Improving the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act: Making Schools Work for All of America's Children
























NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
MAY 9, 1995

















National Council on Disability

Improving the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act:  Making Schools Work for All of America's Children



Publication date: 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,

The President
May 9, 1995
Page Two


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....................................................1
     Reviewing IDEA's Purposes..................................2
          Congressional Purposes................................2
          The 1995 Reauthorization..............................3
     Twenty Years Later:  Has IDEA Met the Test of Time?........5

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:  Twenty Years of 
Progress in 
     Serving the Nation's Students with Disabilities...........13

Zero Reject....................................................21
     Statement of Law..........................................21
     Access....................................................21
     Parents' Lack of Information..............................22
     Difficult-To-Serve Students...............................23
     Discipline................................................24
     Recommendations:  Zero Reject.............................26

Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory Evaluation....29
     Statement of Law..........................................29
     Problems with Labeling Children...........................31
     Native Language and Mode of Communication.................34
     Overrepresentation of Minorities in Special Education.....40
     Parent Participation in Evaluations.......................42
     Lack of Clarity in Assessment Criteria....................44
     Independent Evaluations...................................45
     Timeliness of Evaluations.................................46
     Minimum Competency Testing................................48
     Creation of New Disability Categories.....................49
          Neurobiological Disorders............................49
          Emotional Disability and Mental Illness..............51
     Summary of Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory 
          Evaluation Issues....................................52
     Recommendations:  Assessment for Eligibility 
          and Nondiscriminatory Evaluation.....................53

Appropriate Education..........................................55
     Statement of Law..........................................55
     Appropriate Education Generally...........................55
     Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)..................56
          Parent and Student Involvement and the IEP Meeting...56
          The IEP Itself.......................................59
          The IEP and Teachers.................................62
          IEP Implementation and Enforcement...................64
     Related Services..........................................65
     The Overall Benefits of Special Education.................69
     Alternative Placement.....................................72
     Recommendations:  Appropriate Education...................73

Least Restrictive Environment..................................75
     Statement of Law..........................................75
     Benefits of Integration...................................76
     Characteristics of Successful Integration.................82
     Barriers to Integration...................................84
          Attitudes of Professionals in Education..............84
          Personnel Preparation................................87
          Funding and Costs....................................88
          Partial Integration..................................90
          Being Treated as a "Burden" to Regular Education.....91
     Continuum of Services.....................................92
     Recommendations:  Least Restrictive Environment...........95

Parent Participation and Shared Decision Making...............101
     Statement of Law.........................................101
     General Issues Concerning Collaboration..................103
     Training and Information Issues..........................104
     Zero Reject..............................................106
     Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory Evaluation107
     Appropriate Education....................................107
          Individualized Family Service Plans and Individualized 
               Education Programs.............................107
          Parents Are Not Professionals.......................108
          Program Methods.....................................109
     Least Restrictive Environment............................112
     Procedural Due Process...................................113
     Recommendations:  Parent Participation and Shared Decision 
Making........................................................114

Procedural Due Process........................................117
     Statement of Law.........................................117
     Enforcement in General...................................118
     Due Process in General...................................121
     Mediation................................................126
     Attorneys Fees and Attorneys.............................128
     Recommendations:  Procedural Due Process.................131


Transition....................................................133
     Statement of Law.........................................133
     Transition Across a Person's Entire Life.................134
          The Mandatory Age for the Initiation of Transition 
Planning 
               Needs to Be Lowered............................134
          High School Programs Can Better Prepare Students for 
Success
               Following Graduation...........................137
          Grade-to-Grade Transitions Are Also Important to 
Students' Success.............................................141
     Changes Need to Be Made in the Process of Transition 
Planning......................................................144
          Annual IEPs Need to Reflect the ITP and the Overall 
Vision 
               for the Student................................144
          The Social Aspects of Transition Need to Be Emphasized147
          Collaboration is Vital to a Successful Transition 
Process.......................................................149
     Recommendations:  Transition.............................151

Discretionary Programs........................................153
     Statement of Law.........................................153
     Overall Impact on Programs...............................154
          Personnel Development...............................154
          Parent-As-Collaborator..............................160
     Recommendations:  Discretionary Programs.................161

Funding.......................................................163
     Statement of Law.........................................163
     The Need for Adequate Funding............................165
     General Funding Advice from Witnesses....................166
     Reducing Financial Barriers to Placements in Less 
Restrictive Settings..........................................168
     Recommendations:  Funding................................170

Special Education and the Goals 2000:  Educate America Act....173
     Statement of Law.........................................173
     Testimony Concerning Goals 2000..........................174
     Recommendations:  Special Education and the Goals 2000:  
          Educate America Act.................................177

Summary and Recommendations...................................179

                            Appendices

Appendix A:Hearing Dates and Locations........................195

Appendix B:List of Witnesses..................................197

Appendix C:Table of Acronyms..................................213

Appendix D:Synthesis of Reports from Nationally Preeminent 
Special Education
               Researchers and Teacher Trainers...............215

Appendix E:Acknowledgements...................................249

Appendix F:A Brief Description of the National Council on 
Disability...................................................253 
                           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 expos‚s, 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:
1.  Require State and local government entities such as public 
schools to be accessible to people with disabilities.

2.  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.

3.  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:
1.  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.

2.  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.

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  IDEA should require nondiscrimination training for school 
assessment personnel to ensure that children from varying 
cultural and linguistic backgrounds are not subject to 
discrimination.  

8.  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.  

9.  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. 

10.  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.

11.  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-…-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: 
1.  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.

2.  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.

3.  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.

4.  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 and 
reduced paperwork.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  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.

                 LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT[6]

                         Statement of Law

     The least restrictive environment (LRE) principle in IDEA 
creates a presumption in favor of educating students with 
disabilities in the same programs as students without 
disabilities.  Thus, to the maximum extent appropriate, a student 
with a disability is to be educated with students who do not have 
disabilities.  IDEA requires that the student's removal from the 
regular educational environment may occur only when the nature or 
severity of the student's disability is such that education in 
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services 
cannot be achieved satisfactorily (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1412 (5)(B) 
and 1414 (a)(1)(C)(iv)).  In addition, State and local education 
agencies must maintain a continuum of placements (34 C.F.R. Part 
300, Secs. 300.17 and 300.551).  The continuum includes 
instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, 
home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.

     Under IDEA, a student's placement should be determined 
annually, be based on the student's IEP, be as close to the 
student's home as possible, take into account any potential 
harmful effect on the student or the quality of services the 
student needs (34
C.F.R. Sec. 300.552), and the likelihood that the student will be 
so disruptive in a regular classroom that the education of other 
students will be significantly impaired (note to 34 C.F.R. Sec. 
300.552).

                      Benefits of Integration
     At every hearing, witnesses offered strong support for 
IDEA's fundamental assumption that the first placement option to 
be considered for students with disabilities should be the 
regular classroom the student would attend if he or she were not 
disabled.  Such placement was variously referred to as 
"integration" or as "inclusion" by witnesses in their 
descriptions regarding the benefits of such placements.

     Toni Robinson is a parent and educator at the Parent 
Training and Information Center in North Carolina.  Her 
eleven-year-old son, Ted, has Down syndrome and is in his second 
year at a regular elementary school:  
     Over the last year, I have learned that IDEA works, and the 
     least restrictive language in IDEA, in my opinion, is just 
     fine as it is.  I can tell you that supported inclusion, 
     which entails support for students and parents, for my kid, 
     I can tell you that it works, period.  I have a kid.  My kid 
     has a life.  And I can say to you honestly I really feel 
     like now I have a child instead of a walking disability:  
     walking Down syndrome.  And a year later, I have those 
     feelings corroborated by folks at the school, who say,  "I 
     wish we could have videotaped this child every day since he 
     walked in the building, because no one would believe the 
     progress."  (Toni Robinson, Charlotte, NC)

Many other witnesses described the benefits of integration:

     Had I been placed in that special classroom, would they have 
     taught me to expect the same things for myself that children 
     without disabilities take for granted, or to accept a 
     standard that was less?  Would I have learned to climb 
     stairs, or would they not have taught me because, like the 
     public
     school nurse, they would be afraid I might fall?  Would 
     having attended a special classroom [have] prepared me for 
     college, or would it have ended my chance for a bachelor's 
     degree before it was begun?  (Bernadette Griffin, 
     Philadelphia, PA)

     Experiences with Keith's new teacher and his classmates 
     leads me to understand inclusion, like education for any 
     typically developing child, is a process in which placement 
     is crucial.  Disability is real.  It's educational 
     implications cannot be ignored.  However, we already have 
     demonstrated adequately that poor quality of life outcomes 
     can be predicted by mindlessly segregating individuals with 
     disabilities. (Walter Theis, New York, NY)

     The main "benefit" Darcy drew form her experience in 
     segregated education was the internalized idea that she 
     could not do what other children could do and was somehow 
     not equal to them.  (Leslie Reed, Denver, CO)

     In every step of her education, there have been other 
     parents who came to me privately and thanked me for allowing 
     their children a first-hand human experience of the children 
     who for so many years were relegated to special classrooms, 
     other campuses, for separate -but not equal- education. 
     (Lindsay Merryman, Berkeley, CA)


     For many witnesses, placement in the least restrictive 
environment meant placement in a regular classroom in the 
neighborhood school they would attend if they were not disabled:
     Integration into home schools results in education of the 
     community to the sensitivities of children with 
     disabilities.  (Mark March, Des Moines, IA)

     While having Alex attend his neighborhood schools has not 
     been a popular idea, we have settled for nothing less than 
     being given the opportunity to go to the same school he 
     would attend if he did not have a disability.  (Greg Omori, 
     Des Moines, IA)


     Parents whose children were placed in local neighborhood 
schools were pleased and convinced of the many benefits of such 
placements.  Not only does the community
learn to accept the particular student, but the student also 
gains socially and emotionally by having companions in the 
neighborhood that attend the same school.  One little girl 
testified that she was very thankful that she was able to go to 
her neighborhood school. She expressed sympathy for another girl 
she knew who attended a segregated school because she did not 
have this opportunity and has no friends to play with in the 
neighborhood.

     A majority of witnesses who testified on the subject of 
least restrictive environment indicated strong support for 
integrated placements.  This support was based on a variety of 
factors.  Many parents of students with disabilities stated that 
their children made greater gains academically and socially in 
integrated settings than they had in segregated settings.  
Parents emphasized the friendships their children had made with 
nondisabled students that would not have occurred in segregated 
placements.  Parents reported that their children were happier 
and were eager to be doing what their peers were doing.

     Catherine Jortner, President of the Connecticut Coalition 
for Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities, spoke on 
behalf of the parent of a student with autism.  The parent had 
spent five years in due process proceedings, trying to have her 
son included in a regular classroom setting.  She was successful 
and reported that the five years of struggle had been worth it, 
as it offered irreplaceable social benefits to her son, Jay.
     For the first time, at age 16, Jay went out with friends.  
     He went to a football game with some classmates.  It's 
     funny, we were always told that regular education kids just 
     don't want anything to do with special education kids.  The 
     kids at the high school have been wonderful.  Adults could 
     learn a lot from them.  He has friends.  Now we have hope 
     for his future.  (Catherine Jortner, Boston, MA)


     Furthermore, students with disabilities and their parents 
indicated that academic standards are higher in integrated 
settings and that students are motivated to achieve at higher 
levels, whatever their initial level of ability and functioning.  
Witnesses also reported that integrated placements often led to a 
greater ability to achieve independence and employment as adults.

     Kathleen Fitzgerald is both a teacher and a parent.  Her 
daughter, Kara, who has both mental retardation and autism, was 
successfully included in a regular classroom:
     We saw more progress in that one year of inclusion than we 
     saw in six or seven years of very intensive one-on-one 
     special education.  So I feel very strongly that IDEA 
     certainly helped me, and the new...recognition of autism 
     helped me to be able to get my district to look at including 
     my child with very obvious behavioral and autistic 
     tendencies in a regular classroom.  [It] was unbelievably 
     successful!  (Kathleen Fitzgerald, Anchorage, AK)


     Both parents and students stated that they preferred a 
real-life environment with a diverse population because 
integration helps students without disabilities to become more 
compassionate and understanding.  Linda Frederick is a parent 
who, in 1971, worked in an institution for people with mental 
retardation, including people with Down syndrome.  She now has a 
son with Down syndrome and is very pleased that he is being
educated in an integrated environment, remembering the 
institution where she once worked.  She feels fortunate to have 
great teachers and services that have been especially beneficial 
to her son's socialization.  She says that her son will learn a 
lot from the kids, a little from the specialists, and a little 
from the general education teacher.
     My son, our family, his friends, and his school are all the 
     beneficiaries of his inclusion at Columbine.  I no longer 
     fear for his future.  His inclusion in school will ensure 
     that he's included as an adult.  There's no better feeling 
     than to know that.  Most important of all, he will learn 
     about finding his place in the world, and his friends will 
     learn about finding their place in the world.  (Linda 
     Frederick, Denver, CO)


     The costs associated with integration can be modest, with 
possible savings because of fewer due process hearings, fewer 
mediations, fewer referrals to special education, fewer 
non-public school placements, and lower transportation costs.  
     Oakland's current inclusion program at the elementary level 
     serves 27 students at eight schools.  Over 60% of the 
     Severely Handicapped (SH) students living in those eight 
     attendance areas attend regular education classes in their 
     neighborhood school with the support of supplemental aids 
     and services...This year OUSD [Oakland Unified School 
     District] will spend about $800 per inclusion student less 
     than the cost of educating them in SDCs [Special Day 
     Classes].  This is due largely to transportation savings 
     ($2,310/student) offsetting additional costs due to staffing 
     ($1,370/student), planning, and training.

     As more students are included across the district and at all 
     grade levels, there will be additional costs for equipment 
     (averaging up to $250 per included student), ability 
     awareness training (about $20,000 per year district-wide), 
     and reduced savings on transportation at the secondary 
     level.  However, any additional costs should be completely 
     offset by projected savings from:

         reduced escalation to more intensive services (e.g. 
          about $32,000 per student per year not referred to 
          non-public school);

         reduced legal fees associated with mediations and fair 
          hearings (typically $2,000 - $10,000 per case);

         reduced need for expansion of facilities ($55,000 per 
          classroom);

         reduced facilities usage ($960 per class per year); and

         the effects of economies of scale (e.g. potential for 
          reducing staffing at $1,370 per student per year).

     Inclusion represents a more efficient and effective 
     utilization of educational resources.  Furthermore, the 
     substantial benefits attributed to inclusive education can 
     be delivered for no additional expenditure of resources.  
     (Mark Polit, Berkeley, CA)


     Individuals from advocacy organizations also testified in 
favor of integrated settings.  These advocates represented 
parents (including parents from diverse backgrounds), students 
with severe disabilities, and people with mental retardation.  
The few special education administrators who testified generally 
supported the concept of integration and emphasized the need for 
administrative support for integration within school districts.

     Beyond the numerous statements of support for integration, 
many individuals also commented on the negative effects of 
segregated settings.  Ellen Laurence is the parent of a daughter 
who was placed in a self-contained special education classroom 
after having been in an integrated setting.  In the 
self-contained program, she was physically abused by staff.  She 
testified that when she reported this to the Colorado Department 
of Education, she was told that abuse was not their problem, but 
that it was a personnel problem.

     Students reported that they had been ridiculed and 
stigmatized for going to "the special education room" and that 
they were treated like second-class citizens.  One student 
reported feeling psychologically malnourished when placed in a 
group made up only of other young adults with disabilities (Bill 
Rush, Des Moines, IA).

     A number of witnesses stated that a separate special 
education system could never be equal to the regular system.  
Some stated that children with mental retardation in segregated 
settings frequently miss out on academics and the positive 
behavior modeling of nondisabled peers.  Others stated that 
segregation may encourage nondisabled students to maintain 
harmful attitudes, because segregation demonstrates that it is 
acceptable to treat some students under different rules and 
because nondisabled students do not have the opportunity to know 
students with disabilities as peers and as individuals.  Several 
individuals stated that segregation itself creates a further 
disability, perhaps worse than the original disabling condition.  
Thus, the supported integration of students with disabilities was 
described as not only producing better results for all students, 
but as a positive instrumental method of reducing the historical 
prejudice that has been directed toward people with disabilities 
in our culture.

             Characteristics of Successful Integration
     Once the child is there...[inclusion] sells itself.  (Jan 
     Miller, Berkeley, CA)

     The teacher that honestly believes a child is an asset to 
     the class and is a privilege to teach communicates much to 
     that child, and sets an example for the rest of the class to 
     value all people.  (Gayle Underdown, Charlotte, NC)

     Her team is creative, flexible and determined to make 
     inclusion work.  (Janet Schmitz, Berkeley, CA)

     Primarily [it is] the kids who are really into, in fact, 
     including Adam.  They are the primary sources of strategies 
     and ways to include him in all their activities starting 
     from PE through their curriculum.  (Joanna Cooper, Berkeley, 
     CA)


     A large number of witnesses who commented about the 
characteristics of successful inclusion credited staff members 
who work directly with students with disabilities.  Positive 
attitudes were frequently mentioned as critical to the success of 
integration.  Staff who want to make integration work, or even a 
single teacher who promotes positive attitudes about people with 
disabilities, can make all the difference.  The quality and 
training of regular teachers, special education teachers and 
support teachers and staff in successful integrated placements is 
an important factor.  So is collaboration among teachers, between 
teachers and parents, and between schools and agencies.  Some 
individuals stated that support from the administration and 
school district is necessary, as is provision of adequate support 
services to the child and classroom teacher.  Support services 
can include early intervention, paraprofessionals or aides, 
interpreters, buses for field trips, and education for 
nondisabled peers.  Obviously, appropriate IEP goals and 
objectives are necessary.

     The role of other students is also important.  Social 
interactions between students with and without disabilities can 
be encouraged.  Peers naturally provide motivation, can suggest 
curriculum modifications, and become friends of students with 
disabilities.

     Diana Daggett is a parent and board member of the Autism 
Society of America.  Her 15-year-old daughter, Allison, is 
succeeding in a regular school because she has proper support and 
her school is complying with IDEA:
     Allison is living proof that with the proper supports and 
     compliance by schools, children with special needs can 
     succeed.  What's important is the reputable fact that all 
     children benefit from full participation of every student.  
     There are important lessons to be learned early in life 
     about the rights of all people.   (Diana Daggett, 
     Albuquerque, NM)
 


                      Barriers to Integration

     While a large number of witnesses described the benefits of 
integrated education, many others described the many barriers 
that continue to impede (or serve to prohibit) the implementation 
of IDEA's requirements.

              Attitudes of Professionals in Education
     I tell you in my experience, I've heard such rhetoric as, 
     "I'm getting tired of spending money on kids who aren't ever 
     going to grow up and be anything."  Holy cow, and that's 
     coming from administration!  (Mark Peterson, Des Moines, IA)

     Attempts by parents for mainstreaming or inclusion are met 
     with disdain and indifference.  (Pam Clingenpeel, Charlotte, 
     NC)

     We've been told, "You're going to dump these children in our 
     class and we're going to be responsible to teach them.  If 
     we don't, it will be our jobs."   (Greg Omori, Des Moines, 
     IA)

     One parent was told from an administrator, "[Your son] can 
     either go to his neighborhood school, where he will be 
     teased and humiliated, or he can continue to go to the 
     segregated school, where he will have the opportunity to be 
     class president and captain of the basketball team."  (E.J. 
     Jorgensen, Des Moines, IA)


     Of the approximately 50 people who discussed professionals' 
attitudes, several testified that many teachers are unhappy with 
inclusion and are not always receptive to having a child with 
disabilities in their classroom.  One parent said that her 
daughter who has autism was subjected to regular classroom 
teachers who ignored her, blamed her for requiring special help, 
and pressured her parents to segregate her by taking her out of 
the integrated system.  Another parent stated that in her city, 
the teachers' union wants a moratorium on inclusion and teacher 
"veto power" over the acceptance of students with disabilities 
into their classrooms, a situation that would be intolerable in 
the treatment of any other minority group.  A father from 
Anchorage stated that he was afraid that his child would be 
excluded if his child's disability was identified due to the lack 
of personnel support for inclusion.  A few people testified that, 
although some teachers initially support integration, they want 
to revert back to segregated programs as soon as any problems 
arise.  

     People compared the situation of children with disabilities 
with that of the discrimination that occurred against African 
Americans a few decades ago and stated the strong hope that it 
will not take decades for people to come to the understanding 
that children with disabilities belong in a classroom just as 
much as nondisabled children.  
     Inclusion must be a right for all and not a privilege for a 
     few.  (Kathie Snow, Denver, CO)

     The inclusion of all of our kids hangs in the balance until 
     districts and LEAs and SEAs stop seeing inclusion as a favor 
     to be given or denied and see it as a right for all of our 
     kids.  (Cheryl Ogle, Des Moines, IA)

     Why should parents have to struggle so hard to access 
     inclusion when the original intent of IDEA was to make the 
     regular classroom the first option of choice?  (E.J. 
     Jorgensen, Des Moines, IA)

     Least restrictive placement is [considered] an earned 
     privilege, not a right.  Children must prove that they can 
     attend, keep up with, and function as non-disabled students 
     in the regular classroom or they do not have the right to 
     attend.  (Dawn Gloss, Des Moines, IA)

     I've been watching inclusion evolve over the last six or 
     seven years.  Inclusion works wonderfully for students [who] 
     have parents that have the time and energy to support their 
     child.  (Jane Thiboutot, Anchorage, AK)


     Approximately two dozen witnesses testified on the negative 
attitudes of professionals as a barrier to inclusion.  A large 
number of parents complained of having to fight -sometimes for 
years- for their child's right to integrated education.  Several 
complained of having to hire attorneys to fight for integrated 
placements that were supposed to be their children's right.  
Furthermore, contrary to the provisions of the law, witnesses 
stated that the burden is often placed on students and families 
to "prove" they are "ready" for inclusion, and only then do they 
"earn" their way out of a segregated setting.

     Parents expressed frustration that their children with 
disabilities had been sent to schools away from their brothers, 
sisters, and friends, especially when the appropriate services 
could be made available in their neighborhood school.  General 
resistance to integration is a factor many believe to be the main 
obstacle behind administrative reluctance to integrate students 
with disabilities into regular schools.                

     While positive attitudes are a key element in reducing 
barriers to inclusive education, occasionally a witness noted 
that attitudes can be changed:
     I used to think that teachers had to have the right attitude 
     and the right training before kids could be included in 
     their classroom.  And what I found from experience is that 
     sometimes when you include a child with diverse needs into 
     their classrooms, their attitude changes, and they see the 
     need for training and they will get it then.  (Charmaine 
     Thaner, Denver, CO) 


                       Personnel Preparation
     I don't get it.  Why all the opposition?  Aren't these 
     people in a position they are in to help guide education to 
     be the richest it can be?  These people who oversee the 
     education are, by example, teaching mediocrity, intolerance, 
     and purposeful ignorance.  (Elsie Mahler Scharff, 
     Philadelphia, PA)                       

     The problems with obtaining integrated placements, coupled 
with the poor and unsupportive attitudes of professionals, stem 
at least partially from a lack of training for educators and 
administrators on the purposes of integration and on techniques 
to implement this requirement of IDEA successfully.
     I think it's important to teach teachers disability 
     awareness.  Non-disabled teachers probably don't have an 
     idea of the personal psychological effects of disabilities.  
     (Julie Redenbaugh, Albuquerque, NM)

     [At the college I attend,] they teach that including 
     students with disabilities is against the LRE requirement 
     and that segregated classes and schools are the best 
     environments for students with moderate or severe 
     disabilities.  (Patty Gilg, Des Moines, IA)


     Over 20 people identified the need for improved personnel 
preparation in (1) working with students with disabilities and 
their families, (2) learning about disabilities in general to 
promote understanding, (3) understanding IDEA and the 
requirements of LRE, (4) focusing on the students' abilities as 
well as understanding their disabilities,
and (5) training administrators.  Administrators need to become 
more familiar with what is involved in including a child in the 
regular classroom.  It is only then that they will have a 
foundation to be able to support teachers in the inclusion of 
students with disabilities in their schools.

     Jane Burke is a parent whose seven-year-old son experienced 
successful integration in kindergarten because the teacher was 
accepting, tried hard to address him in her lessons and 
activities, and modified his assignments to give him work at his 
level.  She testified, however, that in a different grade, the 
teacher was inflexible and unwilling to adopt or modify the 
curriculum or produce incentives for good behavior:
     In my experience, the real barrier to children with 
     disabilities being placed in a regular classrooms is 
     unaccepting attitudes of school personnel.  It is difficult 
     for people to change.  It's been easy for them to hand 
     children over to special education and not have to deal with 
     anyone with different needs.  It is our job to show teachers 
     and school administrators that we believe all children can 
     learn and deserve to learn together.   (Jane Burke, 
     Philadelphia, PA)


                       Funding and Costs[7]

     It is clear that current funding patterns create incentives 
for segregated special education and disincentives for integrated 
education.
     If we look at the bottom line -money- Iowa's system is set 
     up, "The more you segregate, the more money we will give 
     you. We will give you more money if you separate the 
     children."  (Greg Omori, Des Moines, IA)

     These laws are wonderful, and yes, they work, but they don't 
     work without money.  (Kathleen Fitzgerald, Anchorage, AK)


     More than 40 persons testified about the issue of financial 
disincentives to integrated education.  In many States, school 
districts receive more State funds by labeling and segregating 
students with disabilities than they do for integrating these 
students into regular school environments.  This type of State 
funding practice causes local education agencies to segregate 
students with disabilities because districts cannot afford the 
supports and services necessary for quality inclusionary services 
with no (or reduced) State funds.  One parent commented that in 
order to have his son integrated, he had to discover a way that 
the school district could still receive its money while 
integrating his son.  Another described her experience as 
follows:

     Our first introduction to our district came with our son 
     being labeled as S.H.  For those who don't know, "severely 
     handicapped."  He had never received such a label before.  
     We were given a cursory explanation that in California, this 
     label was used primarily as a funding mechanism, not as a 
     placement tool.  But we quickly learned that our son had a 
     bounty on his head.  (Cecily Purcell, Berkeley, CA) 


     To provide an incentive for schools to follow IDEA, one 
witness recommended pooling the resources of different 
categorical programs.  The effect would be to eliminate the 
negative reaction that often exists when regular education funds 
are used for special education.
     But [successful inclusion] cannot happen unless the board 
     provides the resources, the training for the staff, and 
     there is an attitude change in terms of staff and personnel 
     as to the possibilities of children being allowed to 
     function in a regular classroom situation.  (Sonia 
     Ortiz-Gulardo, New York, NY)

     In addition, the current lack of resources in general and 
special education alike can prevent the effective and appropriate 
inclusion of students, because the appropriate services are not 
always available.  For example, one mother said that her daughter 
who has a learning disability was mainstreamed, but did not have 
a consultant teacher because there was not enough money in the 
budget to pay for one.  While a lack of resources is not an 
acceptable excuse under the equal protection provisions of the 
Constitution upon which IDEA is based[8], school districts 
continue to use this excuse to deny services to students with 
disabilities.

     Many witnesses stated that resources need to be allocated 
for personnel preparation, particularly for the education of 
professionals in the integration of students with disabilities 
and for collaboration between regular and special education 
teachers in order to monitor and improve integration efforts. 

                        Partial Integration
     Some witnesses commented specifically on the unsatisfactory 
implementation of the LRE through only partial or poorly 
supported integration:
     I've been in some classrooms where there are children who 
     stay in the back of the room in the corner and are ignored 
     for a couple of hours at a time... that's not inclusion.  
     (Jane Thiboutot, Anchorage, AK)

     Even though students might be physically integrated into a 
regular school program, accommodations may not be made in order 
for these students to access effective instruction and social 
supports.  For example, one witness expressed concern regarding 
the lack of academic integration.  Too often, children are 
integrated only in classes such as art, gym and music.  Another 
witness was dismayed that her child was allowed social 
interaction only during lunchtime.

     While placement in a regular neighborhood school does not 
dictate that a student with disabilities spend every minute of 
the day in regular classes, it is also the case that the ability 
of students with disabilities to participate in regular -and 
challenging- classes within the regular school should not be 
prejudged.

         Being Treated as a "Burden" to Regular Education
     Congress included an exception to the IDEA provisions 
regarding least restrictive environment to address the rare 
situation where a student's behavior in a particular placement 
might be considered dangerous to the student or to other 
students.  Unfortunately, this exception has been sometimes used 
to exclude students whose behavior would not be construed as 
dangerous (see the "Zero Reject" chapter).  While it may be 
necessary to continue this exception in the law (although such 
behavior is
covered under other laws), its interpretation should at least be 
restricted to those situations for which it was intended:  
     We feel that the IDEA adequately addresses the issue of 
     children having dangerous behaviors by the process that 
     school districts can get an injunction for a child who is 
     dangerous.  (Teresa Holt, Anchorage, AK)


     Parents reported that in some situations, they had been made 
to feel that the presence of their child in a regular school 
environment would hinder the progress of other students or that 
the "burden" of providing services to their child would take 
resources away from other (presumably, more worthy) students.

                       Continuum of Services
     When IDEA's predecessor, the Education for All Handicapped 
Children Act, was written 20 years ago, Congress mandated State 
and local education agencies to provide a continuum of services 
in educating students with disabilities.  This continuum included 
a graduated series of increasingly restrictive and segregated 
placements for students with disabilities, ranging from placement 
in regular education classrooms to institutions.  This 
requirement continues in effect to this day.
     [It is not possible to have] a one-size-fits-all educational 
     philosophy.  (Stella Sanfratello, Denver, CO)

     [Inclusion] is not the answer for every child or for every 
     parent.  We have children that are benefitting from 
     inclusion, but we have many children who are vegetating in 
     the backs of classrooms.  (Julia McCarthy, Boston, MA)

     I have some serious concerns about the current movement to 
     adopt inclusionary practices as a single, universal concept 
     to meet the needs of deaf and hard of hearing.  (Timothy 
     Jaech, Milwaukee, WI)


     Some witnesses at the hearings testified in favor of 
maintaining the continuum of services.  Their comments were often 
based on the type of disability that their child had.  For 
example, individuals who were deaf and parents of students who 
were deaf constituted the majority of the individuals who wanted 
to maintain the continuum.  Some parents of students with 
multiple disabilities also supported the maintenance of the 
continuum.  Individual parents and persons representing other 
disability groups -such as blindness or visual impairment, mental 
retardation, other developmental disabilities, attention deficit 
disorder or autism, and dyslexia (in decreasing order of 
frequency)-  also testified on behalf of the continuum.

     Several witnesses offered explanations as to why they wanted 
to maintain the continuum.  Some stated that their child's needs 
simply had not been met in the regular classroom, primarily 
because the school failed to appropriately educate them by not 
providing necessary services.  This comment was especially 
frequent for individuals who were either blind (or visually 
impaired) or had multiple disabilities.  Others stated a general 
need for flexibility and parental choice in the matter.  One 
woman commented that her daughter became frustrated in the 
regular classroom trying to keep up with the other students, but 
once she was placed in a segregated school, she started learning 
again.  A few parents of children with multiple disabilities 
commented that they preferred separate placements because of the 
medical supervision provided for their child.  Individuals who 
were blind or visually impaired expressed their concern that
braille education simply had not been made available in 
integrated settings.  One individual stated that he had been 
integrated and had benefitted socially, but that he lacked a lot 
of necessary skills.  

     Witnesses concerned with students who are deaf cited several 
reasons for maintaining the continuum:  the lack of language 
education in many integrated settings, isolation from peers 
because of communication barriers, and underdeveloped self-esteem 
due to a lack of role models.  Additionally, they valued the 
availability of direct communication with the teacher and peers 
without having to rely on interpreters to communicate.  

     The individuals who testified in favor of the continuum did 
not express a desire to eliminate inclusion.  As noted above, 
many indicated that they had chosen other placements because 
appropriate supports and services had not been made available to 
them within regular education settings.  In the case of deaf 
students, Cliff Moers explained that the development of 
communication skills was paramount:
     When there is communication, then they will learn.  There is 
     no way to learn except through communication.  Compared with 
     other children with disabilities, our group is unique, and 
     our needs are related to communication and communication 
     barriers.  That's our biggest problem.  (Cliff Moers, 
     Denver, CO)


     Thus, it is the case that 20 years after the passage of the 
law, there are students who are not being served well -or served 
at all- by the public schools.  However, given the existence of 
highly successful models of inclusive education for students with
all types and severity levels of disabilities all across the 
nation, the time is long overdue that, with the possible 
exception of deaf students, the focus of the placement question 
evolve from the initial assumption that the nature or severity of 
a disability determines a certain placement on the continuum to a 
focus on the availability of appropriate supports and services 
within a given local education agency.

          Recommendations:  Least Restrictive Environment
     To date, most governmental parties involved in implementing 
the requirement that students receiving special education be 
educated in the least restrictive environment have consistently 
failed to live up to their responsibilities regarding this 
requirement.  Twenty years after the passage of Federal special 
education legislation requiring placement in the least 
restrictive environment, many local education agencies continue 
to routinely place students with special needs in segregated 
categorical programs with virtually no consideration of less 
restrictive placements.  State agencies continue to reward this 
noncompliance in many parts of the country by providing financial 
incentives for segregated placements.  The Federal government has 
failed to enforce the law in any substantive manner, thus 
aggravating the situation.

     In spite of this, thousands of students with all types of 
disabilities, including those with the most severe levels of 
disability, are being well supported -and are thriving- in 
full-time regular class placements across the country every day.  
Clearly, we have gone beyond the point where arguments can be 
effectively made that some students simply
cannot be served in integrated placements because of the nature 
or severity of their disabilities.  And yet, the entire national 
architecture of special education continues to be based on a 
structure known as a continuum, which was originally developed on 
the assumption that the nature and severity of a disability 
should determine the degree of integration or segregation a 
student experiences in education.
 
     Continuing noncompliance with the least restrictive 
environment provisions of IDEA is particularly troubling in light 
of the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(ADA).  One of the core goals of the ADA is a significant 
increase in the participation of all Americans with disabilities 
in the lives of their local communities.  In stark contrast to 
this, most public schools continue to segregate large numbers of 
students with disabilities from participation in the lives of 
their neighborhood schools, and sometimes even their communities.  
This continued segregation may be construed as a de facto 
violation of the civil rights of students with disabilities under 
the ADA.  Clearly, special education law should not promote 
service structures that justify and promote the segregation of 
students on the basis of the existence, nature, or severity of 
their disabilities.

     Accordingly, a major goal in improving the implementation of 
IDEA should be replacing the requirement that State and local 
education agencies must provide a continuum of services with a 
requirement that State and local education agencies must provide 
for an "array of support services designed to maximize the 
student's
participation in regular education environments and activities."   
A continuum, by definition, is constructed with a series of steps 
leading away from regular class placement.  An array, on the 
other hand, can be conceptualized as having a wide variety of 
individually accessible, discrete support services that can be 
accessed freely from a regular educational environment.  Under a 
continuum model, students are incrementally removed from typical 
educational environments and they and their parents must accept 
all of the features provided within their "step" on the 
continuum.  With an array model, students and parents can stay 
where they are and access only those services and supports they 
need, not the whole "package" which, in the case of special 
education delivered under a continuum model, almost always 
involves segregation.  

     The implementation of the current regulatory requirement 
that school districts must provide a continuum of services has 
served as a substantial barrier to achieving the overall intent 
of this section of the law, namely, to promote the maximum 
participation of students with disabilities in regular education, 
with removal occurring only after it has been clearly 
demonstrated that appropriate supplementary aids and services 
have failed to work.  To this day, all school districts are 
required to have ready a series of increasingly more segregated 
options, including institutions.[9]  Over the years, a "continuum 
of services" has become equated with a "continuum of placements," 
the
result being a drainage of energy and resources away from 
neighborhood schools into segregated settings.  Ironically, the 
implementation of the regulations has apparently thwarted the 
intent of the law.

     There will be situations where parents will want 
substantially separate placements, usually because school 
districts have not offered appropriate supports within the 
regular school environment.  Other times, parents might request 
such placements based on the nature of their child's disability 
(e.g., deafness).  At this point in history, such requests might 
be appropriate.  However, this should not obstruct the overall 
process of rebuilding special education as a high-quality support 
service available in every public school building in America.  
The problem at present is not a lack of options to segregate 
students with disabilities from their peers; rather, it is a lack 
of options to include students with disabilities in the ongoing 
lives of their schools and communities.

     Therefore, in order to improve and strengthen the provisions 
of IDEA regarding placement in the least restrictive environment, 
the Federal government should implement the following 
recommendations:
1.  The goals, purposes, rights, and protections afforded under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act should be incorporated 
throughout IDEA through preambular language stating this fact.  

2.  The requirement that State and local education agencies must 
provide a continuum of services should be replaced with a 
requirement that State and local education agencies must provide 
an "array of support services designed to maximize the student's 
participation in regular education environments and activities."  
While it may be
necessary to maintain many of the current features of the 
"continuum" as a transition to a "supports and services" 
orientation takes place, and it may be the case that a relatively 
small number of students might continue in substantially separate 
placements (e.g., deaf students), the requirement that a wide 
array of supports and services be available in regular school 
buildings will better address the intent of IDEA and other 
legislation in eventually reducing the number of more restrictive 
placements.

3.  State and local education agencies should be required to 
develop funding policies and procedures that are at least 
"placement neutral".  That is, funds should be allocated to meet 
the needs of individual students, not the needs of individual 
programs.  At least the same amount of funding should be 
available to support a student in an integrated regular education 
environment as in a segregated program.

4.  Removal of a student with a disability from the regular 
education environment should be documented with a written report 
attached to the student's IEP.  The written report should 
include:  a statement of the supplementary aids and services 
considered, but rejected, by the IEP team; a statement of the 
reasons why these supplementary aids and services are not capable 
of assisting the child within the regular education setting; and 
a statement as to when appropriate supplementary aids and 
services will be made available to transition the student back to 
the regular education environment.

5.  The IEP for any child with a disability who is to remain in 
the regular education setting should list necessary aids and 
services with the same specificity as the listing of necessary 
related services, including the time and frequency of delivery of 
such aids and services.

6.  The Department of Education should significantly expand its 
monitoring and enforcement activities related to implementing the 
least restrictive environment requirements of IDEA.  Given the 
extreme variability of student placement patterns from district 
to district and State to State, specific plans and goals for 
reducing the number of students placed outside of regular 
education settings should be developed, with receipt of future 
Federal funding contingent upon meeting these goals.



                 PARENT PARTICIPATION AND SHARED 
                          DECISION MAKING

     No parent is ready or trained to be a parent of a special 
     needs child.  (Mary Ann Egger, Milwaukee, WI)

     I looked for information.  It wasn't there.  I didn't get 
     anything from the school districts, from any of the support 
     people they put me in touch with.  They were all 
     bureaucrats.  I got my best information from other parents, 
     and so I think it's important that new parents, parents just 
     coming into the system, are matched up with other parents.  
     (Lisa Reader, Albuquerque, NM)

     I have been quite a successful education story.  But I think 
     that is only because my parents are both very well educated 
     and relatively wealthy, certainly upper middle class.  And 
     they had the ability and the knowledge to essentially face 
     down the educational system and say, "No.  You're incorrect.  
     This is what he needs, that will not be enough," and I was 
     able to get the kinds of services that I needed.  (Dave 
     Gordon, Boston, MA)

     Despite all the wonderful changes, many parents are still 
     not given the respect they deserve as experts about their 
     own children.  Many fathers are still left out of the 
     process entirely.  And many parents are subjected to 
     humiliating, destructive encounters with education and 
     health care professionals.  I believe that this is because 
     well-intentioned professionals are not sufficiently trained 
     on how to communicate with and collaborate with parents.  
     Accordingly, I urge that the reauthorization legislation 
     mandate training of this kind.  (Stanley Klein, Boston, MA)


                         Statement of Law
     One of the six principles of IDEA is that parents and (where 
appropriate) students have a right to share decision making with 
educators.  This principle -sometimes called parent participation 
or parent-educator collaboration- serves two purposes.  First, it 
facilitates informed decisions by knowledgeable people and 
thereby advances the student's appropriate education in the least 
restrictive environment.  Second, it creates a system of checks 
and balances, so that parents and students on the
one hand and educators on the other can hold each accountable for 
the student's education.  

     IDEA authorizes several types of shared decision making.  It 
requires the State education agency to establish procedures for 
consulting with persons involved in or concerned with the 
education of students with disabilities, including individuals 
who themselves have disabilities or are parents or guardians of 
students with disabilities (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(7)); to make the 
State's special education plan available to the public and 
parents (34 C.F.R. Part 300, Sec. 300.284); to hold public 
hearings on the State plan and to give notice of those hearings 
(34 C.F.R. Part 300, Sec. 280); and to allow the public and 
parents to comment on the State plan before it is adopted (20 
U.S.C. Sec. 1412(7)).  Similar participation and consultation 
requirements exist for local education agencies (20 U.S.C. Sec. 
1414(a)(1)(C)(iii)).  In addition, the State education agency 
must create an advisory panel on special education, consisting 
(in part) of parents (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1413(a)).

     Parents have the right to access the State or local 
agencies' system-wide records on special education, but not the 
records of individual students except their own child (20 U.S.C. 
Secs. 1412(2)(E), 1414(a)(3) and (4), and 1417 (c)).  They have 
access to their own child's records and may restrict (to a fairly 
significant extent) access to those records by other individuals 
(20 U.S.C. Sec. 1417(c) and 1232).  

     In consideration of the fact that shared decision making 
creates opportunities for collaboration between parents and 
educators and that part of collaboration is the provision of 
related services to students and their parents or other family 
members, IDEA requires early intervention programs (for infants 
and toddlers, from birth to age 3) to fashion, with the parents' 
participation, an individualized family service plan (IFSP) (20 
U.S.C. Sec. 1477).  IDEA also authorizes some "related services" 
to be provided to parents if those services are part of the 
student's individualized education program (20 U.S.C. Sec. 
1401(a)(17), (19), and (20); 34 C.F.R. Part 300, Secs. 300.6 and 
300.16).

              General Issues Concerning Collaboration
     During the hearings, parents and students described their 
experiences in attempting to collaborate with school districts in 
various aspects of special education.  Many witnesses addressed 
the issues of interdisciplinary and interagency collaboration.
     In many schools it is still us (regular ed) versus them 
     (special education).  Students with disabilities in 
     particular lose in this meaningless conflict.  The essence 
     of the IDEA is to move away from this mindset into one that 
     emphasizes collaboration.  (Mike Remus, Des Moines, IA)

     I go to PETs with families who have children who have 
     neurobiological disorders like my son, and I sit there and I 
     get angry, and actually I get physically sick because I 
     don't care what school district I sit in, what child we're 
     representing, I hear the same comments from education 
     professionals that [are] just plain ignorant.  The things I 
     hear about these children and heard about my own child 
     is...that they're "unwilling," they're "manipulative," and 
     they "don't want any responsibility," and the parents "won't 
     take any responsibility" and a lot of negative things 
     instead of, "Gee, what are we doing wrong [and] how can we 
     make it right.  (Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)  


     Collaboration between schools and parents does not happen 
easily.  Historically, schools have been viewed as the "experts" 
in education, with parents playing a minor role.  To be 
effective, collaboration must be planned and supported, 
especially through  training and sharing information between 
parents and professionals.  

                  Training and Information Issues
     Most of these parents are either unaware of their rights 
     under IDEA, or have been pressured into accepting less than 
     an appropriate placement for their children.  Many not only 
     do not believe their rights, but they fear retribution if 
     they apply pressure for appropriate supports and placements.  
     (Diana Daggett, Albuquerque, NM)

     [Families] are being denied their rights through lack of 
     being educated on their rights.  (Patrick Owen, Anchorage, 
     AK)                                

     In our school system parent training is virtually 
     nonexistent.  Appropriate services for children cannot exist 
     when parents are without any meaningful information about 
     their child's participation in special ed.  (Linda Speich, 
     Charlotte, NC)

     You do it yourself is what it comes down to.  And 
     fortunately, you have your rights under the IDEA, but 
     finding out what they are and how they apply to your 
     particular situation is entirely up to the individual 
     parents.  (David LaDue, Berkeley, CA) 

     There's a lot of kids that are included here locally in 
     school primarily because of parent advocacy.  So it's one 
     child at a time.  (Carl Evertsbusch, Anchorage, AK)

     The PTI...has been an invaluable resource to our family.  We 
     are an educated couple, and I believe that we are relatively 
     intelligent.  However, we have needed the support and the 
     interpretation of all the special ed language and procedures 
     that have been thrown at us as a family, and PEAK [a PTI] 
     has been there to provide that to us.  (Ellen Laurence, 
     Denver, CO)

     To advance parents' rights to shared decision making, 
Congress authorized the creation of parent training and 
information centers (PTIs) more than a decade ago.  The PTIs are 
parent-directed and are responsible for providing education and 
training to parents on their rights under IDEA.  In some 
circumstances, they also advocate for parents and students.  
There is at least one center in every State, and recently 
Congress authorized centers to be created on behalf of 
traditionally underserved or minority populations.

     According to witnesses, the PTI Centers' roles are 
indispensable.  They are the major -and sometimes the only- 
source for parents to learn about their children's special 
education needs and rights.  Many parents testified that the 
knowledge they acquired through information dissemination and 
training activities of the PTIs served to prepare them to be 
effective in their collaboration efforts with professionals.

     Witnesses had several suggestions for strengthening parent 
training under IDEA:
     Strengthen the discretionary programs that support the 
     parent resource centers...get information out to 
     parents...create ways for parents to network so they can 
     share tips and things that they've learned.  (David Maltman, 
     Anchorage, AK) 

     I believe we need a greater commitment to develop parent 
     materials through interactive technology that could 
     accommodate the various communication levels of parents and 
     students.  I also believe that...the school district should 
     give parents information about available advocacy 
     organizations, who may represent families in need of such 
     assistance.  (Timothy Jaech, Milwaukee, WI) 

     If there were any incentives for school districts to add 
     parents to the team and either at the local, district,...or 
     even [in] region in-service types of activities, it would be 
     much appreciated.  (Mike Remus, Des Moines, IA)

     
     Witnesses expressed concerns regarding a lack of successful 
collaboration among parents, education professionals, and staff 
of disability service and other related service agencies across 
all major areas of IDEA.  A sampling of their comments is 
provided below.

                            Zero Reject
     The chasm between parents and the school districts is 
     getting wider.  It's not getting closer...the needs of the 
     child are seldom mentioned during an IEP meeting:  only, 
     "School policy says..."  Some schools are getting no 
     direction on how to interpret IDEA or what it means.  They 
     have no vision for our children, nor do they have a sense of 
     purpose.  Outcomes are seldom looked at.  Schools are not 
     held accountable for the product, which is to help each of 
     our children reach their full potential.  Instead, what 
     seems to be coming from them is to put our families through 
     either the judicial system or the social [service] system.  
     Either way, our families are spending their time fighting 
     these two systems instead of raising and educating their 
     children.  (Larry Fuller, Albuquerque, NM)


     Children cannot receive the education to which they are 
entitled unless they are first admitted into school programs.  
Family members testified that, much to their amazement, some 
children are not being allowed into schools.  Their testimony 
illustrates how important parent participation is in the 
enforcement of the zero reject principle:
     Two weeks ago, I saved two children from going to State 
     custody because [their parents] were told that's the only 
     way they could access services. 
     There is [also] a child with MS.  He has never gotten any 
     service at all.  (Michael Kidd, Charlotte, NC)

     The burden...has been totally put upon me and my wife.  And 
     given that, I'd have to say God help the child that doesn't 
     have parents with the awareness, the knowledge, the 
     commitment, whatever it takes to do this.  (Richard Curtis, 
     Boston, MA)

    Assessment for Eligibility and Nondiscriminatory Evaluation
     Unfortunately, [during] his first eight years of schooling I 
     didn't know as a parent that I had any rights or any power 
     or responsibilities.  At that time I was undereducated 
     myself.  I had a ninth grade education and I sat at PETs 
     with people who I perceived to have the knowledge to teach 
     my child and felt that, even though my gut told me it wasn't 
     right, they must know.  (Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)


     Parents want to be able to participate throughout each step 
of their child's special education process, including being a 
part of identifying their child's abilities and challenges.  They 
need to be a vital part of the evaluation and assessment process.

                       Appropriate Education
     So I ask my team each year, "What we do?  Where do we go?"  
     I did not go to college to come a special education teacher, 
     so I look to the professionals for the answers.  I've 
     contacted my senators, my legislators, my State Department 
     of Education, the Board of the Blind, the New England Center 
     for Deaf/Blind Services, my local school system, including 
     the head of special services, the administrator of special 
     education and teachers of many special education students, 
     and I get that same blank stare...I find the education 
     system to be a maze of laws, paperwork, politics and 
     bureaucrats.  Everyone has a different finger to point, a 
     new evaluation to do, another meeting to attend, and another 
     phone call left without a response.  (Catherine Reed, 
     Boston, MA)


Individualized Family Service Plans and Individualized Education Programs

     At every hearing, the importance of parents' participation 
in developing their children's IFSPs and IEPs was reiterated.  
Regulations in IDEA ensure the right to full participation for 
parents in the IFSP and IEP processes.  However, witness after 
witness offered examples of how this right is not automatically 
assumed and acted upon for families:  
     Referring to parents participating in IEPs without education 
     or training or information beforehand:  it's like showing up 
     at a restaurant [where] you read the name over the door and 
     you have to decide what they serve and whether we want it or 
     not.  That's about what happens at your typical IEP.  (David 
     LaDue, Berkeley, CA)

     We had to endure three different staff meetings with 12 to 
     14 people between the spring and fall of this year before we 
     had an adequate IEP design.  The entire IEP process was not 
     an exercise in team building nor reinforcement of our 
     daughter's strengths.  We depended on the provisions of the 
     IDEA to reinforce our points throughout the entire course of 
     events.  I would plead that any provisions of IDEA which 
     discourage families from playing an active respective role 
     in the educational planning process for the children be 
     modified. Make it perfectly clear to the educational 
     community that families and children drive this process and 
     not bureaucratic requirements grounded in Federal 
     legislation.  (Joe Wild Crea, Denver, CO)

     I was one of those parents who left...IEPs like someone who 
     has left a foreign movie without the subtitles.  I felt a 
     very small and incidental part of this procedure, and at 
     times I felt a feeling that my daughter really wasn't 
     getting her full share or placement of services.  [It] 
     wasn't until I started networking with other parents that I 
     started feeling empowered to all the services she rightfully 
     should have.  (Diana Sullivan, Milwaukee, WI)


                   Parents Are Not Professionals
     Parents have not received the formal education of 
professionals within the educational system, nor should they be 
forced to be professionals.  Yet "becoming professional" is often 
part of what happens to parents:
     We really need to put the responsibility again on the 
     educators and not make all the parents professionals, 
     because parents also have jobs, and the amount of time, 
     energy, and emotions that every parent...has put into the 
     education of our children's special needs [is] just 
     tremendous.  It shouldn't be that way.  We really need to 
     distribute that kind of energy more evenly.  It's very 
     frustrating.  (Birgit Schweingruber, Berkeley, CA) 

     Parents, however, have to make a living and support a family 
     at the same time their child is in need of a great deal of 
     intervention.  We need to find time, funding and resources 
     to provide those parents with the on-going process of being 
     a student, a student of being a parent of a person with a 
     disability.  (Brian Charleson, Boston, MA)


                          Program Methods

     Many parents expressed frustration with the methods used in 
their children's programs.  Methods such as the use of aversive 
procedures anger many parents, although some approve of them:
     My son, with the severe aggressive dangerous behaviors that 
     he has... improved, and he's learned and doing things we 
     never dreamed....The quality of his life has been greatly 
     improved by being managed on a drug-free program....I don't 
     say that aversive is for everybody, I'm only saying that 
     it's working for us.  (Marie Washington, New York, NY)


     However, many other witnesses testifying on the education of 
students with severe behavioral disabilities were adamant in 
their belief that those interventions, or other forms of 
behavioral, physical, or psychological control were damaging and 
abusive:
     That following year, we had to go to due process...trying to 
     force the school to stop using aversives on him...Tabasco 
     sauce, vinegar, soap, paper towels down his throat, and 
     physical restraint that was injuring him.  We learned at 
     that time that our son had been locked in a PE equipment 
     closet throughout the winter and the spring.  (Rainee 
     Courtnage, Denver, CO)

     He was duct-taped to a chair.  His clothes were duct-taped 
     on him.  His shoes were duct-taped on him.  (Jane Hasty, 
     Charlotte, NC)

     In the town of Cloudcroft, one kid that was classified as 
     having ADD, was insulted by his teacher.  In front of [the] 
     whole class, [his teacher] called him stupid.  That was the 
     same week he killed himself. (Judy Bonnell, Albuquerque, NM)

     When Annie was in sixth grade, she was physically abused at 
     school by the teacher and the paraprofessional, as 
     documented by the child abuse and neglect team and the local 
     police department.  (Ellen Laurence, Denver, CO)

     I would like to talk about adding an amendment to the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Act that would prohibit 
     aversive procedures, including restraints within public 
     institutions that educate children.  (Carolyn Reed, Denver, 
     CO)

     Implementation of positive behavior modification techniques 
was recommended as an alternative to the use of aversive and 
other painful techniques in the education of students with severe 
behavioral disabilities.[10]  Another witness noted the 
importance of modifying the environment in order to foster 
positive behavioral change:
     Teachers [of students with] serious emotional disorders 
     concentrate on discipline and consequences, instead of 
     modifying the environment, which is what our children need. 
     (Betty Cope, Albuquerque, NM)

     Parent input can greatly improve educational programs for 
students with disabilities.  However, the current system has the 
potential to allow parents to request and receive program methods 
that are unproven, experimental in nature, or dangerous or 
harmful to the physical or psychological health of their child.  
While it is possible to understand the desperation of these 
parents, to share their exasperation with ineffective
programs and treatments, and to sympathize with them in their 
frustration to locate appropriate programs, there are limits to 
what society can permit in the name of treatment.  There are 
those in our society who would advocate for severe physical 
punishment or even the mutilation of prisoners convicted of what 
everyone would agree are heinous crimes.  Yet these prisoners are 
afforded protection under the law from this treatment, even 
though there are those who would claim that such treatment would 
"teach them a lesson."  Students with severe behavioral 
disabilities are not criminals, and yet present law allows them 
to be subjected to procedures which cannot be used on the most 
hardened criminals, or, in some cases, even on animals.

     Public funds intended to provide positive educational 
experiences and results for children should not be expended to 
have these children subjected to unproven, experimental, 
dangerous, or violent program procedures which -by design- result 
in pain, physical injuries, psychological damage, hunger, social 
deprivation, or other such negative experiences, whether they are 
authorized by desperate parents or not.  In any other context the 
use of these procedures would be considered child (or dependent) 
abuse or neglect.  They should not be viewed as "treatment" just 
because a student has a disability.   Under the present 
situation, the potential for abuse is great.  Indeed, through its 
support of these procedures used on children with disabilities, 
the United States could be cited for human rights violations 
against people with disabilities under its own Country Reports on 
Human Rights published annually by the Department of State.  

     Beyond discussion concerning particular methods, parents 
would like to have input and give consent to teaching methods 
before they become a part of their child's daily life in programs 
at school.  Often parents' suggestions for methods are ignored or 
blatantly turned down as viable suggestions.  Parent 
participation in determining appropriate education is probably 
one of the most neglected area in special education practice 
today: 
     My wife and I are presently even discussing her going to 
     school with my son on a full-time basis to be in the 
     classroom so he can receive the support he needs in order to 
     survive in that classroom.  (Steve Konecny, Denver, CO)

     Parents still have to push far too much to get academic 
     skills into the curriculum in special education, and I think 
     more parents, because of the advocacy programs, are aware 
     that they can push and can get things into their child's 
     curriculum that they thought were not available.  (Ginny 
     Gilman, Albuquerque, NM)


     Clearly, added training and information dissemination for 
parents would help them feel much more comfortable in working as 
partners in the determination of appropriate educational methods 
for their children.

                   Least Restrictive Environment
     I know that last year I felt like I was part of a creative, 
     collaborative team, working together to figure out what 
     would be the most interactive environment for my son.  This 
     year, I feel like a pest.  This year, I think they are doing 
     the best they can, and so I've given them lots more 
     information.  I've given them opportunities to hear people 
     who have done it, to be with people who know how to do the 
     curriculum adaptations, behavior modification, whatever it 
     is that needs to be in place for him to be a part of the 
     setting.  It's taking a while...I think that people are 
     given the opportunity to say, "No," too often to inclusive 
     education.  (Leah Phillips, Albuquerque, NM)


     The most frequent area of testimony in the area of parent 
participation was the principle of the least restrictive 
environment and the movement for inclusion of children into 
regular education classes with supports.  Many family members 
gave compelling stories of children's successes in inclusive 
environments.  Some argued for a continuum of services.  However, 
regardless of their perspectives, one point that came across loud 
and clear was the parents' desire to participate in decisions and 
to have their wishes heard and respected when professionals are 
deciding upon their child's placement in a special education 
program.
     My daughter is eleven years old.  She's autistic, mentally 
     retarded and up until last year...was in self-contained 
     classrooms.  Last year we decided to attempt inclusion with 
     lots of support through our UAP and our local school 
     district.  Kara had a remarkably successful year.  We saw 
     more progress in that one year of inclusion than we saw in 
     six or seven years of very intensive one-on-one special 
     education...  (Kathleen Fitzgerald, Anchorage, AK)

                      Procedural Due Process
     Witness after witness testified that procedural due process 
is one of the most important provisions of IDEA, as it is the 
avenue that allows parents to enforce their participation in 
their child's education.  Without this part of the law, special 
education would not have produced its successes to date.  Still, 
parents testified about problems in exercising this right:
     A child's right to a free appropriate public education 
     should not depend on the parent's ability to advocate for 
     it.  (Sue Endress, Milwaukee, WI)

     I found that in signing my son into special education, I 
     might [have] just as well signed away all my parental 
     rights, as well as signing away my son's rights as a human 
     being.  (Dawn Gloss, Des Moines, IA)


 Recommendations:  Parent Participation and Shared Decision Making


     Parent and student participation and collaboration in the 
design and delivery of special education services is essential, 
if these services are to be relevant and effective in maximizing 
a student's academic and social development.  Congress was wise 
in its decision to include many avenues for parent and student 
involvement in the special education process and these 
requirements have resulted in a better quality of education for 
thousands of students.  However, many shortcomings in this area 
continue to exist.  In order to address these shortcomings, the 
Federal government should implement the following 
recommendations:
1.  Expand funding for the Parent Training and Information (PTI) 
program.  PTIs can (and often do) serve as the primary 
information source for parents regarding special education and 
offer a cost-effective method of providing this information to 
parents and family members.

2.  Require State and local education agencies to provide parents 
of students receiving (or being considered for) special education 
with the name, address, and telephone number of the PTI serving 
their area.  This could be far more cost effective for school 
districts and would result in improved comparability of 
information across the State.

3.  Parent input can greatly improve educational programs for 
students with disabilities.  However, the current system has the 
potential to allow parents to request and receive program methods 
that are unproven, experimental in nature, or dangerous or 
harmful to the physical or psychological health of their child.  
Accordingly, there should be an additional State Plan requirement 
which would require States to certify that no Federal funds will 
be used to support any individual, program, or practice that 
employs procedures such as systematic hitting or physical 
punishment, the application of noxious substances, extended 
restraint or seclusion, humiliation, and other techniques which 
-by design- result in pain, physical injuries, psychological 
damage, hunger, social deprivation, or other harm, that would 
otherwise be considered as constituting child (or dependent) 
abuse or neglect if the student were not disabled.

4.  The Department of Education should review data regarding the 
use of surrogate parents under IDEA in order to determine the 
frequency of use, the roles that surrogate parents actually 
assume in special education, levels of satisfaction of surrogate 
parents
regarding their experiences with the special education system, 
and ways to support surrogate parents more effectively in their 
efforts to provide effective representation for students 
receiving special education.



                      PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

                         Statement of Law

     For those who pioneered the right-to-education doctrine, the 
     procedures for implementing the right were as crucial as the 
     right itself.  Procedural due process is a means of 
     challenging the multitude of discriminatory practices that 
     the schools had habitually followed.  It also is a way of 
     enforcing the first four principles of IDEA and putting them 
     to work (zero reject, nondiscriminatory evaluation, 
     appropriate education, and least restrictive 
     environment)....Procedural due process -the right to 
     protest- is a necessary educational ingredient in enforcing 
     every phase of the disabled child's right to an education.  
     (Turnbull, 1994, p. 207[11])

     IDEA endeavors to ensure procedural due process in a 
multitude of ways:

       It requires education agencies (1) to secure parental 
        consent before initially evaluating a child for special 
        education placement or placing the child in special 
        education; (2) to notify parents in the parents' native 
        language or in other effective ways whenever they propose 
        to change or decline to change the student's placement, 
        evaluation, identification or appropriate education; (3) 
        to consider independent evaluations of the student and, 
        in some circumstances, to pay for those evaluations; (4) 
        to appoint surrogate parents for students whose natural 
        parents are unknown or unavailable and for students who 
        are wards of the State; (5) to establish procedures for 
        administrative due process hearings and for appeals to 
        the State agency (after which lies appeal to a Federal or 
        State court); and (6) to follow a "stay-put" rule that 
        generally requires education agencies to leave a student 
        in the student's present educational placement and 
        program during the due process hearing and appeals (20 
        U.S.C. Secs. 1415(b) and (e), 1480(6)). 

       IDEA also allows (but does not require) State and local 
        education agencies to offer mediation in order to resolve 
        disagreements between the agencies and parents. 

       IDEA allows parents to recover their attorney fees if 
        they prevail in a dispute against a State or local 
        educational agency (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)).  These fees 
        may be awarded for attorneys' participation in mediation, 
        due process administrative hearings and appeals, and 
        court proceedings.

       Finally, IDEA establishes various other enforcement 
        mechanisms, including State assurances of compliance with 
        IDEA if it receives Federal funding and procedures for 
        Federal monitoring of State compliance and withholding of 
        Federal funds when a State is out of compliance with IDEA 
        (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1416).


     In short, procedural due process is both a constitutional 
guarantee and a statutory right that Congress has fashioned as a 
comprehensive means for enforcing IDEA (Smith v. Robinson, 468 
U.S. 992 (1984)).

     Throughout the hearings, witnesses stated their distress 
about IDEA's enforcement and their belief that while IDEA's due 
process provisions are absolutely necessary, their implementation 
has been very problematic.  Most of all, witnesses expressed 
resentment that they had to use due process:  Why, many wondered, 
should they have to use due process to secure their children's 
rights guaranteed under the law?  Shouldn't schools have to 
comply with IDEA?

                      Enforcement in General
     I have come to the conclusion that I'm just not going to 
     fight anymore.  But I came today to let you know that your 
     laws are not being followed through.  (Marie Bauer, 
     Milwaukee, WI)

     We don't need more laws regarding educating children with 
     disabilities; what we need is enforcement of the laws that 
     are already on the books.  (Christine Multra Kraft, 
     Milwaukee, WI)

     I think the issue is enforcement.  Currently, with the law 
     in Illinois, we file complaints with the Office of Civil 
     Rights, and nothing ever gets done.  We end up having to go 
     to court.  (Rene David Luna, Milwaukee, WI)

     IDEA is a beautiful law.  However, with the State and local 
     education agencies' disregard of its most basic premises, it 
     has not as yet become the law of the land.  (Wendy 
     Luckenbill, Philadelphia, PA)


     More than two dozen witnesses testified that enforcement was 
critical to the success of IDEA.  Their unanimous consensus was 
that, if the provisions of IDEA were enforced, due process 
hearings would be rare and the quality of education for children 
with disabilities would be greatly improved.  All the witnesses 
who discussed procedural due process offered general ideas how 
enforcement could be improved:
       Dianne Taylor Owens testified that monitoring is needed 
        to make sure children are not falling through the cracks 
        (Albuquerque, NM).

       Janis Symanski advocated for monitoring through 
        government agencies and the need for accountability of 
        the qualifications of professionals (Boston, MA).

       Judy Gran stated that enforcing the law under the IDEA is 
        extremely difficult.  She added that if the State does 
        not adequately enforce the requirements, then students 
        and parents have little recourse (Philadelphia, PA).

       The March family recommended that an enforcement agency 
        similar to the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration be established to oversee school programs 
        and impose penalties if needed (Des Moines, IA).

       Dee Estelle Alpert and Edris Klucher stated that the only 
        way to achieve implementation of IDEA by the Office of 
        Special Education Programs is to impose financial 
        penalties for violations (New York, NY; Albuquerque, NM)

       Like Alpert and Klucher, Jean Parker of Denver also 
        wanted a strict financial penalty for violations.  She 
        recommended that the Federal government take back all 
        special education funding when a State does not comply 
        with IDEA (Denver, CO).

       Maureen Hollowell agreed that Federal support should be 
        discontinued if States violate IDEA (Philadelphia, PA). 

       Nancy Baesman stated that increased enforcement from the 
        Federal level would be more effective in bringing about 
        change than parents using due process (Denver, CO).

       Beverly Roberts recommended outside monitoring to ensure 
        compliance (Charlotte, NC).


     Six other witnesses generally agreed that some sort of 
monitoring is needed and that without enforcement, the law has 
"no teeth."  They all stressed enforcement as the key to a 
successful law.  However, four parents testified that there was 
no enforcement even after due process had determined that there 
were violations.  One of them testified that even after a school 
district had been found to be in violation of several laws, 
nothing happened to the district (Bonnie Weninger, Milwaukee, 
WI).

     Other witnesses stressed the importance of parents knowing 
their rights and using them.  Maureen Hollowell recommended one 
method parents can use to enforce IDEA.  She said that she 
finally succeeded when she exercised her rights by refusing to 
sign the IEP until it provided an appropriate education for her 
child (Philadelphia, PA).  

     In sum, the parents who testified about enforcement were 
adamant that without monitoring and enforcement, IDEA will not be 
followed and individual due process attempts at securing 
enforcement will be futile for purposes of systemic change.  
Parents who have used due process complain that the victories are 
few, and when they do occur, the remedy is limited to that case 
and does not automatically cause positive changes to be 
implemented throughout a local or State school system. 
     The due process system may be adequate to resolve many 
     discrete and simple issues, such as the student's 
     classification or the amount or duration of services, but it 
     cannot resolve systemic disputes.  For example, disputes 
     over inclusion, over the quality of instruction and over the 
     adequacy of teacher training.  The difficulty for parents in 
     obtaining more changes in the system through the process is 
     only reinforcing the status quo.  (Judy Gran, Philadelphia, 
     PA) 


     The general attitude of the witnesses was that parents and 
the Federal government must band together to ensure 
accountability in State and local agencies.

                      Due Process in General
     Parents acknowledged that due process hearings were 
essential to enforce the rights of their children:  
     It's clear that without this safeguard, our son would have 
     been relegated to a separate classroom for students with 
     multiple disabilities for his entire schooling.  (Barbara 
     Buswell, Denver, CO) 


     Some parents were able to use the due process right as a 
threat to make the schools more responsive.  Other parents 
testified that due process is more than a useful threat:  It is, 
instead, a reflection of the adversarial stance that parents are 
often forced to assume when trying to work with educators.  
Indeed, many parents expressed dismay that schools had forced 
them to resort to due process:
     Why do people have to go through what they go through to get 
     the changes so that their child can benefit from a free 
     appropriate public education?  That's the sin that I 
     see...Yes, due process protection does work, but the cost to 
     families, emotionally, is not fair.  (Amy Goldman, 
     Philadelphia, PA)

     I looked under the table.  I actually was grabbing for a pen 
     out of my briefcase yesterday, and found that the classroom 
     teacher had placed under the table a tape recorder.  I said, 
     "Jim, what is that?"  And he said, "Well,
     I'm protecting my civil rights."  We've tried to work as 
     partners with our teachers and principals, and in fact, I 
     think that we have been extremely gentle in our approach 
     most times, because I myself was a teacher for many 
     years...But it was that teacher's interpretation of the law:  
     that it was his rights that were being protected here, and 
     that as parents, we were just pushy, unreasonable 
     professionals rather than people who were very concerned 
     about our child's outcome.  (Mary McDonald Richard, Des 
     Moines, IA)

     Often families choose to ignore or forgive violations and 
     try to move forward to achieve a free appropriate public 
     education for their child.  While I fully understand the 
     decision to let bygones be bygones, and often support 
     families who make those decisions, this distorts the 
     reflection of violations when one looks at the body of 
     complaints filed with the State education agency.  (Maureen 
     Hollowell, Philadelphia, PA)

     Due process is accessible to those parents who have been 
     able to learn the rules, and who have the emotional, 
     intellectual and financial resources to take advantage of 
     protection afforded them under the law and withstand the 
     process.  Thus, children with disabilities, of parents who 
     are poor, or minority communities, have other family stress 
     or have limited English proficiency, continue to be 
     disenfranchised.  (Amy Goldman, Philadelphia, PA)
     Look at the enormous waste of time, money, and most 
     importantly, the educational experience for my son.  I do 
     not have time to wait until tomorrow and tomorrow for my son 
     to get the appropriate education he deserves.  (Karen 
     Robard, New York, NY)

   
     Parents viewed the complaint and due process provisions in 
IDEA as a double-edged sword.  Approximately 80 parents gave 
testimony regarding their frustrations with the due process 
aspects of obtaining a free appropriate education for their 
child.  In general, however, they viewed due process hearings as 
necessary tools for bringing about the desired and intended 
benefits of IDEA.

     Martha Beebe, a parent who also is a teacher, went through 
due process to get her child's IEP changed.  It took ten months 
(rather than the mandated 45 days) to get a final decision:  an 
entire school year.  She stated her belief that the IDEA is full 
of promise, but must be enforced to become more than empty words 
on paper (Beebe, Boston, MA).  Other witnesses underscored the 
need for due process and improved enforcement, a need created by 
school districts' reluctance to implement the provisions of the 
law properly:


     I have come to call myself "Bonnie the bitch" because of 
     what I have had to become to fight the system...I have 
     contacted multiple State offices.  I have followed through 
     with every lead that anybody has ever given me.  I have 
     talked with the Governor's office here in the State.  I have 
     gone so far as to call the White House...I guess my feeling 
     at this point is, is there anybody out there who really 
     cares?  I don't know what more to do.  I, as a parent, have 
     pursued every option.  (Bonnie Weninger, Milwaukee, WI)

     We have a teacher who refuses to follow an IEP.  And then 
     that's when the psychologist and the principal just throw up 
     their hands and look at me [and say], "Well, we can't make 
     her do it."  And that is very frustrating.  (Jill Rigsbee, 
     Charlotte, NC)

     Until the Federal government compels States and cities to 
     comply with its mandates, IDEA will remain a haven for the 
     few.  (Walter Theis, New York, NY)


     Witnesses stated that minority families (especially Native 
Americans) with children with disabilities often do not pursue 
due process or even get to the mediation process because of 
language barriers or cultural factors.  Moreover, it was reported 
that many Native American parents with children who are not 
receiving needed special education services have relatives who 
work for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  Because of
this, they do not complain about inadequate services because it 
may negatively impact upon their relatives.  (Martha Johnson, 
Albuquerque, NM)

     At every hearing, parents expressed fear over retribution 
and retaliation by the schools if they exercised their due 
process rights.  In one situation, a parent reported that 
although she won a court battle to have her little boy placed 
into an inclusive kindergarten, the LEA retaliated by providing 
only narrow, technical compliance with the decision.  The child 
was physically put into classroom where the teacher effectively 
segregated him by placing him in the back of the class and not 
allowing any real participation with the other children (Eleanor 
Voutsinas, New York, NY).  

     Another mother described her experience in attempting to 
exercise her due process rights as follows:
     When you have to advocate for your child, you pay a high 
     price for that in many ways.  It's very stressful on the 
     family....Because of the kind of advocacy work that I've had 
     to do...I'm not able to teach anywhere locally.  I actually 
     teach school in Texas, which is a 30-mile drive in the time 
     difference away from my home....My son suffers from bipolar 
     disorder and numerous other difficulties.  That illness 
     itself is stressful, but when you have a vindictive, 
     harassing, retaliatory school district to deal with, it 
     makes your life completely miserable...that's what I've had 
     to deal with.  (Edris Klucher, Albuquerque, NM)


     Unfortunately, retribution (or fear of retribution) is an 
issue.  Indeed, one parent told how schools can use the 
"stay-put" provisions under due process to effectively impair 
students' rights.  After expelling a student, a school then 
initiated a due process complaint, causing the child to be kept 
out of school one entire year during proceedings.
     Due process is not working in my area.  The stay put law is 
     generally ignored, or the parents are urged to drop the 
     children from their class.  In my case...my son was kicked 
     out of school completely.  (Ann Williams, Denver, CO)

     A lot of parents don't want to make waves.  They don't want 
     to say anything because it makes it worse on their child.  
     Indeed, it does make it worse on the child.  (Beth Gage, 
     Philadelphia, PA)

     When you have to advocate for your child, you pay a high 
     price for that in many ways.  It's very stressful on the 
     family...when you have a vindictive, harassing, retaliatory 
     school district to deal with, it makes your life completely 
     miserable... that's what I've had to deal with.  (Edris 
     Klucher, Albuquerque, NM)

     One mother, whose 15-year-old son with autism was moved out 
of a high school into a school for younger students (because 
there were "more openings" in the school for younger students) 
with only a one-week notice described her experience with due 
process as follows:
     Throughout the due process, we were given notice about 
     meetings practically at the last minute.  No one encouraged 
     us to bring an advocate to help us.  There were people at 
     the meetings who we did not know and who did not have any 
     involvement with our son, particularly at the school-based 
     level....The administrator in charge of handicapped students 
     here in Charlotte told us that we could be arrested for 
     truancy because we refused to place our son in a class, 
     [when we] were not involved in the decision on change of 
     placement.  (Rachel Friedman, Charlotte, NC)


     Moreover, due process, while necessary for many purposes, 
does not solve all school issues.  In recounting the story of how 
her 14-year-old adopted son Adam (who has multiple disabilities) 
had been repeatedly battered and abused in school, Bonnie 
Weninger of Lomira, IL said she finally called the police, who 
informed her that there was nothing they could do.  
     I find out now, years later, that...our police departments 
     have no jurisdiction to come into the public schools, that 
     the only way I could have initiated an
     investigation was to hire private legal counsel, and I 
     didn't.  I didn't know that or I would have done that.  
     (Bonnie Weninger, Milwaukee, WI)


     Despite the problems the parents identified, they approved 
of all procedural safeguards, especially notice and the ability 
to obtain an independent evaluation.  
     As a minority person I'm really thankful for the independent 
     evaluation in the law, because it does allow parents 
     sometimes to have assessments by people who understand the 
     child's culture.  (Virginia Richardson, Des Moines, IA)


     In making recommendations, witnesses called for better 
training and the appointment of independent[12] hearing officers 
to ensure impartiality.  They advocated for stronger enforcement 
of the general provisions in IDEA, without fear of retaliation.  
Finally, they said that they do not want the general fear of 
violent behavior in the schools translating into harsher rules 
for children whose behavior problems stem from disability.

                             Mediation
     By the time mediation comes and goes, the child is facing 
     placement for the next year, and the process begins all over 
     again.  (Tammy Stuck, Denver, CO)


     More than two dozen parents gave testimony regarding 
mediation as an alternative to formal procedural due process 
hearings.  In general, they expressed many of the same concerns 
about mediation as they did about due process hearings. 
     One problem relates to the appearance of bias:
     The mediation process was no more impartial than any of the 
     other meetings the district had orchestrated.  Mediators are 
     trained by the Colorado Department of Education and are 
     neither perceived to be nor are they...impartial third 
     parties.  In the reauthorization of IDEA, I hope to see the 
     mediation process changed so that mediators will indeed be 
     disinterested and unaffiliated third parties.  (Marna Ares 
     Thompson, Denver, CO)

     Mediation needs to be "delegalized" as much as possible with 
     parents feeling that they are in neutral territory and 
     dealing with objective individuals.  (Carol Gonsalves, 
     Berkeley, CA)


     Other concerns related to the issuance of "gag orders" on 
parents, the absence of official records of proceedings, and lack 
of follow through with mediated agreements.
     Rarely does a hearing officer render a decision.  My feeling 
     on that is the school districts are sweeping their 
     violations under the carpet.  Parents are being placed under 
     gag orders in order to get their children the appropriate 
     services that they need, so parents can't even talk about 
     it.  (Bonnie Weninger, Milwaukee, WI)


     One parent moved out of her school district because, 
although the district agreed to provide the inclusive setting she 
was seeking through mediation, the district threatened to make 
her go to court the next year (Marna Ares Thompson, Denver, CO).  
While witnesses generally distrusted the mediation process, they 
also saw it as a possible opportunity to resolve complaints with 
schools without incurring even more costs and the questionable 
results of protracted administrative or judicial processes.  They 
viewed mediation as a viable option as long as they were not 
forced into it and as long as they were made fully aware of their 
rights, including the option of proceeding to formal due process 
hearings if necessary.  Finally, some witnesses called for more 
clarity about mediation procedures, especially guidelines for 
appointing neutral third-party mediators. 
A few parents suggested a process of binding arbitration as the 
solution to problems with mediation.

                    Attorney Fees and Attorneys
     The attorney fee provision in the law is necessary to ensure 
     protection for all parents.  (Kris Christenson, Des Moines, 
     IA)  

     The whole point of having due process at the administrative 
     level is to keep it out of the courts.  But with this 
     present situation, you are literally forced into the court 
     system at a higher level to get attorney fees reimbursed.  
     Attorney fees must be awarded at the administrative level, 
     if parents are going to be afforded their rights under IDEA.  
     (Nancy Baesman, Denver, CO)

     The fact of the matter is, if you're under the poverty 
     level, you're more worried about putting beans in your belly 
     and clothes on your back.  It's not as important.  But 
     [even] the people that can afford an attorney can't find 
     one, and so we're in a real hard spot.  (Larry Fuller, 
     Albuquerque, NM)


     Witnesses agreed that provisions regarding the award of 
attorney fees were greatly needed, but they disagreed on whether 
current provisions were adequate.    

     Julie Doy, Cheryl Johnson, and Denita Swenson in Des Moines; 
Rick Tessandore in Anchorage; Lisa Reader in Albuquerque; Donna 
McNulty in Philadelphia; and Dave Gordon in Boston discussed how 
and why attorney fees were needed to help families advocate for 
their children.  Other witnesses discussed their experiences with 
the issue of attorney's fees:
       Bonnie Weninger in Milwaukee complained that her attorney 
        fees exceeded what she paid for her home.  

       Jan Serak in Milwaukee testified on behalf of parents who 
        cannot afford an attorney, stating her belief that an 
        attorney should be provided for them at public expense.

       Janis Symanski and Robin Ann Tracy in Boston testified 
        about the needs of the economically disadvantaged and 
        stated that without assistance, attorney fees and costs 
        are deterrents for many needy people.

       Judy Plzak in Philadelphia testified that the threat of 
        attorney fee awards by courts can be a strong inducement 
        for school districts to avoid protracted due process 
        confrontations. 

       However, Patty Jennings in Albuquerque testified that 
        schools are not generally threatened by the possibility 
        of due process because they know that many parents cannot 
        find low-cost legal services.

       Nancy Baesman in Denver expressed concern that the cost 
        to bring a complaint at the administrative level was a 
        deterrent to parents, because some people believe that 
        attorney fees are only awarded at the judicial level.  
        She also noted that parents' costs are increased, since 
        it is necessary for them to return to court to collect 
        fees after winning the case.  Indeed, the length of time 
        before reimbursement can ruin a family's finances:

        What I have found to be the primary reason for parents 
        not pursuing due process is the cost.  They simply cannot 
        afford it from the beginning, or they cannot afford the 
        risk of losing their investment.  I have known many 
        families who will compromise with the school district or 
        will simply pull their child out of the situation and pay 
        out of their own pocket for whatever they need.  The 
        school districts play on that theory and usually come up 
        the winner.

       Jim McGovern in Milwaukee and Pam Ormsby in Berkeley 
        expressed concern over the general assumption that all 
        parents can afford attorneys or qualify for legal aid.  
        Mr. McGovern also voiced the sentiment of six other 
        witnesses that there is a great need to train lawyers in 
        special education law.

       Mary Schoonmaker in Denver agreed.  She credited 
        attorneys in the field as helpful, but stated that most 
        people cannot afford qualified attorneys.

       Denise Kring in Boston observed that the present system 
        is lengthy and costly, and that it is very difficult to 
        find a helpful attorney.


     Nolan Rappaport is a parent and an attorney in Potomac, MD.  
His 16-year-old daughter has autism, severe developmental delays, 
and epilepsy.  Although he is an attorney and has done much of 
the legal work advocating for his daughter, he has spent over 
$30,000 for necessary assistance from another attorney who 
specializes in disability education law.  He has two cases in 
administrative proceedings and two cases before the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerning his daughter's 
educational rights:
     If a parent with my resources and determination gets this 
     battered by the system, what happens to the parents who 
     can't fight a government institution the way I have?  How do 
     they get the education that their handicapped children so 
     desperately need?  (Nolan Rappaport, Philadelphia, PA)


     Finally, Larry Fuller in Albuquerque stressed the need for 
training attorneys.  He stated that very few attorneys have the 
knowledge necessary to represent parents and students properly.  
He explained that in Albuquerque, all the attorneys with training 
have already been retained by the State, because the State can 
afford to pay them more than parents and students.  As a result, 
parents and students are left at a great disadvantage.

     Other witnesses also spoke of problems in accessing 
attorneys:
     I really feel there's a kind of de facto discrimination in 
     terms of enforcement of the law.  And I see again and again 
     that parents with money and parents with education and 
     parents with time are able to get a...different level of 
     service for their children.  (Pam Ormsby, Berkeley, CA)

     Without known exception, the school districts are well 
     represented in all cases where a child's rights are in 
     question.  The scales of justice are heavily
     weighed in favor of the institution over the individual with 
     disabilities.  What this means in practice is that parent 
     without legal skills attempt to match wits with the 
     experienced attorneys.  All too often they fail, not because 
     their cause is wrong, but because they lack the 
     representation that is provided by the taxpayer for the 
     institutional opponent...Even prosperous parents seeking 
     counsel to represent their child in special education 
     matters have difficulty locating experienced attorneys.  We 
     know of an instance where 20 unsuccessful attempts to secure 
     an experienced attorney were made.  When [protection and] 
     advocacy [services] took on the case, the parents prevailed 
     on each and every issued presented.  The reason the parents 
     with the means to pay couldn't secure private counsel with 
     expertise in special education issues is that almost 
     invariably the private attorneys who have acquired such 
     expertise are attracted to the school districts where they 
     can earn higher wages.  (Denita Swenson, Des Moines, IA)


             Recommendations:  Procedural Due Process


     Most of the problems regarding the implementation of the due 
process provisions of IDEA reported by parents during the 
hearings can be traced back to a lack of monitoring, enforcement, 
and sanctions for noncompliance on the part of State education 
agencies and the Federal government.  Simply put, if there are no 
sanctions imposed for noncompliance, and if noncompliant 
activities continue to receive funding, then noncompliance will 
be the rule, not the exception.  In order to ensure that 
procedural due process rights are protected and strengthened, the 
Federal government should implement the following 
recommendations:
1.  Improve and strengthen Federal monitoring and enforcement 
activities.  Under plans for the "reinvention" of Federal 
processes and procedures, the Department of Education should 
adopt proven methods of field audit for compliance developed 
under quality control monitoring mechanisms in the private 
sector.  A major measurement variable in these audits should be 
customer satisfaction with services.  Sampling of customer 
satisfaction should go beyond State capitals and include visits 
to less populated and rural areas.

2.  Encourage all States to adopt similar audit procedures in 
their monitoring of local education agency compliance with the 
provisions of IDEA.

3.  When State education agencies are found to be in 
noncompliance with the provisions of IDEA according to these 
revised audit procedures, plans for achieving compliance should 
be developed in an expeditious manner.  These plans should 
include specific remedial actions to be taken, timelines for 
implementation, and a statement of the potential financial impact 
for continued noncompliance.  Audit findings and plans for 
compliance should be forwarded to the chief State school officer 
and the Governor.

4.  Encourage States to allow parents and students the voluntary 
opportunity to seek mediation prior to engaging in full-fledged 
due process procedures.  Mediators should be independent, with no 
real or apparent of conflict of interest with either the local 
school district or the State education agency.

5.  Explore the possible use of binding arbitration as another 
method of nonlitigative dispute resolution.

6.  Prohibit retaliation by State or local education agencies (or 
their assigns) against parties seeking to exercise their rights 
under the due process provisions of IDEA[13]

7.  Establish effective procedures for final appeal to the 
Secretary of Education in matters which have not otherwise proved 
resolvable and publicize the results of these appeals. 
                            TRANSITION

                         Statement of Law

     Special education encompasses many services that are 
important to students with disabilities, but no service is 
ultimately useful unless students are provided with effective 
transition services as mandated by IDEA (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 
(a)(19) and 20 (D)).  
     The process of planning for the transition from school to 
     adult life is a critical right and component of IDEA.  The 
     skills learned in the school setting mean very little unless 
     they can be useful in adult and community life.  (Gwen 
     McCollum, Des Moines, IA)


     Transition services are a set of activities coordinated with 
parents, students, school personnel, and community agencies.  
They are designed using an outcome-oriented process to promote a 
student's successful movement from school to post-school 
activities that are comparable to those in which students without 
disabilities engage (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)(19) and 20 (D)).

     Throughout the public hearings two major themes emerged on 
the topic of transition:  transition services and planning should 
span across a person's entire life, and changes need to be made 
in the transition planning process.  In addition, the theme of 
collaboration pervaded the testimony:  Increased and mandated 
collaboration between parents, students, adults with 
disabilities, schools, and service agencies is necessary for a 
student to receive effective transition services.


             Transition Across a Person's Entire Life
     Witnesses argued that the mandatory age for transitional 
planning needs to be lowered, that schools can and should do a 
better job of preparing students for post-graduation success, and 
that grade-to-grade transition planning should be improved.

   The Mandatory Age for the Initiation of Transition Planning 
                        Needs to Be Lowered

     Early identification of needed transition services will 
     allow the student more time to acquire the necessary skills 
     for a successful transition from school to post-school 
     activities.  (Kelly Davis, Albuquerque, NM)

     Children are children for a relatively brief period of time.  
     They become adults for three quarters of their lifetimes.  
     So each child, regardless of ability, needs to prepare for 
     those adult years as early as possible, and in the case of 
     many of us with disabilities, the preparation will take a 
     bit more planning.  (Suzanne Bacal, Philadelphia, PA)

     Transition plans need to be implemented at any time and 
     shouldn't be viewed strictly as a function of age.  (Ellen 
     Laurence, Denver, CO)


     IDEA requires that transition services begin no later than 
age 16.  However,  adults with disabilities, parents, and family 
members at the hearings said that these services need to be 
provided, at the latest, by the student's first year of high 
school because it often takes more than two years for students to 
develop effective transition skills (assuming students exit 
school when they are 18).  Because the goal for special education 
is to provide the life and academic skills necessary to function 
as independently as possible after school, students have to 
receive their training as soon as possible.
     We had a consultant who, when Rick was in the eighth grade, 
     kept very persistently saying to me, "We need to talk about 
     what Rick is going to do after high school."  My reaction at 
     the time was, "I do not want to talk about that.  I'm trying 
     to get through this week.  I'm trying to get through this 
     day.  I do not want to talk about four years down the road."  
     What I didn't tell her was that it scared me half to death 
     to think what that might mean.  But very persistently, very 
     doggedly, very non-judgmentally she pushed and pushed until 
     finally out of exasperation more than anything else I threw 
     up my hands and said, "Okay, let's talk."  Through some very 
     concerted efforts by the planning team, Rick moved into a 
     transitional living program June 13, 1987.  Rick left home.  
     That was the first thing he had done developmentally on time 
     his whole life.  (Deb Sampson, Des Moines, IA)

     The student's needs, interests, strengths, and abilities 
     must be the basis for transition goals and objectives, and 
     these must be very positively tied to adult outcomes in a 
     very clear way.  Supports must be truly individualized.  
     Students must not be lumped in transition programs where 
     everyone between the ages of 19 and 21 is getting the same 
     thing.  Otherwise you have the same situation you have at a 
     younger age where a label drives services.  We don't want 
     transitions to drive services.  We want needs and abilities 
     to drive services.  (Judy Martz, Denver, CO)


     Opinions varied as to how soon transition planning should 
begin.  Some parents advocated for starting as early as the first 
or second grade, while others believed that middle school might 
be an acceptable time.  Regardless, every witness said that the 
eighth grade or the first year of high school was absolutely the 
latest time when transition planning should be initiated.
     Transition planning is not occurring in a manner and 
     probably as early as it should....Right now, what's 
     happening is that our kids are graduating from school, and 
     they're dropping off and going into oblivion.  (John Foley, 
     Albuquerque, NM)  


     Witnesses described many potential benefits from an earlier 
transition planning process.  First, it would help students put 
their current education into perspective. 
Their high school classes might seem more relevant if they could 
understand just how the classes would assist them beyond the 
walls of the school.  Of course, this assumes that classes allow 
the student to transfer high school instruction to practical use 
in the community after high school.
     We adults have the responsibility to guide children on the 
     correct path, and when we don't, what kicks in is welfare or 
     homelessness or crime or institutionalization.  With proper, 
     systematic, individualized transitioning, what we get is 
     contributing, participating adults who take personal 
     responsibility rather than expect[ing] to be taken care of 
     by parents and the government.  (Suzanne Bacal, 
     Philadelphia, PA)


     Second, it may take several years for students to master 
certain college preparatory, work, or life skills before they are 
able to function independently outside of school.  Earlier 
transition programs will allow students to graduate and 
assimilate into the community at age 18 or 21, instead of 
requiring that they spend more time after school ends attempting 
to develop new skills.
     Now, most folks age out [of special education] at age 22.  
     The fact is that they age out and a lot of them come out of 
     school.  They don't have a job.  They are not expected to do 
     much when they leave.  So they sit home for two or three 
     years unless somebody has, to use the colloquial term in my 
     city, "hipped them" to us or passed them to us... Then they 
     come to me and I'm saying, "Let's do this....Are you 
     registered to vote?  Have you gone to RSA and tried it?  Do 
     you know what the process is?"  Most of the time, the answer 
     is, "No."  So I'm having to do work to back track for what I 
     think schools aren't giving these students.  (Greg Dougan, 
     Philadelphia, PA)

     One of the problems that students have with post-secondary 
     education is they're scared to death of coming out to 
     campus.  They are just flat bottomed frightened; and one of 
     the reasons the students are so frightened [is that] they 
     have some real difficulties with self-esteem.  They have 
     difficulty at valuing themselves and being able to take 
     challenges that other students just naturally take on and 
     are encouraged to do.  They've been beaten up, and I don't 
     know how else to put it.  They've been beaten up because 
     they have limitations, maybe a physical limitation, maybe an 
     emotional limitation, but
     whatever the limitation, they had to learn to integrate 
     there, and it hasn't been a pretty process.  (Fred Greasby, 
     Milwaukee, WI)


     Third, many transition programs are not available to 
students once they leave the school setting.  Thus, their 
development could be interrupted before it is completed, and they 
are left to function in a new environment without the appropriate 
knowledge and skills.
     Finally, extra time for transition will allow the schools 
and parents to create a long-term program focused on helping 
students acquire the skills needed to live independently.  
Students usually require more than two or three years to 
transition to independent living.

   High School Programs Can Better Prepare Students for Success 
                       Following Graduation

     Most young people with disabilities want the same things as 
     their peers:  getting a job, earning money, staying off 
     welfare.  With the proper information and guidance, these 
     young people can realize their dreams.  (Debra Titus, 
     Charlotte, NC)

     If we don't provide those transitional benefits to young 
     people, then it's not going to be beneficial to anyone.  The 
     bottom line is...the reason our students go to school is 
     like all of us, to learn a trade, to learn to go out and 
     work.  All my daughter is saying [is], "I want a job in this 
     community.  I want to be accepted by this community.  If I'm 
     not accepted, what's going to happen to me?"  (Rose Marie 
     Sanchez, Albuquerque, NM)


     In order to maximize a student's potential in a postschool 
setting, the link between high school and the "real world" needs 
to be strengthened.  Students should not be abandoned once they 
have been provided with some transitional services.  Supports
provided after graduation can guarantee that the skills learned 
in school will not be lost in new environments.  At present, 
there are two options for students following graduation:  finding 
employment or continuing their education.  High schools can 
provide programs that make pursuing these choices realistic and 
viable.  Usually, a joint effort between high schools and 
employers or postsecondary programs offers the best opportunity 
for success.
     On the whole, there can be little doubt that John was better 
     prepared for adult life as a result of IDEA and the 
     opportunity to receive a free, appropriate public education.  
     (Gwen McCollum, Des Moines, IA)


     Before IDEA's transition provisions were enacted and 
implemented, most students with special needs did not dream of 
continuing their education.  If they wanted to work, it usually 
meant being placed in a sheltered workshop where they performed 
menial labor with other persons with disabilities for extremely 
low wages.  Their skills were never fully developed, with the 
result that they remained segregated from a world where they 
could work with some training.
     If [continuing education] becomes the norm, those students 
     who age out will get the same educational help and the same 
     requirements that able-bodied students get right now, which 
     is, you are a student for the rest of your natural born 
     days.  You learn until you die.  (Greg Dougan, Philadelphia, 
     PA)


     Edward Weinstein, a former special education student, 
reported that he is now living independently, voting, preparing 
his own taxes, and working.  His accomplishments have far 
exceeded what professionals had projected earlier in his life.  
     One day I hope that doctor that said I couldn't expect Ed to 
     be anything more than a delivery boy (and I don't mean this 
     in a denigrating way) finds out what a
     wonderful useful, helpful man Ed has grown to be.  He's 
     surely a success story from special ed.  (Marilyn Weinstein, 
     New York, NY)


     Although only a few adults with disabilities or parents 
testified that they or their children attend a postsecondary 
school, students with disabilities are provided more 
opportunities to do so today.  Stronger programs in the schools 
will ensure that their talents are cultivated as they enter work 
places and campuses.  Rarely do parents and children think that 
postsecondary education is an alternative.  This could be 
attributed to a lack of information concerning programs or a fear 
of failure in a new and strange environment.

     One option for schools is to expose students to junior 
colleges and universities while they are still in high school.  A 
program in Milwaukee brings special education students to a 
junior college for a day and allows them to see what college life 
is like.  Familiarity is the key to encouraging students to 
pursue a postsecondary education.  Trained personnel at both the 
high schools and postsecondary institutions help students apply 
to college and then create a college course schedule.

     One student has experienced college campus life in Colorado 
Springs, Colorado.  He and his family decided that he would 
benefit from graduating from high school at age 18 with the rest 
of his peers, but he still received services from the school 
district through an IEP and an ITP.  After his first year, 
students from a fraternity on campus invited him to join their 
fraternity.  What once was considered unachievable became a
very realistic opportunity, of which he took advantage.  These 
impressive results can be traced to his early exposure to the 
campus.

     Many families and students perceive the cost of college to 
be an impossible obstacle.  Family members testified that they 
had already spent large sums of money in acquiring a better 
education for their children in special education programs, 
indicating that they need information concerning the types of 
postsecondary financial aid available to them.  Testimony 
reflected that the level of financial aid awarded to students 
with disabilities at the university level was disproportionately 
low when compared to the rest of the student body.  Increased 
information from postsecondary programs would provide more 
students with disabilities with opportunities to access financial 
aid.

     Another aspect of establishing stronger links to life after 
school is job training.  Allowing students to learn job skills 
while still in school makes them employable upon graduation.  In 
New York City, funds are available to local merchants who employ 
students from special education programs.  The program simply 
reimburses the employer the amount of wages earned by the 
student.  The student is able to work in his neighborhood instead 
of a sheltered environment, earning at least minimum wage.  The 
student gains valuable work and social skills while at the same 
time learning the benefits and rewards of working.  The employer, 
on the other hand, gains both extra productivity and valuable 
experience in employing a person with a disability, often
changing coworkers' and customers' negative attitudes toward 
individuals with disabilities.

     Parents expressed fear that once the student leaves the 
school system, supports will disappear and they and their young 
adult will be stranded.  This fear can be addressed in two ways.  
First, extending mandatory transitional services beyond 
graduation will ensure that the student will not be forgotten.  
Second, more information on services should be made available to 
parents and students.

Grade-to-Grade Transitions Are Also Important to Students' Success


     Transition is so much more than moving from public school to 
     adult services.  It's from grade to grade and school to 
     school.  Because IDEA allows flexibility to schools in 
     implementing IEPs, children lose continuity that is so 
     important to success.  (Jerri Miller, Denver, CO)

     Transition from infant learning into the school system 
     somehow has to be managed more appropriately so that it 
     carries forward that family focus:  that the family retains 
     what they've learned about their child and [continues to be] 
     seen as an expert.  (David Maltman, Anchorage, AK)


     Mandated transition services focus primarily upon the move 
from high school to postschool activities.  There are, however, 
other transitions throughout the entire education journey: from 
infant and toddler programs to preschool and kindergarten; from 
primary school to middle school; and from middle school to high 
school.  Inadequate provisions for transition at any of these 
stages can restrict students' potential and negatively affect 
their performance for the rest of their academic careers.

     Testimony indicated that early intervention (also known as 
"Part H") programs for children aged birth to age 3 are extremely 
successful.  These programs are based on the premise that when 
infants are tested early, and if they and their families receive 
needed services for any diagnosed disabilities, they will have a 
much higher probability of success in school.  It can be very 
difficult for a child to make the transition from Part H services 
into the school system.  If it is not done properly, the results 
for the child and the family can be detrimental.  While Part H is 
not a transition statute per se, the successful transition from 
Part H to school services can maximize a child's potential.

     Another strength of Part H is found in its family-centered 
focus.  Unlike virtually every other Federal law, Part H focuses 
on the entire family, not solely upon the needs of the child.  
The focus on family strengths has a direct impact on the child's 
success in early childhood and beyond.  In addition, the 
State-level Interagency Coordinating Councils (ICCs) required 
under Part H provide a vehicle for exemplary collaboration among 
the many agencies involved in comprehensive services to families 
of infants and toddlers with disabilities.

     The emphasis on coordinated services to and participation by 
families distinguishes early intervention services from all other 
special education services.  The main problem is that what makes 
Part H so effective -positive collaboration between families and 
professionals- is lost once the child enters the school system.  
Too often, when young children transition from Part H services to 
those administered by local
education agencies, the needs of the family unit are no longer 
considered and the focus of services switches solely to the 
child.  This change is not gradual:  It happens literally 
overnight for families.  The sudden shift to a less 
family-centered education can be quite traumatic for families and 
children.
     One witness offered a solution to this problem:
     Offer possibilities such as service coordination (case 
     management) beyond age 3 perhaps as a specified related 
     service option in Part B so as to facilitate easier access 
     and entry to services.  (Pascal L. Trohanis, Charlotte, NC)


     Part H's core values and philosophy must be transitioned 
along with the student into early education and beyond.  Suddenly 
throwing a student into a new educational setting can erase the 
benefits and gains made by the family and child during the Part H 
program.  Parents testifying at the hearings were adamant in 
their belief that they should remain as integral parts of their 
child's education once they leave the "safety net" of Part H.  If 
this were the case, parent dissatisfaction with the IEP process 
and other aspects of special education (see the chapter on 
"Parent Participation and Shared Decision Making") might be 
significantly reduced.

     The next change requiring an effective transition occurs 
when students enter middle school or high school.  Entering 
middle school is difficult for almost any student, but can be 
even more so for students with special needs.  This transition is 
difficult for many reasons.  Students are leaving settings where 
they had just spent six or seven years.  All of a sudden, they 
are required to change rooms between each class during a limited 
time period.  Students also move from the familiarity of having 
the same teacher
for the entire day, and this lack of familiarity affects 
teachers' abilities to provide proper instruction.  Students also 
lose the security of having the same classmates they had in 
elementary school.  Socially, they must adjust to an environment 
that is far more demanding and less predictable than elementary 
school.  Most parents whose children had reached at least middle 
school had experienced frustration from this sudden change in 
educational settings.

     The transition from middle school to high school is also 
very important.  Not only do students enter a new school, but it 
is in high school that IDEA's mandatory transition services must 
be initiated.  Parents consistently stated that in spite of any 
past academic problems, a successful career in high school can 
determine their child's later success in life.  Again, the change 
to a new school can reverse positive results gained through 
earlier educational experiences, if the supports that ensure 
benefits are not transitioned along with students.

   Changes Need to Be Made in the Process of Transition Planning
    Annual IEPs Need to Reflect the ITP and the Overall Vision 
                          for the Student

     The student needs to be empowered.  Too many people are 
     making too many decisions for that student with the 
     disability without letting them in on the process.  (Fred 
     Greasby, Milwaukee, WI)

     At best, it seems ITPs are one-page documents completed to 
     primarily meet a legal requirement.  Useful ITPs developed 
     with the essential people involved happen rarely.  The 
     transition planning requirements of IDEA need to be 
     strengthened and schools need to be held accountable for 
     helping students
     move successfully from school to what lies beyond.  (Carol 
     Gonsalves, Berkeley, CA)

     The entire plan was driven by the vision he had and that we 
     had, not by existing programs in the school district.  The 
     staffing team worked together creatively over several 
     months.  The interests, strengths, and abilities of the 
     student were used as building blocks in developing...goals 
     and objectives.  (Judy Martz, Denver, CO)


     Families testified that the only IEPs or ITPs they found 
satisfactory were those in which they were actively involved and 
had an ongoing role in monitoring.  The general consensus was 
that otherwise, the IEP process was not effective for transition 
planning.  There are a number of reasons why this is so.

     First, the IEP provides annual goals and objectives for each 
student to work toward during a school year.  This means that the 
IEP does not necessarily follow a family's and student's 
postschool vision, hopes, and preferences.  Accordingly, the IEP 
is not designed per se to support the intended results 
established in the ITP process.  However, the IEP can augment the 
ITP process, as exemplified by a family in Colorado Springs, 
Colorado.  This family wanted their son with a developmental 
disability to graduate from high school at age 18 with the rest 
of his peers.  They also wanted him to receive transition 
services and an IEP from the school, but not to receive ongoing 
supports in the school setting, believing that the more 
appropriate setting was that of a college campus, the same 
setting many of his high school peers were entering.  The school 
provided services, coordinating with the college and adult 
service agencies in order to facilitate the change of educational 
setting for this young man.

     Second, parents spoke about their frustrations with school 
personnel and teachers -in both general and special education- 
who refused to implement the IEP and who, in some cases, even 
refused to look at the IEP.  At times, the IEP goals were changed 
or never implemented without the consent or knowledge of the 
family.  So, even if a good, meaningful plan was written and 
followed the vision for the student, its lack of implementation 
blocked anticipated results, caused it not to meet the purpose 
intended, or indicated that the process had been completed simply 
to satisfy an IDEA requirement.

     Third, there may be little or no continuity from year to 
year and IEP to IEP.  The only individuals who monitor continuity 
are parents and sometimes an effective educator or school 
employee.  Without some continuity between school years, grade 
levels, and school buildings, the ITP and future planning process 
is meaningless.  The lack of continuity from education plan to 
education plan and between annual education plan and transition 
plan causes students to be tossed about the educational setting 
and does not help them see the relevance between school goals and 
life goals.  If foundations are not laid and built upon, then it 
is doubtful that the desired adult results can be achieved.

     Finally, schools need to provide follow-up and follow-along 
services for the students who have transitioned out of the school 
and into the community.  These
services would require the schools to be more proactive and to 
provide more comprehensive transition planning and IEPs to 
achieve the intended ITP results.

      The Social Aspects of Transition Need to Be Emphasized
     Community based instruction needs to be expanded so that 
     students are really prepared for adult life, giving them 
     opportunities to be fully included in society at an early 
     age so that when it is time for them to enter the adult 
     world, they are totally prepared and comfortable with 
     themselves and their environment in which they will live and 
     work.  (Maureen Devaney, Philadelphia, PA)

     It is important and necessary that people be allowed to mix 
     with others.  People learn maturity mostly by being with 
     their peer groups....When I was with the group of teenagers 
     that took me under their wings, I felt like I could do 
     anything.  (Bill Rush, Des Moines, IA)

     People with disabilities, transitioning out of school, learn 
     all the skills necessary, but they do not know how to 
     socialize, for they focus more on job skills more than they 
     do socialization, which begins at school at the locker 
     rooms, pep rallies, and others.  (Debbie Allen, Denver, CO)


     In order for students to have a truly successful transition 
from school to postschool life, they must have social experiences 
and skills in school that they can transfer to their lives after 
and outside of school.  Witnesses repeatedly emphasized that 
social experiences and skills are often more important than 
vocational or academic skills.  Too many individuals with 
disabilities who have transitioned out of school programs lack 
meaningful friendships.  They are isolated, bored, depressed, and 
without any sense of a social life.

     Witnesses offered many suggestions on how to overcome this 
problem.  First, the supported inclusion of children with 
disabilities in regular neighborhood schools can greatly 
facilitate the transition from school to adult life.  Students 
learn social skills, succeed in school, and transition 
successfully as adults when they have ongoing social connections 
with their peer groups.  This includes participation in the same 
activities as their peers as a valued member of the peer group, 
not as a person needing to gain a skill.  True success for 
students with disabilities happens in an inclusive setting with 
the appropriate supports and facilitators.  Inclusion was cited 
as the number one factor in making successful transitions by 
those who described successful transition experiences.

     Second, school personnel, families, and friends must work 
together to establish and facilitate friendships and connections 
with peers long before the transition age of 16.  These 
relationships need to be fostered beginning in elementary school 
and should continue beyond graduation from high school.  
Involving peers and friends in the process of transition planning 
and assisting the student with a disability to succeed in more 
than one realm promotes continuity between educational and social 
settings.

     Third, self-advocacy skills are important for students with 
disabilities in order that they are able to communicate the 
accommodations and modifications they may need in social and 
community settings.  All students, regardless of disability, need 
to learn this, not only through direct instruction, but also in 
their dealings with friends, associates, and peers on a daily 
basis.  This type of instruction and experience needs to
be provided to students with disabilities so that they can make 
successful transitions and be more independent in their lives 
after school.

     Collaboration is Vital to a Successful Transition Process

     Language requiring service coordination should be 
     strengthened.  There is a need for a strong integrated 
     system of service delivery and transition teams that begin 
     working together in the early planning stages of the 
     student's transition process.  (Kelly Davis, Albuquerque, 
     NM)

     Adult services need to be accessed before a student exits 
     school to ensure smooth transition.  Overlap of 
     responsibility between education and adult service providers 
     is necessary....A period of shared responsibility is needed 
     to facilitate successful transition.  (Meredith Post 
     Gramlich, Berkeley, CA)

     [We need] stronger interagency programs so that we break 
     down the separation between the educational system, the 
     medical system, DVR, DB...These programs [need to] become 
     interlinked in order to provide a network of support for all 
     of our citizens within our nation.  (Robyn Rehmann, 
     Anchorage, AK)


     Collaboration was a recurrent theme throughout the hearings.  
All participants who mentioned collaboration were in favor of 
strengthening IDEA's collaboration requirements and testified 
that teamwork creates success in school and in the transition 
process.  Thus, Interagency Coordinating Councils, like those 
developed under Part H, should be developed to ensure and 
facilitate collaboration among individuals involved with 
transition.

     More than interagency collaboration is required.  
Collaboration needs to involve students as well as parents.  Yet 
the lack of a family-centered focus on the part of many schools 
impedes collaboration.  For example, one mother mentioned that 
the school
would not allow her to attend school-sponsored training that 
would provide her with the skills she needed to help her son at 
home.  Without exception, collaboration with families is key to a 
student's success in school, especially during a period of 
transition.

     Community members and personnel from service agencies also 
emphasized the schools' lack of collaboration.  Witnesses stated 
that often community service agencies such as Centers for 
Independent Living are willing and eager to work with students, 
families, and schools in transitioning from school to adult life, 
but the narrow focus of the schools on matters directly relating 
to their specific areas of responsibility impairs effective 
collaboration.  One service provider strongly recommended that 
service agencies and the schools should enter into agreements to 
ensure collaboration.  In order for community agencies to conduct 
long-range planning to provide services when students need them, 
the agencies must first know what these students need.  To reduce 
their waiting lists and develop person-centered service models, 
service agencies need to have time to plan and coordinate 
services before a student graduates from high school.

     As mentioned earlier, more families and students are 
considering postsecondary education as an option.  This requires 
collaboration among schools, community agencies, and 
postsecondary programs.  In order to make postsecondary education 
a viable option for increased numbers of students with 
disabilities, personnel and students at postsecondary schools 
need to be brought into the transition process.

     Finally, collaboration needs to occur within schools and 
school districts.  The continued huge chasm between general 
education and special education results in a lack of opportunity 
and success for all students.  Training for all future teachers 
should promote collaboration.  Indeed, changing the structure of 
education at the university level could contribute to an overall 
improvement in collaborative efforts among educators.  By uniting 
special and regular education and by training teachers to teach 
all students and to collaborate toward that end, schools will be 
more effective overall.  However, such restructuring is a two-way 
street, and the schools, on a building and district basis, must 
also reform themselves to meet the changing status of students 
today.  This means the school atmosphere must be conducive to 
collaboration.  Teachers need to use each others' strengths and 
knowledge to achieve one common goal:  educating all students to 
their maximum potential by collaborating with each other, 
families, and the community.

                   Recommendations:  Transition
     In order to improve the transition of students receiving 
special education from school to adult life, the Federal 
government should implement the following recommendations:
1.  Lower the mandatory age for the initiation of transitional 
planning from 16 years old to 14 years old.

2.  Encourage State and local education agencies to strengthen 
community-based training and work experiences, inclusive social 
skills experiences, independent living experiences, and 
self-advocacy training for students with disabilities in 
secondary school programs.

3.  Require that a member of the transition planning team or that 
a person appointed by the transition planning team serve as a 
coordinator for services to be provided under the ITP, 
integrating these services with those in the IEP.

4.  Encourage State and local education agencies to be flexible 
in the design and implementation of services to students with 
disabilities between the ages of 14 to 21, particularly with 
regard to the provision of IEP-related services and supports 
outside of the secondary school campus.

5.  The Department of Education should explore the feasibility of 
continuing the family-based focus of services delivered under 
Part H to students and families receiving services under Part B 
of IDEA.  Service coordination (case management) should be 
available as a related service to students and families 
throughout the transition from Part H to Part B services.

                      DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS

                         Statement of Law

     Although Part B of IDEA, which creates substantive and 
procedural rights for students with disabilities and their 
families, was the major focus of the testimony, it was by no 
means the only focus.  IDEA also authorizes other very important 
programs.  Overall, these programs greatly enhance our national 
capacity to improve special education.  They do so through 
Subchapter III (which authorizes programs and projects such as 
regional resource centers, services for deaf-blind students, 
early education, services for students with severe disabilities, 
postsecondary education and transition services, and programs for 
students with severe emotional disturbance); Subchapter IV 
(personnel preparation); Subchapter V (research); Subchapter VI 
(instructional media); Subchapter VII (technology and educational 
media and materials); and Subchapter VIII (early intervention for 
infants and toddlers, also called Part H).  

     These programs complement Part B in several respects.  
First, Part B authorizes aid to States to educate all children 
with disabilities, including those in early education (ages 3 to 
5), those who have been categorized as having severe and multiple 
disabilities or severe emotional disturbance, those who are 
eligible to receive transition services as part of their IEPs, 
and those who are eligible to receive assistive technology 
services and devices as part of their IEPs (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1401, 
1411, 1412, and 1413).  In addition, Part B requires States to 
create a comprehensive system of personnel development (20 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1413(a)(3)).  This system should ensure an adequate supply 
of qualified
teachers and related services personnel, establish standards for 
training those personnel, create a system of continuing education 
for them, and establish procedures for disseminating significant 
knowledge and adopting promising practices.
  
                    Overall Impact on Programs
     There can be little doubt that the discretionary programs 
and complementary Part B provisions have been quite useful to 
date in improving the overall delivery of special education and 
related services.  However, there are several areas where their 
implementation could be improved.  These areas will be discussed 
below.

                       Personnel Development
     Witnesses, the majority of whom were parents, offered 
opinions and insights on personnel development at least five 
times more often than they did on parent training programs.
     The only specific negative I have seen in the Albuquerque 
     Public Schools is that even when a teacher is provided who 
     is experienced and trained and educated in special 
     education, the rest of the professional staff may not have 
     any information, any education....The school system has an 
     obligation to run a large system.  You can't drop everything 
     for my child or anyone else's.  I felt some problems that we 
     ran into could have been avoided if the faculty who were 
     dealing with [my son] in these situations were even 
     told....I'm not expecting every teacher to be trained in 
     special education, but I thought that the schools could 
     alert all of the teachers as to what kind of programs exist 
     at the schools and what kind of students were attending 
     these programs.  (Congressman Steve Schiff, Albuquerque, NM)


     Witnesses offered varied views on the adequacy of personnel 
development programs, telling personal stories of how IDEA and 
its teacher in-service and preservice provisions affect students' 
education.  Parents especially voiced concern that teachers in 
both regular and special education were inadequately prepared for 
actually teaching students with disabilities.  Reasons for this 
inadequate preparation were offered by parents and other 
witnesses, ranging from a lack of college preparation and 
coursework to a lack of concern.
     We acknowledge, we understand, and we're terribly concerned 
     about many of the problems that are related to the quality 
     and quantity of [the] special education and related services 
     work force.  But in our professional opinion, these problems 
     would be much worse without a strong Federal role and 
     commitment....There is a current and continuing shortage of 
     special education university faculty.  Simply put, there 
     [are] not enough doctoral graduates whose career choice is 
     higher education to fill current and projected vacancies.  
     This shortage will -and is- affecting the supply of new 
     teachers, related services personnel, and the in-service 
     capabilities to produce people who are capable to provide 
     inclusionary programs in the public schools.  

     Federal dollars must be maintained and increased to support 
     individuals pursuing doctoral degrees, specifically 
     interested in becoming university faculty.  We are concerned 
     about the ability to generate new knowledge, new curriculum 
     materials, new approaches, and to verify those through 
     research, for just as there is a shortage of new people, new 
     leaders, and faculty, there is a shortage of people who are 
     researchers.  (Deborah Doherty Smith, Albuquerque, NM)


     The most frequent areas of concern or complaint regarding 
personnel preparation were as follows:  the ability of teachers 
to provide effective instruction on a daily basis in classrooms, 
certification requirements, administration, and education in the 
least restrictive environment.

     Witnesses who expressed concerns about the day-to-day 
ability of teachers to function effectively in classrooms made 
the following suggestions to improve teacher training:
       Teachers need sufficient training in specific areas of 
        special education.

       Teachers need more in-service and preservice training, 
        and such training needs to be required rather than merely 
        suggested.

       Teachers need training on how disabilities can affect 
        student behavior.

       Teacher training on collaboration needs to move beyond 
        "token" collaboration, beyond merely putting in an 
        appearance at IEP meetings and other conferences.

       Classrooms need more teacher aides or paraprofessionals.


     What I would like to see in language in the reauthorization 
     is to encourage university programs that are preparing our 
     personnel to look at preparing teachers -quality teachers- 
     who are capable, willing, [and] committed to educating all 
     children, regardless of their diverse cultural backgrounds, 
     regardless of their diverse learning needs, regardless of 
     their talents, regardless of the obstacles and talents that 
     they bring to the classroom.  (Diane Ryan, Philadelphia, PA)

     [There is a] shortage of personnel to teach blind children 
     and the university programs are limited [in] number.  We 
     rely very heavily on Federal dollars for their continued 
     existence.  This is an appropriate use of Federal money.  
     (Lynne Koral, Anchorage, AK)

     With the shortage of early intervention specialists and 
     recruitment issues...[I was] wondering if...there could be 
     some language in there that could serve to recruit people 
     into the fields by being able to say, "If you come into the 
     field and you do your education and you go out and 
     serve...especially in Alaska, you would have your loan 
     deferred, or part of it."  (Susan Jones, Anchorage, AK)



     On the subject of teacher certification, witnesses made the 
following suggestions:
       All student teaching needs to require work in a setting 
        that has students with disabilities.

       Teachers need more frequent recertification.



     In discussing administrative concerns, witnesses recommended 
the following:

       School counselors need training for working with students 
        who have disabilities.

       School districts need to recruit more qualified teachers.  
        At present, administrators are allowing teachers who are 
        not qualified to teach special education to do so.

       Schools and school districts need a full range of 
        services, and they need to encourage teachers to work 
        with, not against, parents and advocates.


     We need to make sure that the administrators and the 
     principals are included in the team and are educated and 
     foster a positive outlook and attitude, one that 
     breeds...confidence [into] teachers, letting them know that 
     we can try to be as innovative as possible.  (David Berube, 
     Anchorage, AK)


     Witnesses' concerns regarding the least restrictive 
environment centered on the need for teachers in regular 
education to receive sufficient preparation to integrate students 
with disabilities.  Many universities continue to train teachers 
in regular education separately from special education and to 
endorse segregated settings for students with disabilities.  
Witnesses urged school and university personnel to update their 
attitudes to better integrate students with disabilities:
     Services for many children include regular classroom 
     situations.  Regular teachers lack adequate preparation to 
     implement programs and to teach and/or modify curriculum for 
     students with special needs.  Teachers do not
     receive adequate preservice training and little or no 
     in-service training.  (Linda Speich, Charlotte, NC)

     The element that seems to be missing in all this is the 
     university's part in preparing teachers.  They continue to 
     have a separate track teaching regular education teachers 
     over here and special education teachers over there.  We're 
     not preparing teachers properly.  (David Maltman, Anchorage, 
     AK)

     At the college that I go to...the instructors there are 
     teaching us a different perspective of IDEA than what I am 
     hearing here.  They teach that including students with 
     disabilities is against the LRE requirement and that 
     segregated classes and schools are the best environments for 
     students with moderate or severe disabilities.  They teach 
     that children will be dumped without support.  My sister, 
     who is a regular education student, has been told that she 
     will be required to change catheters if inclusion gets 
     through.  I personally heard that there will be students in 
     hospital beds in my algebra class that I'm teaching.  If 
     we're going to make a difference, we need to start with 
     higher education.   Attitudes need to be changed.  Right 
     now, many schools reflect an attitude that's back in the 
     50s.  We need to get to the 90s.  I'm calling for the 
     education of educators.  (Patty Gilg, Des Moines, IA)

     In many school districts in Pennsylvania, teachers are 
     trained in teaching practices that hinder inclusive 
     education, such as teaching as talking, reliance solely on 
     textbooks for instructional material, and referring students 
     to special education programs first and adapting instruction 
     as a last resort.  Reform of teacher training can have a 
     significant impact on teachers' classroom practice, and 
     enhance the ability of regular education to be used to adapt 
     instruction to the needs of all students.  Yet if change in 
     teaching practices is not supported in the schools, [then] 
     it dies as teachers return to the norms of instruction that 
     are currently enforced in original training.  (Judy Gran, 
     Philadelphia, PA)

     I know from first-hand experience that our teacher 
     preparation programs are failing to provide this type of 
     background to the vast majority of students.  General 
     education majors are entering the teaching field without the 
     most basic understanding of how to modify curriculum and 
     instruction to meet the needs of a wide range of students.  
     Special education majors are being prepared to teach 
     primarily in segregated settings and have little awareness 
     of the role of consultant/support teacher and how to apply 
     their specialized knowledge about disabilities in the 
     context of a general education curriculum.  (Linda Rambler, 
     Boston, MA)



     Some individuals discussed areas where they perceived a need 
for an increased number of personnel with specific skills:  
qualified sign language interpreters; personnel with skills in 
teaching students who are blind or visually impaired, deaf or 
hearing impaired, autistic, and those with attention deficit 
disorder; and personnel with expertise in assistive technology, 
mediation, the learning styles of minorities, biopsychology, 
physical therapy, and occupational therapy.

     Although the majority of consumers spoke of problems created 
by lack of teacher, school, or school district compliance with 
IDEA, the following recommendations were offered in order to 
address these problems.  All suggestions were directed toward 
improving teacher training.  However, these recommendations 
involve overall education reform as well as specific strategies 
for individual schools and districts.

     Resource suggestions included the following:
    Create a resource hotline or on-call information center for 
     teachers.

    Supply paraprofessionals to assist beginning teachers.

    Use students and adults with disabilities and their parents 
     or advocates as resources for teacher preparation and 
     in-service programs.


     Witnesses made two recommendations to improve the quality of 
teaching:

    Teachers should receive positive reinforcement for working 
     with students with disabilities.

    Training should be mandatory for school boards, 
     administrators, and any persons connected with students with 
     disabilities, not just for teachers.


     Other consumer recommendations concerning ways in which IDEA 
implementation might be improved in the area of personnel 
preparation included the following:
    Advocates should inform teachers of latest advancements.

    States should share successful programs.

    The IEP should include a statement of training needed by 
     teachers in order to implement the IEP.

    Teachers need time off for staff development and training.

    Goals 2000 should unite special education and regular 
     education reforms.

    Teachers need incentives to gain appropriate training.

    Special and regular education certification should be 
     merged, and 

    Grant money should be supplied directly to local districts 
     for teacher training programs.



                      Parent-As-Collaborator
     Witnesses also testified about the parent-as-collaborator 
and the Parent Training and Information (PTI) Centers.  While 
testimony clearly indicated solid support for the PTIs, witnesses 
indicated that the performance of PTIs would be improved with 
additional resources.  They universally testified that increased 
funding would improve the PTI's effectiveness.  
     With the help of the parent training and information center 
     in Montana, we were able to make our case and use special 
     education process successfully.  (DuWyne Geist, Denver, CO)

     The information on what's out there needs to be found and 
     made available to parents, either through a parent 
     information center or through the Part H efforts, but it 
     can't be left up to the schools in the kind of elusive 
     situation that it is now.  (Kathy Thomas, Denver, CO)

     What parents need is training and education, mandated 
     training and education. I envision a system that every 
     parent, when they have a child entering school, be given an 
     information packet, including IDEA, 504, ADA and...the State 
     regulations. Along with that information package, I envision 
     a list of advocate and parent support systems so they can 
     learn how to use those systems.  (Cindy Sirois, Boston, MA)

     I feel it is vital that PTI be expanded to fully meet the 
     needs of children with disabilities and their families.  The 
     need for parent training and information has grown 
     dramatically in the last five years.  Sadly, PTI funding has 
     grown minimally.  PTI has made families' involvement a 
     reality.  (Laurie Collins, Charlotte, NC)



             Recommendations:  Discretionary Programs

     In order to improve the ability of discretionary programs 
funded under IDEA to meet the needs of the field of special 
education more effectively, the Federal government should 
implement the following recommendations:
1.  State clearly that the purpose of teacher training programs 
funded under personnel preparation grants is to produce teachers 
who are highly skilled in providing intensive developmental and 
remedial instruction to students with disabilities in order to 
support their participation in the least restrictive environment.

2.  Allocate resources to continuing education programs for 
currently employed special education teachers in order to allow 
them access to new information and instructional strategies that 
will enhance their ability to provide high-quality services to 
students with disabilities.

3.  Require that all students preparing to be special education 
teachers have ongoing practicum experiences in typical 
neighborhood schools that educate children with and without 
disabilities in the same age range as children they are preparing 
to teach.

4.  Expand diversity among special education professionals 
through continuing to target funds to minority institutions for 
the purpose of recruiting and preparing minority college students 
to enter the special education field.  Moreover, institutions of 
higher learning in which 25% of the student body is a part of a 
minority population should be considered minority institutions 
which qualify for these funds.

5. Continue support for the preparation of teachers with the 
technical skills required to teach children with sensory 
impairments and low incidence disabilities and for the training 
of doctoral students with successful experience in teaching who 
are committed to training special education teachers upon 
graduation.

6.  Create financial incentives to attract teachers of students 
with sensory disabilities and low incidence disabilities as well 
as teacher trainers, through student loan cancellation programs 
tied to actual work in these areas over a number of years.

7.  Create preference in the award of personnel preparation 
grants to colleges and universities that provide students 
training in the field of special education with experience in 
typical education courses and environments that integrate 
students with disabilities and typical students.

8.  Increase funding for the Parent Training and Information 
centers in order to ensure that all parents -particularly those 
in minority and rural communities- receive information and 
support as they become active collaborators in the education of 
their children.

9.  Applicants for funds under the personnel preparation program 
should be required to describe in their grant applications how 
they will involve local Parent Training and Information programs 
in their personnel preparation efforts.
                              FUNDING

     Congress originally intended to contribute 40 percent of the 
     average cost of educating children with disabilities 
     beginning in 1982...Last year the Federal government 
     provided only 7 percent of the cost.  (Congressman Cass 
     Ballenger, Charlotte, NC)

     The problem is every day that a child goes without services, 
     that school district saves money.  (Edris Klucher, 
     Albuquerque, NM)


                         Statement of Law
     Funding is an essential part of IDEA.  In 1975, when 
Congress found that it was necessary to assure the constitutional 
rights of students with disabilities and, to that end, to help 
the States educate all students with disabilities, it authorized 
several appropriations for special education.  It is important to 
note that one reason Congress passed the original Education for 
All Handicapped Act was to assist States in meeting their 
obligations to provide equal protection under the law to students 
with disabilities.  This obligation had been affirmed in several 
court decisions prior to the passage of the Act, and the Federal 
response represented an effort to provide financial and other 
assistance to State and local governments which would otherwise 
be totally liable for expenses associated with providing a free 
and appropriate public education to students with disabilities.  
As such, Federal funds were intended to supplement, not supplant, 
State and local funds to achieve this end. 

     Under IDEA, the appropriation that aids students' education 
most directly is in Subchapter I, the basic grant to States to 
fund State and local education agencies in
providing special education and related services.  In 1975, 
Congress authorized appropriations at the maximum level of 40% of 
the excess costs of special education by 1982.  However, Congress 
has never appropriated that amount.  As of fiscal year 1995, 
Congress has only appropriated a maximum of approximately 8 
percent of the excess costs related to special education.  

     The appropriations allocated to States are based on the 
number of students identified as requiring special education in 
each State.  A State receives Federal funds if the U.S. 
Department of Education approves the State's application for 
funding.  The Department must approve the application if the 
State assures the Department that it will comply with Part B of 
IDEA.  A State may retain a maximum of 25 percent of the Federal 
allocation and must pass the remainder of the Federal allocation 
to its local education agencies, based on the number of students 
receiving special education in those LEAs (20 U.S.C. Secs. 1411, 
1412, 1413, and 1414).

     Other appropriations that assist the States are contained in 
other Subchapters of IDEA:
       Subchapter III authorizes regional resource centers, aid 
        for deaf-blind students, early education, programs for 
        students with severe disabilities, postsecondary 
        education and transition services, and programs for 
        students with severe emotional disturbance.

       Subchapter IV funds personnel preparation. 

       Subchapter V funds special education research.

       Subchapter VI funds instructional media.

       Subchapter VII funds technology and educational media and 
        materials. 

       Subchapter VIII creates and funds early intervention for 
        infants and toddlers.


                  The Need for Adequate Funding 

     An ever-present concern of consumers throughout the hearings 
was the need for more adequate funding for IDEA:
     I can't believe after...20 years that they would ever 
     consider not reauthorizing [IDEA].  It would also be nice 
     were it to be completely funded.  I am speaking not as a 
     funding expert, not as a lawyer, not as a teacher, but as a 
     parent.  Because even after four years of sitting on a 
     citizen advisory committee, I still find the language, the 
     funding formulas for special education described in this Act 
     to be completely off-putting.  (Lindsay Merryman, Berkeley, 
     CA)


     Witnesses expressed overwhelming sentiments of disapproval 
with the lack of guidelines in providing and allocating funds:
     In many States, because special education dollars are tied 
     to programs, not to students, there are no financial 
     incentives to develop uniquely tailored programs that 
     support students with special needs in the classrooms.  
     These factors mitigate against the likelihood that the 
     student will be educated in the least restrictive 
     environment.  (Amy Goldman, Philadelphia, PA)


     They were also discouraged by the seeming lack of adherence 
to Federal mandates and the lack of effective remedies available 
to them:  
     We're fined for late payments, speeding, disturbing the 
     peace and dogs running loose.  Surely a child's education is 
     important enough to warrant at least equal attention.  (Judy 
     Bonnell, Albuquerque, NM)

     A receivership option, rather than the withdrawal of funds, 
     should be considered for districts that refuse to comply 
     with the LRE mandate.  Fiscal incentives for segregated 
     catastrophic placements and fiscal disincentives to placing 
     students with challenging needs in regular school settings 
     must be
     removed and replaced with a child-centered funding mechanism 
     that enables maximum flexibility for supporting each child 
     in natural classroom environments.  (Linda Rambler, Boston, 
     MA)
     IDEA is often regarded as the maximum requirement by many 
     school districts, when it was intended to be the minimum.  
     (Bonnie Dunham & Lori Salvi, Boston, MA)


     The general consensus was that students with disabilities 
-those for whom the program was created- are the ones who are 
suffering the most from the lack of adequate funding and 
enforcement.  The government must make progress toward 
guaranteeing full funding of IDEA, issuing specific guidelines 
for the use of funds to support basic requirements of IDEA, such 
as placement in the least restrictive environment.
     Funding has not gone up significantly since Public Law 
     94-142 was first passed.  Now we have teachers' salaries 
     that have increased, we have assistive technology to 
     purchase, we have adaptive physical education equipment to 
     purchase, and we have more need for PT, OT, and Speech.  
     (Isabelle Mims, Charlotte, NC)  
     I often hear about money and the shortage of money, but I 
     don't think money is the only answer.  I really don't.  I 
     have seen people do wonders.  When we went to school, for 
     some reason, we didn't have all these wonderful resources 
     available.  I'm not saying we should go back to that, but 
     neither should I suggest that we always hear that money is 
     the only answer for serving children with disabilities, or 
     money is the only obstacle that we have to overcome, because 
     I think there are other issues involved.  (Rafaelita 
     Bachicha, Albuquerque, NM)


              General Funding Advice from Witnesses 

     If the categorization and IQ testing could be ended and 
     funding sent through the IEP so that various points on the 
     IEP could be charge items, then the emphasis and our funding 
     shifts from funding the disability to funding the education, 
     which really makes more sense.  (Corinne Quadland, 
     Milwaukee, WI)

     I would encourage this Council to examine ways to spread the 
     money out from district to district more based on the 
     specific needs of that district and the specific needs of 
     the students.  (Dave Calvert, Charlotte, NC)


     Most witnesses agreed with the general sentiment that 
Federal funds should be increased to the 40 percent of excess 
cost as specified in the law.  Other witnesses called for changes 
in the manner in which funds are allocated.  Examples of 
suggested changes in this area would include allocating funds 
based on a presumed incidence model rather than on the current 
child count.  Witnesses expressed concern that the current system 
encourages school districts to label children in order to receive 
increased funding.  Under a presumed incidence model, funds would 
be allocated on the basis of the expected percentage of students 
with disabilities in the States.  Adoption of a presumed 
incidence model might cut back on the significant degree of 
effort and paperwork that currently occurs under the child count 
requirement.  More importantly, it would remove the current 
incentive to label children for the purposes of increasing 
funding.  Such a model might be weighted to allow for various 
demographic variables (such as high rates of poverty) that are 
associated with higher levels of disability, as are other 
government funding programs.

     Witnesses also suggested that other funding sources might be 
explored.  For example, some related services provided under 
special education are reimbursable under Medicaid.  Interagency 
funding agreements between State agencies can be developed to 
indicate clearly which agency is responsible for funding certain 
services.  However, another concern of consumers was that funding 
be provided with a minimum of
bureaucracy.  While it is necessary for administrators to work 
out the intricacies of funding arrangements, consumers need to 
experience continuity and predictability.  From the consumer 
perspective, funding should follow a student throughout his or 
her education.  As customers, people do not expect to hear about 
the cost of every part in an automobile they are purchasing.  As 
customers, parents of children receiving special education should 
not have to listen to an annual debate on how -or whether- their 
children's education will be funded.

Reducing Financial Barriers to Placements in Less Restrictive Settings[14]
     Many witnesses were concerned with the failure of school 
districts to implement the principle of the least restrictive 
environment effectively.  These witnesses pointed out how 
reducing current financial barriers to less restrictive 
placements could result in better implementation of this 
requirement.
     There must be financial incentives for schools that follow 
     IDEA in first placing children into typical classrooms with 
     appropriate aids and supports...Funding should be allocated 
     to enable successful inclusion teams to teach others how to 
     achieve inclusion.  (Kathie Snow, Denver, CO)

     There also appears to be inadequate funding for inclusion, 
     or at least that is what the districts keep saying.  We keep 
     hearing statements, such as, "Yes, the Federal government 
     mandates placement in the least restrictive environment, but 
     no monies have been forthcoming from either the Federal or 
     State governments to implement inclusive education."  There 
     are simply not enough inclusion programs available.  There 
     is tremendous inflexibility in the system.  (Karen Robard, 
     New York, NY)

     The number of related services that these kids require 
     should help to determine their funding level as opposed to 
     this self-contained versus resource versus regular classroom 
     placement.  The way that it's set up -in this State anyway- 
     it's sort of a deterrent to an inclusion model.  Districts 
     get more money to self-containing these kids and there's 
     something not right about that system.  (Margaret Mochak, 
     Anchorage, AK)

     Beyond the mere reduction of barriers, witnesses suggested 
that there should be financial incentives for schools that 
implement IDEA properly in placing children in typical 
classrooms.  Beyond providing flexible, child-centered funding to 
support inclusionary placements, funds could also be allocated to 
train parents and professionals in the practical aspects of 
supporting students with disabilities in less restrictive 
placements.  Such training could utilize the expertise of parents 
and professionals who had worked together to bring about 
successful inclusionary programs for students with disabilities.  
In this way, local knowledge concerning what works best for 
students in inclusive placements could be used to expand 
opportunities for increased inclusionary placements.

     While many parents complained that they had been told that 
there was "no money" for inclusionary programs for their 
children, our research indicates that the real problem is not 
that there is "no money"; it is that available funds are tied to 
segregating programs and practices.  In truth, the financial cost 
of segregation is enormous.  While it is not the case that 
special education costs would go away if students were served in 
typical schools, the billions of dollars that are spent every 
year to maintain segregated schools and to provide segregated 
transportation services for students with disabilities
could be used to significantly improve educational achievements 
in integrated schools.  At a minimum, the Federal government 
should remove current regulatory provisions and practices under 
IDEA which essentially encourage and reward the segregation of 
students with disabilities.  Proactively, the Federal government 
can take steps to reward compliance with the law and creative 
approaches to ensuring that students with disabilities have every 
opportunity to participate in the lives of their local schools 
and communities.

                     Recommendations:  Funding
     In order to address the many concerns and suggestions made 
by consumers during the hearings, the Federal government should 
implement the following recommendations:
1.  Allocate Federal funds that support the education of children 
with special needs to the States based on a weighted presumed 
incidence model, with allowance for factors such as high numbers 
of families living in poverty, difficulty of personnel 
recruitment in rural areas, etc.

2.  Increase overall Federal funding for IDEA.  Base increases in 
grants to individual States on the weighted presumed incidence 
model described above and on progress in achieving results such 
as the following:

     a.  Higher graduation rates for students receiving special 
     education;

     b.  Steady increases in the numbers of students receiving 
     special education in regular classrooms within typical 
     neighborhood school buildings;

     c.  Higher rates of inclusion of students receiving special 
     education in typical student assessment protocols designed 
     to measure overall school district or State performance;

     d.  Higher rates of employment as adults for former students 
     who received special education.

All States might be granted a proportional share of the increase 
during the first three years of funding, with a "special 
education superfund" beginning in the fourth year to reward those 
States which have invested the initial funding increase in order 
to produce better results as described above.

3.  Unlike the present situation in which many States essentially 
reward local education agencies for placing students with special 
needs in more restrictive settings, require States and local 
education agencies to adopt and implement "placement neutral" 
funding practices, wherein at least the same amount of funding is 
available to support a student receiving special education in a 
typical school environment as has historically been allocated to 
place that student in a segregated environment.

4.  The Department of Education should consider combining many of 
its discrete funding authorities into a smaller number of 
functionally-based programs in order to streamline operations and 
make funding authorities less confusing to consumers.

          SPECIAL EDUCATION AND THE GOALS 2000:  EDUCATE 
                            AMERICA ACT

                         Statement of Law
     In 1994, Congress enacted P.L. 103-227, the Goals 2000: 
Educate America Act.  In that law, Congress recognized that the 
Governors, State and local education agencies, and concerned 
parents and other citizens, particularly leaders of the business 
community, have been engaged in a sustained effort to reform 
America's schools.  This contemporary school reform movement was 
launched in 1983 by the publication of A Nation At Risk, a report 
on the state of education authorized by then-Secretary of 
Education Terrell Bell.  The school reform movement also received 
powerful support from the National Governor's Association with 
its publication in 1986 of A Time for Results.  The Goals 2000:  
Educate America Act represents the Federal government's response 
to the call for basic school reform.

     Among other provisions, the Act helps States to develop 
standards for assessing all students (including students with 
disabilities), setting goals for local education agencies, and 
evaluating how well these agencies and students meet those goals 
(P.L. 103-227, Secs. 220(a)(2) and (c)(1)(c) and 241(d)).  The 
Act and its accompanying Congressional Committee Report also make 
it clear that parents and family members of students with 
disabilities should be involved in setting the assessment 
standards and school goals.  Moreover, the Act requires the 
National Academy of Sciences to study the ways in which special 
education consumers -such as parents, family members, and
students- are involved in school reform activities (P.L. 103-227, 
Sec. 1015).  Likewise, the Act and Committee Report acknowledge 
that school reform creates extraordinary opportunities for State 
and local education agencies to implement the principle of least 
restrictive environment and to include students with disabilities 
in regular education programs to a far greater degree than they 
have in the past.  Finally, the Act recommends that Congress 
should fully fund IDEA (up to the authorized maximum of 40 
percent of the excess cost of special education) by reallocating 
funds from the non-educational areas of the federal budget (P.L. 
103-227, Sec. 1012).  Clearly, then, Goals 2000 presents an 
unusual opportunity for special education consumers to influence 
the whole field of education.

                  Testimony Concerning Goals 2000
     Although there were not many witnesses who testified about 
Goals 2000, those who did made several points.  The first of 
these points is that Goals 2000 challenges various practices that 
have evolved during the implementation of IDEA, representing a 
new opportunity for students with disabilities to be provided 
with greater access to schooling as well as increased access to 
more settings within a school.
     I'm concerned that at some point, innovative States might 
     start bumping their heads against a ceiling of IDEA 
     compliance and check-offs...and not be able to enact the 
     kinds of reform that will move students with disabilities 
     forward.  There are still States and local districts that 
     need the Federal mandate to ensure access right now.  But we 
     also need to be forward-looking, at where States are headed 
     five and ten years from now.  And as trust grows between 
     parents and schools, as proven practices in serving students 
     are established, and as classrooms become more adaptive and 
     open to serving a diverse set of students, we need to open 
     new ways of doing business with States and local districts.  
     (Congressman Cass Ballenger, Charlotte, NC)


     The second point made by witnesses was that school reform 
and IDEA are concerned with the same issue, namely, the effective 
education of all students, including students with disabilities:
     The National Council on Independent Living believes that 
     special educators must be included in the plans to teach the 
     basic skills detailed in the...Goals 2000 Act.  (Paul 
     Spooner, Boston, MA)

     Goals 2000 has significant language about how children with 
     disabilities are going to be included in the education 
     reform.  Goals 2000 has got to be related in some way to 
     IDEA.  And we have to develop a system [where] we don't look 
     at compliance as only dotting the "i's" and crossing the 
     "t's," but we look at compliance as having hard and fast 
     beneficial educational outcomes for every student, whether 
     that student is a college prep student or whether that 
     student is a student with severe and profound mental 
     retardation [learning] self-help skills.  (Connie Hawkins, 
     Charlotte, NC)


     However, one witness did caution that fundamental features 
of IDEA, such as the requirement for IEPs, should be continued as 
school reform takes effect:
     The individual education program designed specifically for 
     each child with a disability by a team of parents and 
     professionals must take precedence over any local or State 
     educational guidelines which are developed to reform regular 
     education.  (Mary Ellis, Charlotte, NC, p. 134)


     The third major point made by witnesses concerning the 
impact of Goals 2000 on IDEA was that school reform does indeed 
create possibilities for implementing the least restrictive 
environment requirement to a greater degree, potentially allowing 
special education students to enter regular education to a much 
greater extent than in the past.  Lee Schulz, Executive Director 
of the Southeastern Wisconsin Center for Independent Living in 
Milwaukee, made the point that special education has created a 
cadre of professionals whose purpose is to serve children with 
disabilities; but the downside of
the creation of this cadre is that teacher preparation programs 
have separated regular and special education programs.  This 
separation has effectively limited the nation's teachers in their 
abilities to educate students with disabilities.
  
     Joyce Marshall of Knoxville, Tennessee, addressed the 
opportunities to increase the inclusion of students with special 
needs in regular education under Goals 2000 in these words:
     There have been basic concerns about whether Goals 2000 
     would include children with disabilities and how this would 
     work.  The United States Department of Education's sponsored 
     research should show how this should work...For over a 
     decade the Department of Education and various State and 
     local education authorities have provided millions of 
     dollars and countless human hours in supporting model 
     demonstration projects in the area of inclusive education 
     all across the country.  (Joyce Marshall, Charlotte, NC)


     If special education is to be properly integrated into 
school reform efforts, it must be redefined as a support to all 
students, families, and school district staff.  At present, 
special education is viewed in many parts of this country as a 
place where students who are considered "different" can be 
"placed."  It is thought that this place needs to be staffed only 
by "experts" who need to be grouped together in much the same 
manner as the staff of a hospital emergency room.  This model of 
special education has contributed to the continued segregation of 
students with disabilities, countless violations of both the 
letter and intent of the least restrictive environment provisions 
of IDEA, and the withholding of the many potential contributions 
special educators could make on a daily basis in schools across 
America if they were seen as experts in individualizing 
instruction for all students requiring assistance, not only those 
who are labeled.  

     As an alternative, special education could be redefined as a 
support system located in every school in America for all 
students.  Under this model, all educators might be able to work 
together to, in fact, support all children and youth.  This model 
would not be directed at "special education" per se, but would 
rather be directed at the needs of all students, whatever their 
support needs.  This model would address the needs of bilingual 
or bicultural students, gifted students, and others, as well as 
the needs of educators and families.  It could well result in 
America having the best community school-based student support 
systems in the world, by ensuring that maximum achievement is 
attained by all students regardless of gender, race, disability 
status, cultural or linguistic background, or other individual 
characteristics.

      Recommendations:  Special Education and the Goals 2000:
                        Educate America Act

     In order to ensure that students receiving special education 
are fully and effectively included in Goals 2000 and other 
education reform efforts, the Federal government should implement 
the following recommendations:
1.  Reinforce and expand the participation of the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in policy decisions 
regarding the implementation of the Goals 2000:  Educate America 
Act.

2.  Allow a limited number of States to experiment with the 
creative use of Federal funds from several different sources to 
support the active incorporation of special education into Goals 
2000 implementation activities, particularly as they relate to 
including special education as a resource for all students, 
families, and school district personnel.  The results of these 
State-level experiments should be studied, promising practices 
should be identified, and other States should then be given the 
opportunity to replicate successful practices.

3.  Under the implementation of Goals 2000, special education 
should evolve from its current role as a place where a limited 
number of labeled students are sent to a support service for all 
learners in schools all across America.
                    SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


     Over the past twenty years, our nation's special education 
law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has 
allowed literally millions of students with disabilities and 
their families access to a free and appropriate public education.  
As a result of IDEA, the lives of many students with disabilities 
and their families have been markedly changed and improved.  It 
is remarkable that this statute, with language crafted more than 
twenty years ago, has withstood the test of time and societal 
change in such a powerful fashion.  The overall recommendation of 
the National Council on Disability (NCD) is that no major changes 
need to be made to the statute itself at this time.

     However, it is quite clear that many changes need to take 
place at the implementation level.  NCD recommends that the 
Federal government develop a much more efficient and effective 
approach to monitoring the implementation of IDEA, identifying 
exemplary practices where they exist, citing noncompliance where 
it exists, delivering technical assistance aimed at improving 
compliance, and providing effective sanctions for noncompliance.  
The Federal government can also encourage State and local 
education agencies to adopt less bureaucratic and mechanistic 
methods of complying with IDEA's requirements through vehicles 
such as adopting a noncategorical approach to eligibility; 
allocating funds based on a weighted presumed incidence model; 
replacing the requirement that State and local school districts 
provide a continuum of placements with the requirement that they 
provide an array of services tailored to the
individual needs of students in the least restrictive 
environment; removing current fiscal barriers to integrating 
students with disabilities into typical schools; creating a 
climate for strengthened partnerships among the Parent Training 
and Information programs, State education agencies, and local 
education agencies; urging the adoption of voluntary and 
impartial mediation processes in areas of conflict between 
parents and schools; and assuming an overall approach to special 
education finance that rewards compliance and the achievement of 
positive incremental change.  These are but a few examples of the 
many recommendations to improve the implementation of IDEA NCD 
records in this report.

     The following is a summary of all of the recommendations NCD 
has made in this report.  These recommendations were developed 
after consideration of the testimony of nearly 400 witnesses, a 
review of the results of commissioned reports from 27 nationally 
preeminent special education researchers and teacher trainers, 
and examining the results of several studies conducted by the 
NCD[15] and others[16] regarding the quality of
special education on a national basis.  They are categorized by 
major themes contained in IDEA and Goals 2000.
                            Zero Reject
     The provision of IDEA commonly known as "zero reject" 
requires that all students, regardless of the nature or severity 
of their disabilities, receive a free and appropriate public 
education.  Recommendations directed to the Federal government 
regarding this provision are as follows:
1.  Require State and local government entities such as public 
schools to be accessible to people with disabilities.

2.  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.

3.  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

     IDEA requires that State and local education agencies fairly 
assess students for strengths and needs in a nondiscriminatory 
fashion, consistent with their native language and mode of 
communication, and then determine whether a student has a 
disability, the nature and extent of the disability, and the 
student's need for special education.  Recommendations to the 
Federal government designed to improve performance and results in 
this area are as follows:
1.  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.

2.  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.

3.  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.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  IDEA should require nondiscrimination training for school 
assessment personnel to ensure that children from varying 
cultural and linguistic backgrounds are not subject to 
discrimination.  

8.  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.  

9.  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. 

10.  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.

11.  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

     IDEA requires education agencies to follow certain processes 
in educating students in special education (including the 
development of an individualized education program) and to ensure 
that they benefit from their education.  Recommendations for the 
Federal government to improve implementation of the many 
provisions of IDEA contained in this area are as follows:
1.  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.

2.  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.

3.  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.

4.  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 and reduced paperwork.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  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.



                   Least Restrictive Environment

     IDEA requires education agencies to educate all students 
with disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate with students 
who do not have disabilities.  Removal from the regular classroom 
is only supposed to take place after it has been demonstrated 
that a student is not benefitting from this placement, even after 
supplementary aids and services have been provided.  In order to 
improve performance and results in this area -one which has been 
consistently ignored at all levels of government- the Federal 
government should implement the following recommendations:
1.  The goals, purposes, rights, and protections afforded under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act should be incorporated 
throughout IDEA through preambular language stating this fact.  

2.  The requirement that State and local education agencies must 
provide a continuum of services should be replaced a requirement 
that State and local education agencies must provide an "array of 
support services designed to maximize the student's participation 
in regular education environments and activities."  While it may 
be necessary to maintain many of the current features of the 
"continuum" as a transition to a "supports and services" 
orientation takes place, and it may be the case that a relatively 
small number of students might continue in substantially separate 
placements (e.g., deaf students), the requirement that a wide 
array of supports and services be available in regular school 
buildings will better address the intent of IDEA and other 
legislation in eventually reducing the number of more restrictive 
placements.

3.  State and local education agencies should be required to 
develop funding policies and procedures that are at least 
"placement neutral".  That is, funds should be allocated to meet 
the needs of individual students, not the needs of individual 
programs.  At least the same amount of funding should be 
available to support a student in an integrated regular education 
environment as in a segregated program.

4.  Removal of a student with a disability from the regular 
education environment should be documented with a written report 
attached to the student's IEP.  The written report should 
include:  a statement of the supplementary aids and services 
considered, but rejected, by the IEP team; a statement of the 
reasons why these supplementary aids and services are not capable 
of assisting the child within the regular education setting; and 
a statement as to when appropriate supplementary aids and 
services will be made available to transition the student back to 
the regular education environment.

5.  The IEP for any child with a disability who is to remain in 
the regular education setting should list necessary aids and 
services with the same specificity as the listing of necessary 
related services, including the time and frequency of delivery of 
such aids and services.

6.  The Department of Education should significantly expand its 
monitoring and enforcement activities related to implementing the 
least restrictive environment requirements of IDEA.  Given the 
extreme variability of student placement patterns from district 
to district and State to State, specific plans and goals for 
reducing the number of students placed outside of regular 
education settings should be developed, with receipt of future 
Federal funding contingent upon meeting these goals.




          Parent Participation and Shared Decision Making

     IDEA contains many provisions that enable education 
agencies, parents, and students to share decision-making 
responsibilities and to collaborate in special education.
To improve performance and results in this area, the Federal 
government should implement the following recommendations:
1.  Expand funding for the Parent Training and Information (PTI) 
program.  PTIs can (and often do) serve as the primary 
information source for parents regarding special education and 
offer a cost-effective method of providing this information to 
parents and family members.

2.  Require State and local education agencies to provide parents 
of students receiving (or being considered for) special education 
with the name, address, and telephone number of the PTI serving 
their area.  This could be far more cost effective for school 
districts and would result in improved comparability of 
information across the State.

3.  Parent input can greatly improve educational programs for 
students with disabilities.  However, the current system has the 
potential to allow parents to request and receive program methods 
that are unproven, experimental in nature, or dangerous or 
harmful to the physical or psychological health of their child.  
Accordingly, there should be an additional State Plan requirement 
which would require States to certify that no Federal funds will 
be used to support any individual, program, or practice that 
employs procedures such as systematic hitting or physical 
punishment, the application of noxious substances, extended 
restraint or seclusion, humiliation, and other techniques which 
-by design- result in pain, physical injuries, psychological 
damage, hunger, social deprivation, or other harm, that would 
otherwise be considered as constituting child (or dependent) 
abuse or neglect if the student were not disabled.

4.  The Department of Education should review data regarding the 
use of surrogate parents under IDEA in order to determine the 
frequency of use, the roles that surrogate parents actually 
assume in special education, levels of satisfaction of surrogate 
parents regarding their experiences with the special education 
system, and ways to support surrogate parents more effectively in 
their efforts to provide effective representation for students 
receiving special education.






                      Procedural Due Process

     IDEA requires education agencies to establish procedures to 
safeguard the rights of parents and students to procedural due 
process should they disagree with decisions made by professionals 
and administrators regarding all aspects of special education 
programs and services.  To improve performance and results in 
this area (and, hopefully, to make the process fairer and less 
adversarial) the Federal government should implement the 
following recommendations: 
1.  Improve and strengthen Federal monitoring and enforcement 
activities.  Under plans for the "reinvention" of Federal 
processes and procedures, the Department of Education should 
adopt proven methods of field audit for compliance developed 
under quality control monitoring mechanisms in the private 
sector.  A major measurement variable in these audits should be 
customer satisfaction with services.  Sampling of customer 
satisfaction should go beyond State capitals and include visits 
to less populated and rural areas.

2.  Encourage all States to adopt similar audit procedures in 
their monitoring of local education agency compliance with the 
provisions of IDEA.

3.  When State education agencies are found to be in 
noncompliance with the provisions of IDEA according to these 
revised audit procedures, plans for achieving compliance should 
be developed in an expeditious manner.  These plans should 
include specific remedial actions to be taken, timelines for 
implementation, and a statement of the potential financial impact 
for continued noncompliance.  Audit findings and plans for 
compliance should be forwarded to the chief State school officer 
and the Governor.

4.  Encourage States to allow parents and students the voluntary 
opportunity to seek mediation prior to engaging in full-fledged 
due process procedures.  Mediators should be independent, with no 
real or apparent of conflict of interest with either the local 
school district or the State education agency.

5.  Explore the possible use of binding arbitration as another 
method of nonlitigative dispute resolution.

6.  Prohibit retaliation by State or local education agencies (or 
their assigns) against parties seeking to exercise their rights 
under the due process provisions of IDEA[17]

7.  Establish effective procedures for final appeal to the 
Secretary of Education in matters which have not otherwise proved 
resolvable and publicize the results of these appeals.


                            Transition

     IDEA contains provisions that require education agencies to 
follow certain procedures to ensure that students will have the 
skills and opportunities to achieve major life goals (e.g., 
achieving postsecondary education, employment, and independent 
living) and that they will transition successfully from special 
education into adult life.  In addition, the implementation of 
successful programming under IDEA is greatly assisted when 
students transition successfully from one stage of their 
education to another.  In order to improve performance and 
results in this area, the Federal government should implement the 
following recommendations:
1.  Lower the mandatory age for the initiation of transitional 
planning from 16 years old to 14 years old.

2.  Encourage State and local education agencies to strengthen 
community-based training and work experiences, inclusive social 
skills experiences, independent living experiences, and 
self-advocacy training for students with disabilities in 
secondary school programs.

3.  Require that a member of the transition planning team or that 
a person appointed by the transition planning team serve as a 
coordinator for services to be provided under the ITP, 
integrating these services with those in the IEP.

4.  Encourage State and local education agencies to be flexible 
in the design and implementation of services to students with 
disabilities between the ages of 14 to 21,
particularly with regard to the provision of IEP-related services 
and supports outside of the secondary school campus.

5.  The Department of Education should explore the feasibility of 
continuing the family-based focus of services delivered under 
Part H to students and families receiving services under Part B 
of IDEA.  Service coordination (case management) should be 
available as a related service to students and families 
throughout the transition from Part H to Part B services. 


                      Discretionary Programs

     IDEA contains 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.  In order to improve the performance and results of 
these programs designed to support special education, the Federal 
government should implement the following recommendations:
1.  State clearly that the purpose of teacher training programs 
funded under personnel preparation grants is to produce teachers 
who are highly skilled in providing intensive developmental and 
remedial instruction to students with disabilities in order to 
support their participation in the least restrictive environment.

2.  Allocate resources to continuing education programs for 
currently employed special education teachers in order to allow 
them access to new information and instructional strategies that 
will enhance their ability to provide high-quality services to 
students with disabilities.

3.  Require that all students preparing to be special education 
teachers have ongoing practicum experiences in typical 
neighborhood schools that educate children with and without 
disabilities in the same age range as children they are preparing 
to teach.

4.  Expand diversity among special education professionals 
through continuing to target funds to minority institutions for 
the purpose of recruiting and preparing minority college students 
to enter the special education field.  Moreover, institutions of 
higher learning in which 25% of the student body is a part of a 
minority population should be considered minority institutions 
which qualify for these funds.

5. Continue support for the preparation of teachers with the 
technical skills required to teach children with sensory 
impairments and low incidence disabilities and for the training 
of doctoral students with successful experience in teaching who 
are committed to training special education teachers upon 
graduation.

6.  Create financial incentives to attract teachers of students 
with sensory disabilities and low incidence disabilities as well 
as teacher trainers, through student loan cancellation programs 
tied to actual work in these areas over a number of years.

7.  Create preference in the award of personnel preparation 
grants to colleges and universities that provide students 
training in the field of special education with experience in 
typical education courses and environments that integrate 
students with disabilities and typical students.

8.  Increase funding for the Parent Training and Information 
centers in order to ensure that all parents -particularly those 
in minority and rural communities- receive information and 
support as they become active collaborators in the education of 
their children.

9.  Applicants for funds under the personnel preparation program 
should be required to describe in their grant applications how 
they will involve local Parent Training and Information programs 
in their personnel preparation efforts.


                              Funding

     IDEA defines the Federal share of special education costs 
and how Federal funds will be allocated.  The original target for 
the Federal funding of the excess costs associated with providing 
special education was 40 percent by 1982.  In reality, the 
Federal government has never provided more than 8 percent of the 
cost in any given year.  While it is obvious that Federal funding 
has been much lower than anticipated, 20 years of experience have 
provided insight into how Federal funds might be best invested in 
special education.  Therefore, in addition to providing 
sufficient resources for special education, the Federal 
government should implement the following recommendations:
1.  Allocate Federal funds that support the education of children 
with special needs to the States based on a weighted presumed 
incidence model, with allowance for factors
such as high numbers of families living in poverty, difficulty of 
personnel recruitment in rural areas, etc.

2.  Increase overall Federal funding for IDEA.  Base increases in 
grants to individual States on the weighted presumed incidence 
model described above and on progress in achieving results such 
as the following:

     a.  Higher graduation rates for students receiving special 
     education;

     b.  Steady increases in the numbers of students receiving 
     special education in regular classrooms within typical 
     neighborhood school buildings;

     c.  Higher rates of inclusion of students receiving special 
     education in typical student assessment protocols designed 
     to measure overall school district or State performance;

     d.  Higher rates of employment as adults for former students 
     who received special education.

All States might be granted a proportional share of the increase 
during the first three years of funding, with a "special 
education superfund" beginning in the fourth year to reward those 
States which have invested the initial funding increase in order 
to produce better results as described above.

3.  Unlike the present situation in which many States essentially 
reward local education agencies for placing students with special 
needs in more restrictive settings, require States and local 
education agencies to adopt and implement "placement neutral" 
funding practices, wherein at least the same amount of funding is 
available to support a student receiving special education in a 
typical school environment as has historically been allocated to 
place that student in a segregated environment.

4.  The Department of Education should consider combining many of 
its discrete funding authorities into a smaller number of 
functionally-based programs in order to streamline operations and 
make funding authorities less confusing to consumers.


    Special Education and the Goals 2000:  Educate America Act

     Goals 2000, the nation's education reform law, includes 
particular attention to how families, students, and professionals 
in special education are involved in implementing educational 
reform.  To date, there has been a limited degree of attention
focused on how special education fits into the school reform 
movement.  In order to ensure the increased consideration of the 
strengths and needs of students with disabilities and their 
families as the process of reforming the nation's schools goes 
forward, the Federal government should implement the following 
recommendations:
1.  Reinforce and expand the participation of the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in policy decisions 
regarding the implementation of the Goals 2000:  Educate America 
Act.

2.  Allow a limited number of States to experiment with the 
creative use of Federal funds from several different sources to 
support the active incorporation of special education into Goals 
2000 implementation activities, particularly as they relate to 
including special education as a resource for all students, 
families, and school district personnel.  The results of these 
State-level experiments should be studied, promising practices 
should be identified, and other States should then be given the 
opportunity to replicate successful practices.

3.  Under the implementation of Goals 2000, special education 
should evolve from its current role as a place where a limited 
number of labeled students are sent to a support service for all 
learners in schools all across America.


     It is our belief that the adoption of these consumer-based 
recommendations will serve to significantly improve special 
education programs across the nation.  Within the context of an 
improved special education program, one that operates as a valued 
and necessary service within schools across America (not as a 
system apart)[18], the nation's students with disabilities will 
make much more rapid progress toward attaining the goals of our 
national disability policy:  equality of opportunity, full 
participation in all aspects of society, independent living, and 
economic self-sufficiency.  In addition, we believe
that with the adoption of the recommendations contained herein, 
the resulting model of special education will serve to support 
all students in achieving the ambitious -yet attainable- 
achievements envisioned in the Goals 2000:  Educate America Act.  
Thus, significant improvements in the implementation of IDEA can 
lead to better futures for all of America's children.




                            Appendix A
                    Hearing Dates and Locations
     The National Council on Disability conducted hearings on the 
following dates in these locations:

         October 20, 1994, Anchorage, Alaska
         November 4, 1994, Albuquerque, New Mexico
         November 5, 1994, Des Moines, Iowa
         November 5, 1994, New York, New York
         November 9, 1994, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
         November 10, 1994, Charlotte, North Carolina
         November 14, 1994, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
         November 15, 1994, Denver, Colorado
         November 18, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts
         November 21, 1994, Berkeley, California

                            Appendix B

                List of Participants and Witnesses

     ALASKA

Audrey P. Aanes 
Anchorage, AK

Cindy Berger 
Anchorage, AK  

David P. Berube 
Eagle River, AK

Pamela Bickford
Anchorage, AK

John Bolt 
Anchorage, AK

Larry Bucholz
Wasilla, AK

Rebecca Campbell 
Anchorage, AK

P.J. Carpenter
Fairbanks, AK

Alan Cartwright 
Anchorage, AK

Daisy Cartwright 
Anchorage, AK

Sandy Clem
Hoonah, AK

Christine Culliton 
Juneau, AK




Colleen Deal 
Eagle River, AK

Helen Eckman
Anchorage, AK

Carl Evertsbusch 
Anchorage, AK

Kathleen Fitzgerald
Anchorage, AK

Jim Henkelman
Anchorage, AK

Teresa Holt 
Anchorage, AK

Jenny Hicks 
Anchorage, AK  

Elaine Hurley 
Anchorage, AK

Ann Hutchings 
Anchorage, AK

Yvonne Jacobson 
Anchorage, AK

Susan A. Jones 
Anchorage, AK

Lynne Koral
Anchorage, AK

David Levy 
Anchorage, AK

Fran Maiuri 
Anchorage, AK

David Maltman
Anchorage, AK

Margaret Mochak
Sitka, AK

Patrick Owen 
Anchorage, AK

Darryl Nelson
Chugiak, AK

Sam Reder 
Wasilla, AK

Robyn Rehmann 
Anchorage, AK  

Christopher L. Robinson 
Anchorage, AK

Allan Scott

Pamela Carter Simpson 
Anchorage, AK

Rick Tessandore 
Anchorage, AK

Jane Thiboutot 
Anchorage, AK

Linda K. Thompson 
Palmer, AK

Tim Wallstrom
Anchorage, AK

Jackie Williams
North Pole, AK

Janel Wright 
Anchorage, AK  

Michael Young 
Anchorage, AK


NEW MEXICO

Dorothy (Joy) Angelino 
Albuquerque, NM

Linda Askew 
Albuquerque, NM

Rafaelita Bachicha
Santa Fe, NM

Grace Benally 
Fort Wingate, NM

Casey and Judy Bonnell 
High Rolls, NM

Rebecca Burns
Pueblo Laguna, NM

Patrick M. Caballero 
Velarde, NM

Bill Cantrell
Yuma, AZ

Agnes Chavez  
Raton, NM

Betty Cope
Albuquerque, NM

Diana Daggett  
Albuquerque, NM

Kelly Davis 
Santa Fe, NM

John Foley
Albuquerque, NM

Larry Fuller
Dorino, NM

Diego Gallegos
Albuquerque, NM

Ginny Gilmer
Albuquerque, NM

Anna Chavez Gonzales  
Carlsbad, NM

Sara Gonzalez 
Corpus Christi, TX

Claire Grandora

Patty Jennings
Roswell, NM

Martha Johnson
Bernalillo, NM

Edris A. Klucher 
Portales, NM

Michael Klucher
Portales, NM

Carolyn Lavadi
Taos, NM

Leslie Martin Lederer 
Albuquerque, NM

Jeannie Manuelito 
Bernaillo, NM

Nancy C. McMillan 
Santa Fe, NM

Gordon Edward Noz 
Tohatchi, NM

Diane Taylor Owen  
Fort Wingate, NM

Leah A. Phillips 
Albuquerque, NM  

Lisa Reader 
Los Alamos, NM

Julie Redenbaugh
Albuquerque, NM

Cecilia Riley 
Old Laguna, NM

Delfy Roach 
Albuquerque, NM

Alberto Rodriguez  
Las Cruces, NM

Pauline Romero  
Santa Fe, NM

Nannie Marie Sanchez 
Albuquerque, NM

Rose Marie Sanchez
Albuquerque, NM

Norberta R. Sarracino 
Laguna, NM

Congressman Steve Schiff
Albuquerque, NM

Deborah Doherty Smith 
Albuquerque, NM

Grace Spinelli
Fort Wingate, NM

Rebecca Viers 
Albuquerque, NM

Pat Wilde
Los Alamos, NM

Mary Zeremba
Albuquerque, NM


     IOWA

Evelyn Anderson
Des Moines, IA

Shannon Atkinson
Council Bluffs, IA

Nina E. Baker
Council Bluffs, IA

Diane Beecham
Des Moines, IA

Betty Binkard
Des Moines, IA

Marcie Burow
Des Moines, IA

Kris Christensen
Humboldt, IA

J.D. Danielson
Des Moines, IA

Kathy Davis
Des Moines, IA

Sandra L. Gray Dooley
Centerville, IA

Julie Doy 
West Des Moines, IA

Peg Eherenman
Waterloo, IA

Marsha Galina
Des Moines, IA

Patty Gilg
Norfolk, NE

Dawn Gloss
Dubuque, IA

Monica Howard
Glenwood, IA

Lynette Jensen
Ames, IA

Cheryl Johnson
Fort Dodge, IA

E.J. and Ian Jorgensen
Des Moines, IA

Theresa Jozwiak
Bellevue, NE

Tom Laurenzo
Des Moines, IA

Mark, Margaret, and Sara March
Colo, IA

Molly Matthies
Iowa City, IA

Gwen McCollum
Norfolk, NE

Cindy Miller
Griswold, IA

Loveda Mitchell
Lincoln, NE

Betty Nuhuz
Lamoni, IA

Cheryl Ogle
Ankeny, IA

La Rue Olsen
Des Moines, IA

Alex and Greg Omori
Dubuque, IA

Jo Osing
Cedar Rapids, IA

Deb Paton 
Reinbeck, IA

Kate Payne
Urbandale, IA  

Mark Peterson  
Prole, IA

Michael Remus
Columbus, NE

Mary McDonald Richard
Iowa City, IA

Virginia Richardson
Minneapolis, MN

Lyle Richmond
Urbandale, IA

Jill Robinson
Des Moines, IA

Mervin Roth
Des Moines, IA

Bill Rush
Lincoln, NE

Deb Samson 
Nevada, IA

Rick Samson
Des Moines, IA

Paula Sandlin 
Lamoni, IA

Cathy Smelser
Ames, IA

Nancy Sorenson
Ames, IA

Susie Strait
Villisca, IA

Denita Swenson
Des Moines, IA

Dennis Thurman
Vinton, IA

Josie Torrez  
Topeka, KS

Jean Zigler
Omaha, NE


                                        NEW YORK

Geraldine Alexis 
Brooklyn, NY

Dee Estelle Alpert, Esq. 
New York, NY

Ada Blakely 
Brooklyn, NY 

Janet C. Cole 
Long Island, NY

Diana Cuthbertson
Westfield, NJ

Gissell Duran 
Brooklyn, NY

Karen Fernandez
Brooklyn, NY

Reina Fernandez 
Brooklyn, NY

Marjorie Goulbourne  
Queens, NY

Sonia Ortiz-Gulardo 
New York, NY

Carmen Guitierrez 
Bronx, NY

Maribel L. Irizarry 
Brooklyn, NY

Pauline McRae 
Rego Park, NY

Linda Melendez 
Ridgewood, NY

Denise and Josephina Mendoza
Queens, NY

Denise Mercado  
Bronx, NY

Dr. Frances Meyer  
Teaneck, NJ

Lulu Mwaluko  
Jamaica, NY

Lourdes Putz
Brooklyn, NY

Lauretta Randolph 
Bronx, NY

Karen Robard  
New York, NY

Maria Rodriguez 
Brooklyn, NY  

Juliana Rosario
Brooklyn, NY

Lorraine Slaff
Bronx, NY

Diana Suarez 
Brooklyn, NY

Walter Theis
New York, NY

Thelma Tolbert  
Long Island, NY

Eleanor Voutsinas 
Jamaica, NY

Marie Washington 
Bronx, NY

Corine Watson  
Jamaica, NY 

Edward Weinstein 
Brooklyn, NY  

Marilyn Weinstein 
Brooklyn, NY  

Dorothea Young 
Brooklyn, NY



     PENNSYLVANIA

Suzanne B. Bacal 
Philadelphia, PA

Lydia Berger 
Philadelphia, PA  

Jane Burke  
Pottstown, PA

Penny Chambers 
Morrisville, PA 

Maureen Devaney  
Philadelphia, PA  

Gregory L. Dougan 
Washington, DC

Mark Drenning 
King of Prussia, PA

Beth A. Gage  
Elizabethtown, PA

Amy Goldman
Philadelphia, PA

Judy Gran
Philadelphia, PA

Bernadette Griffin
Philadelphia, PA

Maureen Hollowell  
Norfolk, VA

Lisa Janoff
Philadelphia, PA

Dawn Kelso 
Exton, PA

Barbara Klein
Philadelphia, PA

Michael Lohr 
Philadelphia, PA  

Wendy Luckenbill
Reading, PA

Donna McNulty
Philadelphia, PA

Shyla Patera
Philadelphia, PA

Judy Plzak 
Bryn Mawr, PA

Nolan Rappaport
Potomac, MD

Diane Ryan
Philadelphia, PA

Elsie Mahler Scharff 
Narberth, PA

Ronald I. Sibert 
Wilmington, DE

Jane Swan 
Pottstown, PA

Susan Tachau 
Bala Cynwyd, PA


                                        NORTH CAROLINA

Congressman Cass Ballenger
Hickory, NC

Tom Blanton 
Fayetteville, NC

Linda Bond 
Jackson, MS

Sheila S. Brietweiser
Raleigh, NC  

Judy Burke
Raleigh, NC

Dave Calvert
Concord, NC

Regina Carey
Chapel Hill, NC

Pam Clingenpeel 
Charlotte, NC

Laurie M. Collins
Winston-Salem, NC

Nancy Diehl  
Greeneville, TN

Vickie Dieter 
Hickory, NC

Lucy Drake
Matthews, NC

Mary J. Ellis  
Charlotte, NC

Rachel Friedman 
Charlotte, NC

Betty B. Griffith 
Mocksville, NC

Jane G. Hasty
Roanoke Rapids, NC

Connie Hawkins 
Davidson, NC

Donna Hessee 
Hillsborough, NC

Judy Higginbotham  
Charlotte, NC

Tracy Hunter  
Huntersville, NC 

Janet Jendron
West Columbia, SC

Michael Kidd  
Morristown, TN

Angela Kirk
Shelby, NC

Gale Kirk 
Shelby, NC

Mary LaCorte 
Davidson, NC

Jeff Larson 
Durham, NC  

Judy Lewis
Charlotte, NC

Joyce Marshall 
Knoxville, TN

Denise Mercado
Fort Bragg, NC

Isabelle Mims 
Monroe, NC  

Johnny Pigott
Monroe, NC

Nicole M. Pope  
Hickory, NC

Miriam Ricci 
Matthews, NC

Jill Rigsbee 
Cedar Grove, NC

Beverly Roberts 
Charlotte, NC

Toni Robinson   
Charlotte, NC

Linda A. Speich
Crossville, TN

Debbie Stephens
Morristown, TN

Judy Timms 
Charlotte, NC

Debra Titus 
Richfield, NC

Pascal L. Trohanis
Chapel Hill, NC

Gayle Underdown 
Hickory, NC

Candace Wilson
Charlotte, NC

Pam Zacha
Knoxville, TN


     WISCONSIN

Barbara Anderson  
Mundelein, IL

Marie Bauer 
Madison, WI

Rhonda Best 
Rockford, IL

Linda M. Breuer 
Burlington, WI

Stephanie Buell 
Madison, WI

Tony Cerniglia
Brown Deer, WI

Charlotte Des Jardins 
Chicago, IL

Dave Edyburn
Milwaukee, WI

Mary Ann Egger 
Channahon, IL

Sue Endress  
Milwaukee, WI

Patricia Erving 
Milwaukee, WI

Susan J. Firnhaber 
Joliet, IL

Diane Galkowski 

Suzette Garay  
Milwaukee, WI

Fred Greasby  
Dousman, WI

Ann Higgins Hains 
Milwaukee, WI

Pam Heavens 
Joliet, IL

Marlene Holme

Timothy A. Jaech   
Delavan, WI

Miguel Jimen‚z 
Chicago, IL

Grace King
Madison, WI

Stacy King  
Madison, WI

Christine Kostrubala 
Madison, WI

Christine Multra Kraft  
Jefferson, WI

Pat Lee  
Aurora, IL

Rene David Luna 
Chicago, IL

Jeff Lybeck 
Brown Deer, WI 

Jim McGovern 
Villa Park, IL

Elaine Meier 
Columbus, WI

Brenda M. Miller  
Deforest, WI

Cathy Muehl  
Elgin, IL

Christi Murn 
Milwaukee, WI

Mary Musk 
Greenfield, WI

Sheila O'Neil 
Mundelein, IL

Corinne C. Quadland 
Greenville, WI

Susan Robbins 
Madison, WI

Jan Serak 
Greendale, WI

Tony Snager

Drew Sommers  
Chicago, IL

Diana Sullivan 
Milwaukee, WI

Edward C. Taylor, Sr. 
Milwaukee, WI

Darrell Walling

Bonnie S. Weninger 
Lomira, WI


                                        COLORADO

Debby Allen 
Denver, CO

Michael Allen 
Elizabeth, CO

Nancy Baesman 
Littleton, CO


Molly Blank  
Denver, CO

Barbara Buswell 
Colorado Springs, CO

Robin Coursen 
Evergreen, CO  

Rainee Courtnage 
Littleton, CO

Diane P. Cox 
Westminster, CO

Joseph Wild Crea 
Denver, CO

Joshua Decker 
Pueblo, CO

David Eaton 
Lakewood, CO  

Julie C. Farrar
Denver, CO

Penny Ford 
Denver, CO

Danny and Linda Frederick  
Denver, CO  

DuWyne Geist 
Rexford, MT

Patricia Gregory 
Aurora, CO

Linda Miller-Hart 
Boulder, CO

Laura Hershey
Denver, CO

Liz Hesse 
Denver, CO

Ellie Valdez, Michael, Brenda,
Jaime Grace, and Sylvia Marie
Honeyman
Arvada, CO

Michael Hoover 
Boulder, CO

Steven F. Konecny 
Parker, CO

Ellen Laurence 
Greeley, CO

Barbara Lohman  
Colorado Springs, CO  

Sandra J. Martinez 
Colorado Springs, CO 

Judy C. Martz 
Colorado Springs, CO  

Jerri Miller 
Colorado Springs, CO

Cliff Moers 
Boulder, CO

JoLynn Osborne 
Lakewood, CO

Jean Parker
Denver

Tom Patrick
Denver, CO

Thomas C. Patton 
Denver, CO

Carolyn Reed 
Denver, CO

Leslie Reed 
Denver, CO

Duane Riggenbach 
Evergreen, CO

Stella Sanfratello 
Lakewood, CO

Beth Schaffner 
Colorado Springs, CO

Mary Schoonmaker  
Boulder, CO

Debbie Sherer 
Golden, CO

Kathie Snow
Woodland Park, CO

Agnes Sonnenfeld  
Denver, CO

Tammy L. Stuck 
Falcon, CO

Gerard Sunderland
Colorado Springs, CO

Shirley Swope 
Chipita Park, CO

Charmaine Thaner  
Woodland Park, CO

Kathy Thomas 
Aurora, CO

Marna Ares Thompson 
Louisville, CO

Kathryn Vincent 
Denver, CO

William F. West 
Arvada, CO

Charlene Willey  
Broomfield, CO

Ann Williams 
Avondale, CO


                                        MASSACHUSETTS

Carolyn B. Barney 
Ipswich, MA

Mason Barney 
Ipswich, MA

Martha Beebe
Bolton, MA

Susan Brooks 
Chelmsford, MA

Brian Charleson 
Watertown, MA

David Clark 
Peabody, MA

Melissa Constantine 
Wellesley, MA

Richard K. Curtis
Hamilton, MA 

Chris de Hahn 
Millbury, MA

Gerald DiFranza 
Winthrop, MA 

Bonnie Dunham
Merrimack, NH

Kathleen Fitzgerald
Scituate, MA

George Gage 
Marshfield, MA

Michael Garvey
Framingham, MA

Thelma and John Gilbert 
Lynn, MA

Laura Glomb  
Ellington, CT

David Gordon 
Beverly, MA

Eve Granick 
Westboro, MA

John M. Hilliard 
Arlington, MA

Catherine Jortner  
West Hartford, CT

Steve Kastl 
Chestnut Hill, MA

Stanley D. Klein 
Brookline, MA

Denise Kring 
Sturbridge, MA

Julia McCarthy 
Quincy, MA

Karen McGinley 
Narragansett, RI

Kevin Nolan  
Northampton, MA

Tracey O'Brien 
West Hartford, CT 

Charles Packard  
Westhampton, MA  

Rob Park 
Peabody, MA

Sue Philip  
Roslindale, MA

Dr. Glenn Pransky  
Worcester, MA

Julie Lufkin-Purtz
Salem, MA  

Linda Rambler
Boston, MA

Judith Raskin  
Concord, NH

Catherine C. Reed 
Waterbury, CT

Lori Salvi
Merrimack, NH

Linda Scott  
Watertown, MA 

Cindy Sirois 
Gardiner, ME

Robert Sneirson 
Brookline, MA

Terry Snyder 
Sudbury, MA

Paul Spooner  
Framingham, MA

Veronica Sykes 
Reading, MA

Janis Symanski 
Middletown, CT

Robin Ann and Melissa Tracy 
Springfield, MA

Fernando C. Viesca 
Chelsea, MA

Janet Vohs 
Brookline, MA  

Rosalba M. Votto 
Gardiner, ME

Lorraine Wales 
Framingham, MA

Mary E. Wambach  
Boston, MA

Jan Weisman 
Watertown, MA

David Wilcox 
Needham, MA

Barbara J. Wood 
Boston, MA 

Martha Ziegler  
Lexington, MA  


     CALIFORNIA

Lynn and Tom Blackstock 
Pleasant Hill, CA

Ramona Chac˘n 
Oakland, CA

Joanna Cooper 
Berkeley, CA

Clara Del Pomar 
Concord, CA

Frances Dede Dewey  
Berkeley, CA

Donna H. Dutton  
Larkspur, CA

Barbara A. Duvall 
Benecia, CA

Elissa Gershon 
Oakland, CA  

James W. Givens III  
Berkeley, CA

Carol Gonsalves  
Benecia, CA

Meredith Post Gramlich 
Albany, CA

Katy Grether 
Kensington, CA  

Ann T. Halvorsen 
Hayward, CA

Judi Hirsch 
Oakland, CA

Jane Jackson 
Alameda, CA  

Elizabeth Ann Katz  
Pinole, CA

Carmen Carolina Labarca 
Albany, CA

David LaDue 
Concord, CA

Beverlyn D. Lee  
Hayward, CA

Diane Lipton  
Berkeley, CA

Lindsay Merryman 
Kentfield, CA

Jan Miller 
Cupertino, CA

John Ng 
Concord, CA

Pam Ormsby  
Berkeley, CA  

Rose Polioudakis
San Francisco, CA

Mark Polit 
Oakland, CA

Cecily Purcell 
Walnut Creek, CA

Rebecca C. Quiroz 
Pinole, CA

Mina Richardson 
San Francisco, CA

Stephen Rosenbaum 
Berkeley, CA  

Patricia M. Rounds, Ph.D. 
Palm Desert, CA

George A. Ruet 
Travis, CA

Tony Sauer 
Grass Valley, CA

Janet Schmitz 
Walnut Creek, CA

Birgit Schweingruber  
Santa Clara, CA

Pam Steneberg 
Berkeley, CA  

Marlene York 
San Pablo, CA



                            Appendix C

                         Table of Acronyms

Acronym Meaning

ADA     Americans with Disabilities Act

ADD     Attention Deficit Disorder

AEA     Area Education Agency

ICC     Interagency Coordinating Council

IDEA    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEA     Intermediate Education Agency

IEP     Individualized Education Program

IFSP    Individualized Family Service Plan

ITP     Individualized Transition Plan

LEA     Local Education Agency

LRE     Least Restrictive Environment

NBD     Neurobiological Disorder

OSEP    Office of Special Education Programs

OSERS   Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

OT      Occupational Therapy

PET     Pupil Evaluation Team

PT      Physical Therapy

PTI     Parent Training and Information

RSA     Rehabilitation Services Administration

SEA     State Education Agency

SED     Severely Emotionally Disabled (or Disturbed)

SH      Severely Handicapped

UAP     University Affiliated Program
                            Appendix D

         Synthesis of Reports from Nationally Preeminent 
      Special Education Researchers and Teacher Trainers[19]


                Celebrating IDEA's 20th Anniversary

     In 1995, Congress and the nation celebrate the 20th 
anniversary of one of the most significant disability rights laws 
ever enacted:  the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA).  It is in every respect proper for Congress and the 
entire nation to celebrate that anniversary.  Certainly no other 
disability-rights law has had such a powerful and positive impact 
on children and youth with disabilities, on their families, on 
educators, and on the nation itself.  

     At the same time, it is also entirely proper for Congress 
and the nation to recognize that the promises that Congress made 
in IDEA and the potential that IDEA can evoke in our country's 
students, families, educators, and communities are still not yet 
fulfilled.  IDEA is like any one who comes out of adolescence and 
enters young adulthood:  some promises have been kept and others 
await fulfillment.  The potential
for their fulfillment is visible, but is in some ways still 
unimaginable.  So much is in place, and so much more can be 
added.  So it is with IDEA:  The Act has encouraged and helped 
students, their families, and the nation's schools to make 
phenomenal gains, but the results are by no means all that could 
and should have been obtained.

     On the occasion of IDEA's 20th anniversary, it is important 
to build on the framework and the successes that IDEA has 
engendered, and to do so on the basis of the best available data 
about IDEA's accomplishments and shortcomings.  In building upon 
this framework, guided by reliable data, IDEA itself will be 
improved, and State and local educational agencies will be 
equipped to implement IDEA even more effectively.  It is 
especially appropriate for Congress to build on the framework and 
successes in light of the strong grassroots efforts to reform the 
nation's schools - a movement that Congress itself acknowledged 
and assisted by P.L. 103-227, the Goals 2000: Educate America 
Act.

    Six Basic Principles Supporting the Implementation of IDEA

     IDEA is based on six basic principles which provide a 
framework within which States may develop effective special 
education programs.  The current status of the implementation of 
these principles is described below.
       IDEA's zero-reject principle has opened schoolhouse doors 
        to all students with disabilities; yet schools still try 
        to expel or suspend students who present behavioral or 
        other special challenges.
  
       IDEA's nondiscriminatory evaluation principle has ensured 
        that in most cases students' disabilities are identified 
        and fairly and accurately assessed; yet schools still too 
        frequently misclassify students, especially minority 
        students.

       IDEA's appropriate education principle has helped most 
        students benefit from special education; yet it is 
        abundantly clear that the outcomes of special education 
        are less than acceptable for far too many students.
 
       IDEA's least restrictive environment principle has 
        allowed some students to be educated with their 
        nondisabled peers.  There has been some progress in 
        physical, academic, and social integration; yet far too 
        often the schools still fall far short in providing the 
        supplementary aids and services that would enable many 
        more students to benefit from education with their 
        nondisabled peers.

       IDEA's due process principle has held schools and 
        families accountable to each other; yet schools and 
        families still find fault with Federal and State 
        monitoring and still face the financially and emotionally 
        draining prospects of administrative and judicial 
        hearings.

       IDEA's principle of shared decision making by parents, 
        students, and schools has created effective education and 
        a wholesome system of checks and balances for many of 
        these stakeholders; yet professional dominance still is 
        too often the norm.


     In short, however effectively this law and its six 
principles have been implemented in some areas, there still 
remain far too many instances where schools have failed to 
implement IDEA properly.

           Islands of Effectiveness, But Not a Mainland

     The issue in 1995 is not whether to retain IDEA in its 
present form.  IDEA has been effective.  An entire national 
school-system response has been built on its principles, and 
countless students, families, educators, and other providers have 
come to
rely on and apply its principles.  Instead, as Congress 
reauthorizes IDEA, it should focus on the last of IDEA's stated 
purposes: "to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to 
educate children with disabilities" (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(c)). The 
disturbing findings Congress discovered in 1975 are still reality 
in far too many school districts in 1995.  While it is true that 
the extent and types of education discrimination have been 
remarkably curtailed, education discrimination still exists and 
the equal protection guarantee has not been fully realized.  The 
islands of excellence in special education do not yet constitute 
a mainland, and general compliance is short of the goal of 
universal compliance.  The issue for 1995, then, is the same 
issue that Congress identified in 1975:  to assure the 
effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with 
disabilities.  

     In 1995, on IDEA's 20th anniversary and as school reform 
efforts gather speed and power, Congress should assure the 
effectiveness of efforts to educate students with disabilities in 
two basic and necessary ways:
       First, Congress should reaffirm IDEA's basic premises and 
        principles, declaring in no uncertain terms that IDEA is 
        a necessary and useful civil rights law that, through the 
        framework of its six basic principles, implements the 
        Federal equal protection guarantee and the States' own 
        constitutional assurances of universal education for all 
        of their children.

       Second, Congress should fine tune IDEA itself in a 
        limited number of ways and significantly strengthen 
        Federal, State, and local special education capacities, 
        thereby assuring more effective special education.




         Assessing the Effectiveness of Special Education


     Congress' reaffirmation of IDEA's basic principles and 
framework and  Congress' capacity-building enhancements to IDEA 
and its administration should build on the most recent and most 
reliable data.  The National Council on Disability (NCD) has 
reviewed those data in light of seven questions:
       What are the goals of special education?

       How well have these goals been achieved?

       What are the most promising practices for achieving these 
        goals?

       What are the most significant barriers to achieving these 
        goals?

       What should Congress do to further ensure the 
        effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with 
        disabilities?

       What should Federal agencies, especially the Office of 
        Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), do 
        to ensure that Federal, State, and local education 
        agencies are most effective in educating all children 
        with disabilities?

       What should State governments and State and local 
        education agencies do?


     The National Council on Disability and the Beach Center on 
Families and Disability posed these questions to 27 nationally 
preeminent scholars in special education and personnel 
preparation, advising them to rely on the most recent reliable 
data in providing responses, to back up their reports with 
annotated abstracts of key data-based literature, and to profile 
programs that exemplify IDEA's proper implementation across all 
areas of disability.  The following represents, in general, what 
we have concluded after reviewing the data:
       No matter how effective IDEA has been, there are still 
        significant shortcomings in its implementation.  
        Congress, OSERS, and State and local education agencies 
        should do still more to ensure that every student with a 
        disability has an individualized program of free, 
        appropriate education in the least restrictive 
        environment.

     As Congress takes up IDEA on the Act's 20th anniversary, it 
should again rise to the challenge that it met so well in 1975 
and many times thereafter:  
       Reaffirm the basic civil rights of all students with 
        disabilities to effective, equal educational 
        opportunities; reauthorize the Federal framework that has 
        benefitted these students so greatly; and encourage 
        further activities to assure their effective education. 



       Restating the Purposes and Goals of Special Education
                                 

     Over the course of the last 20 years and as recently as 1990 
and 1994, Congress has stated and restated the nation's policies 
regarding citizens with disabilities.  Restating these policies 
now, as Congress considers the reauthorization of IDEA, would 
seem appropriate.  The overall purposes of IDEA are:
    To ensure equal protection under the law, particularly equal 
     educational opportunity.  Such protection is afforded not 
     only in IDEA, but in the Americans with Disabilities Act 
     (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments 
     of 1975;

    To assist individuals with disabilities to enjoy lives 
     characterized by equal opportunities, full participation and 
     integration into local communities and society as a whole, 
     independence, self-determination, economic self-sufficiency, 
     and contribution to America.  These are also the purposes of 
     ADA and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill 
     of Rights Act.


     To these ends, IDEA has helped State and local education 
agencies to educate all students with disabilities, no matter 
what the nature or severity of their disabilities.  It
has done so by establishing procedural and substantive rights, 
providing financial assistance, and providing support for 
research, training, and technical assistance.  What more needs to 
be done?  The answer is straightforward and achievable:  Congress 
should not rely solely on process and substance, but should 
assure quality in special education.  To do that, Congress should 
review special education's particular goals, as they relate to 
the nation's overarching disability policy.  The goals of special 
education and IDEA are to:   
       Enhance students' overall capacities:  By receiving a 
        free appropriate public education in the least 
        restrictive environment, every student should acquire 
        academic, vocational, and social skills so all can learn, 
        work, live, have social networks, and participate in 
        their communities with their peers who do not have 
        disabilities. 

       Secure students' participation in school and community 
        with peers who do not have disabilities:  Students should 
        receive the services necessary for them to achieve 
        success within less restrictive placements and to learn 
        in general education programs, work and reside in typical 
        settings, and have social networks with people who do not 
        have disabilities. 

       Augment families' capacities to respond to their 
        children's special needs:  By participating in early 
        intervention and later programs for their children, 
        benefiting from related services, sharing decision making 
        with teachers and other professionals, and participating 
        in the activities of such discretionary programs as 
        Parent Training and Information Centers and model 
        demonstration programs, families should acquire the 
        skills necessary to respond to their children's special 
        needs and to be equal decision-making partners with 
        educators and other professionals. 
  
       Establish collaboration among families, students, and 
        professionals:  Family members, students, and 
        professionals should have the skills to collaborate with 
        each other, and the schools should provide a context for 
        this kind of collaboration. 

       Create a seamless network of effective services through 
        collaboration among service providers and the systems and 
        agencies within which they work:  Providers, their 
        agencies, and their service delivery systems should 
        create a seamless network of effective services for 
        students and families, and this
        network should enable students to learn, work, live, have 
        social networks, and participate in their communities. 

       Prepare all professionals to deliver free appropriate 
        public education in the least restrictive environment:  
        All professionals, particularly general and special 
        educators, should have the attitudes and skills that 
        enable them to be as effective as possible in providing a 
        free appropriate public education to all students in the 
        least restrictive environment.

       Carry out model demonstration programs and conduct 
        research to implement IDEA:  Special and general 
        educators, researchers, teacher trainers, other 
        professionals, and families -acting together- should 
        carry out model demonstration programs, provide technical 
        assistance, and conduct research to improve the 
        implementation of IDEA's six principles.  

       Ensure school restructuring and effective governance:  
        Students, families, educators and other professionals, as 
        well as community members should reform schools and 
        school governance to advance all of special education's 
        goals.  School reform should be sensitive to and 
        accommodate cultural and ethnic diversity in students, 
        their families, and communities. 

       Assure safe schools:  All schools should be safe for all 
        who use them, and to this end educators and 
        administrators should focus on reducing violence in 
        schools and communities.

       Increase and target Federal, State, and local resources:  
        Federal, State, and local governing bodies should 
        increase their appropriations for special education and 
        permit some funding streams to be used more creatively 
        and flexibly while simultaneously targeting other funding 
        streams to solve particular problems. 


Progress to Date in Achieving the Purposes and Goals of Special Education


     How successful has special education been in achieving these 
goals?  The answer both heartening and challenging.  It is 
heartening that there are many promising approaches to achieving 
these goals.  Indeed, identifying and applying state-of-the-art 
practices, supported in large part through Federal resources, has 
almost always resulted in the achievement of these goals.  It is 
challenging that state-of-the-art exist only in
some school districts.  There are islands of effectiveness.  
However, far too many school districts do not or cannot apply 
state-of-the-art or best practices.  These districts constitute 
the current mainland of special education. 

        Promising Practices for Effective Special Education
     What are the promising practices, the standards by which 
effective special education should be judged and the means by 
which all school districts can deliver effective special 
education?  Promising practices can be found systemwide within a 
State, districtwide within a local education agency, and 
personally, for an individual student.
                 Systemwide Promising Practices  
     At the State agency level it is especially important to have 
the following:
    Professional in-service training through a comprehensive 
     system of personnel development;

    Model demonstration programs and technical assistance; 

    Strong parent participation in designing, planning, 
     implementing, and evaluating State and local agency plans, 
     relying on a strengthened system of Parent Training and 
     Information Centers;

    The participation of special education in all school 
     restructuring activities; and

    Effective monitoring of and technical assistance to local 
     educational agencies. 


                Districtwide Promising Practices  
     At the local school district level, it is important to have 
the following:
    A zero-reject capacity, including - 

              early screening, identification, and intervention 
               at all ages,
              locally adapted services and plans, and
              interagency collaboration and coordination of 
               services, systems, and procedures;

    A nondiscriminatory evaluation capacity, including 
     alternative, nonbiased educational evaluations, especially 
     for minority students;
 
    An appropriate education capacity, including - 

              student-focused -not system-focused- 
               individualized education and services that lead to 
               students' mastery of learning skills and 
               strategies, 
              coherent, easy to use, intensive, and 
               comprehensive services based on validated 
               procedures and methodologies,
              a system of comprehensive personnel development 
               that assures that all school personnel will 
               develop the skills necessary to deliver a free 
               appropriate public education in the least 
               restrictive environment, and
              adoption and implementation of "safe schools" 
               plans; and

    A least restrictive environment capacity, including 

              adaptations of general and special education 
               curricula, especially to accommodate students in 
               the least restrictive environment and to accept, 
               in that environment and throughout the district, 
               students who have challenging behaviors, 
              a full array of least restrictive placement 
               options, with continuous dialogue among special 
               and general educators, school administrators, and 
               families and students about how to secure the 
               least restrictive education for all students, 
              accessibility and other modifications in the 
               schools' physical environments, and
              flexibility in programs and staffing arrangements, 
               with planned times and places for collaboration 
               among educators and families. 


          Promising Practices with Students and Families
     In order to serve students and families in an appropriate 
manner, it is necessary for school districts to provide the 
following:

    A zero-reject capacity, including 

              early intervention to address present special 
               education needs and to prevent additional needs 
               from developing, and
              adoption and implementation of a "safe schools" 
               plan;

    A nondiscriminatory evaluation capacity, including nonbiased 
     evaluations of students' strengths and needs, especially if 
     the students are from minority populations or present 
     challenging behaviors;

    An appropriate education capacity, including 

              developmentally appropriate and professionally 
               validated practices,
              appropriate, functional curricula, including 
               instruction for all postschool activities 
               described in IDEA's transition provisions,
              instruction in self-determination and self 
               advocacy,
              culturally responsive instructional methodologies 
               and curricula,
              appropriate extra-curricular activities,
              community-based work instruction and work 
               opportunities, including supported employment,
              education that teaches not only postschool 
               vocational skills but also other independent 
               living skills,
              flexibility in students' schedules so they can 
               take advantage of integrated learning and work 
               opportunities,
              use of positive and natural consequences as 
               feedback for appropriate behavior;

    A least restrictive environment capacity, including 

              education of the student in the most typical 
               settings -neighborhood schools- so that all school 
               environments are integrated by the presence of 
               students with and without disabilities,
              age-appropriate and culturally appropriate 
               teaching practices, and

    A parent-student participation and collaboration capacity, 
     including  

              family-centered services and family involvement, 
               and
              professional-family collaboration and shared 
               decision making.






The Application of Promising Practices Across the Six Principles of IDEA

     However much progress has been made in implementing IDEA and 
its six principles, it is clear that improved implementation is 
necessary and possible.  Through applying the promising practices 
listed above, the implementation of the six principles underlying 
IDEA would improve in the following manner:
    Zero Reject:  Instead of excluding students from school, a 
     variety of successful intervention techniques would be 
     available to support the inclusion of all students in 
     schools, the result being a zero tolerance for excluding any 
     students, whatever the reason.
         
    Nondiscriminatory Evaluation:  Instead of classifying 
     students on the basis of their ethnicity, race, color, 
     national origins or the schools' existing administrative 
     structures, students would be classified according to an 
     accurate assessment of their strengths and needs across the 
     curricular and functional requirements involved in their 
     education.  

    Appropriate Education:  Applying the promising practices 
     listed above would result in a system of comprehensive and 
     effective services and interventions, effective 
     multidisciplinary and interagency collaboration, and a 
     seamless network of beneficial services.

    Least Restrictive Environment:  Instead of current practice, 
     which in many places encourages the segregation of students 
     with disabilities, application of already-proven, promising 
     practices would allow each student to receive his/her 
     education in the least restrictive setting, supported by an 
     individualized and appropriate array of supplementary aids 
     and services that ensure that the student is physically, 
     academically, and socially integrated into general 
     education.

    Parent and Student Participation and Shared Decision Making:  
     With the application of current promising practices, 
     parents, students, and educators would be able to engage in 
     effective collaboration in designing and delivering a free 
     appropriate public education in the least restrictive 
     environment.

    Procedural Due Process and Federal and State Monitoring:  
     The application of the promising practices listed above 
     would greatly reduce the number and frequency of due process 
     complaints and shift the emphasis of Federal and State 
     monitoring and enforcement efforts from tracking "paper 
     compliance" to quality enhancement.


 Continuing Barriers to the Implementation of Promising Practices

     Implementing the promising practices developed over the last 
20 years of experience with IDEA would greatly enhance the 
quality of education for students with and without disabilities.  
Still, many barriers continue to impede the implementation of 
these practices in State and local education agencies.  These 
barriers are as follows:

                       Zero Reject Barriers

    Schools are reactive instead of proactive in responding to 
     students' special needs.  In particular, they too often 
     exclude students instead of working with them overcome their 
     challenging behaviors.

    Some schools still do not make the environmental 
     modifications that would increase access, reduce the 
     challenging behaviors of some students, and result in more 
     effective special education.

    Too often the absence of services and support systems for 
     adults with disabilities restricts the development of 
     effective transition programs for secondary-aged students. 

               Nondiscriminatory Evaluation Barriers

    All too often schools rely on testing that targets the 
     students' needs instead of their strengths or testing that 
     simply is inadequate to identify strengths and needs in 
     minority students, thereby causing misclassification, 
     erroneous educational placement, and inappropriate 
     interventions.

    Similarly, schools pay insufficient attention to the 
     cultural dimensions of their students' lives, and teachers 
     are often not prepared to respond to the cultural diversity 
     of their students.

    For several groups of students, nondiscriminatory evaluation 
     procedures are themselves inadequate.

    Placement is still based on the categorical label assigned 
     to students, not on their particular strengths or needs.


                  Appropriate Education Barriers

    Schools still use inappropriate curricula.
               
    The talents of many teachers and related service providers 
     are misused.

    Service and support systems are unavailable or ineffective.

    Services, even within schools, are poorly coordinated.

    Schools are generally not creative in identifying 
     appropriate interventions or supportive services that might 
     be employed when students are having difficulty in less 
     restrictive placements.

    Professionals do not know enough about other services 
     available in their communities, particularly those services 
     that could make students' education and transition more 
     appropriate and beneficial.

    Schools turn too often to "educational faddism" and are 
     driven too frequently by political, rather than sound 
     pedagogical, motives.

    School systems often lack instructional leadership by highly 
     competent, well- trained administrators, master teachers, 
     and support personnel.

    Students continue to be disempowered by teacher-directed, 
     deficit-based teaching methodologies.

    Teachers need a great deal more preservice and in-service 
     training.

    Curricula often rely too much on specific -and outmoded- 
     models for educating certain categories of students.

    Teachers may not know how to work with parents or with each 
     other in order to combine their strengths and resources.

    Competent teachers are in short supply, especially for 
     students with specific types of disabilities.

    General educators often do not feel responsible for 
     educating students with disabilities.
     



              Least Restrictive Environment Barriers

    Schools still operate improperly segregated programs and 
     inappropriately place too many students in these programs.

    Schools still isolate special education students from 
     contact with people and events in their communities.

    State and local funding patterns create disincentives to 
     placing students in less restrictive programs.

    State and local agencies still have organizational and 
     administrative structures that perpetuate separate systems 
     of special and general education.

    Schools still use less intensive special education services 
     for students who need more specialized and intensive 
     teaching.

    Political and attitudinal factors may lead to a lack of 
     community support for schools' efforts to integrate students 
     with disabilities.

    Schools may place students into less restrictive placements 
     without the physical, academic, or social supports necessary 
     to ensure that they will experience success in these 
     placements.

    School districts may have limited less restrictive placement 
     options due to their historic use of more restrictive 
     options.

     Parent Participation and Procedural Due Process Barriers

    Schools often lack sufficient accountability to their 
     students and parents.

    Schools still suffer from limited parental involvement.

    Parent Training and Information Centers still do not reach 
     as many parents as they might, especially parents of 
     traditionally underserved or minority students.

    Some parents are highly resistant to adaptive changes in 
     programs such as less restrictive placement, the use of 
     positive behavioral supports as the intervention of choice 
     for challenging behaviors, or transition initiatives.

                         Funding Barriers

    Special education is often underfunded at the Federal, 
     State, and local level.

    Some funding streams are too restrictive because they either 
     prevent students from receiving special education who could 
     benefit from it or they prevent districts from using the 
     funds more effectively.


                      Administrative Barriers

    School districts may have a long history of reliance on 
     categorical programs requiring students to fit the service 
     system rather than the service system to fit the student.

    Placements may be determined on students' categorical labels 
     rather than on their strengths and needs.

    Separate systems of special and regular education 
     administration often discourage interdisciplinary and 
     interagency collaboration.


               Ideological and Attitudinal Barriers 

    Prejudicial attitudes regarding students with disabilities 
     may exist among general and special educators, among 
     parents, and among members of the general community.

    Ardor for specific programs or teaching methods can vitiate 
     individualized and effective instruction.

            Federal, State, and Local Policy Barriers 

    Outmoded policies still inhibit accomplishment of the goals 
     of IDEA and its full implementation.  These policies too 
     often restrict implementation of the principles of 
     appropriate education, least restrictive education, and 
     collaborative decision- making.  

    These policies also stand in the way of effective school 
     restructuring, school-linked services, and safe schools.  


                  Personnel Preparation Barriers

    Special and general education practices reflect teacher 
     preparation, just as teacher preparation drives school 
     practices.  This symbiotic relationship between practice and 
     preparation means that the implementation of promising 
     practices is quite uneven on a national basis.

    While many students preparing to be teachers benefit from 
     experience with state-of-the-art practices in their 
     education, far too many still do not have access to the 
     quality of practices and preparatory experiences that should 
     have been created by now.  Therefore, outmoded and 
     ineffective practices are reinforced and perpetuated.


Recommendations Derived from a Review of Scholarly Research on IDEA


     While the implementation of IDEA has certainly not been 
flawless, it has provided educational opportunity to millions of 
students who were previously excluded from school altogether.  
Can IDEA be improved?  Can its implementation be improved? The 
unequivocal answer to both these questions is affirmative.  The 
data reviewed during this research process lead to sound 
recommendations for improving IDEA and its implementation.

     All efforts to improve IDEA, its funding levels and funding 
policies, and its implementation at the Federal, State and local 
levels must be premised on capacity building and directed toward 
improving the abilities of those involved:
       Improve the ability of schools to deliver services as 
        IDEA envisions them being delivered. 

       Improve the ability of families to collaborate with 
        educators and other professionals in sharing 
        decision-making power related to their children and to 
        service systems as a whole. 

       Improve the ability of students with disabilities to 
        benefit from effective special education and to enjoy 
        lives characterized by integration, productivity, and 
        independence.
  

     Every recommendation made by the 27 nationally preeminent 
scholars in special education and personnel preparation points to 
the need to build the capacities of schools, parents, and 
students in order to improve the implementation of IDEA.  A 
summary of their specific recommendations is provided below. 

                Recommendations for Improving IDEA
     One overall recommendation emerged from a study of the 
scholarly literature regarding the implementation of IDEA to 
date:
     Congress should reaffirm the basic framework and underlying 
     six principles of IDEA, acknowledge that it is essential 
     legislation for assuring the equal protection and basic 
     civil rights of people with disabilities, and focus on 
     improving the quality of special and general education.  
     Accordingly, Congress should fine tune IDEA and give 
     direction to Federal, State, and local agencies so that they 
     can ensure improved quality of special and general 
     education.

Specific recommendations regarding the six basic principles 
supporting IDEA and related issues are presented below.
Zero Reject
To improve implementation of the zero reject principle:

    Incorporate the statement of national goals and policies for 
     persons with disabilities as set out in the Rehabilitation 
     Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Change the timelines affecting eligibility for early 
     intervention services and provide more funding for early 
     intervention programs.

    Require States to put into place systems that ensure 
     collaboration and coordination of transition services.
        
Nondiscriminatory Evaluation

To improve implementation of the nondiscriminatory evaluation 
principle:

    Provide financial incentives in model demonstration, systems 
     change, research, and personnel preparation projects, to 
     ensure the use of nondiscriminatory evaluation instruments 
     and processes with students from minority populations.

    Fine tune the definitions of "traumatic brain injury" and 
     "severely emotionally disabled." 
     
Appropriate Education

To improve implementation of the appropriate education principle:

    Provide financial incentives in model demonstration, systems 
     change, research, and personnel preparation projects to 
     ensure the use of best practices such as the following:

       special education delivered to minority students in 
        culturally competent ways;
       collaboration among general and special educators and 
        related service providers;
       interagency collaboration, especially between 
        educational, medical,                               
        social service, and other human service agencies;
       interdisciplinary and interagency service delivery;
       improved transition plan processes;
       self-determination curricula as well as teaching and 
        student participation in educational planning and 
        decision-making;
       education in the least restrictive environment;
       community-based work experiences before a student leaves 
        school;
       use of Participatory Action Research techniques in all 
        research, training, and model demonstration programs; and
       parent and student participation through shared decision 
        making.
     
    Improve technical assistance efforts.

    Lower the age for mandatory transition planning from 16 to 
     14.

    Ensure that students have a greater decision making role in 
     designing and carrying out their programs.

    Allow students to be eligible for school-based transition 
     services after they graduate.

    Provide special education students with more useful and 
     credible diploma options.

    Strengthen transition planning so it focuses not only on 
     work, but also on other post-secondary outcomes.

    Appropriate more funds for post-secondary programs.

    Exercise greater oversight with respect to IEP development, 
     implementation, and appropriateness.

    Allow the low incidence population of students with physical 
     disabilities to be included as one of the focus categories 
     under Subchapter III.

Least Restrictive Environment

To improve implementation of the least restrictive environment 
principle:

    Support personnel preparation, not only in special education 
     teacher training but also general education teacher 
     training, particularly in implementing the principles of 
     least restrictive education, collaborative education with 
     other professionals (related service providers and 
     administrators), and relating to families in a culturally 
     competent manner.

Parent-Student Participation and Collaboration

To improve implementation of the parent-student participation and 
collaboration principle:

    Extend to older students and their families the family 
     service provisions of the Individualized Family Service Plan 
     now available to infants and toddlers under Part H.
          
    Preserve and extend the Parent Training and Information 
     Center programs to better serve minority populations.

    Enact a presumption that research, training, and 
     demonstration programs will utilize techniques of 
     Participatory Action Research, directing OSERS to award 
     extra credit in peer reviews to research, training, and 
     demonstration projects that use this type of process.

Oversight and Monitoring

To improve oversight and monitoring of the implementation of 
IDEA:

    Congress should exercise vigorous oversight and OSERS should 
     conduct more stringent monitoring of IDEA's implementation.

Funding

To improve the implementation of IDEA:
 
    Congress should work toward full funding to the authorized 
     maximum (40 percent of excess cost) or create or allow new 
     and different funding streams.  

    Eliminate categorical funding provisions that provide 
     disincentives to delivering special education in the least 
     restrictive environment, and create incentives for more 
     education in the least restrictive environment.

    Allow more flexibility in using funds for direct services, 
     program administration, and eligibility.

    Increase model demonstration program funding.

    Increase technical assistance funding, especially for 
     regional service centers that assist students with visual 
     impairments.

    Increase research funding.

    Establish a formula grant category for services and supports 
     that result in the successful employment for secondary level 
     students.

    Expand Medicaid coverage to allow greater coverage of 
     related services.


        
 Recommendations for the Improvement of Personnel Preparation and 
          Comprehensive Systems of Personnel Development

     The special education researchers and teacher trainers were 
overwhelmingly disappointed by the quality of personnel 
preparation offered by institutions of higher education and in 
the comprehensive systems of personnel development operated by 
State and local education agencies.  They unequivocally agreed 
that a great deal of work needs to be accomplished in the areas 
of teacher preparation and teacher in-service education.  

     At present, many recent graduates of the nation's special 
and general education teacher training programs are not well 
prepared to apply best practices and state-of-the-art methods.  
Moreover, State and local agencies' comprehensive systems of 
personnel development do not effectively remediate the problem 
created by inadequate preservice training.  Similarly, state 
certification and evaluation standards and procedures for new or 
continuing teachers do not assure that teachers will be as 
effective as they should be in the classroom, in collaborating 
with each other and with professionals in other agencies, and in 
sharing decision-making responsibilities with parents and 
students.

     These conclusions apply to preservice and in-service 
programs that focus on categories of disabilities such as 
learning disabilities, severe emotional disturbance, mental 
retardation, autism, traumatic brain injury, vision or hearing 
impairments, physical disabilities, and other health impairments.  
Likewise, they also apply to programs that focus on skills for 
early intervention, early childhood education, least restrictive 
environment and integration strategies, transition, supported 
employment, school-linked service delivery, interagency 
collaboration, responding to challenging behaviors through 
positive behavioral support, and violence prevention.  

     For example, many early interventionists and early childhood 
educators still are not utilizing proven successful practices.  
Special and regular educators are often not trained to carry out 
the principles of appropriate education and least restrictive 
environment.  That is true, too, with respect to the overarching 
goal of independence
for individuals with disabilities:  Professionals are still not 
properly trained to enhance students' self-determination and 
choice-making related to transition and employment. Special 
efforts are needed to recruit minority professionals as 
researchers, trainers, and district-based educators, especially 
for low-incidence populations such as students with hearing 
impairments.  Finally, professionals still lack the necessary 
skills to collaborate with each other and with parents in making 
decisions about students' education and about research and 
demonstration programs.

     The good news is that there is a set of promising preservice 
and in-service practices and programs.  The not-so-good news is 
that these practices and programs have not yet spread across the 
nation.  The result is that, although some professionals receive 
superb preservice and in-service training, too many do not.  
Accordingly, students -who have a right to an education that 
benefits them and does so in the least restrictive environment- 
are being shortchanged.  Education is by definition 
labor-intensive and labor-dependent.  When the labor force -the 
professional cadre- suffers from inadequate preparation and 
in-service training, students also suffer.

     Since the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (P.L. 89-750) in 1966, P.L. 91-230 in 1970, and of 
P.L. 93-380 in 1974 (the predecessors to P.L. 94-142), the 
Federal and State governments have shared the responsibility for 
personnel preparation in general and special education.  There is 
a unique role for the Federal government in developing a national 
leadership cadre of researchers and other leaders
and in augmenting State efforts to train teachers.  The 
leadership cadre, after all, performs nationally significant 
roles, whereas the teacher corps performs locally significant 
roles.  By the same token, there is a unique role for State 
governments, acting through their institutions of higher 
education.  This role is to prepare, certify, and evaluate 
teachers.  This Federal-State partnership is responsible for the 
present state of affairs in preservice and in-service education, 
and accordingly the Federal government, State education agencies, 
and institutions of higher education have joint responsibility 
for improving preservice and in-service education.

                Recommendations Regarding Research
     Research should focus on interventions related to student 
needs.  For example, research is still needed to achieve the 
following: 
    Improve student capacities through early intervention and 
     early childhood special education. 

    Increase students' self-determination and reduce their 
     challenging behaviors. 

    Prepare students for transition into and out of special 
     education and into supported employment.
 
    Carry out IDEA's principle of education in the least 
     restrictive environment.

    Enhance students' social relationships and their abilities 
     to participate with nondisabled peers and adults in the 
     lives of their communities.

    Ensure that students with challenging behaviors receive 
     positive behavioral support from qualified educators.
 

     Similarly, research is still needed to improve 
teacher-to-teacher collaboration and teacher-and-parent shared 
decision-making, and to enhance consumer participation in
setting research priorities, conducting research, and 
disseminating and using research data.  On a different level, 
research is still needed on the incidence and prevalence of some 
disabilities, especially mild mental retardation and traumatic 
brain injury.  Indeed, improved data collection and follow-up 
studies are particularly relevant to some student populations, 
especially those with mild mental retardation.  Finally, research 
on larger systemic issues such as nationally important 
initiatives in school reform, comprehensive services through 
school-linked service provision, and violence prevention has just 
gotten underway and should be continued.

     In many respects, the research community is just on the edge 
of significant breakthroughs in preventing and ameliorating the 
effects of disabilities, improving teaching methodologies, 
ensuring students' participation in general education and in 
their own communities, and strengthening and even improving the 
capacities of schools, teachers, and parents to meet the needs of 
students with disabilities.  Just as teacher preparation is a 
shared Federal-State responsibility, so too is research.  
Although the greater portion of special education research funds 
are provided by the Federal government, there are State-funded 
and State-supported research activities.  Some States have their 
own research funds, but all States support faculty in their 
institutions of higher education to conduct research.  Thus, both 
the Federal and State governments can and should respond to these 
recommendations for research.


         Recommendations Regarding Demonstration Programs
     By the same token, Congress, OSERS, and State agencies 
should continue, expand, and redirect model demonstration 
programs.  These programs should include rehabilitation research 
and training centers, systems-change efforts, technical 
assistance projects, policy analyses, and short-term (three-year) 
models to develop and disseminate state-of-the-art and promising 
practices.  Just as preservice and in-service training and 
research funding are shared between the Federal and State 
governments, so too with demonstration projects:  both levels of 
government are responsible for improving demonstration 
activities.

     The overall effect of model demonstration projects is to 
develop new and improved techniques for teaching students, 
advancing IDEA's six principles (especially the least restrictive 
environment principle), and preparing special and general 
educators, families, and students themselves for collaborative 
decision making.  Historically, these demonstration programs have 
been at the forefront of advancing IDEA's purposes and goals.  At 
present, they need to be significantly more targeted on current 
implementation and improvement issues.

                Recommendations for Policy Revision
     As noted above, many Federal, State, and local policies are 
problematic.  Too often policies impede schools from implementing 
the principle of the least restrictive environment, and too 
rarely do they create incentives for schools to implement that
principle.  In some States, teacher union contracts limit regular 
or special educators in implementing the principle of the least 
restrictive environment.  Moreover, some State laws, such as the 
Nurse Practice Acts, impede educators and other professionals 
from delivering school-based services to students with 
health-related needs.

     Better Federal and State-level interagency collaboration is 
required, especially to improve services to students with severe 
emotional disabilities and traumatic brain injuries and to help 
students with visual impairments have easier access to printed 
materials.  In addition, the purposes, goals, and rights 
guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act need to 
serve as the basis for future policy discussions and decisions 
regarding special education and the delivery of services to 
children and youth with disabilities.

  Recommendations for Improvements in Special Education Practice
     Congress, OSERS, and State and local agencies must take 
action to improve special and general education practices.  
Practices that reflect state-of-the-art service delivery are well 
known.  They are in place and have been in effect for quite some 
time.  The problem is that these practices are the exception, not 
the rule.  Once again, islands of excellence do not constitute 
the mainland.
 
     State and local education agencies are responsible for 
delivering special education.  They are responsible for assuring 
that education benefits students and is
delivered in the least restrictive environment.  Unfortunately, 
far too many State and local agencies fall short in using 
promising practices and state-of-the-art services that would help 
them effectively discharge their responsibilities in the areas of 
appropriate education and least restrictive environment for 
students with disabilities.  In particular, appropriate services 
are still unavailable consistently and uniformly throughout the 
country to students who have been classified as having, among 
other disabilities: learning disabilities, severe emotional 
disturbance, mental retardation, severe and multiple 
disabilities, other health impairments, autism, traumatic brain 
injuries, visual impairments, and hearing impairments.  For many 
of these students, curricula are ineffective and dated.  Their 
transitions from school to adulthood are haphazard.  It is not 
the least surprising, then, that the results of their education 
are so disappointing.

     Indeed, there also is evidence of a paucity of services -not 
merely an absence of best practices- for students with traumatic 
brain injuries, visual impairments, and hearing impairments.  
There is also evidence that minority students, as well as 
children in early intervention and early childhood education 
programs, are especially shortchanged by the lack of any services 
or the lack of appropriate services.  It is one thing to lack 
services altogether or to not have appropriate education even if 
some services are provided.  These problems are compounded when 
services are finally provided that do not reflect 
state-of-the-art or promising practices for serving students in 
the least restrictive environment.  

     In early intervention, early childhood education, and 
throughout the elementary-to-upper school years, practices in 
special and general education simply do not sufficiently comply 
with the principle of least restrictive environment.  Much more 
could be done to decentralize large centers where too many 
students receive their education and to disperse specialized 
services throughout their home communities.  The restructuring 
and dispersal of presently centralized services are long overdue.  
While it is true that some students still need highly specialized 
services, they need to have access to an array of services which 
will meet these needs in their home communities.  Most students 
currently placed in these centers can be educated to a much 
greater degree in general education.  Their current levels of 
physical, academic, and social integration leave a great deal to 
be desired.

     Another problem with current practice is found in the 
relatively low quantity and quality of parent-student 
participation and collaboration.  While many parents do share 
decision-making responsibilities with special and regular 
educators, there is compelling evidence that many do not and that 
the reasons for this noninvolvement have less to do with their 
willingness and capabilities to be part of their children's 
education teams than with educators' attitudes and practices.  
Time and again, schools and educators are reluctant to share 
responsibilities and decision-making powers with parents and 
students, to schedule meetings at times and places convenient to 
parents and students, and to develop the skills to collaborate 
with parents and to teach self-determination to
students.  In short, there are administrative, attitudinal, and 
skill barriers to  implementing this important principle.

     To improve performance in the areas of appropriate 
education, least restrictive environment, and shared decision 
making, State education agencies need to put into place more 
regular and stringent systems for monitoring local agencies.  
Monitoring involves more than paper-compliance reviews:  It has 
to involve scrutinizing the actual quality of special education 
services.  Moreover, monitoring and quality assurance have to be 
proactive.  That is, they must involve technical assistance and 
improvements in  comprehensive systems of personnel development, 
targeting resources toward improving the skills of special and 
regular educators to deliver an appropriate education in the 
least restrictive environment to students with disabilities in 
collaboration with one another and with parents and students.  

     The need for interprofessional and interagency collaboration 
and coordination is one that State and local education agencies 
must address during the next five years.  To deliver services in 
the least restrictive environment, to assure transition from 
school to postschool opportunities that IDEA and ADA envision, 
and to make certain that school restructuring benefits students 
in special education, State and local education agencies - and 
especially State agencies as they monitor local agencies- have to 
reconceptualize themselves.  They have to be willing and able to 
move from separate systems of special and regular education to a 
unified system where all schools "own" all students, where all
indeed means all, and where, if necessary or desirable, 
school-linked services emanate from comprehensive schools.  

     This shift will require State legislatures to design funding 
streams that unify school district administrative structures and 
services.  It also will require State legislatures to ensure that 
State funding is based on the number of students needing special 
education (not just the number receiving IEPs), and on the needs 
of the students themselves (not on the categories into which they 
have been classified).  State and  Federal funding has been too 
closely tied to the number of students having IEPs, thus 
penalizing States that provide special education to those who 
need it but who may not have an IEP.  Furthermore, State and 
Federal funding has been tied too much to categories of 
disability, so that students with a certain classification 
receive certain types and levels of service, rather than 
receiving what they actually need, without regard to their 
classifications.

     In summary, State and local education agencies and even 
State legislatures themselves should move aggressively to adopt 
the promising practices that research, demonstration, and 
personnel preparation programs have developed and validated over 
the past 20 years of experience in special education, including 
reconfiguring service delivery, monitoring methods, and funding 
policies.  It is clear that the knowledge base exists to improve 
special and general education practice.  It is also clear that 
State and
local education agencies and State legislatures have not, to 
date, put that knowledge to best use.

             Recommendations for School Restructuring 
     The opportunities -and the risks- are high as State and 
local agencies begin to restructure themselves pursuant to the 
Goals 2000:  Educate America Act.  Opportunities exist to create 
new norms and forms for all students, to reshape schools so that 
excellence and equity coexist, especially for students with 
disabilities.  Indeed, to the extent that comprehensive schools, 
serving as the hub of school-linked human services, can be 
created as restructuring moves forward, the chances increase for 
wider implementation of the principle of least restrictive 
environment.  However, intensive oversight by Congress, OSERS, 
and State agencies is especially warranted due to the risk that 
school restructuring will proceed without special education 
constituents being substantially involved and will result in 
school norms and forms that reduce opportunities for students 
with disabilities to receive education in the least restrictive 
environment in neighborhood schools.

                              Summary
     As Congress considers the reauthorization of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Act on the 20th anniversary of P.L. 94-142, the 
indisputable conclusions to be drawn from a review of scholarly 
literature and the work of nationally preeminent scholars in the 
fields of special education research and teacher training are as 
follows:
       IDEA advances the equal protection doctrine of the 
        Constitution.  It is not one of the so-called "unfunded 
        mandates."  It is, instead, Federal assistance to the 
        States so that the States and their local education 
        agencies can carry out their own Federal and State 
        constitutional duties to educate all children with 
        disabilities.  

       IDEA has been the single most significant vehicle for 
        creating and implementing effective special education.  
        Its 20-year history of positive impact on students, their 
        families, educators, other professionals, and communities 
        is both obvious and impressive.  

       Congress, OSERS, and State and local educational agencies 
        must, however, improve IDEA and its implementation.  The 
        improvements will link the current islands of excellence 
        in special education to the educational mainland.  In 
        time, they will create the mainland itself.  When that 
        happens, all students  -those with and without 
        disabilities- will benefit, all families and educators 
        will benefit, and indeed the whole nation will benefit 
        from the investment we have made through IDEA in 
        advancing equality of opportunity, full participation, 
        independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for 
        students with disabilities.



                            Appendix E

                         Acknowledgements

     The National Council on Disability extends its appreciation 
to the following individuals associated with the Beach Center on 
Families and Disability at the University of Kansas who worked on 
this report:

Project directors:  H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, and Ann P. 
Turnbull, Co-Directors, Beach Center on Families and Disability, 
the University of Kansas.

Research associates: Amy Buchele-Ash, Linda Mitchell, and Thomas 
P. Tronsdal, Beach Center on Families and Disability, the 
University of Kansas;  Gwen P. Beegle, Dana Lee Lattin, Maura 
Wechsler Linas, Nancy Petty, Julia S. Shaftel, Susan E. Tabor, 
and Robert L. Tabor, Department of Special Education, The 
University of Kansas; S. Lance Freije, Mary E. Giovanni-Schulte, 
Jennifer L. Johnson, Claudia L. Langston, Laura Lawson, Alisa 
Nickel, Victoria Peacock, Krisann A. Pearce, Brenda L. Penzel, 
Marian Raab, Kate Rainbolt, James Rountree, and Rebecca A. Ryan, 
School of Law, the University of Kansas.

Administrative Staff at Beach Center on Families and Disability, 
the University of Kansas:  Gayle Martin, Lois Weldon, Ben 
Furnish, Cindy Higgins, and Marilyn Fender.

Summmary and analysis of testimony at the 10 regional hearings 
was prepared by H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, with the assistance 
of research associates.

Summary and analysis of the reports of special education 
researchers and teacher trainers was prepared by H. Rutherford 
Turnbull, III, and Ann P. Turnbull.


     The National Council on Disability also wishes to extend its 
appreciation to the following individuals who prepared 
categorical reports as part of this research effort:

1.  Learning Disabilities, by Donald D. Deshler, Jean Schumaker, 
and Joseph Fisher.

2.  Mental Retardation, by Edward A. Polloway, Jim Patton, Tom E. 
C. Smith, and                                                    
Eugene Edgar.

3.  Serious Emotional Disabilities, by Lucille Eber and C. 
Michael Nelson.

4.  Severe Multiple Disabilities, by Michael F. Giangreco and 
Martha E. Snell.

5.  Autism, by Glen Dunlap and Meme Eno-Hieneman.

6.  Physical Disabilities, by Sherwood J. Best and Gary A. Best.

7.  Other Health Impairments, by Marilyn Mulligan Ault.

8.  Visual Impairments, by Sandra Lewis.

9.  Hearing Impairments, by John Luckner and Kathee M. 
Christensen.

10.  Traumatic Brain Injury, by Ron Savage.


     Finally, the National Council on Disability wishes to extend 
its appreciation to the following individuals who prepared 
topical reports as part of this research effort:

1.  Early Intervention, by Don Bailey and Pamela Winton with Pat 
Trohanis, Tal Black, Jim Gallagher, Gloria Harbin, Robin 
McWilliam, P.J. McWilliam, Virginia                              
Buysse, Farley Bernholz, and Pat Wesley.

2.  Early Childhood, by Michael J. Guralnick.

3.  LRE/Overview and Upper School, by Susan Brody Hasazi and 
Katharine Furney.

4.  LRE/Early Childhood, by Samuel L. Odom.

5.  LRE/Elementary and Middle School, by Kathleen Gee.

6.  Social Relationships, by Luanna H. Meyer.

7.  Self-Determination, by Michael Wehmeyer.
     
8.  Transition, by Frank R. Rusch.

9.  Supported Employment, by Paul Wehman and W. Grant Revell, Jr.

10.  Minority Issues, by Vivian Correa, Maria E. Blanes-Reyes, 
and Mary Jane K.                                                 
Rapport.

11.  Collaboration, by Jacqueline Thousand, Richard A. Villa, and 
Ann Nevin.

12.  Home-School Collaboration/Parent Participation, by Thomas H. 
Powell and Patricia L. Graham.

13.  School Restructuring, by Margaret McLaughlin.

14.  School-Linked Services, by Wayne Sailor.

15.  Participatory Research, by Ann P. Turnbull and H. Rutherford 
Turnbull, III.

16.  Positive Behavioral Support, by Robert H. Horner, Jeffrey R. 
Sprague, and George Sugai.

17.  Violence Prevention, by Hill W. Walker.



                            Appendix F

     A Brief Description of the National Council on Disability


Overview and Purpose

The National Council on Disability is an independent Federal 
agency led by 15 members appointed by the President of the United 
States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  The National Council 
was initially established in 1978 as an advisory board within the 
Department of Education (Public Law 95-602).  The Rehabilitation 
Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221) transformed the 
National Council into an independent agency. 
The overall purpose of the National Council is to promote 
policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee 
equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, 
regardless of the nature or severity of the disability; and to 
empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self 
sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration 
into all aspects of society.

Specific Duties

The current statutory mandate of the National Council includes 
the following:

*    Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, 
     programs, practices, and procedures concerning individuals 
     with disabilities conducted or assisted by Federal 
     departments and agencies, including programs established or 
     assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill 
     of Rights Act; and all statutes and regulations pertaining 
     to Federal programs which assist such individuals with 
     disabilities in order to assess the effectiveness of such 
     policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and 
     regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with 
     disabilities; 

*    Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and 
     emerging disability policy issues affecting individuals with 
     disabilities at the Federal, State, and local levels, and in 
     the private sector, including the need for and coordination 
     of adult services, access to personal assistance services, 
     school reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on 
     individuals with disabilities, access for health care, and 
     policies that operate as disincentives for the individuals 
     to seek and retain employment.

*    Making recommendations to the President, the Congress, the 
     Secretary of Education, the Director of the National 
     Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and 
     other officials of Federal agencies, respecting ways to 
     better
     promote equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, 
     independent living, and inclusion and integration into all 
     aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.

*    Providing the Congress, on a continuing basis, advice, 
     recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional 
     information which the Council or the Congress deems 
     appropriate;  

*    Gathering information about the implementation, 
     effectiveness, and impact of the  Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.);

*    Advising the President, the Congress, the Commissioner of 
     the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Assistant 
     Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
     within the Department of Education, and the Director of the 
     National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 
     on the development of the programs to be carried out under 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;

*    Providing advice to the Commissioner with respect to the 
     policies of and conduct of the Rehabilitation Services 
     Administration;

*    Making recommendations to the Director of the National 
     Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways 
     to improve research, service, administration, and the 
     collection, dissemination, and implementation of research 
     findings affecting persons with disabilities;

*    Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of 
     the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and 
     reviewing the recommendations of such Council for 
     legislative and administrative changes to ensure that such 
     recommendations are consistent with the purposes of the 
     Council to promote the full integration, independence, and 
     productivity of individuals with disabilities;

*    Preparing and submitting to the President and the Congress a 
     report entitled National Disability Policy: A Progress 
     Report on an annual basis; and 

*    Preparing and submitting to the Congress and the President a 
     report containing a  summary of the activities and 
     accomplishments of the Council on an annual basis.

Population Served and Current Activities

While many government agencies deal with issues and programs 
affecting people with disabilities, the National Council is the 
only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and 
making recommendations on issues of public policy which affect 
people with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, 
perceived employment potential,
economic need, specific functional ability, status as a veteran, 
or other individual circumstance.  The National Council 
recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent 
living, community integration, and employment opportunities for 
people with disabilities by assuring an informed and coordinated 
approach to addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities 
and eliminating barriers to their active participation in 
community and family life.

The National Council plays a major role in developing disability 
policy in America.  In fact, it was the Council that originally 
proposed what eventually became the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990.  Our present list of key issues includes monitoring 
the implementation of Federal civil rights laws affecting people 
with disabilities, analyzing the performance and results of 
special education programs, development of a national approach to 
personal assistance services, health care reform, the inclusion 
of students with disabilities in high quality programs in typical 
neighborhood schools, equal employment opportunity, community 
housing, improving assistive technology and access to the 
information superhighway, and ensuring that persons with 
disabilities who are members of minority groups fully participate 
in society.
National Council on Disability                         Special 
1331 F Street NW, Suite 1050                           
Fourth-Class Mail
Washington, DC  20004-1107                             Postage 
and Fees PAID
                                                       NCD
Official Business                                      Permit No. 
G-279
Penalty for Private Use - $300


































                        ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

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. 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. 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. 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. 5  Name withheld to protect confidentiality.

6.  This area is of such vital importance to the improved 
implementation of IDEA that the National Council on Disability 
has recently issued an entire report on this subject entitled, 
Inclusionary education for students with disabilities:  Keeping 
the promise.  The report covers areas such as examples of 
successful inclusion across the age span; specific strategies for 
making inclusion work; continuing barriers to inclusionary 
education; financial barriers and opportunities; professional and 
consumer training; and the effects of inclusion on the total 
school.  While the report was based on a different set of 
hearings, the results were remarkably consistent with those in 
the current report.

7.  For a further discussion of barriers to the financing of 
inclusive education, see:  Education Development Center (1994).  
A system apart:  A study of the implementation of the least 
restrictive environment provisions of IDEA in Massachusetts and 
Illinois.  Newton, MA:  Author; and National Council on 
Disability (1994).  Inclusionary education for students with 
disabilities:  Keeping the promise.  Washington, DC:  Author.

8.  See Mills v. District of Columbia Board of Education., 348 
F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C., 1972).

9.  This remains true even though some States have closed their 
institutions in favor of family support and supported community 
living options. 

10.  The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
has funded many grants that have demonstrated the effectiveness 
of positive behavior change techniques over the past several 
years.

11.  Turnbull, H.R. (1994).  Free appropriate public education:  
Law and education of children with disabilities.  Denver:  Love 
Publishing Co.

12.  Several witnesses complained that in their experience, 
hearing officers were not impartial as they were being directly 
paid or trained by LEAs or SEAs.

13.  Retaliatory actions are prohibited under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, Section 503.  Similar provisions could be 
incorporated into IDEA.

14.  See National Council on Disability (1994).  Inclusionary 
education for students with disabilities:  Keeping the promise.  
Washington, DC:  Author.

15.  See, for example:  Serving the Nation's Students with 
Disabilities:  Progress and Prospects.  A Report to the President 
and Congress (1993);  The Education of Students with 
Disabilities:  Where Do We Stand?  A Report to the President and 
the Congress of the United States (1989);  Toward Independence:  
An Assessment of Federal Laws and Programs Affecting Persons with 
Disabilities (1986).

16.  See, for example:  SRI International (1993).  The transition 
experiences of young people with disabilities:  Implications for 
policy and programs.  (Contract No. 300-87-0054).  Washington, 
DC:  Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of 
Education.

17.  Retaliatory actions are prohibited under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, Section 503.  Similar provisions could be 
incorporated into IDEA.

18.  Education Development Center (1994).  A system apart:  A 
study of the implementation of the least restrictive environment 
provisions of IDEA in Massachusetts and Illinois.  Newton, MA:  
Author.

19.  This synthesis is based on 27 scholarly research papers 
commissioned by the National Council on Disability, in 
collaboration with the Beach Center on Families and Disability at 
the University of Kansas, as part of its work to provide 
state-of-the-art information from national experts in the area of 
special education research and personnel preparation regarding 
the reauthorization of IDEA.  The report was prepared by H. 
Rutherford Turnbull, III, and Ann P. Turnbull based on their own 
work and the work of the 27 scholars. (Please refer to Appendix E 
for a listing of these individuals.) It is anticipated that the 
research papers will be published in the near future.