and retaliation by the schools if they exercised their due process
rights. In one situation, a parent reported that although she won
a court battle to have her little boy placed into an inclusive kindergarten,
the LEA retaliated by providing only narrow, technical compliance
with the decision. The child was physically put into classroom where
the teacher effectively segregated him by placing him in the back
of the class and not allowing any real participation with the other
children (Eleanor Voutsinas, New York, NY).
Another mother described her experience in attempting
to exercise her due process rights as follows:
When you have to advocate for your child, you
pay a high price for that in many ways. It's very stressful on
the family....Because of the kind of advocacy work that I've had
to do...I'm not able to teach anywhere locally. I actually teach
school in Texas, which is a 30-mile drive in the time difference
away from my home....My son suffers from bipolar disorder and
numerous other difficulties. That illness itself is stressful,
but when you have a vindictive, harassing, retaliatory school
district to deal with, it makes your life completely miserable...that's
what I've had to deal with. (Edris Klucher, Albuquerque, NM)
Unfortunately, retribution (or fear of retribution)
is an issue. Indeed, one parent told how schools can use the "stay-put"
provisions under due process to effectively impair students' rights.
After expelling a student, a school then initiated a due process
complaint, causing the child to be kept out of school one entire
year during proceedings.
Due process is not working in my area. The stay
put law is generally ignored, or the parents are urged to drop
the children from their class. In my case...my son was kicked
out of school completely. (Ann Williams, Denver, CO)
A lot of parents don't want to make waves. They
don't want to say anything because it makes it worse on their
child. Indeed, it does make it worse on the child. (Beth Gage,
Philadelphia, PA)
When you have to advocate for your child,
you pay a high price for that in many ways. It's very stressful
on the family...when you have a vindictive, harassing, retaliatory
school district to deal with, it makes your life completely miserable...
that's what I've had to deal with. (Edris Klucher, Albuquerque,
NM)
One mother, whose 15-year-old son with autism was
moved out of a high school into a school for younger students (because
there were "more openings" in the school for younger students) with
only a one-week notice described her experience with due process
as follows:
Throughout the due process, we were given notice
about meetings practically at the last minute. No one encouraged
us to bring an advocate to help us. There were people at the meetings
who we did not know and who did not have any involvement with
our son, particularly at the school-based level....The administrator
in charge of handicapped students here in Charlotte told us that
we could be arrested for truancy because we refused to place our
son in a class, [when we] were not involved in the decision
on change of placement. (Rachel Friedman, Charlotte, NC)
Moreover, due process, while necessary for many purposes,
does not solve all school issues. In recounting the story of how
her 14-year-old adopted son Adam (who has multiple disabilities)
had been repeatedly battered and abused in school, Bonnie Weninger
of Lomira, IL said she finally called the police, who informed her
that there was nothing they could do.
I find out now, years later, that...our police
departments have no jurisdiction to come into the public schools,
that the only way I could have initiated an investigation was
to hire private legal counsel, and I didn't. I didn't know that
or I would have done that. (Bonnie Weninger, Milwaukee, WI)
Despite the problems the parents identified, they
approved of all procedural safeguards, especially notice and the
ability to obtain an independent evaluation.
As a minority person I'm really thankful for
the independent evaluation in the law, because it does allow parents
sometimes to have assessments by people who understand the child's
culture. (Virginia Richardson, Des Moines, IA)
In making recommendations, witnesses called for better
training and the appointment of independent (12)
hearing officers to ensure impartiality. They advocated for stronger
enforcement of the general provisions in IDEA, without fear of retaliation.
Finally, they said that they do not want the general fear of violent
behavior in the schools translating into harsher rules for children
whose behavior problems stem from disability.
Mediation
By the time mediation comes and goes,
the child is facing placement for the next year, and the process
begins all over again. (Tammy Stuck, Denver, CO)
More than two dozen parents gave testimony regarding
mediation as an alternative to formal procedural due process hearings.
In general, they expressed many of the same concerns about mediation
as they did about due process hearings.
One problem relates to the appearance of bias:
The mediation process was no more impartial
than any of the other meetings the district had orchestrated.
Mediators are trained by the Colorado Department of Education
and are neither perceived to be nor are they...impartial third
parties. In the reauthorization of IDEA, I hope to see the mediation
process changed so that mediators will indeed be disinterested
and unaffiliated third parties. (Marna Ares Thompson, Denver,
CO)
Mediation needs to be "delegalized" as much
as possible with parents feeling that they are in neutral territory
and dealing with objective individuals. (Carol Gonsalves,
Berkeley, CA)
Other concerns related to the issuance of "gag orders"
on parents, the absence of official records of proceedings, and
lack of follow through with mediated agreements.
Rarely does a hearing officer render a decision.
My feeling on that is the school districts are sweeping their
violations under the carpet. Parents are being placed under gag
orders in order to get their children the appropriate services
that they need, so parents can't even talk about it. (Bonnie
Weninger, Milwaukee, WI)
One parent moved out of her school district because,
although the district agreed to provide the inclusive setting she
was seeking through mediation, the district threatened to make her
go to court the next year (Marna Ares Thompson, Denver, CO). While
witnesses generally distrusted the mediation process, they also
saw it as a possible opportunity to resolve complaints with schools
without incurring even more costs and the questionable results of
protracted administrative or judicial processes. They viewed mediation
as a viable option as long as they were not forced into it and as
long as they were made fully aware of their rights, including the
option of proceeding to formal due process hearings if necessary.
Finally, some witnesses called for more clarity about mediation
procedures, especially guidelines for appointing neutral third-party
mediators. A few parents suggested a process of binding arbitration
as the solution to problems with mediation.
Attorney Fees and Attorneys
The attorney fee provision in the law is necessary
to ensure protection for all parents. (Kris Christenson, Des
Moines, IA)
The whole point of having due process at the
administrative level is to keep it out of the courts. But with
this present situation, you are literally forced into the court
system at a higher level to get attorney fees reimbursed. Attorney
fees must be awarded at the administrative level, if parents are
going to be afforded their rights under IDEA. (Nancy Baesman,
Denver, CO)
The fact of the matter is, if you're under the
poverty level, you're more worried about putting beans in your
belly and clothes on your back. It's not as important. But [even]
the people that can afford an attorney can't find one, and so
we're in a real hard spot. (Larry Fuller, Albuquerque, NM)
Witnesses agreed that provisions regarding the award
of attorney fees were greatly needed, but they disagreed on whether
current provisions were adequate.
Julie Doy, Cheryl Johnson, and Denita Swenson in
Des Moines; Rick Tessandore in Anchorage; Lisa Reader in Albuquerque;
Donna McNulty in Philadelphia; and Dave Gordon in Boston discussed
how and why attorney fees were needed to help families advocate
for their children. Other witnesses discussed their experiences
with the issue of attorney's fees:
- Bonnie Weninger in Milwaukee complained that her
attorney fees exceeded what she paid for her home.
- Jan Serak in Milwaukee testified on behalf of
parents who cannot afford an attorney, stating her belief that
an attorney should be provided for them at public expense.
- Janis Symanski and Robin Ann Tracy in Boston testified
about the needs of the economically disadvantaged and stated that
without assistance, attorney fees and costs are deterrents for
many needy people.
- Judy Plzak in Philadelphia testified that the
threat of attorney fee awards by courts can be a strong inducement
for school districts to avoid protracted due process confrontations.
- However, Patty Jennings in Albuquerque testified
that schools are not generally threatened by the possibility of
due process because they know that many parents cannot find low-cost
legal services.
- Nancy Baesman in Denver expressed concern that
the cost to bring a complaint at the administrative level was
a deterrent to parents, because some people believe that attorney
fees are only awarded at the judicial level. She also noted that
parents' costs are increased, since it is necessary for them to
return to court to collect fees after winning the case. Indeed,
the length of time before reimbursement can ruin a family's finances:
What I have found to be the primary reason for parents not
pursuing due process is the cost. They simply cannot afford it
from the beginning, or they cannot afford the risk of losing their
investment. I have known many families who will compromise with
the school district or will simply pull their child out of the
situation and pay out of their own pocket for whatever they need.
The school districts play on that theory and usually come up the
winner.
- Jim McGovern in Milwaukee and Pam Ormsby in Berkeley
expressed concern over the general assumption that all parents
can afford attorneys or qualify for legal aid. Mr. McGovern also
voiced the sentiment of six other witnesses that there is a great
need to train lawyers in special education law.
- Mary Schoonmaker in Denver agreed. She credited
attorneys in the field as helpful, but stated that most people
cannot afford qualified attorneys.
- Denise Kring in Boston observed that the present
system is lengthy and costly, and that it is very difficult to
find a helpful attorney.
Nolan Rappaport is a parent and an attorney in Potomac,
MD. His 16-year-old daughter has autism, severe developmental delays,
and epilepsy. Although he is an attorney and has done much of the
legal work advocating for his daughter, he has spent over $30,000
for necessary assistance from another attorney who specializes in
disability education law. He has two cases in administrative proceedings
and two cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit concerning his daughter's educational rights:
If a parent with my resources and determination
gets this battered by the system, what happens to the parents
who can't fight a government institution the way I have? How do
they get the education that their handicapped children so desperately
need? (Nolan Rappaport, Philadelphia, PA)
Finally, Larry Fuller in Albuquerque stressed the
need for training attorneys. He stated that very few attorneys have
the knowledge necessary to represent parents and students properly.
He explained that in Albuquerque, all the attorneys with training
have already been retained by the State, because the State can afford
to pay them more than parents and students. As a result, parents
and students are left at a great disadvantage.
Other witnesses also spoke of problems in accessing
attorneys:
I really feel there's a kind of de facto
discrimination in terms of enforcement of the law. And I see again
and again that parents with money and parents with education and
parents with time are able to get a...different level of service
for their children. (Pam Ormsby, Berkeley, CA)
Without known exception, the school districts
are well represented in all cases where a child's rights are in
question. The scales of justice are heavily weighed in favor of
the institution over the individual with disabilities. What this
means in practice is that parent without legal skills attempt
to match wits with the experienced attorneys. All too often they
fail, not because their cause is wrong, but because they lack
the representation that is provided by the taxpayer for the institutional
opponent...Even prosperous parents seeking counsel to represent
their child in special education matters have difficulty locating
experienced attorneys. We know of an instance where 20 unsuccessful
attempts to secure an experienced attorney were made. When [protection
and] advocacy [services] took on the case, the parents
prevailed on each and every issued presented. The reason the parents
with the means to pay couldn't secure private counsel with expertise
in special education issues is that almost invariably the private
attorneys who have acquired such expertise are attracted to the
school districts where they can earn higher wages. (Denita
Swenson, Des Moines, IA)
Recommendations: Procedural Due Process
Most of the problems regarding the implementation
of the due process provisions of IDEA reported by parents during
the hearings can be traced back to a lack of monitoring, enforcement,
and sanctions for noncompliance on the part of State education agencies
and the Federal government. Simply put, if there are no sanctions
imposed for noncompliance, and if noncompliant activities continue
to receive funding, then noncompliance will be the rule, not the
exception. In order to ensure that procedural due process rights
are protected and strengthened, the Federal government should implement
the following recommendations:
- Improve and strengthen Federal monitoring and enforcement
activities. Under plans for the "reinvention" of Federal processes
and procedures, the Department of Education should adopt proven
methods of field audit for compliance developed under quality
control monitoring mechanisms in the private sector. A major measurement
variable in these audits should be customer satisfaction with
services. Sampling of customer satisfaction should go beyond State
capitals and include visits to less populated and rural areas.
- Encourage all States to adopt similar audit procedures
in their monitoring of local education agency compliance with
the provisions of IDEA.
- When State education agencies are found to be in
noncompliance with the provisions of IDEA according to these revised
audit procedures, plans for achieving compliance should be developed
in an expeditious manner. These plans should include specific
remedial actions to be taken, timelines for implementation, and
a statement of the potential financial impact for continued noncompliance.
Audit findings and plans for compliance should be forwarded to
the chief State school officer and the Governor.
- Encourage States to allow parents and students
the voluntary opportunity to seek mediation prior to engaging
in full-fledged due process procedures. Mediators should be independent,
with no real or apparent of conflict of interest with either the
local school district or the State education agency.
- Explore the possible use of binding arbitration
as another method of nonlitigative dispute resolution.
- Prohibit retaliation by State or local education
agencies (or their assigns) against parties seeking to exercise
their rights under the due process provisions of IDEA.(13)
- Establish effective procedures for final appeal
to the Secretary of Education in matters which have not otherwise
proved resolvable and publicize the results of these appeals.
TRANSITION
Statement of Law
Special education encompasses many services that
are important to students with disabilities, but no service is ultimately
useful unless students are provided with effective transition services
as mandated by IDEA (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 (a)(19) and 20 (D)).
The process of planning for the transition from
school to adult life is a critical right and component of IDEA.
The skills learned in the school setting mean very little unless
they can be useful in adult and community life. (Gwen McCollum,
Des Moines, IA)
Transition services are a set of activities coordinated
with parents, students, school personnel, and community agencies.
They are designed using an outcome-oriented process to promote a
student's successful movement from school to post-school activities
that are comparable to those in which students without disabilities
engage (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)(19) and 20 (D)).
Throughout the public hearings two major themes emerged
on the topic of transition: transition services and planning should
span across a person's entire life, and changes need to be made
in the transition planning process. In addition, the theme of collaboration
pervaded the testimony: Increased and mandated collaboration between
parents, students, adults with disabilities, schools, and service
agencies is necessary for a student to receive effective transition
services.
Transition Across a Person's Entire Life
Witnesses argued that the mandatory age for transitional
planning needs to be lowered, that schools can and should do a better
job of preparing students for post-graduation success, and that
grade-to-grade transition planning should be improved.
The Mandatory Age for the Initiation
of Transition Planning Needs to Be Lowered
Early identification of needed transition services
will allow the student more time to acquire the necessary skills
for a successful transition from school to post-school activities.
(Kelly Davis, Albuquerque, NM)
Children are children for a relatively brief
period of time. They become adults for three quarters of their
lifetimes. So each child, regardless of ability, needs to prepare
for those adult years as early as possible, and in the case of
many of us with disabilities, the preparation will take a bit
more planning. (Suzanne Bacal, Philadelphia, PA)
Transition plans need to be implemented at any
time and shouldn't be viewed strictly as a function of age.
(Ellen Laurence, Denver, CO)
IDEA requires that transition services begin no later
than age 16. However, adults with disabilities, parents, and family
members at the hearings said that these services need to be provided,
at the latest, by the student's first year of high school because
it often takes more than two years for students to develop effective
transition skills (assuming students exit school when they are 18).
Because the goal for special education is to provide the life and
academic skills necessary to function as independently as possible
after school, students have to receive their training as soon as
possible.
We had a consultant who, when Rick was in the
eighth grade, kept very persistently saying to me, "We need to
talk about what Rick is going to do after high school." My reaction
at the time was, "I do not want to talk about that. I'm trying
to get through this week. I'm trying to get through this day.
I do not want to talk about four years down the road." What I
didn't tell her was that it scared me half to death to think what
that might mean. But very persistently, very doggedly, very non-judgmentally
she pushed and pushed until finally out of exasperation more than
anything else I threw up my hands and said, "Okay, let's talk."
Through some very concerted efforts by the planning team, Rick
moved into a transitional living program June 13, 1987. Rick left
home. That was the first thing he had done developmentally on
time his whole life. (Deb Sampson, Des Moines, IA)
The student's needs, interests, strengths, and
abilities must be the basis for transition goals and objectives,
and these must be very positively tied to adult outcomes in a
very clear way. Supports must be truly individualized. Students
must not be lumped in transition programs where everyone between
the ages of 19 and 21 is getting the same thing. Otherwise you
have the same situation you have at a younger age where a label
drives services. We don't want transitions to drive services.
We want needs and abilities to drive services. (Judy Martz,
Denver, CO)
Opinions varied as to how soon transition planning
should begin. Some parents advocated for starting as early as the
first or second grade, while others believed that middle school
might be an acceptable time. Regardless, every witness said that
the eighth grade or the first year of high school was absolutely
the latest time when transition planning should be initiated.
Transition planning is not occurring in a manner
and probably as early as it should....Right now, what's happening
is that our kids are graduating from school, and they're dropping
off and going into oblivion. (John Foley, Albuquerque, NM)
Witnesses described many potential benefits from an
earlier transition planning process. First, it would help students
put their current education into perspective. Their high school
classes might seem more relevant if they could understand just how
the classes would assist them beyond the walls of the school. Of
course, this assumes that classes allow the student to transfer
high school instruction to practical use in the community after
high school.
We adults have the responsibility to guide children
on the correct path, and when we don't, what kicks in is welfare
or homelessness or crime or institutionalization. With proper,
systematic, individualized transitioning, what we get is contributing,
participating adults who take personal responsibility rather than
expect[ing] to be taken care of by parents and the government.
(Suzanne Bacal, Philadelphia, PA)
Second, it may take several years for students to
master certain college preparatory, work, or life skills before
they are able to function independently outside of school. Earlier
transition programs will allow students to graduate and assimilate
into the community at age 18 or 21, instead of requiring that they
spend more time after school ends attempting to develop new skills.
Now, most folks age out [of special education]
at age 22. The fact is that they age out and a lot of them come
out of school. They don't have a job. They are not expected to
do much when they leave. So they sit home for two or three years
unless somebody has, to use the colloquial term in my city, "hipped
them" to us or passed them to us... Then they come to me and I'm
saying, "Let's do this....Are you registered to vote? Have you
gone to RSA and tried it? Do you know what the process is?" Most
of the time, the answer is, "No." So I'm having to do work to
back track for what I think schools aren't giving these students.
(Greg Dougan, Philadelphia, PA)
One of the problems that students have with
post-secondary education is they're scared to death of coming
out to campus. They are just flat bottomed frightened; and one
of the reasons the students are so frightened [is that]
they have some real difficulties with self-esteem. They have difficulty
at valuing themselves and being able to take challenges that other
students just naturally take on and are encouraged to do. They've
been beaten up, and I don't know how else to put it. They've been
beaten up because they have limitations, maybe a physical limitation,
maybe an emotional limitation, but whatever the limitation, they
had to learn to integrate there, and it hasn't been a pretty process.
(Fred Greasby, Milwaukee, WI)
Third, many transition programs are not available
to students once they leave the school setting. Thus, their development
could be interrupted before it is completed, and they are left to
function in a new environment without the appropriate knowledge
and skills.
Finally, extra time for transition will allow the
schools and parents to create a long-term program focused on helping
students acquire the skills needed to live independently. Students
usually require more than two or three years to transition to independent
living.
High School Programs Can Better
Prepare Students for Success Following Graduation
Most young people with disabilities want the
same things as their peers: getting a job, earning money, staying
off welfare. With the proper information and guidance, these young
people can realize their dreams. (Debra Titus, Charlotte,
NC)
If we don't provide those transitional benefits
to young people, then it's not going to be beneficial to anyone.
The bottom line is...the reason our students go to school is like
all of us, to learn a trade, to learn to go out and work. All
my daughter is saying [is], "I want a job in this community.
I want to be accepted by this community. If I'm not accepted,
what's going to happen to me?" (Rose Marie Sanchez, Albuquerque,
NM)
In order to maximize a student's potential in a postschool
setting, the link between high school and the "real world" needs
to be strengthened. Students should not be abandoned once they have
been provided with some transitional services. Supports provided
after graduation can guarantee that the skills learned in school
will not be lost in new environments. At present, there are two
options for students following graduation: finding employment or
continuing their education. High schools can provide programs that
make pursuing these choices realistic and viable. Usually, a joint
effort between high schools and employers or postsecondary programs
offers the best opportunity for success.
On the whole, there can be little doubt that
John was better prepared for adult life as a result of IDEA and
the opportunity to receive a free, appropriate public education.
(Gwen McCollum, Des Moines, IA)
Before IDEA's transition provisions were enacted
and implemented, most students with special needs did not dream
of continuing their education. If they wanted to work, it usually
meant being placed in a sheltered workshop where they performed
menial labor with other persons with disabilities for extremely
low wages. Their skills were never fully developed, with the result
that they remained segregated from a world where they could work
with some training.
If [continuing education] becomes the
norm, those students who age out will get the same educational
help and the same requirements that able-bodied students get right
now, which is, you are a student for the rest of your natural
born days. You learn until you die. (Greg Dougan, Philadelphia,
PA)
Edward Weinstein, a former special education student,
reported that he is now living independently, voting, preparing
his own taxes, and working. His accomplishments have far exceeded
what professionals had projected earlier in his life.
One day I hope that doctor that said I couldn't
expect Ed to be anything more than a delivery boy (and I don't
mean this in a denigrating way) finds out what a wonderful useful,
helpful man Ed has grown to be. He's surely a success story from
special ed. (Marilyn Weinstein, New York, NY)
Although only a few adults with disabilities or parents
testified that they or their children attend a postsecondary school,
students with disabilities are provided more opportunities to do
so today. Stronger programs in the schools will ensure that their
talents are cultivated as they enter work places and campuses. Rarely
do parents and children think that postsecondary education is an
alternative. This could be attributed to a lack of information concerning
programs or a fear of failure in a new and strange environment.
One option for schools is to expose students to junior
colleges and universities while they are still in high school. A
program in Milwaukee brings special education students to a junior
college for a day and allows them to see what college life is like.
Familiarity is the key to encouraging students to pursue a postsecondary
education. Trained personnel at both the high schools and postsecondary
institutions help students apply to college and then create a college
course schedule.
One student has experienced college campus life in
Colorado Springs, Colorado. He and his family decided that he would
benefit from graduating from high school at age 18 with the rest
of his peers, but he still received services from the school district
through an IEP and an ITP. After his first year, students from a
fraternity on campus invited him to join their fraternity. What
once was considered unachievable became a very realistic opportunity,
of which he took advantage. These impressive results can be traced
to his early exposure to the campus.
Many families and students perceive the cost of college
to be an impossible obstacle. Family members testified that they
had already spent large sums of money in acquiring a better education
for their children in special education programs, indicating that
they need information concerning the types of postsecondary financial
aid available to them. Testimony reflected that the level of financial
aid awarded to students with disabilities at the university level
was disproportionately low when compared to the rest of the student
body. Increased information from postsecondary programs would provide
more students with disabilities with opportunities to access financial
aid.
Another aspect of establishing stronger links to
life after school is job training. Allowing students to learn job
skills while still in school makes them employable upon graduation.
In New York City, funds are available to local merchants who employ
students from special education programs. The program simply reimburses
the employer the amount of wages earned by the student. The student
is able to work in his neighborhood instead of a sheltered environment,
earning at least minimum wage. The student gains valuable work and
social skills while at the same time learning the benefits and rewards
of working. The employer, on the other hand, gains both extra productivity
and valuable experience in employing a person with a disability,
often changing coworkers' and customers' negative attitudes toward
individuals with disabilities.
Parents expressed fear that once the student leaves
the school system, supports will disappear and they and their young
adult will be stranded. This fear can be addressed in two ways.
First, extending mandatory transitional services beyond graduation
will ensure that the student will not be forgotten. Second, more
information on services should be made available to parents and
students.
Grade-to-Grade Transitions Are Also
Important to Students' Success
Transition is so much more than moving from public
school to adult services. It's from grade to grade and school
to school. Because IDEA allows flexibility to schools in implementing
IEPs, children lose continuity that is so important to success.
(Jerri Miller, Denver, CO)
Transition from infant learning into the
school system somehow has to be managed more appropriately so
that it carries forward that family focus: that the family retains
what they've learned about their child and [continues to be]
seen as an expert. (David Maltman, Anchorage, AK)
Mandated transition services focus primarily upon
the move from high school to postschool activities. There are, however,
other transitions throughout the entire education journey: from
infant and toddler programs to preschool and kindergarten; from
primary school to middle school; and from middle school to high
school. Inadequate provisions for transition at any of these stages
can restrict students' potential and negatively affect their performance
for the rest of their academic careers.
Testimony indicated that early intervention (also
known as "Part H") programs for children aged birth to age 3 are
extremely successful. These programs are based on the premise that
when infants are tested early, and if they and their families receive
needed services for any diagnosed disabilities, they will have a
much higher probability of success in school. It can be very difficult
for a child to make the transition from Part H services into the
school system. If it is not done properly, the results for the child
and the family can be detrimental. While Part H is not a transition
statute per se, the successful transition from Part H to
school services can maximize a child's potential.
Another strength of Part H is found in its family-centered
focus. Unlike virtually every other Federal law, Part H focuses
on the entire family, not solely upon the needs of the child. The
focus on family strengths has a direct impact on the child's success
in early childhood and beyond. In addition, the State-level Interagency
Coordinating Councils (ICCs) required under Part H provide a vehicle
for exemplary collaboration among the many agencies involved in
comprehensive services to families of infants and toddlers with
disabilities.
The emphasis on coordinated services to and participation
by families distinguishes early intervention services from all other
special education services. The main problem is that what makes
Part H so effective--positive collaboration between families and
professionals--is lost once the child enters the school system.
Too often, when young children transition from Part H services to
those administered by local education agencies, the needs of the
family unit are no longer considered and the focus of services switches
solely to the child. This change is not gradual: It happens literally
overnight for families. The sudden shift to a less family-centered
education can be quite traumatic for families and children.
One witness offered a solution to this problem:
Offer possibilities such as service coordination
(case management) beyond age 3 perhaps as a specified related
service option in Part B so as to facilitate easier access and
entry to services. (Pascal L. Trohanis, Charlotte, NC)
Part H's core values and philosophy must be transitioned
along with the student into early education and beyond. Suddenly
throwing a student into a new educational setting can erase the
benefits and gains made by the family and child during the Part
H program. Parents testifying at the hearings were adamant in their
belief that they should remain as integral parts of their child's
education once they leave the "safety net" of Part H. If this were
the case, parent dissatisfaction with the IEP process and other
aspects of special education (see the chapter on "Parent Participation
and Shared Decision Making") might be significantly reduced.
The next change requiring an effective transition
occurs when students enter middle school or high school. Entering
middle school is difficult for almost any student, but can be even
more so for students with special needs. This transition is difficult
for many reasons. Students are leaving settings where they had just
spent six or seven years. All of a sudden, they are required to
change rooms between each class during a limited time period. Students
also move from the familiarity of having the same teacher for the
entire day, and this lack of familiarity affects teachers' abilities
to provide proper instruction. Students also lose the security of
having the same classmates they had in elementary school. Socially,
they must adjust to an environment that is far more demanding and
less predictable than elementary school. Most parents whose children
had reached at least middle school had experienced frustration from
this sudden change in educational settings.
The transition from middle school to high school
is also very important. Not only do students enter a new school,
but it is in high school that IDEA's mandatory transition services
must be initiated. Parents consistently stated that in spite of
any past academic problems, a successful career in high school can
determine their child's later success in life. Again, the change
to a new school can reverse positive results gained through earlier
educational experiences, if the supports that ensure benefits are
not transitioned along with students.
Changes Need to Be Made in the Process of Transition
Planning
Annual IEPs Need to Reflect the
ITP and the Overall Vision for the Student
The student needs to be empowered. Too many
people are making too many decisions for that student with the
disability without letting them in on the process. (Fred Greasby,
Milwaukee, WI)
At best, it seems ITPs are one-page documents
completed to primarily meet a legal requirement. Useful ITPs developed
with the essential people involved happen rarely. The transition
planning requirements of IDEA need to be strengthened and schools
need to be held accountable for helping students move successfully
from school to what lies beyond. (Carol Gonsalves, Berkeley,
CA)
The entire plan was driven by the vision he
had and that we had, not by existing programs in the school district.
The staffing team worked together creatively over several months.
The interests, strengths, and abilities of the student were used
as building blocks in developing...goals and objectives. (Judy
Martz, Denver, CO)
Families testified that the only IEPs or ITPs they
found satisfactory were those in which they were actively involved
and had an ongoing role in monitoring. The general consensus was
that otherwise, the IEP process was not effective for transition
planning. There are a number of reasons why this is so.
First, the IEP provides annual goals and objectives
for each student to work toward during a school year. This means
that the IEP does not necessarily follow a family's and student's
postschool vision, hopes, and preferences. Accordingly, the IEP
is not designed per se to support the intended results established
in the ITP process. However, the IEP can augment the ITP process,
as exemplified by a family in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This family
wanted their son with a developmental disability to graduate from
high school at age 18 with the rest of his peers. They also wanted
him to receive transition services and an IEP from the school, but
not to receive ongoing supports in the school setting, believing
that the more appropriate setting was that of a college campus,
the same setting many of his high school peers were entering. The
school provided services, coordinating with the college and adult
service agencies in order to facilitate the change of educational
setting for this young man.
Second, parents spoke about their frustrations with
school personnel and teachers--in both general and special education--who
refused to implement the IEP and who, in some cases, even refused
to look at the IEP. At times, the IEP goals were changed or never
implemented without the consent or knowledge of the family. So,
even if a good, meaningful plan was written and followed the vision
for the student, its lack of implementation blocked anticipated
results, caused it not to meet the purpose intended, or indicated
that the process had been completed simply to satisfy an IDEA requirement.
Third, there may be little or no continuity from
year to year and IEP to IEP. The only individuals who monitor continuity
are parents and sometimes an effective educator or school employee.
Without some continuity between school years, grade levels, and
school buildings, the ITP and future planning process is meaningless.
The lack of continuity from education plan to education plan and
between annual education plan and transition plan causes students
to be tossed about the educational setting and does not help them
see the relevance between school goals and life goals. If foundations
are not laid and built upon, then it is doubtful that the desired
adult results can be achieved.
Finally, schools need to provide follow-up and follow-along
services for the students who have transitioned out of the school
and into the community. These services would require the schools
to be more proactive and to provide more comprehensive transition
planning and IEPs to achieve the intended ITP results.
The Social Aspects of Transition
Need to Be Emphasized
Community based instruction needs to be expanded
so that students are really prepared for adult life, giving them
opportunities to be fully included in society at an early age
so that when it is time for them to enter the adult world, they
are totally prepared and comfortable with themselves and their
environment in which they will live and work. (Maureen Devaney,
Philadelphia, PA)
It is important and necessary that people be
allowed to mix with others. People learn maturity mostly by being
with their peer groups....When I was with the group of teenagers
that took me under their wings, I felt like I could do anything.
(Bill Rush, Des Moines, IA)
People with disabilities, transitioning out
of school, learn all the skills necessary, but they do not know
how to socialize, for they focus more on job skills more than
they do socialization, which begins at school at the locker rooms,
pep rallies, and others. (Debbie Allen, Denver, CO)
In order for students to have a truly successful transition
from school to postschool life, they must have social experiences
and skills in school that they can transfer to their lives after
and outside of school. Witnesses repeatedly emphasized that social
experiences and skills are often more important than vocational
or academic skills. Too many individuals with disabilities who have
transitioned out of school programs lack meaningful friendships.
They are isolated, bored, depressed, and without any sense of a
social life.
Witnesses offered many suggestions on how to overcome
this problem. First, the supported inclusion of children with disabilities
in regular neighborhood schools can greatly facilitate the transition
from school to adult life. Students learn social skills, succeed
in school, and transition successfully as adults when they have
ongoing social connections with their peer groups. This includes
participation in the same activities as their peers as a valued
member of the peer group, not as a person needing to gain a skill.
True success for students with disabilities happens in an inclusive
setting with the appropriate supports and facilitators. Inclusion
was cited as the number one factor in making successful transitions
by those who described successful transition experiences.
Second, school personnel, families, and friends must
work together to establish and facilitate friendships and connections
with peers long before the transition age of 16. These relationships
need to be fostered beginning in elementary school and should continue
beyond graduation from high school. Involving peers and friends
in the process of transition planning and assisting the student
with a disability to succeed in more than one realm promotes continuity
between educational and social settings.
Third, self-advocacy skills are important for students
with disabilities in order that they are able to communicate the
accommodations and modifications they may need in social and community
settings. All students, regardless of disability, need to learn
this, not only through direct instruction, but also in their dealings
with friends, associates, and peers on a daily basis. This type
of instruction and experience needs to be provided to students with
disabilities so that they can make successful transitions and be
more independent in their lives after school.
Collaboration is Vital to a Successful
Transition Process
Language requiring service coordination should
be strengthened. There is a need for a strong integrated system
of service delivery and transition teams that begin working together
in the early planning stages of the student's transition process.
(Kelly Davis, Albuquerque, NM)
Adult services need to be accessed before a
student exits school to ensure smooth transition. Overlap of responsibility
between education and adult service providers is necessary....A
period of shared responsibility is needed to facilitate successful
transition. (Meredith Post Gramlich, Berkeley, CA)
[We need] stronger interagency programs so that
we break down the separation between the educational system, the
medical system, DVR, DB...These programs [need to] become
interlinked in order to provide a network of support for all of
our citizens within our nation. (Robyn Rehmann, Anchorage,
AK)
Collaboration was a recurrent theme throughout the
hearings. All participants who mentioned collaboration were in favor
of strengthening IDEA's collaboration requirements and testified
that teamwork creates success in school and in the transition process.
Thus, Interagency Coordinating Councils, like those developed under
Part H, should be developed to ensure and facilitate collaboration
among individuals involved with transition.
More than interagency collaboration is required.
Collaboration needs to involve students as well as parents. Yet
the lack of a family-centered focus on the part of many schools
impedes collaboration. For example, one mother mentioned that the
school would not allow her to attend school-sponsored training that
would provide her with the skills she needed to help her son at
home. Without exception, collaboration with families is key to a
student's success in school, especially during a period of transition.
Community members and personnel from service agencies
also emphasized the schools' lack of collaboration. Witnesses stated
that often community service agencies such as Centers for Independent
Living are willing and eager to work with students, families, and
schools in transitioning from school to adult life, but the narrow
focus of the schools on matters directly relating to their specific
areas of responsibility impairs effective collaboration. One service
provider strongly recommended that service agencies and the schools
should enter into agreements to ensure collaboration. In order for
community agencies to conduct long-range planning to provide services
when students need them, the agencies must first know what these
students need. To reduce their waiting lists and develop person-centered
service models, service agencies need to have time to plan and coordinate
services before a student graduates from high school.
As mentioned earlier, more families and students
are considering postsecondary education as an option. This requires
collaboration among schools, community agencies, and postsecondary
programs. In order to make postsecondary education a viable option
for increased numbers of students with disabilities, personnel and
students at postsecondary schools need to be brought into the transition
process.
Finally, collaboration needs to occur within schools
and school districts. The continued huge chasm between general education
and special education results in a lack of opportunity and success
for all students. Training for all future teachers should promote
collaboration. Indeed, changing the structure of education at the
university level could contribute to an overall improvement in collaborative
efforts among educators. By uniting special and regular education
and by training teachers to teach all students and to collaborate
toward that end, schools will be more effective overall. However,
such restructuring is a two-way street, and the schools, on a building
and district basis, must also reform themselves to meet the changing
status of students today. This means the school atmosphere must
be conducive to collaboration. Teachers need to use each others'
strengths and knowledge to achieve one common goal: educating all
students to their maximum potential by collaborating with each other,
families, and the community.
Recommendations: Transition
In order to improve the transition of students receiving
special education from school to adult life, the Federal government
should implement the following recommendations:
- Lower the mandatory age for the initiation of transitional
planning from 16 years old to 14 years old.
- Encourage State and local education agencies to
strengthen community-based training and work experiences, inclusive
social skills experiences, independent living experiences, and
self-advocacy training for students with disabilities in secondary
school programs.
- Require that a member of the transition planning
team or that a person appointed by the transition planning team
serve as a coordinator for services to be provided under the ITP,
integrating these services with those in the IEP.
- Encourage State and local education agencies to
be flexible in the design and implementation of services to students
with disabilities between the ages of 14 to 21, particularly with
regard to the provision of IEP-related services and supports outside
of the secondary school campus.
- The Department of Education should explore the
feasibility of continuing the family-based focus of services delivered
under Part H to students and families receiving services under
Part B of IDEA. Service coordination (case management) should
be available as a related service to students and families throughout
the transition from Part H to Part B services.
DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS
Statement of Law
Although Part B of IDEA, which creates substantive
and procedural rights for students with disabilities and their families,
was the major focus of the testimony, it was by no means the only
focus. IDEA also authorizes other very important programs. Overall,
these programs greatly enhance our national capacity to improve
special education. They do so through Subchapter III (which authorizes
programs and projects such as regional resource centers, services
for deaf-blind students, early education, services for students
with severe disabilities, postsecondary education and transition
services, and programs for students with severe emotional disturbance);
Subchapter IV (personnel preparation); Subchapter V (research);
Subchapter VI (instructional media); Subchapter VII (technology
and educational media and materials); and Subchapter VIII (early
intervention for infants and toddlers, also called Part H).
These programs complement Part B in several respects.
First, Part B authorizes aid to States to educate all children with
disabilities, including those in early education (ages 3 to 5),
those who have been categorized as having severe and multiple disabilities
or severe emotional disturbance, those who are eligible to receive
transition services as part of their IEPs, and those who are eligible
to receive assistive technology services and devices as part of
their IEPs (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1401, 1411, 1412, and 1413). In addition,
Part B requires States to create a comprehensive system of personnel
development (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1413(a)(3)). This system should ensure
an adequate supply of qualified teachers and related services personnel,
establish standards for training those personnel, create a system
of continuing education for them, and establish procedures for disseminating
significant knowledge and adopting promising practices.
Overall Impact on Programs
There can be little doubt that the discretionary
programs and complementary Part B provisions have been quite useful
to date in improving the overall delivery of special education and
related services. However, there are several areas where their implementation
could be improved. These areas will be discussed below.
Personnel Development
Witnesses, the majority of whom were parents, offered
opinions and insights on personnel development at least five times
more often than they did on parent training programs.
The only specific negative I have seen in the
Albuquerque Public Schools is that even when a teacher is provided
who is experienced and trained and educated in special education,
the rest of the professional staff may not have any information,
any education....The school system has an obligation to run a
large system. You can't drop everything for my child or anyone
else's. I felt some problems that we ran into could have been
avoided if the faculty who were dealing with [my son] in
these situations were even told....I'm not expecting every teacher
to be trained in special education, but I thought that the schools
could alert all of the teachers as to what kind of programs exist
at the schools and what kind of students were attending these
programs. (Congressman Steve Schiff, Albuquerque, NM)
Witnesses offered varied views on the adequacy of
personnel development programs, telling personal stories of how
IDEA and its teacher in-service and preservice provisions affect
students' education. Parents especially voiced concern that teachers
in both regular and special education were inadequately prepared
for actually teaching students with disabilities. Reasons for this
inadequate preparation were offered by parents and other witnesses,
ranging from a lack of college preparation and coursework to a lack
of concern.
We acknowledge, we understand, and we're terribly
concerned about many of the problems that are related to the quality
and quantity of [the] special education and related services
work force. But in our professional opinion, these problems would
be much worse without a strong Federal role and commitment....There
is a current and continuing shortage of special education university
faculty. Simply put, there [are] not enough doctoral graduates
whose career choice is higher education to fill current and projected
vacancies. This shortage will--and is--affecting the supply of
new teachers, related services personnel, and the in-service capabilities
to produce people who are capable to provide inclusionary programs
in the public schools.
Federal dollars must be maintained and increased
to support individuals pursuing doctoral degrees, specifically
interested in becoming university faculty. We are concerned about
the ability to generate new knowledge, new curriculum materials,
new approaches, and to verify those through research, for just
as there is a shortage of new people, new leaders, and faculty,
there is a shortage of people who are researchers. (Deborah
Doherty Smith, Albuquerque, NM)
The most frequent areas of concern or complaint regarding
personnel preparation were as follows: the ability of teachers to
provide effective instruction on a daily basis in classrooms, certification
requirements, administration, and education in the least restrictive
environment.
Witnesses who expressed concerns about the day-to-day
ability of teachers to function effectively in classrooms made the
following suggestions to improve teacher training:
- Teachers need sufficient training in specific
areas of special education.
- Teachers need more in-service and preservice training,
and such training needs to be required rather than merely suggested.
- Teachers need training on how disabilities can
affect student behavior.
- Teacher training on collaboration needs to move
beyond "token" collaboration, beyond merely putting in an appearance
at IEP meetings and other conferences.
- Classrooms need more teacher aides or paraprofessionals.
What I would like to see in language in the
reauthorization is to encourage university programs that are preparing
our personnel to look at preparing teachers--quality teachers--who
are capable, willing, [and] committed to educating all
children, regardless of their diverse cultural backgrounds, regardless
of their diverse learning needs, regardless of their talents,
regardless of the obstacles and talents that they bring to the
classroom. (Diane Ryan, Philadelphia, PA)
[There is a] shortage of personnel to teach
blind children and the university programs are limited [in]
number. We rely very heavily on Federal dollars for their continued
existence. This is an appropriate use of Federal money. (Lynne
Koral, Anchorage, AK)
With the shortage of early intervention specialists
and recruitment issues...[I was] wondering if...there could
be some language in there that could serve to recruit people into
the fields by being able to say, "If you come into the field and
you do your education and you go out and serve...especially in
Alaska, you would have your loan deferred, or part of it."
(Susan Jones, Anchorage, AK)
On the subject of teacher certification, witnesses
made the following suggestions:
- All student teaching needs to require work in
a setting that has students with disabilities.
- Teachers need more frequent recertification.
In discussing administrative concerns, witnesses recommended
the following:
- School counselors need training for working with
students who have disabilities.
- School districts need to recruit more qualified
teachers. At present, administrators are allowing teachers who
are not qualified to teach special education to do so.
- Schools and school districts need a full range
of services, and they need to encourage teachers to work with,
not against, parents and advocates.
We need to make sure that the administrators
and the principals are included in the team and are educated and
foster a positive outlook and attitude, one that breeds...confidence
[into] teachers, letting them know that we can try to be
as innovative as possible. (David Berube, Anchorage, AK)
Witnesses' concerns regarding the least restrictive
environment centered on the need for teachers in regular education
to receive sufficient preparation to integrate students with disabilities.
Many universities continue to train teachers in regular education
separately from special education and to endorse segregated settings
for students with disabilities. Witnesses urged school and university
personnel to update their attitudes to better integrate students
with disabilities:
Services for many children include regular classroom
situations. Regular teachers lack adequate preparation to implement
programs and to teach and/or modify curriculum for students with
special needs. Teachers do not receive adequate preservice training
and little or no in-service training. (Linda Speich, Charlotte,
NC)
The element that seems to be missing in all
this is the university's part in preparing teachers. They continue
to have a separate track teaching regular education teachers over
here and special education teachers over there. We're not preparing
teachers properly. (David Maltman, Anchorage, AK)
At the college that I go to...the instructors
there are teaching us a different perspective of IDEA than what
I am hearing here. They teach that including students with disabilities
is against the LRE requirement and that segregated classes
and schools are the best environments for students with moderate
or severe disabilities. They teach that children will be dumped
without support. My sister, who is a regular education student,
has been told that she will be required to change catheters if
inclusion gets through. I personally heard that there will be
students in hospital beds in my algebra class that I'm teaching.
If we're going to make a difference, we need to start with higher
education. Attitudes need to be changed. Right now, many schools
reflect an attitude that's back in the 50s. We need to get to
the 90s. I'm calling for the education of educators. (Patty
Gilg, Des Moines, IA)
In many school districts in Pennsylvania, teachers
are trained in teaching practices that hinder inclusive education,
such as teaching as talking, reliance solely on textbooks for
instructional material, and referring students to special education
programs first and adapting instruction as a last resort. Reform
of teacher training can have a significant impact on teachers'
classroom practice, and enhance the ability of regular education
to be used to adapt instruction to the needs of all students.
Yet if change in teaching practices is not supported in the schools,
[then] it dies as teachers return to the norms of instruction
that are currently enforced in original training. (Judy Gran,
Philadelphia, PA)
I know from first-hand experience that our teacher
preparation programs are failing to provide this type of background
to the vast majority of students. General education majors are
entering the teaching field without the most basic understanding
of how to modify curriculum and instruction to meet the needs
of a wide range of students. Special education majors are being
prepared to teach primarily in segregated settings and have little
awareness of the role of consultant/support teacher and how to
apply their specialized knowledge about disabilities in the context
of a general education curriculum. (Linda Rambler, Boston,
MA)
Some individuals discussed areas where they perceived
a need for an increased number of personnel with specific skills:
qualified sign language interpreters; personnel with skills in teaching
students who are blind or visually impaired, deaf or hearing impaired,
autistic, and those with attention deficit disorder; and personnel
with expertise in assistive technology, mediation, the learning
styles of minorities, biopsychology, physical therapy, and occupational
therapy.
Although the majority of consumers spoke of problems
created by lack of teacher, school, or school district compliance
with IDEA, the following recommendations were offered in order to
address these problems. All suggestions were directed toward improving
teacher training. However, these recommendations involve overall
education reform as well as specific strategies for individual schools
and districts.
Resource suggestions included the following:
- Create a resource hotline or on-call information
center for teachers.
- Supply paraprofessionals to assist beginning teachers.
- Use students and adults with disabilities and
their parents or advocates as resources for teacher preparation
and in-service programs.
Witnesses made two recommendations to improve the
quality of teaching:
- Teachers should receive positive reinforcement
for working with students with disabilities.
- Training should be mandatory for school boards,
administrators, and any persons connected with students with disabilities,
not just for teachers.
Other consumer recommendations concerning ways in
which IDEA implementation might be improved in the area of personnel
preparation included the following:
- Advocates should inform teachers of latest advancements.
- States should share successful programs.
- The IEP should include a statement of training
needed by teachers in order to implement the IEP.
- Teachers need time off for staff development and
training.
- Goals 2000 should unite special education and
regular education reforms.
- Teachers need incentives to gain appropriate training.
- Special and regular education certification should
be merged, and
- Grant money should be supplied directly to local
districts for teacher training programs.
Parent-As-Collaborator
Witnesses also testified about the parent-as-collaborator
and the Parent Training and Information (PTI) Centers. While testimony
clearly indicated solid support for the PTIs, witnesses indicated
that the performance of PTIs would be improved with additional resources.
They universally testified that increased funding would improve
the PTI's effectiveness.
With the help of the parent training and information
center in Montana, we were able to make our case and use special
education process successfully. (DuWyne Geist, Denver, CO)
The information on what's out there needs to
be found and made available to parents, either through a parent
information center or through the Part H efforts, but it can't
be left up to the schools in the kind of elusive situation that
it is now. (Kathy Thomas, Denver, CO)
What parents need is training and education,
mandated training and education. I envision a system that every
parent, when they have a child entering school, be given an information
packet, including IDEA, 504, ADA and...the State regulations.
Along with that information package, I envision a list of advocate
and parent support systems so they can learn how to use those
systems. (Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)
I feel it is vital that PTI be expanded to fully
meet the needs of children with disabilities and their families.
The need for parent training and information has grown dramatically
in the last five years. Sadly, PTI funding has grown minimally.
PTI has made families' involvement a reality. (Laurie Collins,
Charlotte, NC)
Recommendations: Discretionary Programs
In order to improve the ability of discretionary
programs funded under IDEA to meet the needs of the field of special
education more effectively, the Federal government should implement
the following recommendations:
- State clearly that the purpose of teacher training
programs funded under personnel preparation grants is to produce
teachers who are highly skilled in providing intensive developmental
and remedial instruction to students with disabilities in order
to support their participation in the least restrictive environment.
- Allocate resources to continuing education programs
for currently employed special education teachers in order to
allow them access to new information and instructional strategies
that will enhance their ability to provide high-quality services
to students with disabilities.
- Require that all students preparing to be special
education teachers have ongoing practicum experiences in typical
neighborhood schools that educate children with and without disabilities
in the same age range as children they are preparing to teach.
- Expand diversity among special education professionals
through continuing to target funds to minority institutions for
the purpose of recruiting and preparing minority college students
to enter the special education field. Moreover, institutions of
higher learning in which 25% of the student body is a part of
a minority population should be considered minority institutions
which qualify for these funds.
- Continue support for the preparation of teachers
with the technical skills required to teach children with sensory
impairments and low incidence disabilities and for the training
of doctoral students with successful experience in teaching who
are committed to training special education teachers upon graduation.
- Create financial incentives to attract teachers
of students with sensory disabilities and low incidence disabilities
as well as teacher trainers, through student loan cancellation
programs tied to actual work in these areas over a number of years.
- Create preference in the award of personnel preparation
grants to colleges and universities that provide students training
in the field of special education with experience in typical education
courses and environments that integrate students with disabilities
and typical students.
- Increase funding for the Parent Training and Information
centers in order to ensure that all parents--particularly those
in minority and rural communities--receive information and support
as they become active collaborators in the education of their
children.
- Applicants for funds under the personnel preparation
program should be required to describe in their grant applications
how they will involve local Parent Training and Information programs
in their personnel preparation efforts.
6 This area is of such
vital importance to the improved implementation of IDEA that the
National Council on Disability has recently issued an entire report
on this subject entitled, Inclusionary education for students
with disabilities: Keeping the promise. The report covers areas
such as examples of successful inclusion across the age span; specific
strategies for making inclusion work; continuing barriers to inclusionary
education; financial barriers and opportunities; professional and
consumer training; and the effects of inclusion on the total school.
While the report was based on a different set of hearings, the results
were remarkably consistent with those in the current report.
7 For a further discussion
of barriers to the financing of inclusive education, see: Education
Development Center (1994). A system apart: A study of the implementation
of the least restrictive environment provisions of IDEA in Massachusetts
and Illinois. Newton, MA: Author; and National Council on Disability
(1994). Inclusionary education for students with disabilities:
Keeping the promise. Washington, DC: Author.
8 See Mills v. District
of Columbia Board of Education., 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C., 1972).
9 This remains
true even though some States have closed their institutions in favor
of family support and supported community living options.
10 The Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services has funded many grants that
have demonstrated the effectiveness of positive behavior change
techniques over the past several years.
11 Turnbull, H.R. (1994).
Free appropriate public education: Law and education of children
with disabilities. Denver: Love Publishing Co.)
12 Several witnesses
complained that in their experience, hearing officers were not impartial
as they were being directly paid or trained by LEAs or SEAs.
13 Retaliatory actions
are prohibited under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section
503. Similar provisions could be incorporated into IDEA.
|