|
Improving the Implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Making Schools Work for
All of America's Children
MAY 9, 1995
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004-1107
(202) 272-2004 Voice
(202) 272-2074 TT
(202) 272-2022 Fax
This document is available in braille, large print,
and on diskette.
The views contained in the report do not necessarily
represent those of the Administration, as this document has not
been subjected to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
May 9, 1995
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The National Council on Disability is pleased to submit
to you this report entitled, Improving the Implementation of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Making Schools
Work for All of America's Children. This report presents the
results of an extensive research process regarding progress in the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) over the past 20 years and recommendations for improving
the implementation of IDEA as Congress begins to consider its reauthorization.
Nearly 400 witnesses (the vast majority of whom were parents of
children with disabilities, students with disabilities themselves,
and adults with disabilities) contributed their views regarding
the reauthorization of IDEA at 10 regional hearings, sharing their
experiences with IDEA to date and their hopes for its future. We
believe that their voices should be central to any discussion of
special education policy and that the adoption of the recommendations
detailed in this report would result in a markedly improved special
education service delivery system.
As you know, the right of students with disabilities
to receive a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive
environment is solidly rooted in the guarantee of equal protection
under the law granted to all citizens under the Constitution. Over
the past 20 years, the Federal government has recognized and supported
this right through providing billions of dollars in special education
funding in order to assist the States in meeting their responsibilities
in this area. Our main finding is that this investment has had a
positive impact on the quality of life experienced by students with
disabilities and their families, and that the majority of problems
which have occurred in special education have not been the result
of problems with the law itself, but with its implementation.
Therefore, the National Council on Disability recommends
that the Federal government develop a more efficient and effective
approach to monitoring the implementation of IDEA, identifying exemplary
practices where they exist, citing non-compliance where it exists,
delivering technical assistance aimed at improving compliance, and
providing effective sanctions for non-compliance. Through improved
implementation of IDEA, education for all students can become "special,"
and all students will be supported in attaining their maximum potential
in order to create a future for America that is characterized by
acceptance of diversity, global competitiveness, and the full exercise
of citizenship.
It remains an honor to serve you and America in this
vital work.
Sincerely,
Marca Bristo
Chairperson
(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President
Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House
of Representatives.)
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY MEMBERS AND STAFF
Members
Marca Bristo, Chairperson
John A. Gannon, Vice Chairperson
Yerker Andersson
Ellis B. Bodron
Larry Brown, Jr.
Ela Yazzie-King
Audrey McCrimon
Bonnie O'Day
Lilliam R. Pollo
Mary M. Raether
Debra Robinson
Shirley W. Ryan
Michael B. Unhjem
Rae E. Unzicker
Kate P. Wolters
Staff
Speed Davis, Acting Executive Director
Billie Jean Hill, Program Specialist
Jamal Mazrui, Program Specialist
Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist
Brenda Bratton, Executive Secretary
Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
Janice Mack, Administrative Officer
Edward P. Burke, Senior Advisor and Editor
Acknowledgments
The National Council on Disability wishes to express
its gratitude to the members of its Subcommittee on Education for
their hard work and valuable suggestions; to Edward P. Burke for
organizing and attending the hearings and editing this very substantial
report; to Mark S. Quigley for technical production; to Rud and
Ann Turnbull and the staff of the Beach Center on Families and Disability
at the University of Kansas (Lawrence, KS); to Martha Ziegler, Barbara
Popper, and Nora Wells of the Federation for Children with Special
Needs (Boston, MA); to Lourdes Putz of United We Stand (Brooklyn,
NY); to Barbara Buswell and Jerri Miller of the PEAK Parent Center
(Colorado Springs, CO); to Diane Lipton and Sarah Everett of the
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (Berkeley, CA); to
Anne Marie Hughey of the National Council on Independent Living
(Arlington, VA); to Duane French of Access Alaska (Anchorage, AK);
to Bob Michaels and Lisa Janoff of Resources for Living Independently
(Philadelphia, PA); to Lee Schulz of the Southeast Wisconsin Center
for Independent Living (Milwaukee, WI); to Alan Abeson of The Arc
(Arlington, TX); to John Foley and Sara Sharer of The Arc of New
Mexico (Albuquerque, NM); to Kit Olsen of The Arc of Iowa (Des Moines,
IA); and to Dave Richard, Judy Burke, and Karen McElroy of The Arc
of North Carolina (Raleigh, NC).
Most of all, the National Council wishes to thank
the hundreds of parents, students with disabilities, adults with
disabilities, and interested professionals who took time from their
busy lives to attend the hearings and to present testimony on their
experiences and their recommendations for the improvement of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Members of the Subcommittee on Education as of November
1994
Mary M. Raether, Chairperson
Anthony H. Flack
John A. Gannon
Robert S. Muller
Shirley W. Ryan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Reviewing IDEA's Purposes
Congressional Purposes
The 1995 Reauthorization
Twenty Years Later: Has IDEA Met the Test of Time?
The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act: Twenty Years of Progress in Serving the Nation's Students with
Disabilities
Zero Reject
Statement of Law
Access
Parents' Lack of Information
Difficult-To-Serve Students
Discipline
Recommendations: Zero Reject
Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory
Evaluation
Statement of Law
Problems with Labeling Children
Native Language and Mode of Communication
Overrepresentation of Minorities in Special Education
Parent Participation in Evaluations
Lack of Clarity in Assessment Criteria
Independent Evaluations
Timeliness of Evaluations
Minimum Competency Testing
Creation of New Disability Categories
Neurobiological Disorders
Emotional Disability and Mental Illness
Summary of Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
Issues
Recommendations: Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory
Evaluation
Appropriate Education
Statement of Law
Appropriate Education Generally
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)
Parent and Student Involvement and the IEP Meeting
The IEP Itself
The IEP and Teachers
IEP Implementation and Enforcement
Related Services
The Overall Benefits of Special Education
Alternative Placement
Recommendations: Appropriate Education
Least Restrictive Environment
Statement of Law
Benefits of Integration
Characteristics of Successful Integration
Barriers to Integration
Attitudes of Professionals in Education
Personnel Preparation
Funding and Costs
Partial Integration
Being Treated as a "Burden" to Regular Education
Continuum of Services
Recommendations: Least Restrictive Environment
Parent Participation and
Shared Decision Making 101
Statement of Law
General Issues Concerning Collaboration
Training and Information Issues
Zero Reject
Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
Appropriate Education
Individualized Family Service Plans and Individualized Education
Programs
Parents Are Not Professionals
Program Methods
Least Restrictive Environment
Procedural Due Process
Recommendations: Parent Participation and Shared Decision Making
Procedural Due Process
Statement of Law
Enforcement in General
Due Process in General
Mediation
Attorneys Fees and Attorneys
Recommendations: Procedural Due Process
Transition
Statement of Law
Transition Across a Person's Entire Life
The Mandatory Age for the Initiation of Transition Planning Needs
to Be Lowered
High School Programs Can Better Prepare Students for Success Following
Graduation
Grade-to-Grade Transitions Are Also Important to Students' Success
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 Social Aspects of Transition Need to Be Emphasized
Collaboration is Vital to a Successful Transition Process
Recommendations: Transition
Discretionary Programs
Statement of Law
Overall Impact on Programs
Personnel Development
Parent-As-Collaborator
Recommendations: Discretionary Programs
Funding
Statement of Law
The Need for Adequate Funding
General Funding Advice from Witnesses
Reducing Financial Barriers to Placements in Less Restrictive
Settings
Recommendations: Funding
Special Education and
the Goals 2000: Educate America Act
Statement of Law
Testimony Concerning Goals 2000
Recommendations: Special Education and the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act
Summary and Recommendations
Appendices
Appendix A: Hearing Dates
and Locations
Appendix B: List of Witnesses
Appendix C: Table of Acronyms
Appendix D: Synthesis
of Reports from Nationally Preeminent Special Education Researchers
and Teacher Trainers
Appendix E: Acknowledgements
Appendix F: A Brief Description
of the National Council on Disability
INTRODUCTION
With the passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act in 1975, the nation took a giant step forward in ensuring
that students with disabilities and their families would be afforded
equal protection under the law. As a result of numerous exposés,
court cases, and the advocacy of parent groups, the Congress responded
to the historic exclusion of children with disabilities with a guarantee
that children with disabilities would be afforded equal educational
opportunities and the supports and services necessary to access
such opportunities. Congress not only granted a right to education
for all students with disabilities, it also established the mechanisms
through which students and families could exercise that right. Among
its many provisions, the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act required parent participation at virtually all levels, fair
assessment practices, the development of an individualized education
program for every eligible student, the provision of related services,
placement of students in the least restrictive environment, and
the establishment of due process procedures through which parents
and students could appeal the decisions of professionals.
A summary of the provisions of the Act and major court
findings regarding its interpretation follows.
Reviewing IDEA's Purposes
Congressional Purposes
In 1975, when Congress enacted the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142--now titled Part B of Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act IDEA)--it found that the special
education needs of more than eight million students with disabilities
were not being met. Some students were entirely excluded from school;
others were not receiving an appropriate education; still others
had unidentified disabilities or were misclassified. Of those who
did receive educational services, many were educated far away from
their local schools (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(b)(1)-(6)). Still, Congress
recognized that educators had the ability to instruct these students
(20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(b)(7)).
Congress then found that State and local educational
agencies had a duty to educate all students with disabilities, that
they lacked the financial resources to do so, and that it was in
the national interest for the Federal government to assist in meeting
the educational needs of students with disabilities in order to
assure equal protection under the law (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(b)(8)
and (9)). Accordingly, Congress declared that the Act's purpose
was to assure that all children with disabilities receive a free
appropriate public education; to ensure that their rights and those
of their parents and guardians were protected; to assist State and
local agencies in providing for their education; and to assess and
assure the effectiveness of those agencies' efforts to educate students
with disabilities (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(c)).
The 1995 Reauthorization
Every time that Congress has reauthorized or amended
IDEA during the last 20 years, it has strengthened and extended
IDEA's substantive and procedural provisions. In doing so, it has
reaffirmed the original statement of purpose. In 1995, the 104th
Congress has every reason to follow this unbroken precedent for
the following reasons:
- There is more than a 20-year
history of Federal presence in special education. P.L.
94-142 was not the first (although it was the most comprehensive)
Federal special education law. Its predecessor was the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-750) as amended by
the Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230 and P.L. 93-380).
- Congress has long been committed to enabling people
with disabilities to work and participate in economic benefits
of our country. Through initial passage of and ongoing and strong
support for legislation such as the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
of 1973, IDEA itself, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act,
Congress has expressed its strong and unwavering support for ensuring
that people with disabilities are afforded equal protection rights
granted under the Constitution (including equal educational opportunities),
and are protected from discrimination, as well as for ensuring
that State and local governments receive assistance in providing
effective services to people with disabilities.
- Finally, every branch of the Federal government
has acknowledged that IDEA is fully justified. This is true of
the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch, and especially
true of the Federal courts, the Judicial Branch. Indeed, the United
States Supreme Court itself has uniformly and often unanimously
upheld IDEA's basic principles:
- By passing (IDEA), Congress sought primarily
to make public education available to handicapped children...to
open the door of public education to handicapped children...to
incorporate and build on the principles established in two 1972
decisions, PARC v. Commonwealth and Mills v. D. C. Board
of Education (the principles which they established are the
principles which, to a significant extent, guided the drafters
of the Act)...to provide federal assistance to enable the states
to meet the needs of the children (citing H.Rep. No. 94-332),
and thereby to create...access to specialized instruction and
related services which are individually designed to provide educational
benefit to the handicapped child. Board of Education v.
Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
- A service [such as clean intermittent catheterization
(CIC)] that enables a handicapped child to remain at school
during the day is an important means of providing the child with
the meaningful access to education that Congress envisioned....Services
like CIC that permit a child to remain at school during the day
are no less related to the effort to educate than are services
that enable the child to reach, enter, or exit the school.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883
(1984).
The Court has made it clear that IDEA is not one of
the so-called "unfunded Federal mandates," but is a Federal grant
program that is entirely justified under Congress' power and duty
to implement the equal protection guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
More than that, the Court has acknowledged in the most unequivocal
terms that IDEA provides Federal aid to the States to help them
carry out their own legal obligations to educate all children, including
those with disabilities.
The [IDEA] is a comprehensive scheme set
up by Congress to aid the States in complying with their constitutional
obligations to provide public education for handicapped children.
Both the provisions of the statute and its legislative history
indicate that Congress intended handicapped children with constitutional
claims to a free appropriate public education to pursue those
claims through the carefully tailored administrative and judicial
mechanism set out in the statute....The [IDEA] was an attempt
to relieve the fiscal burden placed on States and localities by
their responsibility to provide education for all handicapped
children [citations omitted] At the same time, however,
Congress made clear that the [IDEA] is not simply a funding
statute. The responsibility for providing the required education
remains on the States [citations omitted] And the Act establishes
an enforceable substantive right to a free appropriate public
education. Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1009, 1010
(1984).
These cases build, as does IDEA, on the cutting edge
honed by two 1972 decisions.
- By a consent decree, PARC v. Commonwealth,
334 F. Supp. 1257, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa. 1971, 1972), which
ordered the State to provide all school-aged children with mental
retardation in Pennsylvania a free appropriate public education
in the least restrictive placement. The court found that the denial
of that right constitutes a denial of their equal protection guarantees:
Having undertaken to provide a free public education to all
of its children, including its mentally retarded children, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not deny any mentally retarded
child access to a free program of education and training.
- By a decision and judgment, Mills v. D. C. Board
of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972), which held that
the District of Columbia Board of Education has an obligation
under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to provide
a free and suitable publicly supported education to every school-aged
child, regardless of the student's degree of mental, physical,
or emotional disability.
Twenty Years Later: Has IDEA Met the Test of Time?
In the 20 years that have passed since the enactment
of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, significant changes
have occurred in our society and in our schools. Numerous calls
for educational reform have been made and ambitious plans for improving
the performance of the nation's schools have been launched, most
notably the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Within this climate
of educational change, it is imperative that special education become
more closely aligned with regular education. Indeed, it is of the
utmost importance that special education not exist as a separate
entity, but that it assume the role of a supportive service within
the context of regular education. Both systems have a lot to learn
from each other, and if special education is to prosper under efforts
at educational reform, it must be better woven into the fabric of
modern education.
In addition to changes in the field of education,
many changes have occurred during the last 20 years in our nation's
policies regarding people with disabilities. In this relatively
short period, the foundation of disability policy has shifted from
a base largely built on paternalism to one built on civil rights.
Today, the stated goals of the nation's disability policy--as defined
in the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990--are to
assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent
living, and economic self-sufficiency.
Given these changes in society, in schools, and in
disability policy, it is important to understand whether legislation
developed during the 1970s is meeting the needs of students, families,
and professionals who are living in the 1990s. While the original
Education for All Handicapped Children Act has been changed through
various reauthorizations, its fundamental goals and features have
remained intact. Today, the Act's successor, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), contains important additions
that have been made over the years in areas such as research on
promising practices, extension of coverage to infants and toddlers,
provisions for better transition to adult life, etc. However, IDEA
largely retains the original goals and features of the Education
for All Handicapped Children Act. As IDEA is currently scheduled
for reauthorization, the National Council on Disability (NCD) determined
that it should conduct a field-based study of the status of IDEA
and develop recommendations regarding its reauthorization.
The National Council on Disability has a special interest
and responsibility in ensuring that the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act responds as fully as possible to the needs of children
and youth with disabilities. This interest and responsibility are
based on its historical affiliation with the Department of Education,
our continuing statutory responsibilities involving the Department,
and its statutory mandate to provide Congress and the Administration
with advice and recommendations on all aspects of disability policy.(1)
Accordingly, the National Council on Disability determined
that the best method for gathering information on the status and
impact of IDEA would be to conduct of field hearings across the
country, hearings designed to gather information from those who
were in the best position to comment on the law's effectiveness:
parents and students. Through 10 field hearings held during October
and November 1994 in Alaska, New Mexico, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado, Massachusetts, and California,
the NCD was able to develop a rich data base from which to determine
the current level of the law's effectiveness and to make recommendations
for its improvement. These hearings were held in each region of
the U.S. Department of Education in order to develop a profile of
special education practices by focusing on the experiences of parents,
family members, students, adults with disabilities, and other interested
people with a family-based perspective. (Please refer to Appendix
A for a list of hearing dates and locations). The hearings were
designed to encourage cross-disability participation and testimony
from minority citizens. In recognition of the evolving role of government
in the lives of citizens across the United States (2),
NCD's focus was primarily on the "customers" of special education:
parents, family members, and students themselves. This focus on
the views of parents and students is based on the belief that the
ultimate test of the effectiveness of government programs is whether
those programs have a positive, real, and lasting influence on the
lives of those they are designed to help. The goals for the hearings
were to identify areas of strength in the current implementation
of IDEA and to gather recommendations for better implementation
from the viewpoint of customers.
At these hearings the NCD heard from nearly 400 witnesses,
most of whom were parents or other family members of students with
disabilities. Past and present students and a relatively small number
of professionals also testified (3).
In all, the hearings produced over 3,000 pages of transcripts, written
testimony, and letters regarding the substance of the hearings.
Consistent with its goal of presenting the views of the customers
of special education, NCD has included direct quotes from approximately
half of the witnesses who testified at the hearings in the present
report.
The NCD was assisted in conducting these hearings
by Centers for Independent Living (responsible for organizing hearings
in Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), State chapters of The Arc
(responsible for organizing hearings in New Mexico, Iowa, and North
Carolina), and Technical Assistance to Parent Programs (responsible
for organizing hearings in New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, and
California). The Beach Center on Families and Disability (University
of Kansas) also assisted the NCD with logistics concerning the hearings.
In addition, Beach Center staff read and indexed (by witness and
topic) all of the testimony and prepared a summary and analysis
for the NCD that form the basis for this report.
The overall finding associated with this research
process is that the basic principles and features associated with
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are as valid today
as they were 20 years ago. Thus, very little language in the Act
needs amendment. However, given extensive and at times very serious
and negative reports from parents and students regarding the impact
of IDEA on their lives, vast improvement in the implementation of
the Act is needed. Dramatic improvements are needed in implementing
policies and programs across all major parts of IDEA. Common themes
heard throughout the hearings included the following:
- Far too many school buildings remain physically
inaccessible to students with disabilities, thereby denying these
students placement in regular educational settings. In addition,
contrary to the provisions of the Act, some students continue
to be excluded/ removed from school based on behaviors associated
with their disabilities.
- The current system of identifying students as eligible
for special education encourages the harmful labeling of children,
fails to identify some needy students as eligible, overidentifies
children from minority backgrounds as disabled, and often employs
assessment criteria that are inappropriate for students or insensitive
to their cultural and communication backgrounds.
- There is great variability in the quality of individualized
education programs (IEPs) required under the Act. The overall
purposes of IEPs must be clarified. IEPs need to be supported
by better parent training, more parental flexibility regarding
the contents of IEPs, and monitoring for improvements in the level
of parental satisfaction with the process and its results.
- In spite of provisions requiring placement in the
least restrictive environment, many parents reported that placement
in a regular school building was simply not an option offered
in many school districts. In fact, there are financial incentives
to place students in separate facilities. Virtually all of the
parents who had gained inclusive placements for their children
reported that they had to fight for these placements, sometimes
via legal proceedings. Nevertheless, these parents universally
stated that these inclusive placements were far superior to segregated
placements.
- The field of special education needs to undergo
a paradigm shift, from its current status as a system apart from
regular education to one which is an integral part of regular
education, providing a wide array of supports and services within
the context of regular education programs and facilities. Services
and supports should come to students, not the other way around.
- In spite of provisions mandating parent participation
in decision making, parents in many parts of the country still
feel largely left out of the process. Many parents reported that
they arrived at IEP planning meetings only to be presented with
a completed plan.
- The Federal government should play a key role in
monitoring the quality of special education and enforcing the
provisions of the Act. However, there are serious problems with
the type and frequency of current Federal monitoring activities.
These problems essentially condone non-compliance with the Act
and increase parental use of the due process provisions of the
Act, placing serious financial hardships on families and creating
adversarial relationships between school districts and families.
- Parents should have a voluntary option to use mediation
and other forms of informal dispute resolution when disagreements
with school districts occur.
- The mandatory age for transition planning should
be lowered to 14 and students should be better prepared for their
transition from school to adult life through more flexibility
in secondary school programming.
- The family-centered focus of Part H of the Act
relating to infant and toddler services has been both well received
and beneficial. Consideration needs to be given to having this
family-centered focus throughout the Act.
- Personnel preparation programs need to produce
graduates who have the skills and experience to provide intensive
developmental and remedial instruction to students with disabilities
in regular education settings.
- Funding for parent training programs needs to be
increased if parents are to become well-informed and effective
partners in the educational process.
- Based on the implementation of the recommendations
in this report for the restructuring of special education, overall
Federal funding for special education should be increased.
- Special education should be an integral part of
the implementation of Goals 2000. Its role should change from
a place where a limited number of labeled students are
sent to a support service for all learners in schools all
across America.
In the chapters that follow, the text describes the
testimony of witnesses regarding these themes and their recommendations
for improving special education. It is necessary to emphasize, however,
that in spite of the many problems reported by witnesses, strong
support was present at every hearing for the continuation and improvement
of IDEA. Even within the context of flawed implementation and limited
funding, IDEA has made a remarkable difference in the lives of many
it has served.
What is needed now is significantly improved implementation,
leading to a better education for all children. It is our belief
that the customer-driven recommendations contained in this report
will lead to this end.
THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT: TWENTY YEARS OF PROGRESS IN EDUCATING THE NATION'S
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
IDEA has made a difference for Maddie, a difference
that translates into her attendance at our public elementary school
a half a block from our home with other first and second graders
in her neighborhood. Her regular presence in school means that
kids of all ages greet her on the playground, acknowledge her
in stores, and expect that she is a part of the community. As
a result of these expectations, I'm proud to say that Maddie could
not be here today -because she is in school! (Joe Wild Crea,
Denver, CO) (4)
Before IDEA the vast majority of children with
disabilities had no future. IDEA has created a future with real
opportunities. It must be reauthorized. As we've heard, it's a
great success in human terms, but it's also a great success in
cold, hard economic terms because educated children with disabilities
are growing up and becoming productive adult taxpayers. (Stanley
Klein, Boston, MA)
I love IDEA. It's a wonderful law. Keep it...Strengthen
the ability to monitor and enforce the laws, take out of the way
barriers that don't allow for the integration imperative to be
realized, provide incentives to help teachers keep abreast of
the state-of-the-art technologies (instructional, as well as assistive),
that are allowing our young people to achieve so much. (Janet
Vohs, Boston, MA)
Across the nation, parents, family members, and students
with disabilities, as well as advocates and friends enthusiastically
reported on the positive impact the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) had in their lives and encouraged Congress
to "fine-tune" the statute in order to ensure more effective implementation
by Federal, State, and local educational agencies. In all of the
10 regional hearings sponsored by the National Council on Disability
there were ringing affirmations in support of IDEA and the positive
difference it has had in the lives of children and youth with disabilities
and their families.
I think there's a whole generation of parents
out there who could give you story after story of what it was
like before and after enactment of the IDEA. And the difference
is dramatic in what we could expect for our children....The benefits
of IDEA have been enormous, and throughout the country there are
exemplary programs and dedicated professionals working hard every
day to make the law work. (Diane Lipton, Berkeley, CA)
I try to appreciate all the opportunities that
I have had to achieve, but when I leave school, I want a real
job with a company that is willing to pay my salary and be patient
with me...I would become a total product of what you all decided
I am going to be, as you all have a say in all my dreams and goals.
What gives you the right to place limits on me? Remember, that
in this life, we all have had dreams. All of you, you need to
give people like me an opportunity to fulfill our dreams, to be
accepted by everyone in this community, and most important, to
attend schools and live and work in a normal environment.
(Nannie Marie Sanchez, Albuquerque, NM)
This is a critical law that has a powerful impact
on our children, our family and our community. Don't change it.
Fund it and enforce it. (Linda Breuer, Milwaukee, WI)
In hearings all across the country, witnesses told
of the tremendous power of IDEA to help children fulfill their dreams
to learn, to grow, and to mature. For many, the opportunity to be
included in regular education classrooms with special education
supports in place meant meaningful education that prepared them
to enter the adult world as active contributors, rather than dependent
(and largely unknown) "outsiders." Witnesses told of school districts
where children with disabilities were made welcome, were accommodated,
and were viewed as participating members of the school community.
As one witness put it, the education system, and society at large,
must
Recognize that disabled children are a part of
the American Family. Without the law, without each and every protection,
equal educational opportunity for disabled children will again
be an empty dream. (Diane Lipton, Berkeley, CA)
These people had seen IDEA working as it should, with
both the education community and families accepting responsibility
for children with disabilities, providing them access and opportunities
for growth and learning and helping them to enjoy the free and appropriate
public education which the IDEA promises.
Many witnesses testified to the positive difference
that IDEA has made. However, many others pointed out that IDEA has
not achieved all that it might, even as the nation reaches IDEA's
20th anniversary:
The principal told me... my child was a miserable
failure because he could not perform math without assistance.
(Jan Miller, Berkeley, CA)
Sitting on top of their disabilities, like oil
on water, is this large layer of, "I can't. Why even try?"
(Judi Hirsch, Berkeley, CA)
The witnesses were overwhelmingly clear that there
is a great deal more that Congress, the U.S. Department of Education,
and State and local agencies can do to assure the equal protection
of the law and to improve IDEA's implementation. There are still
far too many shortcomings in special education practice, yet
not a single one of the almost 400 witnesses advocated for anything
but the fine tuning of IDEA itself. What they wanted, almost unanimously,
was improvement in practices, not in the Act itself. One witness,
summing up the sentiment of all who testified, made the following
statement:
If IDEA should not be reauthorized, it would
make our plight, as well as thousands of others, a catastrophe.
(Carolyn Lavadie, Albuquerque, NM)
Another witness also expressed the sentiment of others,
firmly stating her belief that the implementation of IDEA can be
greatly improved:
I think we need leadership on all levels: nationally,
the state level, and certainly within the school districts in
the school system. That leadership, once in place, will move mountains.
(Rafaelita Bachicha, Albuquerque, NM)
Throughout the hearings, witnesses provided testimony
regarding virtually every aspect of the law. Their testimony was
organized around 10 basic themes which encompass both the historic
and the current implementation of IDEA:
- Zero Reject, the provision that requires
that all students, regardless of the nature or severity of their
disabilities, shall receive a free and appropriate public education;
- Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory
Evaluation, the provisions that requires State and local education
agencies to assess students fairly for strengths and needs and
then determine whether a student has a disability, the nature
and extent of the disability, and the student's need for special
education;
- Appropriate Education, the provision that
requires education agencies to follow certain processes in educating
students in special education (including the development of an
individualized education program) and to assure that they benefit
from their education;
- Least Restrictive Environment, the provision
that requires education agencies to educate all students with
disabilities with students who do not have disabilities to the
maximum extent appropriate;
- Parent Participation, the provisions that
enable education agencies, parents, and students to share decision-making
responsibilities and to collaborate in special education;
- Procedural Due Process, the provisions that
require education agencies to be accountable to parents and students;
- Transition, the provisions that require
education agencies to follow certain procedures to ensure that
students will have the skills and opportunities to achieve certain
goals as a result of their experience in special education;
- Discretionary Programs, the provisions for
those training, demonstration, research, and technical assistance
programs that Congress has authorized to help Federal, State,
and local agencies carry out their duties and to help parents
and families be effective partners;
- Funding, the provisions that determine the
Federal share of special education costs and how Federal funds
are being allocated; and
- The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the
nation's education reform law (P.L. 103-227), with provisions
that give particular attention to how families, students, and
professionals in special education are involved in its implementation.
The witnesses' concerns paralleled those that NCD
discovered as it analyzed the research literature on IDEA's effectiveness
and how it might be improved at the Federal, State, and local levels.
In fact, NCD, in collaboration with the Beach Center on Families
and Disability, commissioned 27 research papers by preeminent scholars
in special education research and personnel preparation: these papers
were written concurrently with the hearings. The degree of similarity
between what witnesses told NCD at the hearings and what these scholars
cited as the most important areas for attention during the reauthorization
process was remarkable. Appendix B contains a brief synthesis of
these papers. Thus, there emerge from two sources--from consumers
as well as researchers and teacher trainers--generally consistent
and always powerful messages: IDEA has had a powerful positive
impact. It redresses the denial of equal educational opportunity.
It needs fine-tuning. Most of all, it needs effective implementation
and reauthorization.
A great leader once said, "A single spark starts
an enormous fire." Ladies and gentlemen, IDEA is the spark that
started a fire within the souls of many who experience mental
retardation and other disabilities and their families. We must
allow the fire to fully ignite opportunity for all children with
disabilities. It is imperative that IDEA be properly reauthorized
so that these children and their families can realize the same
choices and opportunity as all Americans. (Mike Remus, Des
Moines, IA)
The law may be named "the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act", but for children like my daughter and others,
it really means ideas, dreams, expectations, and aspirations.
Because...through IDEA, we will see our dreams come to life for
our children. (Sue Endress, Milwaukee, WI)
I came from Minnesota today because in my work
I often say I marvel at how well this law was written. I marvel
at a law that was written in 1975 that did not anticipate many
of the needs of the children who are in the system now. I marvel
at how well that system does serve children if there is a spirit
of a partnership between professionals and parents. (Virginia
Richardson, Des Moines, IA)
A partially implemented IDEA has transformed
thousands of lives and hundreds of communities. The Arc of Nebraska
and this parent would like to see it taken to the next level.
There are hundreds with dreams like John who are counting on you
and me to get IDEA reauthorized. They need us, and we need them
to experience full communities where everyone participates and
contributes...We learn to see similarities rather than differences
and to live in the real world with diversity. Many people will
tell you that they have become more informed, more sensitive,
more productive, and more loving in their relationships with persons
with disabilities. In a world torn with greed, apathy, prejudice,
and waste, the inclusion of persons with developmental disabilities
offers communities a better way. They are here to participate
and teach us as well as to learn with us. (Gwen McCollum,
Des Moines, IA)
The chapters which follow provide a detailed summary,
across the 10 thematic areas, of the varied experiences and recommendations
of people testifying at the hearings. However, it is important to
remember that all agreed that IDEA should be reauthorized and that
the most helpful and relevant Federal action at this point would
be to strengthen its implementation and enforcement.
ZERO REJECT
Statement of Law
Congress demonstrated a low tolerance for the exclusion
of students with disabilities from the education system when it
enacted the IDEA. Through the development of a principle which has
come to be known as "zero reject," Congress required education agencies
to provide all students, regardless of the nature or severity of
their disabilities, with a free and appropriate public education.
While the term "zero reject" is not found in IDEA's language, the
concept is firmly embedded in the statute. Congress unequivocally
declared that the purpose of IDEA is to assure that all children
with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (20
U.S.C. 1400(c)).
Witnesses at the hearings discussed the principle
of zero reject, often in conjunction with other areas of concern
such as appropriate education or the principle of the least restrictive
environment. However, witnesses also had specific stories to tell
concerning access, schools' exploitation of parents' lack of knowledge,
and the exclusion of difficult-to-serve students.
Access
Although the only thing I needed was an accessible
bus to take me to school, I was denied admittance to Girl's High.
(Suzanne Bacal, Philadelphia, PA)
Why should it be that when a child shows up with
a visible disability, say in a wheelchair or something, why is
that child still automatically stuck in the dark room in the back?
Believe me, the dark rooms in the back still exist. (Barbara
Anderson, Milwaukee, WI)
In city after city witnesses complained of physical
barriers in schools. They testified that there are still architectural
barriers in school buildings and elsewhere in the community that
make access difficult for those individuals requiring accommodations.
Of the greatest concern to hearing participants is the inaccessibility
of many areas for wheelchairs and the dearth of elevators that are
in working order.
I was expected to stay back and be part of the
special 6th grade because that school had an elevator and the
school I was going to had steps. I learned to climb steps that
summer. (Bernadette Griffin, Philadelphia, PA)
The school does not have any facility for handicapped
[students] in the restrooms, none whatsoever. (Michael
Kidd, Charlotte, NC)
Another concern in the schools is the physical
accessibility to the classrooms and also to the bathrooms.
(Rebecca Campbell, Anchorage, AK)
Educators' lack of awareness regarding the specific
nature of these barriers and how they effect students with disabilities
was especially problematic:
Make it clear that all SEAs, IEAs, AEAs, and
LEAs are bound by the provisions of Americans with Disabilities
Act. Frequently today an SEA will ignore all allegations of discrimination
on the remarkable theory that discrimination is a civil rights
issue, not an education issue. The fact is that the two issues
go hand in hand...By separating the two, the SEA, the AEAs and
the LEAs are effectively perpetuating the patterns of discrimination.
(Denita Swenson, Des Moines, IA)
Parents' Lack of Information
One reason exclusion exists is that some school districts
effectively exploit parents' lack of knowledge regarding their children's
rights under IDEA. Parents tend to view professionals as authority
figures. With great frustration, they often accept decisions of
professionals not to provide their children with disabilities with
special education and related services:
We had no idea what the law was...and even though
we begged and begged for them to do something with him to help
him learn, they wouldn't do anything. Every year he fell further
and further behind. We were told when he was fourteen, by the
principal, "I wouldn't worry. In a couple of years he'll be sixteen
and he can quit." (Barbara Anderson, Milwaukee, WI)
Many witnesses also pointed out that exclusion sometimes
exists because non-English speaking parents lack understanding of
the special education system. Although their children must be evaluated
in their own first language, these parents are not advised in any
language other than English. This places them in a situation where
they have no alternative other than to accept whatever decision
is made by the schools, even if it is to exclude the child.
Difficult-To-Serve Students
Exclusion is also occurring because State or local
education agencies lack the ability or willingness serve children
with severe, complex or difficult-to-serve disabilities. Witnesses
recounted tales of students being passed from teacher to teacher
and school to school in an effort to push them out of the system
as quickly as possible. In some extreme situations, schools simply
advised parents that their children were not welcome within their
classrooms and refused to admit them. In other situations, students
were admitted, but schools then refused to educate them or provide
necessary services to meet their needs.
I had a mom tell me that someone within the Mat-Su
District told her, "Don't send your son to school. He's out of
it anyhow. He's not going to get anything out of school."
(Elaine Hurley, Anchorage, AK)
Many witnesses expressed concern regarding (1) the
lack of available resources for children with behavior and emotional
difficulties, (2) school districts that do not recognize behavioral
difficulties (such as attention deficit disorder) as a disability,
and (3) the lack of services for children with medical needs, including
disputes regarding LEA obligations to provide related services to
them. Too often, children with behavioral and emotional difficulties
are shuffled throughout the local system until they are either "forced"
to leave school or until they are incarcerated. In addition, local
agencies refuse to recognize behavioral, emotional, or attention
deficit disabilities, despite a medical diagnosis or the results
of private evaluations. These agencies provide no interventions
or services, or they expel students when their disabilities become
too troublesome.
Discipline
In most cases...educational professionals use
the following technique to deal with students who have emotional
and behavioral problems: suspensions. This is not the answer to
a child's disability. This action does not deter inappropriate
behaviors. This action has not been shown to be effective in either
changing behavior or improving the quality of education for students
with behavioral disorders. (Pam Zacha, Charlotte, NC)
I do believe that children with disabilities
right now are incurring a bad rap that they don't entirely deserve.
I am here freely to admit that yes, some of those who are violent
at school are children with disabilities, but some of the violence
we see has nothing to do with disabilities as is defined in the
law. (Virginia Richardson, Des Moines, IA)
Of the witnesses who spoke regarding discipline, there
was little variance in the tone and tenor of their testimony. Three
recurrent themes permeated their content in varying degrees, all
recounting an unfortunately similar tale. These are stories of children
who were suspended, expelled, or abused in direct violation of IDEA.
Witnesses routinely recounted incidents of children who had behavioral
or emotional disorders or attention deficit disorders being suspended
because a local agency would not provide appropriate modifications
and interventions. Ironically, those children were being removed
from schools because of the same behaviors that qualified them for
special education in the first place.
What is happening right now is that a lot of
students who have severe behavior problems are literally being
kicked out of school... They are not allowed to have the services
met in alternative settings and [as] the door is closed
to providing services in various settings as the needs require,
more and more students with severe emotional problems and severe
behavior disorders will not have any educational opportunity.
(Charlotte Des Jardins, Milwaukee, WI)
Keep [the] "stay-put" procedures. Suspension
and expulsion procedures should protect children. Too many children
I know have been excluded from appropriate schools because of
inappropriate support and inadequate implementation of IEPs.
(Jan Serak, Milwaukee, WI)
When we get into who is not being served in education,
it is kids with behavior problems, and that's pretty much across
the State, particularly in small districts. They are the ones
who are suspended, and then you go through those nightmare processes
trying to figure out specifically what the intent of the law is
in dealing with these children. (Patty Jennings, Albuquerque,
NM)
Many witnesses indicated that the apparent intent
of various local education agencies was to remove their children
from the schools permanently. Offered unacceptable alternatives,
parents have no choice but to keep their children at home, isolated
from their peers, without the learning opportunities guaranteed
under the law.
The school continued to call, and we continued
to share the supports and services we knew needed to be in place,
with the same results. "We can't. We won't. We tried. We don't
have time. We have 49 other students. Emily is going to have to
learn not to do that. She can't be with her peers because that's
not where the special education teacher is." Emily communicated
her frustrations with this very strongly, and the school listened
to her by calling the police. So Emily is home again. (Jerri
Miller, Denver, CO)
Witnesses also testified that abusive action toward
children is an ongoing problem:
Repeatedly my son came home battered and abused.
On the fourth documented time of abuse...and I'm documenting through
my pediatrician...the abuse was so bad that I called the Police
Department. (Bonnie Weninger, Milwaukee, WI)
We had an aide who was verbally and emotionally
abusive. I tried to correct this by going and speaking to the
[school] people...What happened? It blew up in my face.
As a result, we had a principal who acted as judge, jury and executioner.
Within five minutes, my grandson was suspended for five days,
booted out of the district. (Claire Grandora, Albuquerque,
NM)
Recommendations: Zero Reject
In order to ensure that IDEA's provisions prohibiting
the exclusion of students from education based on the apparent or
presumed nature or severity of their disabilities are more effectively
implemented, the Federal government should implement the following
recommendations:
- Require State and local government entities such
as public schools to be accessible to people with disabilities.
- Improve and expand the process of providing information
to all parents regarding their rights to access needed
special education and related services regardless of the nature
or severity of their children's special needs.
- Clarify and strengthen the requirement that, except
in rare instances of imminent danger to self or others, students
with disabilities cannot be excluded or removed from school unless
an individualized determination is made that their behavior is
not related to their disability.
ASSESSMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY AND
NONDISCRIMINATORY EVALUATION
Statement of Law
Through IDEA, Congress intended to facilitate the
assessment of students in a manner that accurately reflects students'
strengths and needs and then determines the need for special education.
To that end, IDEA requires States to establish procedures to assure
that testing and evaluation procedures and materials are not racially
or culturally discriminatory. Thus, tests must be administered in
a child's native language or mode of communication.
Furthermore, no single procedure may be used as the
sole criterion for placement of a child in special education (20
U.S.C. Sec. 1412(5)c)). Regulations require that complete evaluations
be conducted before a child is placed in special education (34 C.F.R.
Sec. 300.531). Evaluations must be conducted by multidisciplinary
teams which include a teacher or specialist in the possible area
of disability (34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.532). In addition, students placed
in special education must be reevaluated every three years, or more
frequently if conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or teacher
requests reevaluation. (34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.534).
Because of continued concern over the discriminatory
evaluation and placement of minority students in special education,
when it amended the IDEA in 1990 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1409), Congress
required the U.S. Department of Education to conduct or fund studies
to examine the overrepresentation of minority students in special
education . Furthermore, applicants for grants from the Department
of Education were required to show how they would address the needs
of minority students with disabilities. The amendments also required
discretionary programs to make greater efforts to prevent the mislabeling
of students in special education. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1409(j)(1)(B).
Major themes in the testimony regarding assessment
for eligibility and the nondiscriminatory evaluation provisions
of IDEA pertained to the following issues:
- Problems with labeling children, including misdiagnosis
and mislabeling;
- Tests being administered in a student's native
language and mode of communication, valid for the purposes for
which they are used;
- Overrepresentation of minorities in special education;
- Lack of clarity in assessment criteria;
- Parent participation in evaluation;
- Independent evaluations;
- Timeliness of evaluations, including the preassessment
process;
- Minimum competency testing; and
- Creation of new categories.
Each of these areas will be briefly described below.
Problems with Labeling Children
In order to receive special education, students are
required to undergo evaluations. These evaluations often result
in the assignment of a disability labels to students, based on categorical
listings of disability types ("mental retardation", "severe emotional
disturbance", etc.). As a consequence, the expectations of parents,
professionals, and sometimes the students themselves are altered,
often negatively. In many school districts, an automatic equation
has developed between the assignment of a disability label, the
assumption that this label is, essentially, life-defining, the lowering
of expectations, and the placement of students with similar labels
with other students "of their own kind." Witnesses objected to this
process:
Parents feel that it is important for children
to be looked at as a total child, not just as a label. (Beverly
Roberts, Charlotte, NC)
I would like to see absolutely no labeling of
students....If there is an educational need, there is an educational
need, just do it. It doesn't matter what the child's label is.
(Edris Klucher, Albuquerque, NM)
After 20 years of successful implementation of
a non-categorical system of special education in Massachusetts,
we wholeheartedly support such an approach. It facilitates meaningful
inclusion in regular classrooms, and it does reduce stigma. It
almost forces reliance on individualized planning, a true IEP.
It also recognizes that children differ more within categories
than between categories and that their educational needs are often
not label-linked. However, it is not necessary to change Part
B in order to move to a non-categorical system. (Martha Ziegler,
Boston, MA)
The stakes for parents and children involved in the
special education evaluation process are high. Parents do not like
the labels and "prophecies" of their child's future that come with
evaluations for special education:
My young son...must learn, build his own self
esteem, and learn his valuable role in society. He doesn't need
to be singled out by receiving a label and all the self-fulfilling
prophecies that attach themselves to that label...So please advocate
the reauthorization for changes that will stop the identification,
segregation, and isolation of students with disabilities.
(Fran Maiuri, Anchorage, AK)
One family spoke of their efforts to keep their adopted
son's disability hidden from the school, even though they have adequate
documentation for the child to receive special education services:
My family is doing whatever we can to keep our
adopted son's disability hidden from the school, knowing that
once the disability is labeled...the expectations that will arise
will not at all be positive. (Witness,(5)
Anchorage, AK).
Typically, a child with special education needs begins
school in a system which places labels on the child at a very young
age. The child may fall into a label or category in which it is
predetermined that their only goal in life is vocational:
I was told that Jon would do well at becoming
a janitor or a handy man and not to expect too much from him.
(Beth Gage, Philadelphia, PA)
While vocational programming may eventually be determined
to be a proper course for individual students, it may not be the
appropriate goal for other students (David Levy, Anchorage, AK).
Such predetermination of program options based on the presumed nature
or severity of a disability is in violation of the individualized
assessment and programming provisions of IDEA.
Parents report that mislabeling and misdiagnosis have
direct and adverse effects on the education of their children. One
parent asserted that the label of "severely emotionally disturbed"
had to be contested and removed before her child could receive an
appropriate education (Tammy Stuck, Denver, CO). For this reason,
she recommended that the State educational agencies be required
to provide a full explanation when assigning this label to children.
Another parent voiced her disaffection with the requirement that
children have a categorical label at all:
We are tired of having our children labeled just
for services. Give our children a chance to prove themselves.
(Josie Torrez, Des Moines, IA)
However, another witness cautioned that school districts
might interpret a reduced emphasis on categorically driven services
to mean that they no longer need to provide necessary supports and
services to students with special needs:
We also have concerns about proposed changes
in disability categories which may result in denial of services
for some students with disabilities or may result in dumping them
in regular classes without appropriate support services. (Charlotte
Des Jardins, Milwaukee, WI)
Another parent agreed that the special education labeling
process is very stigmatizing to children and families, but was not
in favor of disregarding labels altogether. She made the point that
without labels, schools might not be accountable for the services
they provide (Sara Gonzales, Albuquerque, NM). However, another
witness stated the following:
We also need to break down the barriers at the
national level that encourage school districts to segregate students,
to identify and label students and place them in separate programs
such as Chapter I, bilingual, migrant ed, Indian ed, and special
ed. (Robyn Rehmann, Anchorage, AK)
According to Ms. Raymond, the requirement that students
be labelled in order to receive assistance across a variety of
Federal programs results in many school districts placing 40%
of their students in one category or another.
Given the complex nature of this issue and the fact
that all of the above-mentioned programs are covered under differing
Federal statutes, it is difficult to envision a single satisfactory
solution. However, one witness made the following recommendation
with regard to special education programs:
Since most States operate funding systems based
on categorical labels, these systems will require complete overhaul,
often a very complex and controversial process. It would probably
not be helpful for the Federal law to require such a change. Since
labeling is not useful to children and, in fact, is often harmful
to them, the Federal Department of Education should encourage
States to move away from it voluntarily. Rather than move to change
Part B at this time, perhaps OSEP could fund a study to determine
the feasibility of such a change in the future. (Martha Ziegler,
Boston, MA)
Native Language and Mode of Communication
Multi-cultural families often seem less aware
of their rights in special education and also don't get the services
they may be entitled to, often because of language barriers.
(Elissa Gershon, Berkeley, CA)
I would be called a person of a minority, and
I, myself, or my family do not consider ourselves minor in any
way. I believe we need to use words such as "diverse-/cultural-/linguistic-ability
backgrounds," rather than the word "minority," and I ask that
IDEA move away from some of those kinds of labels. (Diego
Gallegos, Albuquerque, NM)
Special education is sometimes perceived as being
a kind of white middle class issue. I just want to point out and
underscore what a number of parents here have said tonight. The
kind of resources it takes for a family to get appropriate programs
and services is so totally overwhelming in terms of time, energy,
money, and skills, that it's really not surprising that the people
who tend to be the most visible are the parents with the most
resources. (Diane Lipton, Berkeley, CA)
Culturally sensitive evaluation, particularly testing
in the student's native language, is a major issue. In the evaluation
of students from different ethnic, racial, or linguistic backgrounds,
persons on the evaluation team often do not speak the child's language
and do not share the child's cultural or racial background.
Evaluation and assessment teams often do not
include minorities, particularly Hispanics and African-Americans.
Rarely is there an evaluation team member who speaks the native
language of a family. Often, translation is done--if it is done--by
people who are not familiar with the family. (Tom Patrick,
Denver, CO)
In cases where translators are used, the outcome of
the evaluation process is still dubious. Translations of tests are
criticized, and persons who are translating for the evaluator are
often unfamiliar with students and their families. In one instance,
a Native American child was unresponsive until his mother was allowed
to translate the test into his native language (Tom Patrick, Denver,
CO). In one school district described in the testimony, evaluations
could be conducted in the child's native language (Spanish, in this
case), but only if a translator was available. Translation and adaptation
of standardized testing procedures are inadequate solutions to the
cultural differences found in many testing situations across the
country.
Certain Latins...don't know the language. We
don't know English. We should not be frightened of professionals.
We should be proud, and we should demand the best for our children
even though it may be in Spanish. (Reina Fernandez, New York,
NY)
Though school psychologists attempt to adapt their
testing protocols to meet the needs of Native American children,
this translation has not always been successful. (DuWyne Geist,
Denver, CO)
One parent spoke for many when he explained the way
parents perceive the school's treatment of them as minority persons:
Other concerns families raise is the lack of
respect for individual differences, values and preferences. When
parents are asked if evaluations are sensitive to cultural values
and linguistic backgrounds, they often say, "No." (Tom Patrick,
Denver, CO)
For students with certain disabilities, even tests
in their native language may be inappropriate to the purpose for
which they are used, because they are not consistent with the child's
manner of communication. For example, standardized tests may be
particularly inappropriate for students with autism:
I believe strongly that the Stanford-Binet, Bender,
and similar psychological tests are inappropriate for children
like [my son]. The tests do not adequately measure our
children's intelligence because often the students do not understand
what is required of them, even though they may have the knowledge
or ability to complete the task. Consequently, they end up with
a poor showing and low scores....New tests need to be developed.
They should be more practical, less academic, and administered
in a manner consistent with the methods of communication that
the autistic and other members of our mentally challenged population
employ. (Marjorie Gouldbourne, New York, NY)
Where schools and States have turned away from strong
reliance on traditional standardized tests for the purposes of student
evaluation, parents have supported that change. Curriculum-based
testing is one example of an alternative (and preferred) assessment
method, because it leads to educational strategies and objectives,
rather than simply identification (Judy Plzak, Philadelphia, PA).
One parent with long experience in special education commented that
in his state (Montana), the assessment situation is certainly better
than it was 50 years ago. In general, there is less reliance on
IQ tests and more reliance on classroom observation, local norms,
and evaluation of classroom performance (DuWyne Geist, Denver, CO).
Other parents criticized testing procedures that are
stigmatizing because of their dissimilarity to those used by general
education. They strongly questioned the usefulness of tests that
turn their children into little white rats (Diane Cox, Denver,
CO), and recommended that standards-based educational assessments
would be more appropriate for their children.
Why do we still have to be different? Why are
our children tested every time they turn around: daily, weekly,
monthly, yearly, triennially, informally, formally. [It]
makes no difference...some testing is okay, but a lot of it is
just purely obnoxious. It should look like standards-based education
for the other children. (Diane Cox, Denver, CO)
I wrote the [school district] telling
them that Casey would need to take the springtime standardized
eighth grade test in an untimed manner and in a quiet place, per
his doctor's orders....They refused to modify the test. Even after
I checked with the State Special Ed Department (which said, of
course, it could be modified)...I was told no....We decided not
to subject Casey to an inappropriate testing situation. (Judy
Bonnell, Albuquerque, NM)
Parents also complained that proper safeguards are
not in place to prevent evaluations without accommodation. For instance,
parents had to take a child with dyslexia outside of the school
system for private testing (Jill Rigsbee, Charlotte, NC). In another
situation, an evaluation was performed on a legally blind child
using a visual test. Because of this obviously discriminatory test,
the child was labeled mentally retarded (Jane Hasty, Charlotte,
NC). Other parents stated that they wanted to have their child independently
evaluated because the school was conducting tests on visually impaired
students without proper accommodation (Robin Ann Tracy, Boston,
MA). Several parents requested sanctions and fines on school districts
who blatantly misevaluate children for special education (Robin
Ann Tracy, Boston, MA; Judy Bonnell, Albuquerque, NM).
On a more positive note, witnesses testified that
assessments related to IDEA-sponsored early intervention programs
(birth to three) on some Native American reservations were working
and that funding for these programs should continue. For example,
when an early intervention program first started at the Laguna Pueblo
(NM), community members were skeptical about the program. However,
the fact that the early intervention professional was also a Native
American helped to gain the trust of the parents:
I felt that the families were a little bit reluctant.
[Even though] I'm a member of their own tribe, that they
still considered me an intruder of some type, because a lot of
other times when programs came in, they felt that there were too
many people hounding them or hovering over them and wanting them
to do this and do that, but as I explained to them, I'm also the
parent of a child with disabilities, and that made it a little
bit easier. I share their culture and beliefs, and I encourage
them to use traditional medicines, never doubting that, and that
always comes first, but at the same time, getting them to believe
that in reality, too, there is something different. And that's
how I've gained a lot of the parent's trust. I'm hoping IDEA will
continue, so that our children will continue to benefit from these
services and the programs...that more can be established, to give
the tribes an opportunity to establish more of these programs
for them. (Norberta Sarracino, Albuquerque, NM)
On the subject of cultural and linguistic sensitivity,
witnesses made the following suggestions:
- IDEA can discourage discrimination and encourage
access to needed services for multi-cultural populations by requiring
evaluations to be done in the student's primary language, providing
interpreters, and providing translation services. (Elissa Gershon,
Berkeley, CA)
- IDEA should require coordination between bilingual
general education programs and special education programs so that
access to these services is the same. (Elissa Gershon, Berkeley,
CA)
- IDEA should require outreach programs directed
at minority communities and families to educate parents about
their children's rights. (Elissa Gershon, Berkeley, CA)
- IDEA should strengthen its parental notification
requirements to ensure that parents are given advance notice of
their right to participate in their child's education process.
(Jeannie Manuelito, Albuquerque, NM)
- IDEA should require non-discrimination training
for school personnel, including the unique communications and
learning styles of children and their parents who are from diverse
backgrounds, to ensure that children from varying cultural and
linguistic backgrounds are not subject to discrimination. (Jeannie
Manuelito, Albuquerque, NM)
- Diversity among special education professionals
can be improved if funds continue to be targeted at 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. This 25% figure should be retained
and not increased. (Deborah Doherty Smith, Albuquerque, NM)
- The Part H requirement that the Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP) meeting be held within 45 days of the
initial special education referral should be lengthened. This
does not allow enough time for a child living a rural area to
be evaluated because the child must come to a city or the evaluation
team must go to the rural area. Moreover, it is not enough time
for parents of diverse cultures to process the need for special
education services. (Susan Jones, Anchorage, AK)
- The funding formula for early intervention should
also take into account and increase the funds for a particular
State depending on the cultural diversity of the population, geographical
dispersion of the population, and the number of children living
in poverty, because it is more expensive to provide services to
these populations. (Susan Jones, Anchorage, AK)
Overrepresentation of Minorities in Special Education
The overrepresentation of minority students in special
education also was discussed by witnesses at the hearings. One witness,
who has extensive experience in this area through her personal experience
as a parent of an adult with disabilities and her work at a parent
training center, explained that cultural differences between students
and school staff may account for the troublesome statistics.
Sometimes black students tend to be more verbal,
tend to be a little more touching, a little more jostling. I think
some times because the majority of the professionals who work
with these students in school are majority persons...there is
not anybody in that culture to even help problem solve, to help
them come up with creative answers...
There are many reasons for this, and if knew
all the answers, I would be in Washington getting a lot of money.
But some of it has to do with the ability of parents to understand
what rights they have to keep their children out of special
education. (Virginia Richardson, Des Moines, IA)
Other witnesses echoed this sentiment:
I have been in special ed for 20 years. I believe
that children of diverse backgrounds, especially children from
different linguistic backgrounds, are way over-identified in special
ed. It's an area of concern for us. It's an area we're working
in. It's also one that, in the past, there has not been enough
attention to, in my opinion. (Diego Gallegos, Albuquerque,
NM)
We have to eliminate all the bias we now still
see for referral of students from minority backgrounds. (Fran
Maiuri, Anchorage, AK)
Over-identification of disabilities in minority
children is a known flaw in the cultural identification techniques,
which fail to factor in cultural differences. The over-identification
has led to an inordinate percentage of children of color who are
placed in special education programs. Today these programs essentially
segregate them from the full academic and cultural experience.
The impact of minority status, cultural factors, and level of
severity of disability must be adequately addressed in order to
effectively meet the needs of children. (Paul Spooner, Boston,
MA)
While overrepresentation is a problem, underrepresentation
of minorities can also be a problem. Minority children are often
on long waiting lists to be assessed for special education, especially
if their parents do not use English as their primary language. The
parents often do not have access to or understand information about
how their children are doing in school and their children's rights
to special education (Diane Lipton, Berkeley, CA). Underrepresentation
of minorities in special education also occurs because school districts
cannot afford to engage in the outreach activities required by the
IDEA (Birgit Schweingruber, Berkeley, CA).
Witnesses made the following suggestions for addressing
the overidentification (and sometimes, underidentification) of students
from diverse backgrounds in special education:
- Other States could learn a lesson from Alaska,
where a majority of students are from mixed or non-English homes
and are economically, experientially, and culturally out of the
mainstream; yet Alaskan school districts still have low special
education child counts. This is not because of the underidentification
of students who need special education services but rather because
the regular education program accommodates a wide range of student
diversity and because disability identification proceedings respect
that students' cultures, languages, and life experiences are different
from those assumed by our Anglo-based traditional measures and
procedures. (Christopher Robinson, Anchorage, AK)
- Special education should be restructured from its
current quasi-medical model built upon supposedly empirical categorical
labeling to greater education services for everyone. Special education
can prevent the overidentification of students by discontinuing
evaluation practices that rely upon normative, time-limited extractions
of data in unnatural settings. The identification of students
for special education should utilize functional assessments, diagnostic
teaching strategies, evaluations which take place over time in
natural environments, as well as observational and clinical impressions
of each student's ability. (Christopher Robinson, Anchorage, AK).
Parent Participation in Evaluations
Families complain of evaluations that are done
in places that...their child is unfamiliar [with], rather
than in their home or familiar child care settings. The time of
the evaluation rarely coincides with a child's, quote, "good period,"
or at a time and place which is convenient for both parents to
participate. (Tom Patrick, Denver, CO)
Sometimes a "behavioral impairment" is the only
label that a parent will ever get. I had one psychologist tell
a parent, "Well, you don't need to know what's wrong with your
child. You just need to do what we tell you to." "Seriously,"
I said, "What is this child's diagnosis?" And this psychologist
sat there and talked about the child. It was very obvious he had
a major mental illness, and he refused to tell the parent what
it was, [saying] that he was only "behaviorally impaired."
(Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)
All in all, most parents reluctantly accept the burdensome...but
necessary (Deb Sherer, Denver, CO) evaluation process, but they
wish for something better. Currently, without evaluation, students
with disabilities could not get the services they need, and parents
generally believe that good assessment is key in getting an appropriate
education. However, along with the concerns noted above, many parents
believe they were not valued as equal participants in the evaluation
process (Tom Patrick, Denver, CO). Parents and persons with disabilities
sharply criticized the assumed predictive results of superficial
testing procedures compared with the day-to-day experience of living
with, or as, a person with a disability:
I can't tell you how many IQ tests and psychological
evaluations I went through every year with someone that I had
never met before. In an hour, they were going to decide my psychological
status, my IQ, and my abilities, and that was used for my educational
plan. (Julie Farrar, Denver, CO)
Over and over again, parents testified about being
shut out of the assessment and evaluation process. One barrier to
their participation in the evaluation process is the use of technical
or other language unfamiliar to ordinary persons. One parent explained
that as a Spanish-speaking person, she listened to the results of
an evaluation, not understanding anything that was said (Reina Fernandez,
New York, NY).
Witnesses made the following suggestions to improve
parent and student participation in the assessment process:
- Provide parents with a draft assessment that invites
their comments and review prior to staffings and IEP meetings.
(Tom Patrick, Denver, CO)
- Conduct evaluations in familiar environments, like
the family home or child care situations. (Karen Fernandez, New
York, NY)
- Interview the child and family at home, where the
needs of the entire family can be assessed, including needs for
related services, like parenting assistance, or family, individual,
or sibling counseling. (Karen Fernandez, New York, NY)
- Send information on developmental milestones home
with babies from the hospitals when they are born, emphasizing
prevention and early identification. (Karen Fernandez, New York,
NY)
Lack of Clarity in Assessment Criteria
Parents who were particularly concerned about children
with attention deficit disorder (ADD) requested that guidance regarding
the identification and testing of students with ADD be placed in
the law. One parent discussed her difficulties in getting her child
evaluated:
Our system will not even test for ADD, although
the law requires it. Our system will not implement even the most
rudimentary classroom tactics to deal with the disorder. They
refuse to discuss it, test for it, and deal with it in any way.
I do not understand how they manage to completely ignore a disorder
that the law has mandated will be addressed. (Judy Bonnell,
Albuquerque, NM)
Another parent characterized ADD as a disability that
affects children in many aspects of their lives. She asked for a
broader interpretation of the term "adverse educational impact"
which is used in the determination of eligibility for special education:
In most States, "adverse educational impact"
is interpreted as meaning "documented academic failure." Only
then are aid and support offered....It shouldn't rely solely on
eligibility criteria that requires documented academic failure..."adverse
educational impact" [should] be assessed on the basis of
the student's overall academic, behavioral, and social functioning.
(Julie Doy, Des Moines, IA)
Alternately, another parent suggested that attention
deficit disorder might be considered under the "Other Health Impaired"
category (Barbara Duvall, Berkeley, CA).
In another area, students with learning disabilities
who are also gifted, while not yet failing academically, often suffer
great personal frustration due to their disability. Witnesses concerned
with these students requested greater guidance and assistance:
I know there are children who have learning disabilities,
but for various reasons did not qualify for services with traditional
testing. I know my child and others did not qualify for help based
on the testing that was being done, but are in need of services.
Why can't we use more than one option for testing our children?
We are all unique, even in our disabilities. (Lynette Jensen,
Des Moines, IA)
Sometimes I feel that children with a learning
disability are considered children of a lesser God or a lesser
disability...It's an invisible kind of disability, and what happens
is people think, because he looks so-called "normal," that he
can do other things that other children can do. (Karen McGinley,
Boston, MA)
Because learning disabilities are a hidden handicap,
it's easier not to provide them with the services that they need
even when they do have a diagnosis. For a student who's got attention
deficit disorder and a specific learning disability in addition
to that, it's easier to just give them Ritalin and not to give
them that educational experience. For the student who comes from
a deprived home, it's easier to blame their learning problems
on the deprived home than it would be if they were in a wheelchair.
(Dave Gordon, Boston, MA)
Independent Evaluations
Typically an IEP will state the method of evaluation
is "teacher observation," which, although it is very, very valuable,
should only be one piece of how the program is evaluated.
(Laura Glomb, Boston, MA)
Our brief involvement with the public school
system involved their initial evaluation that they were going
to use to devise his educational plan and place him. It took place
in a 4-by-7 room with Peter and myself, a teacher that was not
a certified special education teacher, a physical therapist, and
an occupational therapist. It took a grand total of 45 minutes,
during which there was no hands-on work with Peter. There were
generic questions directed at me...This team seemed to feel that,
through this evaluation, they would be able to write an IEP for
Peter and recommend appropriate placement...That concerned me
greatly. (Melissa Constantine, Boston, MA)
Parents often turn to independent evaluations when
their evaluation requests are not honored by districts or when they
are seeking more acceptable alternatives to the programmatic options
offered by a school district. These parents strongly support provisions
for independent evaluations as a tool they need to advocate for
appropriate educational programs for their children:
Outside evaluations must be easier to obtain
to avoid bias and to obtain expertise for specific disability
categories. (Jan Serak, Milwaukee, WI)
Parents reported on using outside experts to help
them get educational accommodations and services they needed. However,
many parents testified that their attempts to negotiate students'
programs through using independent evaluations were met with resistance
from school districts. One parent, who brought an independent evaluator
to meet with school staff, was told that the staff would only be
in a listening mode (Greg Omori, Des Moines, IA).
We invited one of the evaluators, who had a Ph.D.,
at our expense to come to Dubuque to observe Alex in a school
setting...We were told later that the independent evaluation was
considered, when honestly, it was ignored. (Greg Omori, Des
Moines, IA)
Timeliness of Evaluations
There is no real standardized way of accepting
the child into special education or getting him the right of amount
of hours with the right amount of services. I think [teachers]
feel like it's a generic kind of system....The regular education
teacher's going to say, "Oh well, look, he walks funny. He doesn't
walk like I do--Adaptive P.E." That's put on the IEP and the kid's
in. Now I have to go and I have to start looking for ten pounds
of paperwork because the kid was never assessed, never referred,
and the parents were never informed. (Sam Reder, Anchorage,
AK)
The evaluation process is the gateway to getting special
education services. Several parents testified that the entry of
their children into special education services was delayed by several
factors. First, pediatricians are sometimes unresponsive to parental
concerns about their child's development, or they wait to see if
any perceived problems will resolve themselves through the normal
development process. Also, a required "preassessment process" after
a problem is noted at school can cause delays, or even denial of
special education services. As one parent stated, when it comes
to initial evaluation, time is of the essence (Josie Torrez,
Des Moines, IA).
One witness recounted her plight and that of her child,
Jenny, in trying to obtain a timely evaluation for services when
they were homeless. An interpreter read her statement and described
her struggle as follows:
Juliana went through a great deal. She had no
services, was homeless with her child. She spent a lot of cold
days, slept in someone's house on the floor with her child. The
child had no wheelchair...Jenny had never been to school in her
life. She is multiply handicapped, is blind, has cerebral palsy,
and some other disabilities. It took a year from the request for
evaluation to placement of this child [in special education].
(Juliana Rosario, New York, NY)
Another child was hospitalized several times for psychiatric
problems but was not evaluated for a learning disability by the
public school system until eight years later (Cindy Sirois, Boston,
MA). One witness testified that the state of Tennessee has 4,373
children who have been referred for evaluation but have never been
assessed (Pam Zacha, Charlotte, NC).
Some parents thought student assessment teams (often
employed in the pre-assessment process) should be used more, with
special education professionals involved in these teams. However,
others viewed the student assessment team as a barrier to getting
needed services. These parents were also concerned about protecting
their children's rights while in the preassessment and evaluation
process. Numerous parents suggested that when a school system does
not have adequate personnel to perform evaluations in a timely manner,
it should be required to pay for private or independent evaluations.
Minimum Competency Testing
I asked how they tested special ed students.
I was told that students sometimes take standardized tests just
to have the experience, but the test serves no real purpose. How
demeaning! (Judy Bonnell, Albuquerque, NM)
I am the only Down syndrome student that has
ever passed a placement test at TVI [Technical Vocational
Institute]. (Nannie Marie Sanchez, Albuquerque, NM)
The educational movement toward statewide assessments,
often conceived and referred to as "minimum competency testing,"
was discussed in relationship to how students with special needs
are included in this process. This is a complex issue, and not directly
related to evaluation for the purposes of identification. However,
it is indirectly related to identification, in that testimony indicated
that teachers were under pressure to identify low-scoring students
as "special education" students, thereby eliminating their test
score from their class total (Liz Hesse, Denver, CO). Thus, in this
instance, minimum competency testing can cause increased referrals
to special education.
Parents also discussed the effects of minimum competency
tests and testing procedures on their children. Students with special
education needs may require adaptations to take such tests, and
there is a lack of clarity about whether these adaptations invalidate
the tests themselves. Parents recommended that students with special
education needs be included in the testing procedures, with needed
adaptations, unless their IEP team decided that they should be exempt.
As one parent, a former recipient of special education, stated:
Special education referral should never automatically
exclude a student from standard expectancies. (Liz Hesse,
Denver, CO)
Creation of New Disability Categories
Several witnesses advocated for the creation of new
disability categories or for changing current definitions of existing
categories in order to accommodate various disabilities.
Neurobiological Disorders
I would like to have...a category of neurobiological
disorders...that encompasses the children who have schizophrenia,
bipolar disorders, and attention deficit hyperactivity. (Delfy
Roach, Albuquerque, NM)
Many parents advocated for the creation of a separate
category for neurobiological disorders (NBDs). One parent spoke
about the problems of fitting neurobiological disorders within existing
disability categories:
I would like to speak about these children that
we like to call children with neurobiological disorders. Our children
are very stigmatized when they're served under the category of
SED...As their parents, many times, when we go to try to work
with the schools, our advice and our input is discounted because
we're seen as the cause of their disturbance...The families that
we represent would like to see a change in the SED category, to
truly talk about what's going on in the brains and central nervous
systems of children with special learning needs...because research
has shown that many of the behaviors and the learning needs of
children are generated because of...the brain dysfunction, and
so we would like to see that reflected in the law. (Sara Gonzales,
Albuquerque, NM)
Parents recounted a number of bad experiences that
occurred because their children with neurobiological disorders were
placed in inappropriate special education categories. One woman's
son had a neurobiological disorder and was placed in the category
of "seriously emotionally disturbed" for five years. This classification
did not fit his needs, but it was the only way he could get services
for him to stay in school:
"Seriously emotionally/behaviorally disordered"
does not appropriately address the issues that our children have,
and I think we do a great injustice to these kids. Too much time
is spent on trying to cure the illness through behavior modification,
through behavior management, and what happens is our kids get
very frustrated, they get treated inappropriately, academics suffer,
and self-esteem suffers. (Delfy Roach, Albuquerque, NM)
One parent had a daughter with a neurobiological disorder
who was labeled as "seriously emotionally disturbed" for eight years
before she had brain surgery which confirmed she had a neurobiological
disorder. She is now classified as "other health impaired: neurobiological
disorder" (Rebecca Viers, Albuquerque, NM).
The regulations interpreting IDEA now define
SED as an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual,
sensory, or health factors. Clearly, children who suffer from
NBD have an illness that explains their episodic inability to
learn. Our recommendation that a separate category for NBD children
be established would place neurobiological disorders...on a par
with specific learning disabilities, autism, and traumatic brain
injury, each of which the current law recognizes as a category
separate from SED. (Rebecca Viers, Albuquerque, NM)
One parent testified that her son, who had a neurobiological
disorder, was classified as having communication and behavior disorders.
The behavior disorder program he was placed in used physical restraints,
which only made her son become aggressive and made his neurobiological
disorder more problematic (Betty Cope, Albuquerque, NM). Finally,
one woman reported that her son ran away from school and wrote a
suicide note due to the fact that he was not receiving the proper
services for his neurobiological disorder (Joy Angelino, Albuquerque,
NM).
I beg of you to consider a category for children
with neurobiological illnesses, separate from the category of
seriously emotionally disturbed. (Joy Angelino, Albuquerque,
NM)
Emotional Disability and Mental
Illness
I feel that children with major mental illness
should come under the category of "Other Health Impaired."
(Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)
A school provides services to adolescents receiving
treatment (often drug and alcohol treatment) in a locked unit,
[in a] residential hospital. When the school tries to get
public funds to help provide services for the children, it is
problematic because the children do not fit the existing parameters
of what a disability is...Mental illness should be made a disability
under IDEA and parameters set for the funding of children who
suffer from mental illness. (Patrick Cabellero, Albuquerque,
NM)
The National Mental Health and Special Education
Coalition is suggesting that the term "seriously emotionally disabled"
be changed to "behaviorally/ emotionally disabled." A new category
dealing specifically with brain disorders and brain functioning
should be implemented. (Rebecca Viers, Albuquerque, NM)
One witness described recurring situations where children
leave psychiatric treatment facilities and then attempt to access
special education services through schools. Often, such children
have undergone psychiatric evaluations, but the evaluations use
medical terminology and cannot be used to certify them as "seriously
emotionally disturbed" in order to qualify them for special education
services. Instead, these children must then undergo evaluations
by psychologists who will use "proper" terminology so that they
may qualify for special education.
Let's say that I just recently have a child
who came back from residential psychiatric treatment. We have
a psychiatric evaluation that we cannot use to certify him under
the Federal definition for SED because they use medical terminology...We're
having to have a school...psychologist go out there to do the
evaluation in order to get the child certified. A new definition
of SED should be promulgated which is consistent with the medical
terminology used by residential psychiatric treatment centers.
(Pamela Carter Simpson, Anchorage, AK)
Summary of Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory
Evaluation Issues
The evaluation process continues to have problems
that directly impact on the implementation of the law and the regulations.
Parents have many and varied concerns about the process and their
empowerment within the process, but parents also envision evaluation
as an integral part of offering special education services. One
parent, who works for a parent training center, was particularly
eloquent when she linked evaluation to the larger educational process:
Evaluation is a beginning, not an end. The evaluation
of each goal is the beginning of the next goal. Parents see the
growth and development of their children and understand that accomplishment
of one skill leads to the building of the next. Teachers, too,
need to see the un-endingness of their task of teaching. Evaluation
and reassessment of skills being taught continuously branch out
to more and more skills in a never-ending process of lifelong
learning. Never should a child be placed on hold awaiting the
next IEP or three-year evaluation before allowing the opportunity
to build on the skills achieved. (Nina Baker, Des Moines,
IA)
Evaluation and education are a part of a child's life,
key to accessing support and having opportunities to learn, have
friends, and enjoy life within their families and school communities.
Recommendations: Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory
Evaluation
In order to improve and strengthen the assessment
and nondiscriminatory evaluation provisions of IDEA, the Federal
government should implement the following recommendations:
- Change the orientation of special education assessment
in general from its current quasi-medical model built upon categorical
labeling to more individually responsive and relevant assessment
measures. Special education can prevent the overidentification
of students by discontinuing the use of evaluation practices that
rely upon time-limited data gathered in unnatural settings, which
often do not take into account a student's cultural or linguistic
background. The identification of students for special education
should at least be expanded to utilize functional assessments,
diagnostic teaching strategies, evaluations which take place over
time in natural environments, and observational and clinical impressions
of students' strengths and needs.
- Encourage State and local education agencies the
flexibility to adopt a noncategorical approach to serving students
with special needs. This would change the focus of evaluation
and assessment efforts from discovering and fitting a student's
learning needs into a predetermined list of categories to a focus
on determining what types of assistance the student needs and
how this assistance might best be delivered.
- If a noncategorical approach to eligibility is
not adopted, students with neurobiological disorders should be
eligible to receive special education and related services under
the "other health impaired" category, if the assessment team determines
that the student has special learning needs.
- Enforce the requirements that evaluations be done
in a student's primary language and be consistent with the student's
primary mode of communication (e.g., sign language), that testing
take into account the nature of the student's disability (e.g.,
blindness), that interpreters and translation services are available,
and that the student's cultural background is taken into account.
- IDEA should require coordination between bilingual
general education programs and special education programs so that
students may avail themselves of the full array of services offered
under both of these programs.
- IDEA should strengthen its parental notification
requirements to ensure that parents are given advance notice of
their right to participate in their child's education process.
This should be accompanied by establishing or strengthening outreach
programs directed at minority communities.
- IDEA should require nondiscrimination training
for school assessment personnel to ensure that children from varying
cultural and linguistic backgrounds are not subject to discrimination.
- Fairness in evaluation and placement will be improved
by continued support of diversity among special education professionals
made possible through funding targeted at minority institutions
for the purpose of recruiting and preparing minority college students
to enter the special education field.
- Parents should be given the authority to extend
the current 45-day time limit for the completion of an Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP) under Part H in order to accommodate
families living in rural areas and to ensure that families from
diverse cultures fully understand the process and its intended
results.
- The criteria for allowing students with attention
deficit disorders, learning disabilities, and neurobiological
disorders to receive special education and related services should
be based on the student's overall academic, behavioral, and social
profile, rather than solely on documented academic failure.
- Unless there are specific parental or student waiver
statements on a student's IEP, it should be presumed that all
students with disabilities should be included in the overall school
assessment and testing program.
APPROPRIATE EDUCATION
Statement of Law
An appropriate education is one that (1) is specially
designed to meet a student's needs, (2) benefits the student, (3)
is based on an appropriate, nondiscriminatory evaluation, and (4)
is described in the student's individualized education program (IEP).
The student's IEP must state the student's present level of educational
performance, short term objectives, and one-year goals, as well
as the services the student is to receive (including related services),
the extent to which the student will be able to participate in regular
education programs, and criteria and procedures for annually determining
whether the objectives are being achieved (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1400(b)(2)
and (3), 1401(16), (17), (18), and (20)).
By the time a student turns 16, the student's IEP
must describe transition services (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)(19) and
(20)). When an infant or toddler is receiving early intervention
services, there must be an individualized family service plan (IFSP)
that describes the services to be provided to the child and the
family (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1477).
Appropriate Education Generally
Testimony regarding the issue of appropriate education
was mixed: Some witnesses testified that they believed that they
or their children had received an appropriate education; others
were less positive. In testimony regarding her son with cerebral
palsy, one mother expressed her overall satisfaction with the process:
A key to Michael's success has been the teamwork
of all the educational professionals involved in Michael's program.
The IEP process has allowed us to carefully plan and individually
tailor Michael's educational goals and objectives. (Susan
Tachau, Philadelphia, PA)
A former special education student felt differently:
I was viewed by some educators as "different."
I felt like anyone else in the room, because of who I am, and
I am proud of my disability. My family has always had to fight
every step of the way so that I could take classes. Professionals
in the schools and in this community have always placed limits
on my capability and have not given me opportunities. They laugh
at my needs. In our school, we have some teachers who are concerned
and want us to walk away with skills to become productive citizens
in our world community, but there are teachers who have made fun
of me in front of my peers because I am disabled. (Nannie
Marie Sanchez, Albuquerque, NM)
Some parents testified that the IEP allowed their
child to be successful in school. In one situation, the IEP responded
to a student's challenging behaviors by specifically explaining
how to redirect the child's self-abusive behavior, thus enabling
the student to manage his own behavior more effectively. Other parents
and students testified that as a result of their IEPs, they found
success later in college and even carried this individualized approach
over to their college education. However, in spite of testimony
of this sort, there was a great deal more testimony about problems
with IEPs.
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)
Parent and Student Involvement and
the IEP Meeting
In regard to the IEP process itself, I wish
it stood for "Individual Encouragement to Parents." If we could
change it, I would change it. In many ways this public law has
become our enemy. Educators are being consumed by accountability
and the IEP process itself. This process is not a true process
at all sometimes until due process...the reason being minimal
parent involvement until it's too late. The IEP process is so
labor intensive that it actually drives us away from the child
instead of closer to the child. It has become a burden to our
professionals. You may have five to eight professionals on a team
and not one of those people really possesses a true trusting relationship
with the parents. Not one sees the big picture of this child's
life, because they are caught up in the accountability, they are
caught up in time, which also becomes their enemy. (Kathy
Davis, Des Moines, IA)
At every hearing site, witness after witness testified
that the IEP process is extremely frustrating, often intimidating,
and hardly ever conducive to making them feel that they were equal
partners with professionals:
I believe parents come to the IEP meeting as
an unequal partner. Our signature means only that we were present
at the meeting. (Christi Murn, Milwaukee, WI)
Before you can educate a child, you have to
educate their parents. A parent who knows little about their child's
disability and even less of bureaucratic process involved in educating
his child is at a serious disadvantage. (Lisa Reader, Albuquerque,
NM)
Regarding IEPs, more often than not parents
are presented with what is more or less a completed IEP at their
planning placement team meeting...The goals and objectives are
generally very, very, vague, nonspecific and often don't have
an appropriate way to evaluate whether the child is making progress
in his or her program. (Laura Glomb, Boston, MA)
Many parents stated that school officials did not
respect their opinions and did not attempt to include them in developing
their children's goals and objectives. One parent testified that
she had to become loud and obnoxious in order to express
her opinions at the IEP meeting and to get the services that she
thought her child needed. Teachers often arrived at the IEP meeting
with a completed IEP, causing the parents to feel that their input
was not important. Some parents did not receive notice of IEP meetings,
nor did they receive copies of the completed IEP. Some IEP meetings
were described as hostile. Parents felt intimidated because they
did not know what to expect from the IEP meeting, their rights as
parents under IDEA, or the technical language used by professionals.
Each year I speak frankly, clearly and in English
that I feel Katie is not in an appropriate program. To quote,
"We've tried our best Mrs. Reed," is what I always hear. Each
year I put another candle on the cake, and when I blow out Katie's
candles, I say, "Maybe this year, Katie, maybe this will be the
year we have the right teachers, the right program and the right
way to communicate with you"...In two days we'll light another
candle on Katie's cake and another year will have gone by. I'll
still make that same wish: that this year maybe things will change.
(Catherine Reed, Boston, MA)
Parents know their children better than anyone, including
teachers and other professionals, and their input should be respected,
recognized, and utilized in developing their child's IEP.
Some of the witnesses were former students, and two
of them commented on the IEP process as follows:
I got teachers that would not help me...I never
went or was invited to my IEP meetings...No one ever told me about
my disability. I don't really know what my disability is...Twelve
years of special education should have prepared me for a life
without so many unnecessary problems...with the education I should
have had [as] my right under IDEA, things would be better
for me and for my children. (Linda Melendez, New York, NY)
I think that special education has its particular
poignance when kids are young and I think that often, children--and
I don't care what kind of disability the child has, whether it
is cognitive or physical--are not often asked what they want,
and therefore, they are given a double message. They are being
told that they need not be asked what they want. (Lisa Janoff,
Philadelphia, PA)
Witnesses suggested how the IEP process might be
improved:
- Parents, together with the school's IEP team, need
to establish an open line of communication regarding the parent's
role in the process and the services available to the child.
- An administrator needs to solicit and collect input
from the parents, other teachers, and therapists before the meeting
and then identify areas of concern and disagreement, thereby enabling
the meeting to run more smoothly.
- Concerns and problems could be alleviated through
parent education about the IEP process, technical terminology,
and parental rights under IDEA. Such an education program would
inevitably enable parents to feel more control over their children's
education and lessen the struggle with school professionals.
The IEP Itself
I've been to 57 IEP meetings. Not once, not
ever once, did a school offer a regular class placement as a placement
for a child. Beyond that, they never offered, never discussed,
never considered what kinds of supports, modifications, options
would be necessary for a child to succeed in a regular class environment.
Children are placed within existing programs, they're placed categorically
and/or into existing programs. (Laura Glomb, Boston, MA)
A major theme running through the testimony at every
hearing site was that the IEP should be based on the child's individual
needs and on high expectations for achievement:
The child's IEP should reflect the growth she
needs to reach her highest potential. (Nina Baker, Des Moines,
IA)
Children with disabilities must be ingrained
with the idea that they deserve nothing less than to live, rather
than merely to exist. (Bernadette Griffin, Philadelphia, PA)
I'm concerned that many times it's proven easier
to find a volunteer or a teacher's aide to provide such skills
as note-taking for blind and visually impaired individuals rather
than teaching that student and providing that student with the
appropriate technology to do that independently. (Brian Charleson,
Boston, MA)
Some witnesses testified that the short-term goals
and objectives of the IEP can serve as the benchmark of effective
learning and teaching and that they are extremely important to focus
the child's time and resources. Witnesses stated that these goals
could be improved by using family strengths and values to develop
the goals, ensuring their relevance. However, other witnesses testified
that the short-term goals are unnecessary and that the IEP is merely
a paperwork exercise, filled with meaningless criteria and overly-broad
goals, rather than an effective teaching tool. One parent expressed
frustration because at one point her child's IEP did not contain
enough objectives. The school responded with an IEP that contained
a total of 99 objectives!
IEPs do not have the proper goals. I had an
IEP meeting yesterday. There were no academics on the IEP.
(Linda Thompson, Anchorage, AK)
Witnesses discussed a variety of ways in which children
with disabilities are partially excluded by a local education agency's
inability or refusal to provide appropriate interventions, supports,
and related services. In too many cases, appropriate services that
have been mandated in a student's IEP and approved by the multidisciplinary
team have not been provided appropriately or, in some cases, at
all. Many witnesses testified about the cessation of approved related
services because of an independent decision made by an individual
provider, a school district, or a district official:
Even though I was told that New York State education
policies require that the same support services be available to
children in private schools as they are to children in public
schools, my request was denied. Finally, after much hard work
I got the district to include consultant teacher services on my
son's IEP. However, the city never implemented it, and we are
now in the second year of having the city completely ignore its
legal responsibilities. (Karen Robard, New York, NY)
Witnesses identified a variety of other examples
wherein services requested (and often approved) in IEPs were not
provided:
- A school's refusal to teach sign language to non-verbal
children as a communication technique;
- Delayed development of social skills in youth
with disabilities because of their being transported great distances
from home schools, rendering them unable to participate in extracurricular
activities and limiting their social interaction with peers;
- Students who are receiving homebound instruction
receiving only a few hours of direct instruction weekly; and
- The overall level of educator ignorance regarding
special needs' populations and the IDEA, as well as a perceived
lack of supports, staff, and funding for mandated, necessary,
and required services and programming.
Parents indicated that the burden of obtaining services
for their children and verifying the appropriate implementation
of these services too often became exclusively their responsibility.
This resulted in an adversarial or potentially adversarial dynamics
among them, the school, and service providers. Although the obligation
to identify children with disabilities and to provide them with
appropriate services legally rests with State and local education
agencies, in practice, parents must assume the at times daunting
responsibility to ensure that their children receive appropriate
services.
Some witnesses made suggestions on how to improve
IEPs:
- Definite timelines should be established for achieving
goals and assessing the child's progress on a regular basis.
- Streamlined IEP options should be offered for
students with speech and mild learning disabilities.
- An educationally relevant assessment should be
a part of the IEP process and not a separate evaluation.
- The IEP goals must address acceptable behavior
and related emotional issues in order to teach students to effectively
manage their own behavior.
- The IEP should provide motivation to the child
and encourage achievement, not merely state what the child will
accomplish.
- A well-written IEP with meaningful goals can be
an exceptional tool to teach and aid a child with a disability,
but such an IEP must specifically state the goals and objectives
to be accomplished by the child.
- A set of criteria to make the IEP process more
effective for everyone should include: (1) self-evaluation by
teachers, administrators, parents, and students; (2) careful monitoring
of the process toward reaching the goals; (3) reevaluation and
adjustment of teaching strategies when students are not reaching
their goals; (4) completion of the initial evaluation in a timely
manner; and (5) use of the IEP team more extensively to discover
why a students are not reaching their goals.
The IEP and Teachers
We watched their education closely. This included
many school visits. On one visit to school, the oldest child's
seventh grade English teacher recommended institutionalization.
It was all I could do to get my wife out of the classroom...From
that point on, we avoided public school, except for team meetings,
or as I refer to them, "blood lettings." (Charles Packard,
Boston, MA)
Aaron described the Rocky Mountain in Pennsylvania
as being the best place he ever visited, where he used to go and
sit and think...He wrote about the school as being the worst place
he had ever visited, and he told me it was because the special
ed teacher came into his class and didn't know how to teach him
what he needed to know and tried to teach him what he already
knew. (Karen McGinley, Boston, MA)
IEP goals are written based on what's available
rather than what the child needs. (Pam Clingenpeel, Charlotte,
NC)
"Appropriate" should never entail or be for
the convenience of the school district. (Linda Bond, Charlotte,
NC)
Many parents were concerned that their children were
not receiving the services that they actually needed, but only those
that were presently available. Witnesses stated their belief that
needed services were not included in IEPs because teachers were
hesitant to include services that were not currently provided or
because too much paperwork was expected from them to prove that
such supports, aids, or services were necessary for the child to
obtain an appropriate education.
Teachers feel that they're unable to include
a costly piece of technology in the IEPs for fear that their school
districts will retaliate by potentially firing them if they request
something that is not within the budget of the school district.
(Cindy Berger, Anchorage, AK)
Additionally, a few teachers who testified expressed
frustration in meeting the needs of their students with disabilities
due to the large, diverse nature of today's classroom. Those teachers
not "on the front lines" say they want to be better informed about
students with disabilities and are concerned about the lack of compliance
with the IEP process on the part of the "front-line teachers." Others
testified that all of a student's teachers should have a copy of
the IEP: This information would heighten teachers' awareness of
the student's goals and abilities and would help them incorporate
those goals into their respective subjects. Another witness was
concerned about teacher competencies and advocated the following:
Only personnel fully qualified within nationally
recognized competencies or licensure standards will be permitted
to deliver educational program within their field of expertise.
(Tim Wallstrom, Anchorage, AK).
IEP Implementation and Enforcement
We have set up a system that I believe creates
almost a tremendous bureaucracy in terms of making sure that we
comply with hundreds and hundreds of rules, but there is no rule
that says that we must have any kind of real successful outcomes
for these kids. So we spend all our lives making sure we cross
all our "T"s and dot all our "I"s, and people don't look to see
whether the kids are doing better, whether they're being more
successful. (Diego Gallegos, Albuquerque, NM)
We're so concerned about following what our
immediate supervisor is telling us to do, and to create a cutoff,
that will satisfy, maybe, the school board, to say that we are
keeping the percentage of children down from receiving special
education services. As a result, we're really kind of cutting
our own throats in the end, because the children and families
are really the ones who are suffering, and they're not allowed
to continue to make those strides that they're making. (Mary
Zeremba, Albuquerque, NM)
My son is desperate for an education, and there
are hundreds and perhaps thousands of children like him in Maine
who are desperate for an education but who have been told that
they cannot learn, that they are lazy, manipulative and unmotivated,
and to quote from one of his PETs last year, that he actually
prefers to sit in the classroom like a dumb imbecile and not learn.
I can assure you that this is far from the case. (Rosalba
Votto, Boston, MA)
Various witnesses expressed dissatisfaction with
public school systems because the schools were not complying with
the goals and objectives in the IEP and teachers were failing to
follow through with even the simplest IEP requirements. However,
participants at the hearings also made suggestions to remedy these
problems:
- Harsher penalties and fines need to be stated
in IDEA to notify school districts that noncompliance with IEPs
will carry significant consequences.
- The language of Part B of IDEA should be strengthened
regarding evaluation procedures and noncompliance issues, along
with developing follow-up studies when the IEP goals for the child
are established.
- With the three year reevaluation requirement,
a monitoring system should be established to ensure compliance
with current IEPs.
- Hold teachers and school personnel accountable
for the implementation of IEPs. Establish severe penalties for
teachers that fail to comply. (Debbie Stephens, Charlotte, NC)
Related Services
There are tools, right from computers down to
switch operated toys down to low-tech, which allow kids to fully
participate in their education...They can enable kids to get through
all kinds of barriers...Failure to use these kinds of things is
like denying somebody a pencil or a book, if they didn't have
a disability. (Donna Dutton, Berkeley, CA)
I walked in one day and [said,] "Where's
his self-feeder?...He's capable of feeding himself instead of
having somebody spoon-feed him." (P.J. Carpenter, Anchorage,
AK)
Parents and advocates for children with disabilities
at each hearing site testified about the insufficiency of related
services. Their primary concern was that when or if related services
were determined to be necessary, many schools would only provide
them if they were easily available. Thus, the criterion involved
in the schools' decisions was not whether students needed
related services as is required under the law, but whether these
services were easy or inexpensive to provide.
In the absence of SEA or LEA policies on the
provision of assistive technology, and the lack of Federal attention
to assistive technology during SEA monitoring, it may be as difficult
to assure the provision of a tape recorder or calculator as it
is a closed circuit TV system. (Amy Goldman, Philadelphia,
PA)
There is no adaptive equipment. [You would
hear,] "Oh, oh. He is only one kid in the whole school." Well,
doesn't that kid count? (Sam Reder, Anchorage, AK)
Being intelligent alone cannot get you over
the hurdles that the learning disability presents. It requires
other people to come in and help you with the technologies.
(Mason Barney, Boston, MA)
Although parents felt confident enough to describe
the services or assistive technology their children needed, they
were often not successful in obtaining these because they were either
unaware of their rights on this issue, believed school districts
when told that the system could not afford the requested services,
or felt too intimidated to confront school systems. Therefore, children
did not receive appropriate services or assistive technology, received
only minimal services, or received nothing at all, particularly
if they were being schooled at home.
Witnesses stated that increased funding is needed
to provide more services in a timely fashion and to provide more
information and support to parents who are struggling to obtain
appropriate services for their children.
We urge that the legislation be reauthorized
with some strong mandates that schools address assistive technology
needs and do it in a proactive way that provides training, that
provides rights to individuals with disabilities and to parents
so that, indeed, the program is individualized, not for the convenience
of the system. (William West, Denver, CO)
Parents wanted better training for teachers and parents
who need to be able to use assistive technology, clarification about
issues of student evaluation for assistive technology, and more
compatible equipment in the system to enable smoother transitions
from one level to the next (e.g. being able to use the same computer
system in grade school and high school so time is not wasted in
adapting to new technology).
Transition of this technology from education
to work, from one educational setting to another, has to be a
primary emphasis of the use of adaptive technology in the education
system. One form of transfer of technology that concerns me greatly
is that ability not only to move from system to system, but from
the 9-to-5 part of their lives to the 5-to-9 part of their lives,
being able to bring that technology out of the classroom into
the home, to use it in manners appropriate for personal management
of their home lives, as well as to do the homework associated
with education. (Brian Charleson, Boston, MA)
Because...items cannot go with him to the next
school that were purchased by the previous school just for him,...we're
back at the square one going, "Okay, we need this..type of equipment
for him to use so he is capable of doing what he needs to do in
the classroom." (P.J. Carpenter, Anchorage, AK)
We also need to teach those teachers to use
technology to advance educational opportunities...to take a computer,
type in the textbook, be able to translate it and print it out
in braille at will. Worksheets should not be something that are
read aloud or hand transcribed in these modern times...The whole
concept of teaching materials...I remember when I was in school
and took things like Art History, required subjects, one of the
joys of that experience was trying to sit through umpty-ump slide
shows with somebody trying to describe to me the difference between
pointillism and cubism without one single raised-line image to
learn from, trying to do it entirely from description. I'm very
concerned that in the educational system, as we continue on into
technology and see videos taking an ever-increasing importance
in the classroom, that those be made accessible. (Brian Charleson,
Boston, MA)
Last year was the first year that Chris had
any consistent access to a computer, although it has been in her
IEP since kindergarten and she is now in the sixth grade.
(Tracy Hunter, Charlotte, NC)
With respect to deaf or hearing impaired children,
parents expressed a desire to have an increased number of certified
sign language interpreters. They were concerned about the quality
of interpreters working in the schools. Because communication is
essential to effective learning, some witnesses suggested setting
national standards for interpreters. Additionally, parents stated
they would like to see guidelines for language therapists incorporated
into IDEA.
A number of parents and advocates made specific suggestions,
including listing school health services delivered by a professional
school nurse as a related service.
The law doesn't clearly state who is responsible
for providing these services [related services for students
with medically-related needs]...Failure to clarify this part
of the law keeps individuals who choose to participate in the
least restrictive environment segregated from their peers without
disabilities, and loopholes for professionals who use the "medically
fragile" label to keep these children out of the community and
out of community schools. (Beverlyn Lee, Berkeley, CA)
There was also some consensus that services should
be provided to meet the needs of students with neurobiological disorders.
Certified school nurses could administer and monitor medications
taken by students with neurobiological disorders, thereby creating
access to the public school system. In addition, one parent requested
respite care as a related service for parents like herself who are
caring for a child with severe anger and attachment problems.
Other concerns included transportation problems,
particularly in remote areas. Rural areas throughout the country
seem to be at higher risk for being unable to provide necessary
services, due at least in part to the physical geography of these
areas complicated by the relatively low numbers of people with disabilities
in these areas. This situation creates transportation hardships
for parents when transportation is either not provided by LEAs or
when students must spend extended blocks of time on busses or other
district vehicles. Regardless of the law's intent, witness accounts
indicate that there is no uniformity throughout the nation regarding
which school districts will provide transportation, reimburse parents
for providing the service, or simply refuse to offer the service.
This places special education and related services outside of the
physical reach of many children in need.
Other parents complained that their children have
to commute long distances every day, are being picked up during
class time so teachers can use the extra time to plan the day (depriving
children of 40-50 minutes of the regular school day), or are being
denied transportation altogether.
The Overall Benefits of Special Education
Witnesses testified that when a student does not receive
appropriate and necessary services and skill training, the student
will not progress or benefit from special education. While there
are clearly situations in which students have benefited considerably
from their involvement in special education, in far too many instances
the absence of appropriate services has resulted in unsatisfactory
levels of student achievement. One parent testified that upon initial
evaluation, her child was reading at a first-grade level. After
appropriate services were provided, her child progressed to a fifth-grade
reading level within one-and-a-half years. However, most of the
testimony indicated that students were not fully benefiting from
special education:
Even as a 15-year-old...I knew that special
ed was the plague....I didn't want to be put in a five-by-five
room with a single teacher and a piano. It was like being put
in jail....My consciousness vis-à-vis disability was particularly
heightened at an early age, and I knew that the only way for my
peers, and teachers, for that matter, to learn to deal with disability
was to face disability. Being herded into that room wasn't doing
me any more good than it was doing them. [I] have a lot
of concerns about people with physical disabilities being herded
into special ed even though they don't need to be in a special
ed program. (Drew Sommers, Milwaukee, WI)
Teachers are supposed to...comply with the modifications.
I've had teachers make my grades higher, because if they flunked
me, we'd go back asking what kind of modifications [could
be made]. For instance, just recently...I did not turn one
paper in, in math, but I had turned in two tests, which were both
"F"s. I still came out with a C. So, see...this is their answer
to modifications, just make the grade higher. I actually want
to get something out of education. I want to learn something.
I don't want people just putting my grades there for me. (Michael
Klucher, Albuquerque, NM)
...Receiving straight A's throughout school,
I went on to college unaware that I was so unprepared, totally
unprepared. Fortunately, I had the smarts and the continued support
of insightful, intelligent parents, helping me through the traumatic
beginning. I went to graduate school, but my high school education
was far from "special." It was deficient. (Suzanne Bacal,
Philadelphia, PA)
Students come out of [special education
schools] with nothing that looks like a diploma. They get a
certificate of attendance, a certificate of completion...None
of those...is a diploma. So a kid can go from kindergarten to
the end of his or her education career with nothing that looks
like what every other student is to get. So they don't come [out
of school] equipped....Our kids with disabilities are just
like kids with able bodies [and] are supposed to get real
life education while they are in school that is augmented by the
community and their parents. (Greg Dougan, Philadelphia, PA)
My son is an 18-year-old person with a third-grade
education. He wants to go to college. He wants to be a marine
biologist. But he may never get out of high school because he
hasn't been given the right skills and the right tools. [He]
has been made to feel...that he is moron, that he will never catch
up. (Rosalba Votto, Boston, MA)
As a Director of the Independent Living Center,
we primarily serve adults with disabilities. Well, we've seen
the failings of the special ed system for the past two decades.
Many of our consumers who have come out of special ed don't know
how to read, don't know how to write, have never been taught basic
fundamental skills that are necessary in our growing work- and
technology-based society. (Paul Spooner, Boston, MA)
We see the aftermath of the educational process
on adults with disabilities...Statistically, many adults with
disabilities do not have sufficient education to enter the competitive
market, and as you know, our society is changing rapidly.
(Rafaelita Bachicha, Albuquerque, NM)
When he graduated this year, he [couldn't]
read or write. He was never taught the technology that could have
helped him function as an adult. He entered school with an IQ
of 109, graduated with an IQ of 86. I don't really believe his
IQ dropped, but I believe the system failed him. (Cindy Sirois,
Boston, MA)
At age 12, she left public school [with]
a second-grade education. This is a horrendous, horrible use--or
nonuse--of an education system. (Robin Ann Tracy, Boston,
MA)
Clearly, these customers of special education were
not satisfied with the results of their experiences in the system.
While it is undeniable that special education has had tremendous
positive impact on the quality of life experienced by those who
have received appropriate education, the testimony of these witnesses
indicates that many families and students are not receiving a free
and appropriate education consistent with their needs as the law
intends.
Alternative Placement
We were told at her IEP meeting by the special
ed coordinator that we were like pioneers in the process of allowing
the school to educate my daughter. I cringed and thought to myself,
to me "pioneer" is synonymous with "guinea pig." (Kathleen
Fitzgerald, Boston, MA)
Some parents, frustrated with the schools' reluctance
or refusal to provide services to meet their children's needs, have
resorted to private placement or home schooling, sometimes at their
own expense. Parents and advocates testified that in far too many
schools, special education students were unwelcome, were frustrated
as a result of inappropriate services, or were deteriorating due
to a lack of appropriate services. In spite of 20 years of experience,
it is still the case that in many locations, virtually no services
are provided in public school buildings for students with moderate
to severe disabilities. The troubling effect of this de facto
non-compliance with the law has been the assumption on the part
of a whole generation of parents in these locations that their children
cannot possibly be accommodated in a regular school environment.
And yet, in every hearing there were parents who provided powerful
examples of how individual school districts had designed and implemented
high-quality services and supports for students with even the most
severe disabilities in regular public school buildings. In some
situations these districts literally bordered on districts that
provided virtually no services to students with moderate to severe
disabilities in regular schools.
It is, of course, understandable that when parents
are offered no (or very limited) services for their children with
disabilities in regular school environments, they will accept placements
outside of the regular school system in order to access help for
their children. As we will see in the chapter on "Least Restrictive
Environment," tremendous barriers still exist in accessing this
help in typical public school buildings. However, in many parts
of the country, the most important issue is not a lack of alternative
placements. Rather, it is the substantial lack of ordinary placement
options.
Recommendations: Appropriate Education
In order to ensure that IDEA's provisions regarding
appropriate education are improved and strengthened, the Federal
government should implement the following recommendations:
- Require State and local education agencies to offer
information and training to parents regarding their participation
in the special education process, particularly as this relates
to active involvement in decisions regarding their child's education.
- Over the past 20 years, the Individualized Education
Program (IEP) has served many purposes. There is currently great
variability in the processes used and results derived from the
development of IEPs. The Department of Education should succinctly
catalogue the overall purposes of IEPs and reaffirm the most basic
purpose of the IEP, which is to ensure that students receiving
special education are provided with a carefully tailored package
of supports and services designed to maximize their educational
achievements within the least restrictive environment.
- Within the context of renewed emphasis on the basic
purposes of IEPs, the Department of Education should monitor progress
in improving the quality of IEPs. Such monitoring should go beyond
the current infrequent and highly formal monitoring program and
include new approaches such as stratified sampling of parent and
student satisfaction and the solicitation of input from teachers
and other professionals on how IEPs might be improved.
- With the adoption of the recommendations above,
the Department of Education should allow greater flexibility--based
on informed decisions made by parents and students--on the degree
of specificity required in those parts of the IEP that deal with
day-to-day instruction and the delivery of related services. For
example, some parents feel that there is no need for short-term
objectives in their children's IEPs. Other parents would like
to see a "shortened" IEP for students with relatively minor disabilities.
Greater flexibility in this area would likely lead to greater
levels of customer satisfaction andreduced paperwork.
- The Department of Education should provide incentives
and support for State education agencies to improve their monitoring
of the performance of local education agencies, particularly in
situations where State education agencies are attempting to provide
sanctions for substantive noncompliance with the provisions of
IDEA on the part of a local education agency.
- The Department of Education should require State
grantees under the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals
with Disabilities Act to engage in more extensive outreach to
school districts regarding the availability of assistive technology
devices and services.
- More funding should be available to provide necessary
assistive technologies and support services that enable students
with disabilities to attend school and to increase their independence.
1 See, for example, National
Council on Disability (1994). Inclusionary education for students
with disabilities: Keeping the promise. Washington, DC: Author;
and National Council on Disability (1993). Serving the nation's
students with disabilities: Progress and prospects. Washington,
DC: Author.
2 See Gore, A. (1993).
From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better
and costs less. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3 As stated earlier,
the goal of the hearings was to gather information from parents,
family members, and students. The NCD relied on local groups to
organize the hearings, groups which employed varying levels of publicity
regarding this goal. As a result, approximately 15% of the witnesses
were professionals. However, the majority of these professionals
were employed by parent training and disability advocacy organizations.
Therefore, the vast bulk of testimony was from a customer perspective.
4 We have endeavored
to spell witnesses' names correctly. Some were difficult to read
on sign-in sheets. The court reporters at the hearings worked hard
to ensure correct spelling. Still, we apologize for any errors.
All quotes are verbatim, with the exception that punctuation has
been added for clarity, pauses have been omitted, verb tenses have
been aligned, and obvious repetitions within quotes have been condensed.
Also, the location listed is the hearing location, not necessarily
the actual address of the witness.
5 Name withheld to
protect confidentiality.
![Forward](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090512005128im_/http://www.ncd.gov/images/ncdfwd.gif)
|