                         SERVING THE NATION'S

                      STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES:

                               PROGRESS

                                  AND

                               PROSPECTS











                               A Report

                   to the President and the Congress

                         of the United States







                    National Council on Disability
                             March 4, 1993







































Serving the Nation's Students with Disabilities:  Progress and 
Prospects
National Council on Disability
800 Independence Ave., SW, Suite 814
Washington, D.C. 20591
(202) 267-3846 Voice
(202) 267-3232 TDD
(202) 453-4240 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent 
those of the administration, as this document has not been 
subjected to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.




                                   March 4, 1993

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

    On behalf of the members and staff of the National Council on 
Disability, we are pleased to provide you with a special report, 
Serving the Nation's Students With Disabilities:  Progress and 
Prospects.

    This report is in accordance with the statutory mandate of 
the National Council, which authorizes special reports to the 
President and the Congress.  It follows the progress of the 
recommendations contained in the National Council's 1989 report, 
The Education of Students With Disabilities:  Where Do We Stand?

    Although significant gains have been made in recent years in 
educating students who have disabilities, there is still much to 
be accomplished, particularly in the area of including these 
students within their own neighborhood schools.  The Council 
views the education of students with disabilities in regular 
schools as a critical priority.  Success in education means 
success in adult life.  For students with disabilities, a good 
education can be the difference between a life of dependence and 
nonproductivity and a life of independence and productivity.

    The National Council on Disability looks forward to your 
leadership on behalf of students with disabilities.  We are eager 
to work with you as we seek quality educational services for all 
students with disabilities.

Sincerely,




John A. Gannon                     Sandra Swift Parrino
Acting Chairperson                 Chairperson
February 1993-present              October 1983-January 1993


(This same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro 
Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.)

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                 Page

    MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY..................ix

    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY, MEMBERS AND STAFF..............xi

    STUDY STAFF...................................................xii

    SPECIAL ADVISORS TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY........xii

    ADVISORS......................................................xii

    PREFACE......................................................xiii

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................1

    INTRODUCTION...................................................20

                                   Overview of Public Education 
for Individuals with Disabilities..................................20

    STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: CURRENT STATUS.....................24

    SCHOOL REFORM IN THE 1990's....................................50

                                   Impact of School Reform on 
                                     Students with Disabilities....51

                                   An Assessment and Summary of 
School
                                     Reform Initiatives............51

                                   Is School Reform Cyclical or 
Revolutionary?.....................................................54

                                   National, State, and Local 
School Reform
                                     Perspectives..................55

    A LOOK AT THE PRESENT:  STUDENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS 
      AND OUTCOMES.................................................64

    A LOOK AHEAD:  OUTCOMES AND EXPECTATIONS.......................68

    MEASURES AND INDICATORS........................................70

    FINAL REMARKS..................................................82

    NOTES..........................................................83

    NATIONAL COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES..................89


                                TABLES

    Table                                                        Page

       1. Percent of Individualized Education
          Program Elements Cited in Noncompliance..................26

       2. Analysis of the 1991 Regional Inspector 
          General's Audit of Child Count Errors....................28

       3. Most Commonly Cited Least Restrictive
          Environment Areas of Noncompliance.......................31

       4. OSEP's Education Agency Monitoring Reports
          Areas of Procedural Safeguards Cited
          as in Noncompliance......................................42

       5. State Education Reform Initiatives.......................63

       6. Outcome Variables, Measures, and Research................71

       7. States Ranked by Student Graduation Rates................76

       8. National Consumer Survey (1990)..........................81
                                FIGURES

     Figure                                                      Page

        1A.  States Ranked by Percentage of 1988 Students
             with Individualized Education Programs................22

        1B.  Agencies Ranked by Percent of Total U.S.
             Expenditures for Special Education....................23

         2.  Unexplained Shifts in Numbers of Students
             by State, 1986-89.....................................34

         3.  Unexplained Placement Shifts by State, 1986-89........35

         4.  National Student Placements--All Disabilities,
             1985-89...............................................37

         5.  National Student Placements--All Disabilities
             by Age Group, 1988-89.................................39

        6A.  1986 Office of Civil Rights Survey Data
             Elementary/Secondary Students
             (Afro-American::Caucasian Comparison).................46

        6B.  1986 Office of Civil Rights Survey Data
             Elementary/Secondary Students
             (Hispanic::Caucasian Comparison)......................47

         7.  Enrollment Comparisons by Race, 1988
             (Special::General Education)..........................48

         8.  Basis of Exit--All Disabilities, 1986-89..............65

         9.  Basis of Exit, All Conditions, 1986-89
             (Alternative Format)..................................67

        10.  Comparative Test Performance--Scholastic
             Aptitude Tests........................................74

       11a.  Overall Average Mathematics Proficiency--
             1990 NAEP Trial State Assessment
             (States by Ability)...................................78

       11b.  Overall Average Mathematics Proficiency--
             1990 NAEP Trial State Assessment
             (Regions by Ability)..................................79

        12.  NEAP Young Adult Literacy Study Data--
             Comparison of Proficiency Scale Scores................80
             MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY


     The National Council on Disability is an independent federal 
agency composed of 15 members appointed by the President of the 
United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The National 
Council was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the 
Department of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act 
Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-221) transformed the National Council 
into an independent agency. The statutory mandate of the National 
Council at the time of this study assigned the Council the 
following duties:

       Establishing general policies for reviewing the operation 
        of the National Institute on Disability and 
        Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR);

       Providing advice to the Commissioner of the 
        Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) on policies 
        and conduct;

       Providing ongoing advice to the President, the Congress, 
        the RSA Commissioner, the Assistant Secretary of the 
        Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
        (OSERS), and the Director of NIDRR on programs authorized 
        in the Rehabilitation Act;

       Reviewing and evaluating on a continuous basis the 
        effectiveness of all policies, programs, and activities 
        concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or 
        assisted by federal departments or agencies and all 
        statutes pertaining to federal programs, and assessing 
        the extent to which these provide incentives to 
        community-based services for, promote full integration 
        of, and contribute to the independence and dignity of 
        individuals with disabilities;

       Making recommendations of ways to improve research; the 
        collection, dissemination, and implementation of research 
        findings; service; and administration affecting persons 
        with disabilities;

       Reviewing and approving standards for independent living 
        programs;

       Submitting an annual report with appropriate 
        recommendations to the Congress and the President 
        regarding the status of research affecting persons with 
        disabilities and the activities of RSA and NIDRR;

       Reviewing and approving standards for Projects with 
        Industry programs;

       Providing to the Congress, on a continuous basis, advice, 
        recommendations, and any additional information that the 
        National Council or the Congress considers appropriate;

       Providing guidance to the President's Committee on the 
        Employment of People with Disabilities; and

       Issuing an annual report to the President and the 
        Congress on the progress that has been made in 
        implementing the recommendations contained in the 
        National Council's January 30, 1986 report, Toward 
        Independence.

     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 that 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 ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to 
addressing their concerns and eliminating barriers to their 
active participation in community and family life.
          NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY, MEMBERS AND STAFF*


Members

John A. Gannon, Acting Chairperson
Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.

Kent Waldrep, Jr., Vice Chairperson
Plano, Texas

Linda W. Allison
Dallas, Texas

Ellis B. Bodron
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Larry Brown, Jr.
Potomac, Maryland

Mary Ann Mobley Collins
Beverly Hills, California

Anthony H. Flack
Norwalk, Connecticut

John Leopold
Pasadena, Maryland

Robert S. Muller
Grandville, Michigan

George H. Oberle, P.E.D.
Stillwater, Oklahoma

Sandra Swift Parrino
Briarcliff Manor, New York


Mary Matthews Raether
McLean, Virginia

Anne Crellin Seggerman
Fairfield, Connecticut

Michael B. Unhjem
Fargo, North Dakota

Helen Wilshire Walsh
Greenwich, Connecticut

Staff

Andrew I. Batavia, J.D., M.S.
Executive Director

Billie Jean Hill
Program Specialist

Mark S. Quigley
Public Affairs Specialist

Brenda Bratton
Executive Secretary

Stacey S. Brown
Staff Assistant

Janice Mack
Administrative Officer

Lorraine Williams
Office Automation Clerk*Sandra Swift Parrino initiated this study 
when she was Chairperson of the National Council on Disability.  
At the time of the study, Ethel Briggs was Executive Director, 
Harold Snider was Deputy Director, Katherine Seelman was Research 
Specialist, and Kathy Roy Johnson was Program Specialist at the 
National Council.
                              CHAIRPERSON
                    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                             Mary Raether


                 STUDY STAFF (Towson State University)

Project Director:          Martin Gould, Ed.D.

Research Associates:       Margaret Kiley, Ed.D.
                           Deborah Gartland, Ph.D.
                           Robert Wall, Ph.D.

Research Administration:   Lynn Johnson, M.A. 

Administrative Staff:      Dorothy Herd
                           Patti Miller, M.A.
                           Ruth A. Dunn, M.A.


        SPECIAL ADVISORS TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Robert Hochstein                        Anthony R. Santoro, Ph.D.
Assistant to the President              President, Christopher 
Newport
The Carnegie Foundation for the          University
 Advancement of Teaching                Commonwealth of Virginia
Washington, D.C.                        Newport News, Virginia


                               ADVISORS

Frederick D. Bedell, Ed.D.              Nancy McTaggart, J.D.

Robert Bruininks, Ph.D.                 Ron Sczypkowski, Ph.D.

Susan Fowler, Ph.D.                     Martha Thurlow, Ph.D.

Michael L. Hardman, Ph.D.               Richard van den Pol, 
Ph.D.

Susan Hasazi, Ph.D.                     Barbara Wilcox, Ph.D.

                                PREFACE

  Educational reform is part of the fabric of societal change in 
America. The 1970s were known as the decade of educational 
"equity" reforms. The 1980s were hailed as the decade of 
educational "excellence" reforms. The 1990s are rapidly becoming 
known as the decade of educational "accountability" reforms. The 
major education reform of the 1990s is known as America 2000: An 
Education Strategy, which espouses six goals:

  ù    All children will start school ready to learn.
  ù    Nine out of ten students will graduate high school.
  ù    Students will master a range of basic subjects.
  ù    The United States will be first in the world in 
       mathematics and science achievement.
  ù    Adults will be functionally literate and trained to 
       compete in the work force.
  ù    Schools will be drug-free and safe.

  As the language of the goals indicates, all children and 
students are to be included. No segment of the country's 
educational population is explicitly excluded from America 2000's 
reform program. America 2000 and any other education reform 
efforts will benefit by including the following numbers of 
students with disabilities:

  ù    250,000 infants and toddlers served by special education 
       in early intervention programs;
  ù    65,000 children with disabilities who are enrolled in Head 
       Start programs;
  ù    4.28 million students served by special education programs 
       in regular school buildings;
  ù    320,000 students served by special education programs 
       outside of regular school buildings;
  ù    260,000 students served by special education programs who 
       graduate from high school each year; and
  ù    2 million students with disabilities who are enrolled in 
       adult and postsecondary education.

  Federal and state education policymakers should recognize that 
students with disabilities offer a wealth of human potential and 
resources.  For our nation to be able to compete internationally 
in the next century, it is essential that these students be 
included in all efforts to reform and improve our education 
system.








                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Prior to the enactment of federal laws providing public 
education entitlements to all students with disabilities, vast 
numbers of these students either received an education that did 
not meet their needs or received no education at all. It was not 
until 1975, when the U.S. Congress passed P.L. 94-142 (now 
referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act--IDEA, P.L. 102-119), that conditions began to change 
substantially. The purpose of P.L. 94-142 was to guarantee that 
all children and youth with disabilities receive a free, 
appropriate public education in the least restrictive 
environment, relying in large measure on input from parents into 
decision-making activities.

  In 1988, the National Council on Disability held formal 
hearings on various aspects of the implementation of P.L. 94-142. 
Based on those hearings, the National Council presented its 
report to the President and the Congress in 1989. Entitled The 
Education of Students with Disabilities:  Where Do We Stand?, the 
report provided 31 findings, posed questions for future study, 
and offered specific recommendations for the improvement of 
public education for all individuals with disabilities who have 
special education and related service needs.

  Many of the findings of that report revealed that special 
education is a relatively isolated service system in which 
student placements varied widely among and within school 
districts and parents were uninformed about their children's 
educational rights. As a direct result of its findings, the 
National Council raised questions concerning the relationship 
between educational settings and student outcomes, the 
feasibility of enhanced federal-state partnerships, and the 
consolidation and improvement of special education and general 
education systems for all students.

  Seventeen years have passed since the enactment of P.L. 94-142. 
Nationwide, special education enrollments have risen to about 4.6 
million. Federal, state, and local spending for special education 
has increased to about $20 billion annually, and yet many parents 
of students with disabilities remain dissatisfied with the 
education their children are receiving. At the same time, America 
is now in the process of reassessing its educational systems 
generally and rethinking the way all students are taught. It is, 
therefore, an appropriate time to reconsider the effect of our 
educational system on students with disabilities.

  The National Council commissioned this study to determine how 
the federal special education law is working, what outcomes 
children and youth with disabilities are achieving, and how the 
system can be improved in the context of current education reform 
initiatives. This report examines these critical questions:

       ù  Where do students with disabilities fit into current 
          education reforms, such as America 2000 and the 
          National Education Goals Report of 1991:  Building a 
          Nation of Learners?

       ù  Do students with disabilities receive equitable 
          treatment in assessment and research programs?

       ù  Are traditionally neglected and underrepresented 
          students segregated from nondisabled peers and placed 
          in programs that do not meet their needs?

       ù  How can special education and general education systems 
          work together across federal, state, and local levels, 
          to ensure that students with disabilities will achieve 
          desired outcomes?

       In answering these questions, the National Council's study 
involved policy analyses, an evaluation of program 
implementation, and a review of the data bases of the Department 
of Education (i.e., Office of Special Education Programs, 
National Center for Educational Statistics, and Office for Civil 
Rights) and the Census Bureau. The study focused on several 
policy themes, including the individualized education program, 
least restrictive environment requirements, procedural 
safeguards, and multicultural and multidisciplinary issues, and 
on several educational outcomes, including academic achievement, 
school and work readiness, quality of life, and minimal 
instructional time lost. Supporting documentation for the study 
is available in a supplement to this report.

Policy Themes

Theme 1 -The development of the individualized education program 
         (IEP) and its impact, or the lack thereof, on the 
         quality of education and related services for students

       The IDEA statute requires states and local school 
districts to develop an IEP for every eligible student of special 
education, at least annually, at a meeting between a qualified 
representative of the local school district, the teacher, the 
parents or guardians, and, whenever appropriate, the student. 
Following the 1982 Supreme Court decision in the case of Board of 
Education v. Rowley (102 S.Ct. 3034), lower courts and 
administrative bodies have begun to consider whether an IEP was 
designed to address a student's educational progress. Courts have 
held that a school district must consider a student's potential 
for educational progress and advancement when developing the 
student's IEP.

        A small but growing body of research data and expert 
opinion has focused on the IEP and its impact on the quality of 
education for students. In the 26 Final State Compliance and 
Monitoring Reports issued by the Office of Special Education 
Programs (OSEP), analyzing 1,618 student IEPs from April 1989 to 
February 1992, 150 of the 165 local public agencies visited were 
cited to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and 
state IEP mandates. The following table presents the results of 
analysis of IEP noncompliance in the 26 Final State Reports:


                INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP)
           PERCENTAGE OF IEP ELEMENTS CITED IN NONCOMPLIANCE
                  IN 26 OSEP STATE MONITORING REPORTS
                       (N = 1,618 Student IEPs)



Content Elements Required
in IEP                           States' Average NonCompliance
                                 Percentage

Present Levels of Performance    35
Annual Goals                     38

Special Education and Related Services40

Objective Criteria               37

Evaluation Procedures            50

Evaluation Schedule              66

Regular Education Participation  36

       Based on a study of 21 states, involving 40 local school 
districts and the IEPs of 2,000 students, the 1991 Regional 
Inspector General's Audit of Child Count Errors Report stated 
that slightly more than 9% of students with disabilities either 
do not have an IEP or have not been properly evaluated. This 
level of noncompliance constitutes a violation of federal law.  
Moreover, without student IEPs and evaluations to rely on, it is 
difficult for policymakers and others to judge whether students 
are receiving adequate services and programs.

       The 1990 Forging a New Era--National Consumer Survey, a 
nationally representative study involving 13,075 people with 
developmental disabilities, reported that 15%-25% of respondents 
(i.e., parents and individuals with disabilities) were 
dissatisfied with their current educational services. Of ten 
reasons cited for their dissatisfaction, the chief reason was 
that educational services were "not suited to their needs." 
Specific consumer ratings of educational services by setting or 
program included the following:

               Service                    Percent Dissatisfied

       Early intervention                         30%
       Preschool41%
       Regular class in regular school            55%
       Regular class with resource room           46%
       Separate class                             47%
       Separate school (day)                      46%
       Separate school (residential)              41%
       After school tutor                         31%
       Related services                           19%
       Summer school programs                     24%
       Adult literacy/basic education             37%
       Voc-Tech/vocational education              38%
       Postsecondary education                    46%


Theme 2 -The concept of least restrictive environment (LRE) and 
         its impact, or lack thereof, on education for students

       The IDEA statute further requires school districts to 
develop and implement LRE procedures to ensure that, to the 
maximum extent appropriate, children and youth with disabilities 
will be educated with children and youth who are not disabled. In 
OSEP's monitoring of 26 states for the period April 1989 to 
February 1992, 143 of 165 local education agencies visited were 
cited to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and 
state LRE mandates. 

       The following table presents the results of the analysis 
in the 26 Final State Reports with respect to the two most 
commonly cited areas of noncompliance by school districts with 
federal and state LRE mandates: (1) placing the students and then 
developing the students' IEPs, thereby following an improper 
sequence of LRE determination; and (2) automatically placing 
students with certain disability labels (e.g., mental 
retardation, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic 
impairments) into separate classes or schools.


                  LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)
            MOST COMMONLY CITED LRE AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 
                             IN 26 STATES






Student Disability
 Groups Affected      
                      Most Commonly Cited
                      Noncompliance Area:
                      Improper Sequence of LRE Determination
                      No. of States         Second Most Commonly 
                                            Cited Noncompliance 
                                            Area:
                                            Automatic Placement 
                                            in Separate Classes 
                                            or Schools
                                            No. of States

Mental Retardation    13                    13

Orthopedic Impairment   4                     3

Serious Emotional Disturbance  2            

Multiple Disabilities   2                     2

Visual Impairment       1                     1

Behavior Disorder       1                     1

Deaf-Blind              1                     1

Severe/Profound Physical or Mental Disability  1  1

       Various local school districts reported three general 
reasons for noncompliance with LRE mandates: accessibility 
problems with public schools; systemic-related service 
configuration patterns; and preexisting transportation service 
arrangements.

       A national "student placements for all disabilities data 
set," which reports LRE data for 10 different student groups, 
shows the following trends for the years 1985 to 1989:

       ù  Regular class placements increased from 27% to 31.3%.

       ù  Resource room placements decreased from 42.5% to 37.3%.

       ù  Separate class placements increased from 23.8% to 
          24.4%.

       ù  Separate facility placements remained at 5.2%.

       ù  Residential facility placements decreased from 1.3% to 
          .9%.

       ù  Home and hospital placements increased from .08% to 
          2.6%.

Theme 3 -An evaluation of the procedural safeguards system and 
         how that system impacts on parents of students with 
         disabilities

       Procedural safeguards are the cornerstone for equal access 
for parents of children and youth with disabilities to special 
education and related service programs. Procedural safeguard 
systems establish the right of a parent (or a school system) to 
protest certain government actions that could affect a child's 
right to special education under federal and state laws. The 
basic list of procedural safeguards includes notification, 
evaluation and placement, periodic evaluation and reevaluation, 
access to and confidentiality of records, surrogate parents, 
prior notice, parent consent, content of notice, access to due 
process hearings, hearing rights, and right to civil action.

       The 26 Final State Monitoring and Compliance Reports 
indicated that 152 of 165 local public agencies visited were 
cited as being in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal 
and state mandates regarding the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act's procedural safeguards system. Based on those 
Final State Reports, the following are average levels of 
noncompliance across all 26 states:

       ù  54% of the mandated procedural safeguards reviewed by 
          the federal monitoring teams were not established.

       ù  62% of the mandated procedural safeguards reviewed by 
          the federal monitoring teams and which are required to 
          be in notices given to parents were not included.

       Another segment of the procedural safeguards system 
established by federal special education law involves secretarial 
review--review by the Assistant Secretary of the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)--of parent 
and school system complaints. From 1981 to the present, there 
have been 173 complaint requests for secretarial review. Of those 
complaints, 156 (or 90%) have been requests for review made by 
parents or parent organizations, and only 2 of the 173 requests 
for review have been granted.

Theme 4 -Multicultural and multidisciplinary issues related to 
         the education of students with disabilities

       One of the new provisions of IDEA emphasizes meeting the 
needs of traditionally neglected or underrepresented populations. 
According to some estimates, by the year 2000, nearly one-third 
of all school-age children and youth will be members of minority 
populations. In addition, an increasing number of newborns who 
have unique disabilities and individuals from groups recently 
identified by IDEA must be served by school districts.

       Shifting demographics among resident populations are 
forcing communities to rethink and redesign the structure of 
their public school systems. School enrollment trends suggest 
that some school districts are having difficulty delivering 
appropriate services to their increasingly diverse student 
populations. In some states, the percentage of students enrolled 
in special education has increased while the general school 
population has declined.

       For instance, a 1991 report issued by the Massachusetts 
Department of Education, A Review of the Eligibility Criteria for 
Children with Special Needs, notes that 17% of students ages 3 to 
21 were taught in special education classes during the 1990-1991 
school year. The report acknowledges that "overreferrals" to 
special education are a direct result of imprecise eligibility 
definitions, nonexistent or ineffective prereferral processes, 
and untrained or undertrained school personnel. 

       Several research reports have indicated that certain 
racial groups of students are more likely to be enrolled in 
special education (National School Boards Association 1990). A 
federal study (Hayward 1987) of high school juniors reported that 
66% of special education students as compared to 72% of 
non-special education students were Caucasian, 25% as compared to 
15% were African American, and 8% as compared to 8.5% were 
Hispanic American.  Disproportionate representation of cultural 
and racial groups in special education populations can be caused 
by inaccurate perceptions of students' competencies and 
behaviors.

       A 1991 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, entitled 
Within-School Discrimination:  Inadequate Title VI Enforcement by 
the Office for Civil Rights, painted a bleak picture of the 
status of federal monitoring and enforcement of some civil rights 
violations in public education. Two GAO findings about the 
limitations of the OCR in determining Title VI violations 
included OCR regional offices' and investigators' (1) lack of 
training in and (2) lack of staff expertise for investigating 
ability grouping, tracking, or assignment to special education 
cases.

Educational Outcomes

Student Accomplishments and Outcomes

       The only source of annual national outcomes data from OSEP 
is the Basis of Exit Data Set, which represents only 5% of 
America's special education population of 4.54 million students. 
This data set includes the number and percentage of students who 
graduated with diplomas, graduated with certificates, reached 
maximum age of entitlement, dropped out, or had some other basis 
of exit.  A review of this data set reveals the following 
national trends for the years 1986 to 1989:

       ù  Students with disabilities who graduated with diplomas 
          and certificates decreased from 60% to 52%.

       ù  Students with disabilities who dropped out and who had 
          other bases of exit increased from 37% to 44%.

       ù  Students with disabilities who reached their maximum 
          age of entitlement remained at relatively stable levels 
          of 3% to 4%.

       A review of special education student graduation rates by 
state/agency for the period 1988-1989 demonstrates a large range 
of variation from 25% to 97% across state/agency education 
systems.  Overall, among the population of students with 
disabilities, the following national trends are revealed:

       ù  Students with hearing impairments graduate with 
          diplomas at a higher percentage rate than any other 
          student group, ranging from 56% to 65%.

       ù  Students with mental retardation graduate with 
          certificates at a higher percentage rate than any other 
          student group, at a rate of about 20%.

       ù  Students with speech impairments have shown the highest 
          rates among all student groups of leaving schools for 
          undetermined reasons, ranging from 19% to about 43%.

       ù  Students with multiple disabilities have the greatest 
          likelihood of any student group to reach the maximum 
          age of their school entitlement, at an average rate of 
          about 12%.

       ù  Students with serious emotional disturbances are at the 
          greatest risk among all student groups of dropping out 
          of school, at a rate of about 40%.

School Reform in the 1990s:  Federal, State and Local Initiatives

       From 1990 to 1992, there have been numerous education 
reform initiatives proposed to improve education for all 
students, and school reform efforts have moved forward across the 
country.  The impetus for these efforts is that America's schools 
are failing to prepare an overwhelming majority of its youth for 
their futures.  With all this reform activity, we must ask 
whether the needs of students with disabilities are adequately 
being taken into consideration.  A review of eight major federal 
initiatives involving school-age children and youth shows that 
six did not include specific provisions for students with 
disabilities.  It is still too soon to tell how students with 
disabilities will participate in the remaining two initiatives.

       On April 18, 1991, then-President George Bush released 
America 2000:  An Education Strategy, a long-range plan intended 
to move communities toward the six national education goals 
adopted by the President and the National Governors Association 
on February 25, 1990, at the historic education summit held in 
Charlottesville, Virginia. Under this initiative, three fleeting 
references to students with disabilities and students who receive 
special education services can be found in America's "education 
report card" entitled The National Education Goals Report of 
1991:  Building a Nation of Learners. There are no identifiable 
measures or indicators that specifically reflect the 
accomplishments of students who receive special education and 
related services.  

       As of April 15, 1992, 43 states and the District of 
Columbia had officially adopted America 2000 or a variation of 
it. In addition to state reform efforts, a number of cities or 
regions are beginning their own education initiatives, which are 
also variations of the America 2000 program. Some of these state 
and local education reforms propose to include individuals with 
disabilities and students who receive special education services; 
however, many state and local initiatives are silent in this 
regard.  Even though 13 states publish--and tout--assessment 
reports related to their statewide education reform programs, the 
majority of the states do not disaggregate performance data for 
students with disabilities or students who receive special 
education services. Many states report only enrollment statistics 
related to these special student populations.

       There remain many questions concerning how individuals 
with disabilities will be fully included in the mainstream of 
educational initiatives. To date, as recent education reform 
efforts have been discussed and developed, the needs of students 
with disabilities have been given little, if any, serious 
attention. Even though 91% of elementary and secondary public 
special education students are in graded classes (or placements), 
those students' achievements are not systematically documented by 
federal, state, or local education agencies or their much 
publicized educational reform initiatives.

Objectives, Outcomes, and Indicators

       For students with disabilities, as for students generally, 
objectives and expectations must be specified and outcomes must 
be measured with appropriate indicators of success.  Federal and 
state agencies are working to improve the accountability of their 
education systems. Agency officials and reform advocates face the 
ambitious task of identifying performance indicators and 
developing measurement systems. America 2000 has already 
established proficiency standards in mathematics and is in the 
process of setting such standards for several other academic 
content areas.

       Currently, there are no specific performance standards for 
students who receive special education. In the absence of such 
standards, we must ask what existing measurement strategies and 
indicators education policymakers and others can apply to 
determine and report on the accomplishments of students with 
disabilities and those who receive special education services. A 
number of strategies are possible:

       ù  The disaggregation and reporting of proficiency scores 
          for students with IEPs who have been allowed to take 
          various assessments such as the National Assessment of 
          Educational Progress (NAEP).[*]

       ù  The enhanced use and reporting of the research results 
          involving students with disabilities from evaluation 
          studies, such as the National Educational Longitudinal 
          Study (NELS) of 1988.[**]

       ù  The full inclusion of the special education population  
          into the America 2000 measurement system or any other 
          system developed to assess educational achievement.

       ù  The use of the performance scores attained by 
          individuals with disabilities who take education-based 
          competency or achievement tests such as the Scholastic 
          Aptitude Test.

Conclusions and General Recommendations

       Since its inception in 1975, public special education was 
intended to be a part of, not apart from, regular public 
education. Current efforts to improve special education and 
mainstream education will succeed only if America decides to 
target all students as valued members of our society deserving of 
a first-class education. It is essential that the needs of the 
4.6 million students in special education (11% of America's total 
public school population) be fully addressed by our education 
system.

       Total quality management for existing special education 
programs and services must be improved within and across all 
levels of government. The implementation of Congressional 
mandates for special education at the federal and state levels 
can best be described as "variable." Although some states and 
local education agencies have consistently developed and 
implemented IEPs, followed the principles of the LRE and 
procedural safeguards, and designed reliable special education 
data systems, other states have demonstrated less than adequate 
performance in these areas. Reports and research from the 
mid-1980s indicate that certain racial groups have been 
disproportionately tracked into lower ability and/or special 
education classes. In the absence of adequate federal government 
monitoring and enforcement of civil rights laws, the negative 
impact of practices such as "tracking" will continue. Such 
practices must be stopped immediately to ensure that all students 
receive an appropriate education.

       To ensure that the requirements of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act are carried out, Congress should:

       ù  Develop and implement a comprehensive system that 
          incorporates standardized federal compliance and 
          monitoring results, comprehensive and meaningful 
          outcome data about students, and reliable statistics 
          about effective instructional practices;

       ù  Continue to improve the federal compliance monitoring 
          of states' implementation of IDEA provisions regarding 
          IEPs (and individual family service programs and 
          individual transition programs), LRE, and procedural 
          safeguards;

       ù  Rigorously apply federal enforcement strategies and 
          provide technical assistance and program support when 
          instances of noncompliance with the IDEA are 
          documented; and

       ù  Establish and publish compliance performance measures 
          that can be used as baselines against which individual 
          progress in school systems can be judged.

       Considerable evidence exists that students with 
disabilities and those who receive special education services are 
not adequately included in assessment and research efforts (e.g., 
the National Education Goals Panel). One current obstacle to the 
inclusion of students with disabilities into these efforts may be 
the isolated, fragmented data system maintained by OSEP. There is 
a great need for comprehensive, timely data on the status of 
students with disabilities. Policymakers should develop a 
national data system that will provide more valid and reliable 
measures of how students with disabilities fare in our nation's 
school systems.

       Despite the claims by education policymakers of their 
strong commitment to include all students in current federal and 
state reform initiatives, students with disabilities or students 
who receive special education services have been omitted from the 
majority of reform programs. As the nation and states continue to 
move forward with their educational reform initiatives, 
policymakers must not continue to overlook or "channel out" those 
students who receive special education services (e.g., students 
who are not on academic tracks).  Future federal, state, and 
local education reform initiatives should address the needs of 
all students, including students with disabilities.

       Policymakers should forge a balance between the competing, 
and often conflicting, policies of educational "excellence" and 
"equity." The education equity reforms of the 1970s (e.g., needs 
and access, social and welfare concerns, and federal initiatives 
and regulations) were followed by education excellence reforms in 
the 1980s (e.g., performance standards, productivity concerns, 
and state and local initiatives and interests). To forge such a 
balance, the education accountability reforms of the 1990s must 
guarantee all students will be included in federal-state-local 
initiatives. There must be a serious effort to include students 
with disabilities and their parent representatives in discussions 
and work efforts focusing on educational reform across all levels 
of government and across all program areas.

Recommendations to Congress and the Administration

       Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the 
following specific recommendations are offered for consideration 
and action:

Recommendation 1:

       Update and revise A Guide to Improving the National 
       Education Data System to include "students who receive 
       special education services" or "individuals with 
       disabilities," including the following areas:
       
            Student and Community Background Statistics:  
            Beginning of the school year membership counts, 
            private school student background statistics, and
            disaggregated data from National Center for 
            Educational Statistics (NCES) sample and universe 
            surveys;

            Education Resource Statistics:  District-level data 
            from the Common Core of Data Survey, program- and 
            function-based accounting data, data collection 
            regarding status of school buildings, and measures 
            that indicate total dollar investment in personnel;

            School Process Statistics:  National and 
            state-by-state data on personnel 
            supply-and-demand-based broad indicators of teacher 
            preparation, national- and state-level data on 
            student opportunities to learn specific instructional 
            topics, and national- and state-level data on drug 
            and alcohol use and violence in the schools, as well 
            as policies and programs undertaken to prevent such 
            occurrences; and

            Student Outcome Statistics:  State-by-state 
            comparisons of students' knowledge in core content 
            areas (reading, writing, etc.); differences in 
            performance among important subgroups of students to 
            be reported at national and state levels; trends in 
            student performance over time for all grades and 
            subjects at national and state levels; research, 
            development, and experimentation with new types of 
            assessment techniques to provide more sophisticated 
            and broader measures of student performance; 
            state-by-state and locale-by-locale student 
            achievement measures; student achievement measures 
            scaled to allow international comparisons; 
            Information regarding links between student 
            achievements and student courses of study undertaken; 
            possible linkages of specific features of NAEP, NELS, 
            and other relevant survey and research instruments; 
            national and state periodic reports on school 
            dropouts and completers; intergovernmental reports of 
            postsecondary school enrollment patterns and 
            (un)employment patterns; and specific measures of 
            student satisfaction with schools and of student 
            future aspirations.

Recommendation 2:

       Establish an independent program evaluation system whereby 
       selected school districts send annual special education 
       data (e.g., child counts) and supporting documentation to 
       the Office of the Inspector General and/or to the General 
       Accounting Office for "independent" reviews and 
       cross-checks with the special education data that are 
       reported annually to Congress under the Individuals with 
       Disabilities Education Act.

Recommendation 3:

       Incorporate and publish a statistically representative 
       sample of students' proficiency scores from reform-based 
       assessments (e.g., NAEP). These assessments must reflect 
       every student segment, including students with 
       disabilities or students who receive special education 
       services.

Recommendation 4:

       Develop a data system that:

            Supports the disaggregation of data by gender, race, 
            ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability and 
            nondisability status, and age group across levels of 
            education;

            Supports performance feedback loops or chains that 
            are incorporated into all education accountability 
            efforts for minority and majority student groups;

            Generates evaluative information and materials that 
            are not used as weapons against educators and do not 
            produce defensive reactions;

            Incorporates short- and long-range planning and 
            reform activities across and within federal and state 
            agencies and programs; and

            Stimulates program improvements and promotes research 
            on behalf of all of America's students.

Recommendation 5:

       Ensure that all federal and state education reform 
       proposals and policies address the needs of all students, 
       including all students with disabilities, by making this a 
       basic requirement or criterion in federal reform efforts.

Recommendation 6:

       Require that all national studies and reports on education 
       should include students with disabilities. For example, 
       federal policymakers should ensure that the performance 
       proficiency scores of students who receive special 
       education services are included in the following:

            The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
            (NAEP) Trial Math, Science, and other evaluations;

            The National Education Longitudinal Study 
            follow-along research project;

            The National Longitudinal Transition Study 
            follow-along research project; and

            All other relevant assessments that obtained, but did 
            not highlight, performance or proficiency scores 
            achieved by students who receive special education 
            and related services.

Recommendation 7:

       Require that indicators and measures that highlight the 
       achievement of all of the nation's students, including 
       those who receive special education services, be developed 
       and applied.  For example, measurement strategies are 
       needed in the following areas:

            School Readiness:  Include measures of individualized 
            family service program (IFSP) goals and objectives 
            that
            are accomplished by children/families served by Part 
            H of IDEA;

            High School Completion:  Include measures of basis of 
            exit for students who receive special education 
            services through IDEA, which incorporates new data 
            that identify basis of exit from different 
            educational settings;

            Student Achievement and Citizenship:  Include 
            measures of students with disabilities or students 
            who receive special education services who have been 
            permitted to take the Civics Trends Assessment 
            portion of the NAEP tests;

            Science and Mathematics:  Include disaggregated 
            scores and measures of students with disabilities or 
            students who receive special education services who 
            have been permitted to take NAEP State Math (or 
            Science) Trial Assessments and, for comparative 
            purposes, students with disabilities or students who 
            receive special education services who have been 
            permitted to take the 1991 International Assessment 
            of Education;

            Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning:  Include all 
            interagency (e.g., Department of Labor) studies 
            and/or assessment measures of adults with 
            disabilities who have been permitted to take various 
            agencies' tests. Postsecondary (college) attendance 
            and college completion rates for students with 
            disabilities are available and relevant; and

            Safe, Disciplined, Drug-Free Schools:  Include 
            student responses and measures generated by the Drug 
            Use and School Safety Surveys that have been 
            administered to students with disabilities or 
            students who receive special education services. 
            Other critical measures should focus on minimal 
            instructional time lost (e.g., student absenteeism, 
            suspensions, expulsions), which is highlighted, in 
            part, in the Office of Civil Rights biannual surveys.

Recommendation 8:

       Rigorously and strictly enforce the requirements of the 
       Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Recommendations to Other Constituencies of Special Education

       Based on the research findings, conclusions, and specific 
recommendations to policymakers, the following general 
recommendations are offered to the nation. It is important to 
note that these recommendations are interdependent in nature, 
much like federal/state special education laws. That is, they 
need to be implemented together, beginning with home and family 
involvement, if they are to improve public education for all 
students with disabilities.

Recommendations for Parents

1.   Parents should assume and exercise full responsibility for 
     maintaining the integrity of their children's special 
     education entitlements. For example, parents should actively 
     participate in the development of their children's 
     individualized education programs, individualized family 
     service plans, or individualized transition plans.

2.   Parents should be partners with schools so that they can 
     maintain an active role in educational decision-making 
     activities related to their children's progress. For 
     example, parents should work collaboratively with schools to 
     place their children in the least restrictive and most 
     appropriate settings.

3.   Parents of children with disabilities should participate as 
     advocates in local, state, and federal school reform 
     initiatives.

Recommendations for Students

1.   Students with disabilities, whenever appropriate, should 
     become active participants in the design and implementation 
     of their educational programs.

2.   Students with disabilities, whenever appropriate, should 
     participate in evaluations of their educational programs.

3.   Students with disabilities, whenever appropriate, should 
     participate in planning for their transition from school to 
     adulthood to ensure a satisfactory quality of life.

Recommendations for School Officials and Educators (e.g., School 
Teachers, Systemwide Administrators, Higher Education Personnel, 
State/Local Education Agency Personnel)

1.   State/local education agency personnel must ensure that they 
     establish and maintain effective partnerships with parents. 
     They should facilitate ongoing, two-way communication, 
     including full and clear information about student and 
     parent rights under federal and state special education 
     laws.

2.   Systemwide administrators must provide continuous, 
     state-of-the-art inservice training and support for regular 
     education instructional staff to guarantee successful and 
     full inclusion of students with disabilities into regular 
     classroom settings.

3.   Higher education personnel must develop preservice teacher 
     training programs based on proven teacher preparation 
     practices and in collaboration with state/local education 
     agencies and school districts that meet the unique and 
     diverse needs of student populations.

4.   State and local school districts must ensure that their 
     personnel become familiar with available and appropriate 
     community resources that facilitate successful transitions 
     of students with disabilities to adult life.

Recommendations for Agents of School Reform (e.g., Teacher 
Associations, National Education Goals Panel, State Reform 
Advisory Boards)

1.   Agents for school reform should provide long- and short-term 
     reform proposals that articulate how students with 
     disabilities will be specifically included in federal, 
     state, and local initiatives.

2.   Agents for school reform should support the design of reform 
     proposals that are based on detailed implementation 
     strategies and realistic assumptions regarding efficacy of 
     reform.

3.   Agents for school reform should ensure that students with 
     disabilities and their parents, educational practitioners, 
     and school-based supervisors are empowered to establish and 
     approve all school reform initiatives.

4.   Agents for school reform should encourage private 
     foundations to develop and/or continue their cooperative 
     partnerships with public agencies to focus on reform 
     initiatives involving students with disabilities and their 
     parents.

Recommendations for Researchers

1.   Researchers should ensure proportional representation of 
     students with disabilities and other traditionally 
     underrepresented student populations in any and all data 
     collection activities that are conducted by federal 
     education agencies; these projects must be designed in such 
     a way that the activities respect the dignity, self-worth, 
     and unique accommodations required by the students.

2.   Researchers should develop integrated, reliable management 
     information systems that encourage and allow an open 
     exchange of data across and within levels of government when 
     planning and implementing programs that accommodate students 
     with disabilities and other students who are traditionally 
     neglected and underrepresented.

3.   Researchers should conduct a nationally representative 
     survey that includes students, parents, advocates, education 
     staff, school system administrators, and policymakers and 
     that can be used by systems of government to judge the 
     effectiveness of public education programs for students with 
     disabilities and other students who receive special 
     education services.
                             INTRODUCTION:
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES

       As early as the 1820s, support was growing for free public 
schools. By the 1850s, a number of states had enacted compulsory 
attendance laws; yet the majority of children and youth with 
disabilities did not receive a free public education. The 
relatively few families whose children with disabilities attended 
schools were rarely consulted when educational decisions were 
made about their children's education. This situation continued 
throughout the 19th century and for the first half of the 20th 
century.                                                
       Since 1945, there has been an ongoing national struggle 
between educational policies promoting "excellence" and those 
policies promoting "equity" in the public schools. Proponents of 
"excellence" policies want school standards steadily raised so 
that schools become more academically demanding. Proponents of 
"equity" policies want public schools to offer programs 
appropriate for all students (e.g., Native American Indian, 
African-American, Hispanic, disabled, at-risk, and homeless 
students), so that all children and youth can benefit from public 
education. Overall, more students could achieve moderate success, 
graduate, and assume more productive adult roles in society.1

       Some groups of students were treated differently from 
other groups of students in terms of access to free public 
schools. For example, many disagreements involved access to free 
public education for African-American children and youth. It 
appears that many African-American children, including those with 
disabilities, were being channeled or "tracked" into special 
classes.2 These practices were addressed, indirectly, by the 
federal government in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 
1954. Subsequently, through the passage of P.L. 88-352 the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, the federal government authorized the U.S. 
Commissioner of Education to provide support to local and state 
school districts in their efforts to comply with the racial 
desegregation of America's public schools. As a by-product of the 
racial desegregation ruling of Brown, tracking children into 
separate (special) education classes was not to be permitted.

       By 1964, the total number of children and youth in special 
education programs in America was slightly in excess of 2.1 
million, while the number of all students in public education 
programs topped the 40 million mark (National Center for 
Educational Statistics 1990). In response to the growing legal 
and political pressures from parents, educators, and individuals 
with disabilities, Congress engaged in a succession of 
legislative efforts aimed at promoting policies of equity on 
behalf of children and youth with disabilities.

       In 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (P.L. 89-10), which funded state and local school 
districts to develop programs for children who were economically 
disadvantaged and for children and youth with disabilities. In 
1966, an Amendment to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (P.L. 89-313) provided funding for state-supported 
programs in institutions and other settings for children and 
youth with disabilities; another 1966 Amendment (P.L. 89-750) 
created the Bureau of Education of the Handicapped; and a 1969 
Amendment (P.L. 91-230) recognized children and youth with 
disabilities as a discrete population with special needs.

       In 1975, the enactment of the Education for All 
Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) marked the beginning of 
public education services to all school-age children and youth, 
regardless of disability. Under this federal law, as well as 
complementary state laws, a number of provisions were made, 
including procedural safeguards for parents and students, 
education in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and an 
individualized education program (IEP). Each of these provisions 
reflected a belief that active parent participation was a vital 
element in ensuring free, appropriate public education for their 
sons and daughters and potentially necessary to control for 
violations of P.L. 94-142 provisions by school districts.

       From 1976 to 1988, student enrollments in federally 
supported special education programs increased from 3.69 million 
in 1976 to 4.54 million in 1988. This represented an increase in 
the number of students served, as a percentage of total pupil 
enrollment in the nation, from 8.33% in 1976 to 11.4% in 1988. 
Figure 1A shows that state-to-state enrollments for the 1988 
school year varied from 5% to as high as 16% among states; 
within-state variations in student enrollment practices were even 
higher. Figure 1B shows that special education expenditures for 
the 1988 school year varied from less than .1% to 17% of the 
total proportion of state::national costs.
                               Figure 1A










































Source:  Westat, Inc. (1991)
                               Figure 1B










































Source: Westat, Inc. (1991)
              STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: CURRENT STATUS

       This study considers four policy themes: the 
individualized education program, the concept of least 
restrictive environment, the procedural safeguards system, and 
multicultural and multidisciplinary issues. These four themes 
represent major elements of federal special education law and are 
interdependent in nature. By law, they must be implemented in a 
systematic manner by school systems for children and youth with 
disabilities who have special education needs.

Theme 1 -Development of the individualized education program 
         (IEP) and its impact, or the lack thereof, on the 
         quality of education and related services for students

       Federal law requires states and local school districts to 
develop an IEP for every eligible student, at least annually, at 
a meeting between a qualified representative of the local school 
district, the teacher, the parents or guardians, and, whenever 
appropriate, the student.  The key assumptions behind this policy 
of requiring an IEP for every student who receives special 
education and related services are the following:

       ù  Parents and their children are a unique source of 
          information about their needs and aspirations and must 
          be included in all educational decision-making efforts.

       ù  The IEP serves as a tool for accountability and as a 
          means to monitor student achievement.

       ù  There are no systematic differences in human learning 
          potential other than those random differences that 
          exist between individuals.

       ù  School environments can be created where students  can 
          achieve desired levels of learning in a reasonably 
          designed curriculum.

       The minimal technical requirements for the structure of an 
IEP for each student include (1) a statement of the present 
levels of educational performance of the student; (2) a statement 
of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives; 
(3) a statement of the specific educational services to be 
provided to the student, and the extent to which the student will 
be able to participate in regular education programs; (4) the 
projected date for initiation and anticipated duration for such 
services; and (5) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation 
procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual 
basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved 
[United States Code Sec. 1401(b)(2)].

       There is a small but growing body of research data and 
expert opinion that focuses on the development of the IEP and its 
impact on the quality of education and related services for 
students. Beginning with the Supreme Court decision in the case 
of Board of Education v. Rowley (102 S.Ct. 3034, 1982), lower 
level courts and administrative hearing bodies increasingly have 
begun to rely on expert testimony to evaluate the quality of an 
IEP and to judge whether an IEP was designed for a student's 
educational progress.

       For example, in Carter v. Florence County School District 
Four [(D.S.C. 1991) 17 IDELR 452], a federal court held that a 
proposed IEP was inappropriate because it would not result
in educational progress for a student with a learning disability. 
The court argued that in the particular education placement, the 
student's IEP should have been designed to allow the student to 
earn passing marks and to advance from grade to grade. A second 
example is the case of Angevine v. Jenkins [(D.D.C. 1990; 752 F. 
Supp. 24; 5th Cir. 1990) 17 IDELR 444], in which a court held 
that a school district must not fail to consider a student's 
potential for educational progress and advancement in developing 
the student's program that would ensure a free, appropriate 
public education.

       In addition to the increase in the number of cases 
similiar to those cited above, there is further documented laxity 
by school districts in adhering to the federal mandates for the 
development and implementation of IEPs. In the 26 Final State 
Compliance and Monitoring Reports issued by OSEP from April 1989 
to February 1992, 150 of 165 local public agencies 
visited--involving an analysis of 1,618 student IEPs--were cited 
to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and state 
IEP mandates.

       Table 1 presents the percentage of IEP elements for each 
of the 26 states cited as being in noncompliance with federal 
special education law. Part A in the supplement contains similar 
information for the 165 local school districts visited by the 
OSEP monitoring and compliance team.  It indicates that there is 
great variance among and within states regarding the degree of 
compliance with and integrity of implementation of federal- and 
state-mandated IEP requirements.

       A recent study by the Regional Office of the Inspector 
General for Audit, Region VI, Department of Education, reports 
that more than 9% of students with disabilities either do not 
have a current IEP or have not been properly evaluated. Table 2 
presents an analysis of the 1991 Regional Inspector General's 
Audit of Child Count Errors Report across 21 states, 40 local 
school districts, involving 2,000 students with IEPs. Without the 
IEP and evaluation to rely on, policymakers and others find it 
difficult to determine whether students are receiving adequate 
programs and services.3
                                            Table 1

           PERCENT INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM ELEMENTS CITED IN NONCOMPLIANCE
                           (26 EDUCATION AGENCY MONITORING REPORTS)

                                     CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
                                                  
                                            Special
                 Present levels            education                        
                                                                                   Regular
                       of         Annual  and 
relatedObjectiveEvaluation                                             
Evaluation                                                                        education
Agency             performance     goals   services  
criteriaprocedures                                                      
schedule                                                                        participation


ARKANSAS               38           30        na        64       
33                                                                         
87                                                                                   52
CALIFORNIA             28            9        51        44       
21                                                                         
24                                                                                   32
CONNECTICUT            na           na        na        na       
na                                                                         
na                                                                                   na
DELAWARE               20           na        11        12       
34                                                                         
89                                                                                   na
HAWAII                 na           na        na        35       
23                                                                         
67                                                                                   na
IDAHO                  17           42        57        98       
100                                                                        
98                                                                                   na
ILLINOIS               21           75        14        10       
na                                                                         
20                                                                                   15
IOWA                   na           na        26        65       
82                                                                         
81                                                                                   na
LOUISIANA              25           42        69        19       
na                                                                         
83                                                                                   na
MAINE                  na           na        na        na       
na                                                                         
na                                                                                   na
MARYLAND               22           87        21        12        
7                                                                          
65                                                                                   41
MASSACHUSETTS          38           30        na        64       
33                                                                         
87                                                                                   52
MICHIGAN               92           na        65        96       
na                                                                         
71                                                                                   na
MINNESOTA              51           55        64        96       
na                                                                         
71                                                                                   na
MONTANA                na           na        na        na       
100                                                                        
100                                                                                  na
NEW HAMPSHIRE          46           na        na        27       
36                                                                         
61                                                                                   na

                                            Table 1

           PERCENT INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM ELEMENTS CITED IN NONCOMPLIANCE
                                          (continued)

                                            Special
                 Present levels            education                        
                                                                                   Regular
                       of         Annual  and 
relatedObjectiveEvaluation                                             
Evaluation                                                                        education
Agency             performance     goals   services  
criteriaprocedures                                                      
schedule                                                                        participation


NEW JERSEY             na           na        na         7       
na                                                                         
na                                                                                   54
NEW MEXICO             55           na        45        45       
75                                                                         
75                                                                                   na
NEW YORK               na           14        na        21       
21                                                                         
45                                                                                   na
NORTH CAROLINA         37           41        50        39       
13                                                                         
91                                                                                   na
PUERTO RICO            na           na        na        na       
na                                                                         
na                                                                                   na
SOUTH CAROLINA         28           11        na        25       
90                                                                         
82                                                                                   27
SOUTH DAKOTA           27           17        na        25       
90                                                                         
82                                                                                   27
UTAH                   na           na        45        40       
71                                                                         
56                                                                                   45
VIRGINIA               18           46        15        na       
na                                                                         
na                                                                                   na
WYOMING                35           na        25        na       
na                                                                         
na                                                                                   23


   Average             35           38        40        37       
50                                                                         
66                                                                                   36

      7requirement areas for Individualized Education Program 
(IEP) content (C.F.R. 300.346 a-e)
     26state education agencies involved
    165local education agencies involved
  1,618individualized education programs reviewed

na = not available in state report
Time period = April 1989 to February 1992 (34 months)
Percentage rounded to nearest whole number

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education 
Programs (1992)
                                Table 2

           ANALYSIS OF THE 1991 REGIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL'S
                  AUDIT OF (IDEA) CHILD COUNT ERRORS



             No                                                
         evaluation       No                       Not       State
             or         current        No       receiving    error
States  reevaluation      IEP    documentation  services  percentages


   MA       43            0            2           2         19.5
   NY       27            5            0           3         14.5
   CA       10            6            2          17         14.5
   PA        2           10            3           6          8.7
   AL        0            1           11          11          9.5
   NM        7            3            0           0          4.2
   IN        1            0            1           7          3.7
   IL        8            0            1           3          5.0
   VA        3            2            1           1          2.9
   TX        0            0            1           4          2.1
   CO        0            0            0           1          
0.04
   MO        0            5            0           0          2.1
   OH        5            1            0           5          4.5
   CT        4            0            0           1          2.1
   MI        0            4            0           0          1.7
   KY        0            0            3           0          1.2
   TN        0            0            4           0          1.7
   NC        0            4            0           0          1.7
   SC        0            0            0           0          0.0
   FL        0            0            0           0          0.0
   VT        0            0            0           0          0.0


           110           41           29           61=241

1991 Audit sample: 21 states, 40 local school districts, and 2000 
students with IEPs
Source: Office of the Inspector General (1992)
       States' monitoring responsibilities include recapturing 
state and federal funds improperly used by public agencies, such 
as those identified in the 1991 Regional Inspector General's 
Audit. For example, Minnesota's Office of Monitoring and 
Compliance and the Aids, Data, and Technology Unit determined 
that special education funds were improperly spent. As a result, 
the Minnesota Department of Education recaptured these funds: 
$225,502 (1987-1988), $349,081 (1988-1989), and about $30,000 in 
child count funds for the 1989-1990 school year (1991 Final State 
Monitoring and Compliance Report, Minnesota Department of 
Education: pp. v-vi). Every state is expected to engage in such 
monitoring efforts.

Theme 2 -The concept of least restrictive environment (LRE) and 
         its impact, or lack thereof, on education for students

       Federal law requires school districts to develop and 
implement LRE procedures to ensure that, to the maximum extent 
appropriate, children and youth with disabilities will be 
educated with children and youth who are not disabled. In 
addition, federal requirements stipulate that special classes, 
separate schooling, or other removal of students with 
disabilities from the regular educational environment will occur 
only when the nature or severity of a student's disability is 
such that education in regular classes with the use of 
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily 
[United States Code Secs. 1412(5)(B) and 1414(a)(1)(C)(iv)].

       The key assumptions behind the policy of requiring an 
emphasis on LRE for every student who receives special education 
and related services are the following:

       ù  Segregation of students with disabilities, per se, 
          represents an unwarranted or unnecessary restriction on 
          students' rights and is harmful.

       ù  Children and youth with disabilities benefit when they 
          associate with their nondisabled peers. Students with 
          disabilities need to be educated in environments that 
          promote interactions with nondisabled peers and enhance 
          the social status of students with disabilities.

       ù  Decisions about LRE for any student entitled to receive 
          special education and related services must be based on 
          (1) the individual's unique educational strengths, 
          weaknesses, and needs, and (2) the identification of a 
          particular environment, from among a continuum of 
          educational settings, that provides the student with a 
          free, appropriate public education.

       When OSEP monitored 26 states between April 1989 and 
February 1992, 143 of 165 local education agencies were cited by 
OSEP to be in varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and 
state LRE mandates. Corrective actions by the state agencies are 
typically required by OSEP to be made within one year of the date 
of issuance of OSEP's final monitoring report to a state.

       Table 3 presents findings regarding these two most 
frequently cited areas of noncompliance with LRE mandates 
according to the 26 Final State Monitoring and Compliance 
Reports: (1) following the improper sequence of making 
eligibility determinations; placing students and then developing 
students' IEPs; and (2) automatically placing students with 
certain disability labels (e.g., mental retardation, serious 
emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments) into
separate classes or schools. Various local school districts 
reported three general reasons for noncompliance: (1) 
accessibility problems with public schools, (2) systemic-related 
service configuration patterns, and (3) preexisting 
transportation service arrangements.

       It is hoped that recent improvements with OSEP's 
monitoring of states' special education programs will 
dramatically enhance the federal-state partnership's 
implementation of LRE mandates.4 It is also expected that current 
implementation of Titles II and III of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), P.L. 101-336 [42 United States Code 1213 
et seq.], will compel schools to meet accessibility requirements 
by making reasonable modifications to achieve the removal of 
architectural, programmatic, and transportation barriers. The 
Office of Civil Rights staff memorandum of March 8, 1991, may 
provide guidance to school districts interested in program 
accessibility requirements and standards in this regard (17 IDELR 
613). In addition, the Department of Education recently awarded 
$4.5 million in grants for 16 projects to assist in the 
implementation of the ADA.

       The OSEP also maintains a complex federal data base that 
reflects the numbers of students with disabilities placed in any 
one of eight different educational settings in the nation. The 
logic behind the structure of the LRE data system is unclear. The 
manner in which students are counted and reported to be "placed" 
in one of the educational settings is based on confusing criteria 
and guidelines established in the early 1980s. Comparing the 
federal LRE data reporting system with that of state and local 
school districts is difficult. Also, it does not seem that 
federal/state LRE data system criteria and guidelines are based 
on rationale related to how effectively schools daily serve 
students. Additionally, the LRE data reported annually to 
Congress are typically two years old and incomplete.
                                               Table 3

                    MOST COMMONLY CITED LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE) AREAS
                      OF NONCOMPLIANCE (26 EDUCATION AGENCY MONITORING REPORTS)


                 Most commonly cited  Second most commonly cited    Student disability groups
                 noncompliance area       noncompliance area        affected by noncompliance

                Improper sequence of
          making eligibility determination,"Automatically" placing
             placing student, developing students with certain
              Individualized Education disabilities in separate
                    Program (IEP)         classes or settings
AGENCY


Arkansas                 X                        X
California               X                        X              
Mental retardation
Connecticut              X                        X              
Mental retardation
Delaware                 X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 s
Hawaii                   X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 c 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 n
Idaho                    X                                       
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 s 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 y 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 d 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 )
Illinois                 X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 c 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 s
Iowa                                              X
Louisiana                X                                       
Behavior disorder
Maine                    X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 d 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 r 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 y
Maryland                 X                        X
Massachusetts            X                        X
Michigan                 X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 r 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 h 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 c 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 s
Minnesota                X                        X
MontanaX                 X                        Visual 
                                                  impairments, 
                                                  communication 
                                                  disorders, 
                                                  mental 
                                                  retardation
                                               Table 3

                    MOST COMMONLY CITED LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE) AREAS
                      OF NONCOMPLIANCE (26 EDUCATION AGENCY MONITORING REPORTS)
                                             (continued)


                 Most commonly cited  Second most commonly cited    Student disability groups
                 noncompliance area       noncompliance area        affected by noncompliance

                Improper sequence of
          making eligibility determination,"Automatically" placing
             placing student, developing students with certain
              Individualized Education disabilities in separate
                    Program (IEP)         classes or settings

AGENCY


New Hampshire                                     X
New Jersey               X                        X              
Mental retardation
New Mexico                                        X
New York                 X                        X              
Mental retardation
North Carolina           X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 e 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 s
Puerto Rico                                       X
South Dakota             X                        X              
Orthopedic impairments
South Carolina           X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 c 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 n
Vermont                  X                        X              
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 l 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 , 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 e 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 
                                                                 s
VirginiaX                X                        Mental 
retardation
Wyoming                                           X


Note: Blank cells represent information not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Programs 
(1992)
     These conditions pose serious disadvantages to those who 
rely on OSEP's LRE data base. A cross-check review of OSEP's LRE 
data base with the data presented in the 1991 Regional Inspector 
General's Audit Report suggests that (1) local school districts 
with higher proportions of students with IEPs seem to be at risk 
for greater percentages of error and (2) there appears to be a 
degradation of services in school districts where there are 
higher proportions of students with IEPs. The unexplained 
differences in OSEP's LRE data base are also affected by, or 
reflected in, unexplained differences in OSEP's personnel 
supply-demand data base.

     A review of OSEP's LRE data base for 1986-1989 suggests that 
year-to-year differences in the number of students in education 
placements appear to be occurring within and across states. 
Preliminary findings indicate 194 unexplained differences in 
number counts and 787 unexpected differences in placements, 
involving 410,767 students with disabilities.

     Figure 2 represents the number of unexplained shifts in the 
enrollment numbers of students, by state, for the period 
1986-1989. Figure 3 represents the number of unexplained 
placement shifts, by state, for 1986-1989. Shifts of 10% or 
greater were considered to be differences unexplained by random 
variation. Several examples of unexplained year-to-year 
differences are as follows:

     ù  In one state for the 1988-1989 school year, the number of 
        students with speech impairments decreased by 22,952, 
        while the number of students with visual impairments 
        increased by 22,696.

     ù  The Bureau of Indian Affairs reported no LRE data during 
        the 1988 school year.

     ù  In another state for the period 1986-1989, no students 
        were reported to have been served in residential or home 
        and hospital educational placements.

     ù  In another state for the 1987-1988 school year, 
        placements of students labeled with "specific learning 
        disability" decreased from 90.64% to 32.38% in resource 
        rooms and increased from .06% to 53.75% in separate 
        classes.

     ù  In another state during the 1986-1989 period, placements 
        of students with multiple disabilities increased from 
        9.24% to 100% in residential settings.

                             Figure 2










































Source:  Westat, Inc. (1991)
                             Figure 3










































Source:  Westat, Inc.  (1991)
     These unexplained differences in number counts and 
placements have significant policy implications and raise 
questions about accountability.5  Where are students being 
served? How are students affected by incorrect placement? There 
are three possible explanations for these unexplained 
differences: (1) students are leaving school systems in 
unidentified ways, (2) students are not being counted or are 
being counted in a nonsystematic way (identified by the Inspector 
General's Audit), and (3) students are in undocumented 
educational placements.

     Figure 4, "National Student Placements--All Disabilities," 
reports LRE data for 10 different student groups. An inspection 
of Figure 4 reveals the following overall trends for the years 
1985-1989:

     ù  Regular class placements increased from 27% to 31.3%.

     ù  Resource room placements decreased from 42.5% to 37.3%.

     ù  Separate class placements increased from 23.8% to  24.4%.

     ù  Separate facility placements remained at 5.2%.

     ù  Residential facility placements decreased from 1.3% to 
        .9%.

     ù  Home or hospital placements increased from .08% to 2.6%.

     Part B in the supplement contains a set of 70 student 
placement bar graphs (10 bar graphs for the nation, 60 bar graphs 
for a sample of six states) that depicts the placements of 
students with disabilities who receive special education 
services. An inspection of the student placement graphs across 
student groups reveals the nationwide placement trends for 
students shown in the next chart:
                                  Figure 4











































*  Regular Class includes students who receive a majority of 
their education in a regular class and receive special education 
and related services for less than 21 percent of the school day. 
It includes children placed in a regular class.

*  Resource Room includes students who receive special education 
and related services for 21 percent to 60 percent of the school 
day. This may include resource rooms with part-time instruction 
in the regular class.

*  Separate Class includes students who receive special education 
and related services for more than 60 percent of the school day 
and are placed in self-contained special classrooms with 
part-time instruction in regular class or are placed in 
self-contained classes full-time on a regular school campus.

* Separate Facility includes students who receive special 
education and related services in separate day schools for the 
handicapped for more than 50 percent of the school day.

*  Residential includes students who receive education in a 
public or private residential facility at public expense for more 
than 50 percent of the school day.

*  Home/Hospital includes students placed in and receiving 
education in a hospital or homebound programs.

Source: Westat Inc. (1991)


                    MOST COMMON PLACEMENT

Disability          Regular Class  Resource Room  Separate Class

Learning Disabilities               X             

Speech Impairments   X                            

Mental Retardation                                 X

Emotional Disturbance                              X
                                                  

Hearing Impairments                                X

Multiple Disabilities                              X

Orthopedic Impairments                             X
                                                  

Other Health Impairments X                        

Visual Impairments   X                            

Deaf-Blind                                         X

     Figure 5, "National Student Placements--All Disabilities by 
Age Group," reports national LRE data for all students by age 
group (i.e., 3-5 years, 6-11 years, 12-17 years, and 18-21 years) 
who received special education and related services for the year 
1989. An inspection of Figure 5 reveals the following trends in 
the nation for students, by age group, for the year 1989:

     ù  The 3-5-year-olds are most often (42%) placed in regular 
        classroom environments.

     ù  The 6-11-year-olds are most often (41%) placed in regular 
        classroom environments.

     ù  The 12-17-year-olds are most often (45%) placed in 
        resource room environments.

     ù  The 18-21-year-olds are most often (35%) placed in 
        resource room environments.
                                  Figure 5











































*  Regular Class includes students who receive a majority of 
their education in a regular class and receive special education 
and related services for less than 21 percent of the school day. 
It includes children placed in a regular class as well as 
children placed in a regular class.

*  Resource Room includes students who receive special education 
and related services for 21 percent to 60 percent of the school 
day. This may include resource rooms with part-time instruction 
in the regular class.

*  Separate Class includes students who receive special education 
and related services for more than 60 percent of the school day 
and are placed in self-contained special classrooms with 
part-time instruction in regular class or are placed in 
self-contained classes full-time on a regular school campus.

*  Separate Facility includes students who receive special 
education and related services in separate day schools for the 
handicapped for more than 50 percent of the school day.

*  Residential includes students who receive education in a 
public or private residential facility at public expense for more 
than 50 percent of the school day.

*  Home/Hospital includes students placed in and receiving 
education in a hospital or homebound programs.

Source: Westat Inc. (1991)
     Part B in the supplement depicts the placements of students 
with disabilities, by age group, who received special education 
services. An inspection of these graphs across disability 
categories and age groups reveals that overall national placement 
patterns are similar to the most common placement patterns with 
one exception: older students labeled deaf-blind were in more 
restrictive placements.

     Figures 4 and 5 and Part B in the supplement indicate that a 
large amount of state-to-state variation exists in the placements 
of students with disabilities across the range of educational 
settings. An important question for future study is, "Why do the 
placements of students with similar needs vary from state to 
state?" It appears that there is a relationship between school 
districts' implementation of LRE mandates--reflected in Table 
3--and the pattern of nationwide student placement trends 
depicted above.

     In many states, an even greater issue for future study 
involves students with disabilities who are placed in 
correctional facilities and who are at risk of being overlooked 
by education systems at the state level and by policymakers at 
the federal level.6 For example, until 1990 the OSEP LRE data 
base reported on students with a range of disabilities in 
correctional facilities from state to state. Beginning in 1990, 
in the 12th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of 
the IDEA, student placement data were no longer reported by 
disability category in correctional facilities in each state. 
This unexplained change in reporting may very well result in a 
potential undercount and/or a lack of services provided to 
thousands of youth with disabilities.

Theme 3 -An evaluation of the procedural safeguards system under 
        the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and what 
        impact that system has on parents of students with 
        disabilities.

     The procedural safeguards are the cornerstone for equal 
access for parents of children and youth with disabilities to 
special education and related service programs. Federal law 
requires state and local education agencies to establish a formal 
system of procedural safeguards. The basic list of procedural 
safeguards includes notification, evaluation and placement, 
periodic evaluation and reevaluation, access to and 
confidentiality of records, surrogate parents, prior notice, 
parent consent, content of notice, access to due process 
hearings, hearing rights, and right to civil action [United 
States Code Sec. 1415].

     Procedural safeguard systems establish the right of a parent 
(or a school system) to protest certain government actions that 
could affect a child's right to special education under federal 
laws. For example, parents who believe their child will be tested 
can expect to be notified in advance of the reason for and the 
type of testing to be given. The notice to parents should be 
complete and understandable. If parents feel the testing will be 
discriminatory and harmful to their child, they can exercise 
their due process right to air their grievance in a formal 
hearing (e.g., Tustin (CA) Unified School District, 16 IDELR 
1335, Office of Civil Rights, 1990). Without such a means to 
challenge the range of discriminatory practices that
education systems have historically used, the right to a free, 
appropriate public education under federal law would be rendered 
meaningless.

     The key assumptions underlying the policy of requiring 
public education agencies to adopt procedural safeguards are the 
following:

     ù  Children and youth with disabilities and their families 
        need ways to challenge school system practices that are 
        not in the best interests of students with disabilities.

     ù  Parents should receive meaningful notice of proposed 
        actions regarding their child's special education and 
        related services program. Such notice to parents should 
        involve a detailed explanation, an articulation of 
        reasons for the proposed action(s), and a discussion of 
        any available alternative educational opportunities. 
        Notice to parents should be communicated effectively to 
        all parents, including those who cannot read English or 
        those who cannot read at all.

     ù  An impartial due process hearing review system must be 
        available to parents, guardians, or surrogates, as well 
        as to school systems, to present and settle any 
        complaints relating to any matter about a student's 
        identification, evaluation, placement, or right to a 
        free, appropriate public education.

     The 26 Final State Compliance and Monitoring Reports issued 
by the OSEP from April 1989 to February 1992, indicated that 152 
of 165 local public agencies visited were cited as being in 
varying degrees of noncompliance with federal and state mandates 
regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
procedural safeguards system. Table 4 presents the results of 
those 26 Final State Reports in terms of (1) the percentage of 
mandated procedural safeguards not established, and (2) the 
percentage of procedural safeguards not included in notices given 
to parents.

     Table 4 shows that substantial state-to-state variation 
exists in current implementation of federal and state procedural 
safeguard requirements.
                              Table 4

           OSEP'S 26 EDUCATION AGENCY MONITORING REPORTS
               AREAS OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS CITED
                        AS IN NONCOMPLIANCE

                                               Percent
                         Percent        procedural safeguards
                  procedural safeguards    not included in
  Agency             not established     notices to parents


ARKANSAS                  54                    na
CALIFORNIA                67                    55
CONNECTICUT               na                    94
DELAWARE                  41                    41
HAWAII                    na                    39
IDAHO                     73                    83
ILLINOIS                  48                    47
IOWA                      45                    36
LOUISIANA                 38                    57
MAINE                     na                    91
MARYLAND                  43                    54
MASSACHUSETTS             81                    67
MICHIGAN                  na                    68
MINNESOTA                 48                    77
MONTANA                   na                    82
NEW HAMPSHIRE             56                    na
NEW JERSEY                na                    na
NEW MEXICO               100                    44
NEW YORK                  59                    31
NORTH CAROLINA            60                    77
PUERTO RICO               na                    77
SOUTH CAROLINA            35                    na
SOUTH DAKOTA              69                    51
UTAH                      39                    na
VIRGINIA                  19                    67
WYOMING                   58                    61


  Average                 54                    62

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education 
Programs (1992)
Part C in the supplement contains similar data for the 165 local 
school agencies visited by the OSEP monitoring and compliance 
team. The effect of this situation on parents and families whose 
children receive special education and related services may well 
have an adverse impact on the quality or accessibility of 
instruction provided to students. Perhaps the 1991 Inspector 
General's findings, as discussed above, are examples of such an 
adverse impact on public education.

     The National Association of State Directors of Special 
Education (1985) reported that fewer than 1% of parents of 
school-age children have requested due process hearings since 
1975. Singer and Butler (1987) indicated that fewer than 5% of 
parents protested a placement decision or otherwise involved 
their school district in due process hearings. In the National 
Council on Disability's 1989 report to the President and the U.S. 
Congress, 6 of the 31 findings were related to problems with 
parental involvement and concerns regarding due process hearings.

     Nevertheless, a small body of literature exists that 
suggests that parents are generally unsatisfied with the 
adversarial nature or costs of due process hearings to the 
family. As a result, some parents may opt for alternative dispute 
resolution hearings, such as mediation. According to the 1988 
National Survey on Special Education Mediation Systems, conducted 
by the NASDSE, at least 33 states have adopted some type of 
special education mediation system. Virtually all of the special 
education mediation systems and procedures are funded, organized, 
and implemented by state education officials who train, certify, 
and compensate mediators. Unlike formal due process hearings, the 
enforcement status of any mediation agreement is unclear. There 
are typically no written agreements or records from mediation 
sessions. An increasing number of states and territories are 
adopting mediation practices.

     Another segment of the procedural safeguards system 
established by federal special education law involves secretarial 
review--review by the assistant secretary of OSERS--of parent 
and/or school district complaints. From 1981 through 1992, there 
have been 173 complaint requests for secretarial review.7 Of 
those 173 complaints, 156 (or 90%) have been requests for review 
made by parents or parent organizations and only 2 of the 173 
requests for review have been granted. No formal (written) 
operational criteria have existed, or exist now, that explain the 
types of complaint requests granted secretarial review or reasons 
for denying requests. The absence of formal criteria for granting 
secretarial reviews continues to pose a threat to parties who 
wish to rely upon the procedural safeguards system mandated by 
the IDEA.

Theme 4 -Multicultural and multidisciplinary issues related to 
        the education of students with disabilities 

     One of the new provisions of the IDEA involves an emphasis 
on meeting the needs of traditionally neglected or 
underrepresented populations, such as minority groups, indigents, 
and those who have limited English proficiency.  The key 
assumptions underlying the policy of requiring public education 
agencies to meet the needs of these populations are as follows:

     ù  There is a growing need for better coordination in the 
        provision of programs and personnel to students who are 
        eligible for bilingual education and special education 
        programs.

     ù  Parents of students from newly defined disability groups 
        (i.e., autism and traumatic brain injury) and parents of 
        students from unrepresented disability groups (e.g., 
        AIDS) are unique sources of information about their needs 
        and aspirations and, therefore, must be meaningfully 
        included in all educational decision-making efforts.

     ù  Traditional tracking practices disproportionately affect 
        low-income, Hispanic, and African-American children and 
        youth.

     ù  There are no systematic differences in human learning 
        potential other than those random differences that exist 
        between individuals.

     ù  School environments can be created where students can 
        achieve desired levels of learning through the use of 
        reasonably designed and challenging curricula.

     According to recent Census Bureau and Department of 
Education projections, the number of minority and traditionally 
disadvantaged individuals in the school-age population is 
expected to increase steadily in the decade(s) ahead.8 According 
to some estimates, by the year 2000 nearly one-third of all 
school-age children will be from minority populations.9 In 
addition, an increasing number of newborns who have unique 
disabilities (e.g., infants with HIV virus who have 
multidisciplinary needs) and individuals from groups recently 
defined in federal regulations (i.e., individuals with autism or 
traumatic brain injury) must be served by school districts 
(testimony of James R. Yates before U.S. House of Representatives 
Subcommittee on Education, February 20, 1990; Federal Register, 
Monday, August 19, 1991; p. 41266).

     The shifting demographics among resident populations are 
forcing communities to rethink and redesign the structure of 
public service systems. In an increasing number of school 
districts, for example, students with limited English proficiency 
who have disabilities may be entitled both to language-related 
remediation and special education programs. In other locales, 
coordinating and providing interagency services (e.g., early 
periodic diagnostic screening treatment through Medicaid-funded 
programs) for eligible children and families is proving to be a 
complex task, yet states are trying to establish and implement 
equitable service practices.

     School enrollment trends suggest that some school districts 
are having difficulty delivering appropriate services to their 
increasingly diverse student populations. In some states, the 
percentage of students enrolled in special education has 
increased while the general school population has declined. For 
instance, a 1991 report issued by the Massachusetts Department of 
Education, A Review of the Eligibility Criteria for Children with 
Special Needs, noted that 17% of students ages 3 to 21 were 
taught in special education classes during the
1990-1991 school year. The report acknowledged that 
"overreferrals" to special education are a direct result of 
imprecise eligibility definitions, nonexistent or ineffective 
prereferral processes, and untrained or undertrained school 
personnel.

     Disproportionate overrepresentation and underrepresentation 
of culturally and racially diverse student groups in special 
education programs may be caused by inaccurate perceptions of 
students' competencies and behaviors. The results of such a set 
of circumstances could be devastating to those children and youth 
who are inappropriately placed.10 For example, the Department of 
Education's Office of Civil Rights' survey of 3,378 sample school 
districts, representing approximately 20% of all districts 
nationwide, reported total enrollment figures in racial groups 
and in four disability categories for the year 1986. Figures 6A 
and 6B represent a comparison of group enrollment patterns, by 
race and category, for students in the special education 
population. As reflected in Figures 6A and 6B, disproportionate 
enrollment patterns exist for certain racial groups of students.

     Similarly, a survey of 51 urban school districts in 25 
states reported percentage enrollment patterns for students in 
the special and general education populations (National School 
Board Association, 1990). Figure 7 represents a comparison of 
group enrollment patterns, within race, for students between the 
two school populations. As reflected in Figure 7, 
disproportionate special education enrollment patterns exist for 
certain racial groups. These kinds of enrollment, 
ability-grouping, and/or academic tracking patterns, and the 
apparent lack of monitoring of these practices, may allow 
discriminatory practices to continue.

     Special education tracking practices, such as those depicted 
by the data in Figures 6A, 6B, and 7, disproportionately affect 
African Americans and Asian
                             Figure 6A



































Even enrollment refers to the even proportional representation of 
the two groups subject to comparison; e.g., if 50 percent of the 
school population were Caucasian, there would be even enrollment 
if 50 percent of those in a specific disability category were 
Caucasian. Likewise, there would be underenrollment if less than 
50 percent were in the specific disability group or 
overenrollment if more than 50 percent were in the specific 
disability group.

Source:  1986 Office of Civil Rights Survey
                             Figure 6B



































Even enrollment refers to the even proportional representation of 
the two groups subject to comparison; e.g., if 50 percent of the 
school population were Caucasian, there would be even enrollment 
if 50 percent of those in a specific disability category were 
Caucasian. Likewise, there would be underenrollment if less than 
50 percent were in the specific disability group or 
overenrollment if more than 50 percent were in the specific 
disability group.

Source:  1986 Office of Civil Rights Survey
                             Figure 7










































Source:  National School Borads Association Survey (1989)
Americans. Once again, it seems that there may be a relationship 
between school systems' implementation of least restrictive 
environment mandates--reflected in Table 3--and the 
disproportionate placement patterns represented in Figures 6A, 
6B, and 7. Such a relationship is also suggested by findings from 
other federal education research studies.11 For example, a 1987 
study of high school juniors reported that among special 
education students 66 percent were Caucasian, 25 percent were 
African American, and 8 percent were Hispanic American, while 
comparable figures among non-special education students were 72 
percent Caucasian, 15 percent African American, and 8.5 percent 
Hispanic American.

     Unfortunately, a 1991 General Accounting Office (GAO) 
report, entitled Within-School Discrimination: Inadequate Title 
VI Enforcement by the Office for Civil Rights GAO/HRD-91-85 
painted a bleak picture of the status of federal monitoring and 
enforcement of some civil rights violations in public education. 
Important findings from that GAO report indicated that:

     The capability of OCR regional offices to determine Title VI 
     violations was limited, many investigators and several of 
     the regional directors reported, by a lack of training on 
     how  to  investigate  ability-grouping, tracking, or 
     assignment to special education cases...

     Both investigators and regional directors indicated that a 
     lack of staff expertise limited the capability of regional 
     OCR offices to determine if school districts violated Title  
     VI regulations in ability-grouping, tracking, and assignment 
     of students to special education investigations. (p. 39)

     In response to the increasing documentation and research 
evidence supporting findings of the pervasiveness of tracking, 
some reform-oriented education groups are attempting to emphasize 
"detracking" as a strategy to help meet national education 
goals.12 Detracking involves challenging and changing the 
systemic assumptions underlying student placement, ability 
grouping, curricular programming, and service delivery.

     School systems will be expected to address the unique and 
multidisciplinary needs of recently defined student groups (i.e., 
students with autism or traumatic brain injury). Such 
preparations require, at a minimum, a coordinated and integrated 
approach to intergovernmental service delivery and funding for 
health and education systems for children and youth. For example, 
states are required to provide all special education and related 
services to students at no cost to parents. Many states find this 
difficult to accomplish because they are constrained by limited 
education budgets. However, state education agencies can work 
with state Medicaid programs for help in securing Medicaid 
coverage of health-related services for children and youth 
receiving special education services.13

     Opportunities to integrate students into vocational 
education and adult education programs are also being pursued by 
school districts interested in providing appropriate, 
cost-effective services to students with disabilities. Other 
types of coordinated strategies may
be identified by the joint grant funded by the Department of 
Health and Human Services and the Department of Education.

     School systems will also be expected to adjust their 
curricula to include alternative instructional strategies and 
relevant academic content that are more effective and 
challenging.14 Professionals who provide minimal or passive 
educational service, instructional support, and information must 
change their style of operation to become more proactive and 
effective.15 For example, education personnel will need to 
develop an understanding and respect for the differential value 
placed on public education by culturally diverse parents. The 
range of different values and expectations placed on education by 
the parents will require a basic change in the way that educators 
deliver services and that policymakers make decisions.16

     Parents who have not fully participated in educational 
decision-making activities for a variety of reasons (see Table 4) 
must receive more active attention and support. Parents who have 
moved to the United States from countries where public special 
education is not an entitlement, or where procedures differ, may 
require specific outreach efforts because of their unfamiliarity 
with their rights and responsibilities under the IDEA (e.g., 
regarding individualized education programs, least restrictive 
environment, and procedural safeguard systems).

     Similarly, institutions of higher education should be 
expected to improve teacher preparation programs.17 Judging from 
recent reports, such as Teach America: A President's Agenda for 
Improving Teacher Education, however, needed improvements in 
personnel preparation programs have not included special 
education content (e.g., President's Commission on Teacher 
Education 1991). Other efforts, such as enrolling college-level 
students from minority backgrounds into teacher preparation 
programs may prove more fruitful.

                    SCHOOL REFORM IN THE 1990'S

     This section of the report focuses on school reform efforts 
for the various student populations in the country. The first 
subsection highlights the perceived impact of school reform on 
students with disabilities. The second subsection is an 
assessment and summary of initiatives for the range and diversity 
of student groups in the nation. The third subsection describes 
cyclical school reform. The fourth subsection provides an 
overview of school reform perspectives that involve (1) national 
education goals and (2) the states' and local school districts' 
various education reform plans.

Impact of School Reform on Students with Disabilities

     Have students with disabilities received proper 
consideration within the context of education reform efforts? In 
its 1989 education report, The Education of Students with 
Disabilities: Where Do We Stand? the National Council on 
Disability expressed a variety of concerns, including the issue 
of how students with disabilities fit within education 
initiatives
and school reform proposals. Perhaps this quote from the report 
provides an adequate summary of the National Council's view on 
the then-current trend toward education reform:

     Although current proposals to reform schools have had little 
     to say about the quality of education for students with 
     differences, specifically those with disabilities,  there 
     can be little doubt that what makes schools effective for 
     non-disabled students will be effective for students with 
     disabilities as well. (p. 50)

     The degree to which education reform initiatives in the 
1990s reflect a greater awareness and inclusion of students with 
disabilities is addressed below.

An Assessment and Summary of School Reform Initiatives

     From 1990 to 1992, education reform initiatives for 
improving education for all students and school reform efforts 
across the country moved forward, focusing on education in the 
contexts of work,18 health,19 academic performance,20 and a 
national management information system.21 Education initiatives 
were proposed at federal and state levels; some were linked with 
international education efforts.22 The common thread running 
through most reform efforts is that America's schools fail to 
prepare an overwhelming majority of America's youth for a 
successful college experience, productive working life, effective 
community service involvement, and healthy adolescence and adult 
life.

Work Readiness

     Four initiatives that focus on education in the context of 
work readiness are worthy of note. The first is the Department of 
Labor Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills 
(SCANS), established in February 1990. The SCANS--which is 
directly related to America 2000 Goals 3 and 5 (i.e., math and 
science achievement and adult literacy, respectively)--is 
expected to identify skills that are essential in preparing 
students for a productive working life. The SCANS initiative 
makes no specific provisions for students with disabilities.

     The second work readiness initiative is the Department of 
Education's Performance Standards and Measures (PSM), established 
through revisions to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
Technology Education Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-392). According to the 
PSM initiative, each state board of vocational education will 
develop and implement a statewide system of core standards and 
measures for federally assisted secondary and postsecondary 
vocational education programs. It is not clear what specific 
provisions are made in the PSM initiative to include students 
with disabilities.

     The third work readiness initiative, WORKLINK, was 
established by the Educational Testing Service in 1990, and 
charged with developing a computer-based system for linking 
educational systems with work environments. WORKLINK will operate 
as a computerized
job-bank service network. The WORKLINK initiative does not 
indicate how it will include specific provisions for students 
with disabilities.

     The fourth work readiness initiative is the Department of 
Education's Adult Literacy Initiative, established through 
Section 383(b) of the Adult Education Act as reauthorized by P.L. 
100-297. The Adult Literacy Initiative and some of its major 
activities (e.g., the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, the 
1992 Institute for Literacy Research and Practice) are charged 
with defining, assessing, and establishing programming for skills 
that comprise the basic education needed for literate functioning 
and work among 16-65-year-olds. It is not clear how the Adult 
Literacy Initiative will specifically accommodate individuals 
with disabilities in its multifaceted operations.

Quality of Life

     Two major initiatives that focus on the contribution of 
education to quality of life--specifically, health--are also 
worth mentioning. The first, the result of the Department of 
Health and Human Services' Young Americans Act of 1990 (P.L. 
101-501), created a coordinated federal response to the multiple 
health needs of all children and youth. It is still too soon to 
tell how children and youths with disabilities will be addressed 
in the implementation of the new law.

     The second quality of life initiative is the National and 
Community Service Act of 1990, designed to build self-esteem and 
teach teamwork and decision-making and problem-solving skills to 
economically and educationally disadvantaged youth, including 
individuals with disabilities. It is too early to tell how, and 
to what degree, individuals with disabilities will be 
specifically provided for in the implementation of this new law.

Academic Achievement

     Two initiatives that focus on academic achievement are 
notable. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) 5-year 
Statewide-Systemic Initiative expects ten participating states 
will redesign their mathematics and science education curricula, 
revise teacher training and alternative certification, and 
redesign assessment of student performance. Certain state 
programs will target poor urban and rural districts; other 
participating states will target kindergarten and elementary 
school programs. It is not clear whether states have targeted 
students with disabilities to be involved in the NSF's science 
and mathematics initiatives (or in other national initiatives).23

     The second academic achievement initiative is the Department 
of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress 
(NAEP). NAEP's 1991 Trial State Math Assessment Report was based 
on a sample of 100,843 students from 300 schools, in 37 states. A 
total of 4,209 students (approximately 4%) with IEPs were 
included in the report; a total of 4,972 students (approximately 
5%) with IEPs were excluded. State-to-state variation in student 
exclusion-inclusion rates was indicated in the report as well.24 
As of the spring of 1992,
however, students with IEPs who were allowed to take the NAEP 
Math Assessment did not have their minority group scores 
published.

National Management Information System

     The major initiative that guides education in the context of 
an improved national management information system is the 
National Forum on Education Statistics' Agenda Committee. In 
response to the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School 
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297), the forum issued A 
Guide to Improving the National Education Data System in 1990 to 
serve as a blueprint for the efforts of the National Education 
Goals Panel and the National Council on Education Standards and 
Testing. The Guide outlines 36 specific recommendations are that 
needed to improve the nation's education data system. Many of 
these recommendations target racial, ethnic, and economically 
diverse student groups, including the following:

     ù  Seven related to "student and community background 
        statistics" (e.g., child count data);

     ù  12 related to "education resource statistics" (e.g., 
        national- and state-level expenditures);

     ù  Six related to "school process statistics" (e.g., school 
        course offerings); and

     ù  11 related to "student outcome statistics" (e.g.,  
        student achievement measures) (pp. 105-115).

     A review of the Guide reveals that only six of these 36 
recommendations (or 17%) specifically address students with 
disabilities and students who receive special education services. 
Although some recommendations address students with disabilities 
and students who receive special education services (i.e., four 
related to "student and community background statistics," one 
related to "education resource statistics," and one related to 
"school process statistics"), no "student outcome statistics" 
recommendations specifically include students with disabilities 
and students who receive special education services. How can the 
Guide become the blueprint for improving American education and 
its data system when America's students with disabilities are not 
adequately represented?

Is School Reform Cyclical or Revolutionary?

     Historically, many school reform efforts have been targeted 
to specific student populations such as Native American 
Indians,25 Chicanos/Mexican Americans,26 African Americans,27 and 
students from lower social/economic strata.28 For these minority 
student groups, to differing degrees, the sequence of reform 
efforts has predictably been (1) access and funding, (2) 
curriculum change and program effectiveness, and (3) improved 
student outcomes and program accountability. Some minority 
student groups have participated in the
cycles of access reform and effectiveness reform (e.g., 
African-American youth). Some minority student groups have not 
moved beyond the first cycle of access and funding reform (e.g., 
students with disabilities). The majority of students in the 
American education system have been exposed to outcomes and 
accountability reform efforts at different times during the 20th 
century. However, this has not been true for students with 
disabilities.

     The most recent cycle of education reforms is the result of 
the enactment of the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary 
School Improvement Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297). 
Hawkins-Stafford was designed to include a number of minority 
student groups into the outcomes/accountability reform cycle, 
along with the majority student population. For example, Title 
I--Basic Programs--addresses programs for migratory children, 
children with disabilities, and neglected and delinquent 
children; bilingual education programs; Native American Indians 
in schools; and adult education programs. Title II--Amendments to 
Other Educational Programs--addresses funds for the improvement 
and reform of schools and teaching; the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress; and education for Native Hawaiians, Native 
American Indians, and the homeless.

National, State, and Local School Reform Perspectives

     On April 18, 1991, then-President George Bush released 
America 2000: An Education Strategy, a long-range plan intended 
to move communities toward the national education goals adopted 
by the President and the National Governors Association on 
February 25, 1990, at the historic education summit held in 
Charlottesville, Virginia.29 The six performance goals to be 
accomplished by the year 2000 are as follows:

     Goal 1.All children in America will start school ready to 
            learn.

     Goal 2.The high school graduation rate will increase to at 
            least 90%.

     Goal 3.American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 
            having demonstrated competency in challenging subject 
            matter, including English, mathematics, science, 
            history, and geography; and every school in America 
            will ensure that all students learn to use their 
            minds well so they may be prepared for responsible 
            citizenship, further learning, and productive 
            employment in our modern economy.

     Goal 4.U.S. students will be first in the world in science 
            and mathematics achievement.

     Goal 5.Every adult American will be literate and will 
            possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete 
            in a global economy and exercise rights and 
            responsibilities of citizenship.

     Goal 6.Every school in America will be free of drugs and  
            violence and will offer a disciplined environment  
            conducive to learning.

     In order to achieve these goals, a four-part strategy is 
being simultaneously pursued. President Bush drew the analogy of 
four giant trains, big enough for everyone to find a place on 
board, departing at the same time on parallel tracks on the long 
journey to educational excellence: 

     1. For today's students, making existing schools better and 
        more accountable.

     2. For tomorrow's students, creating a new generation of 
        American schools.

     3. For those already out of school and in the work force, 
        becoming a nation of students, recognizing learning as a 
        lifelong process.

     4. For schools to succeed, looking beyond their classrooms 
        to the communities and families.

     To what extent are students who receive special education 
services represented in the America 2000 reform goals? Three 
fleeting references to students with disabilities and students 
who receive special education services [pp. 32, 201, and 231] can 
be found in the 245-page "report card" of The National Education 
Goals Report of 1991: Building a Nation of Learners. The report 
represents the combined efforts of the National Education Goals 
Panel, members of the administration, and ex-officio members of 
Congress.

     While this major document focuses national attention on some 
categorical education programs (e.g., Chapter 1 programs for 
disadvantaged students) purportedly because of the numbers of 
school children served (4.65 million students in 1988), there is 
an absence of focus on other categorical education programs such 
as special education programs which serve comparable numbers of 
students (4.54 million in 1988). There are no identifiable 
measures or indicators that specifically reflect the 
accomplishments of students who receive special education and 
related services.

     Americans are left wondering if this means the nation has no 
expectations for competency of its students who receive special 
education services. The National Education Goals Panel is already 
working on its National Education Goals Report of 1992. Will 
students who receive special education services be 
underrepresented and their outcomes unreported in this major 
accountability report too?

     Although many other questions concerning the ambitious goals 
and strategy of America 2000 come to mind, parents, educators, 
and other advocates wonder what plans are being developed so that 
individuals with disabilities will be fully included. As recent 
education reform efforts have been discussed and developed, the 
needs of students with disabilities have been given little 
attention. Further, it is unclear as to who is setting 
performance standards.

     There is some hope that students with disabilities may be 
included in the America 2000 reform. Bipartisan support for the 
America 2000 plan for national standards and tests in key subject 
areas has resulted in a recent report from The National Council 
on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST). Entitled Raising 
Standards for American Education, the 1992 report includes 
specific language that attempts to bring students with 
disabilities into the national debate on school reform (see 
specifically pp. 6, 10, 29, and 30). It remains to be seen, 
however, whether and how the inclusion of students with 
disabilities will move beyond the discussion stage of the NCEST 
work agenda.

     The nonprofit New American Schools Development Corporation 
(NASDC) was set up by American businesses in 1991 to support the 
America 2000 education reform. The NASDC invited grant proposals 
that could include the design of "break-the-mold schools" or even 
school districts. The first deadline for such proposals was 
February 14, 1992. In its request for proposals, the NASDC 
required that break-the-mold school designs must include all 
students and not just those most likely to succeed. In addition, 
the proposals must specify how students would achieve world-class 
standards in at least the five core subjects and be prepared for 
citizenship, employment, and lifelong learning. It is not yet 
known how many of the NASDC-funded design projects will include 
students with disabilities or how the design teams propose to 
raise achievement levels of those students to world-class 
standards.

     As of April 15, 1992, 43 states and the District of Columbia 
have officially adopted America 2000 or a variation. Part D in 
the supplement and Table 5 present data on recent state reform 
efforts across the country. Information addressing the following 
questions is also included: Are the needs of children and youth 
with disabilities specifically addressed? Are various age groups 
represented? Do reforms mention academic achievement, minimal 
instructional time lost, school and work readiness, and quality 
of life. Does the state reform merely mimic the rhetoric of 
America 2000? Who participates in formulating each state's reform 
efforts? Who is setting performance standards? How are outcome 
performances being measured? State-by-state data are also 
summarized in Table 5. In addition to state reform initiatives, a 
number of cities or regions are beginning their own education 
initiatives such as Detroit 2000, Metro Richmond (Virginia) 2000, 
and San Antonio 2000.

     Alabama is an example of a state whose reform efforts have 
resulted in a well-articulated plan for positive change, although 
it has yet to distribute an assessment plan of such efforts. As a 
result of a directive from the Alabama State Board of Education 
to study the problems, concerns, and challenges facing Alabama's 
public schools and to prepare a course of action for moving 
Alabama's educational system toward excellence, the chief state 
school officer and the state department of education issued a 
report in 1984 entitled A Plan for Excellence: Alabama's Public 
Schools. The plan incorporates four sections (student, teacher, 
administrator, and public) and makes comprehensive 
recommendations in each. Recommendations for academic 
achievement, school/work readiness, quality of life, and minimal 
instructional time lost are specified. For example, the student 
section includes recommendations in these 14 areas (with the 
outcome variables listed) in parentheses):

     ù  Instructional time (minimal instructional time lost)

        --provide a 175-day instructional year
        --provide a full six hours of instruction each day
        --establish time-on-task requirements for each course
        --do not sacrifice instructional time for teachers' 
          personal or professional development activities

     ù  Study and homework (minimal instructional time lost)

        --introduce study habits early in a student's education
        --require homework in each subject area
        --establish state guidelines for homework
        --establish school system guidelines for homework

     ù  Systematic program of studies (academic achievement)

        --reduce class sizes
        --require annual parent-teacher conferences
        --provide a thorough program of remediation

     ù  Kindergarten (minimal instructional time lost and 
        academic achievement)

        --make classes available to all 5-year-olds
        --require attendance
        --provide funds for appropriate materials

     ù  The basics (academic achievement)

        --are established by the state department of education
        --are defined in K-8 as reading, language arts, 
          mathematics, science, social studies, computer 
          literacy, art, music, and physical education
        --have course work and instructional plans developed for 
          each grade by the state department of education
        --design assessment programs to ensure consistency among 
          state's school systems

     ù  Assessment and remediation (academic achievement and 
        school/work readiness)

        --adminster the state's basic competency tests in grades 
          3, 6, and 9
        --expand the state's student achievement testing program 
          to all students in grades 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10
        --provide aptitude tests for grades 4 and 8
        --add career aptitude and personal interest test for 
          students entering grade 9
        --make remediation available to every student deficient 
          in a skill or competency

     ù  Promotion and retention (academic achievement)

        --establish specific learning goals for each grade and 
          each subject

     ù  Diplomas (academic achievement and school/work readiness)

        --establish uniformity in awarding diplomas so that each 
          means the same to the graduate or prospective employer
        --require students to pass Alabama High School Graduation 
          Examination (AHSGE) in order to receive a diploma
        --award a special certificate to those students not 
          acquiring the specified Carnegie Units and/or who fail 
          the AHSGE

     ù  Curriculum and graduation requirements (school/work 
        readiness and quality of life)

        --increase Carnegie Units because existing requirements 
          do not adequately prepare students to compete in the 
          marketplace
        --require a special course in home and personal 
          management of life skills of each graduate
        --teach students to understand and accept responsibility

     ù  Higher education programs (academic achievement)

        --challenge higher-achieving students
        --promote higher-order intellectual skills
        --revamp honors programs

     ù  The student in activities (quality of life and minimal 
        instructional time lost)

        --deveop a systematic plan for extracurricular activities
        --do not sacrifice instruction time for extra curricular 
          activities
        --set limits on activities during school nights

     ù  Instructional materials and equipment (academic 
        achievement)

        --provide adequate funding

     ù  Vocational education (school/work readiness and quality 
        of life)

        --evaluate all programs for ability to prepare students 
          to compete in job market
        --assess relationships between high school and 
          postsecondary vocational programs

     ù  Continuing education (school/work readiness and quality 
        of life)

        --provide programs in adult education

     In the Alabama plan, references to various age groups of 
students are made. Programs to ensure that all student 
populations are served and that special needs are met 
specifically address the needs of students with disabilities. 
Those interested in state reform efforts across the nation are 
anxious to see how Alabama will assess its plan.

     Maryland, on the other hand, is an example of a state that 
has articulated an assessment plan based on its state reform 
initiative, Maryland 2000. Data are intended to provide 
information regarding student performance in areas considered to 
be useful to guide decision making for success for all students 
in school improvement.

     The data-based areas under student performance include:

     ù  Assessed student knowledge (academic achievement)

        --Maryland Functional Testing Program
        --Maryland School Performance Assessment Program

     ù  Student attainment (academic achievement and school/work 
        readiness)

        --promotion rates
        --high school program completion rates

     ù  Participation (minimal instructional time lost)

        --attendance rates
        --dropout rates

     ù  Postsecondary documented decisions (school/work 
        readiness)

     The data-based areas under supporting information include:

     ù  Student population characteristics (school/work 
        readiness)

        --enrollment statistics
        --mobility of students
        --the number of first graders with kindergarten 
          experiences
        --aspirations of students grade 9

     ù  Special programs and services (quality of life and 
        academic achievement)

        --special education programs
        --programs for students with no or limited English 
          proficiency
        --programs for Chapter 1 students
        --programs for gifted and talented students
        --free/reduced-price meal programs

     ù  Other factors (school system and state) (academic 
        achievement, quality of life, and minimal instructional 
        time lost)

        --financial information
        --staffing
        --instructional time
        --norm-referenced assessments

     State standards are measures against which data will be 
judged. Standard levels are "excellent performance" and 
"satisfactory performance." Excellence is defined as a highly 
challenging and clearly exemplary level of achievement indicating 
outstanding accomplishment in meeting students' needs. 
Satisfactory is defined as a rigorous and realistic level of 
achievement indicating proficiency in meeting students' needs. 
The data-based areas above are those reported in the state's 1990 
and 1991 Maryland School Performance Program Report. The 
challenge in Maryland will be to reach the standards in five 
years. Additional standards will be set for data-based areas to 
be reported in the November 1992 report card. While students with 
disabilities in Maryland are included in some state reform 
initiative plans, it should be noted that some systematic 
exclusions exist. For example, to date, only students with 
disabilities who are on regular academic tracks are included in 
the annual assessment data reports.

     Examination of Table 5 and Part D in the supplement, which 
list states' education reform programs, shows a majority of 
states have published performance goals for their school systems. 
Many of these systems were implemented between 1987 and 1991. A 
number of states allude to maintaining assessment data related to 
their performance progress systems; however, the majority of 
these states do not disaggregate performance data for students 
with disabilities. Some states report only enrollment statistics 
related to students with disabilities and students who receive 
special education services. Part D provides a more complete 
description of the states' performance and assessment programs to 
date.

     In summary, then, from a review of current federal and state 
education initiatives, systemwide school reform involves:

     ù  Setting priorities in service programs and funding;

     ù  Developing data and research structures that would 
        support new demands for improved decision making;

     ù  Devising new schemes for enhanced technical assistance 
        activities;

     ù  Preparing personnel resources for creative or redirected 
        service efforts; and

     ù  Revising or redefining the intricate intergovernmental 
        relationships that currently exist in the field of public 
        education in America.

     Systemwide school reform might involve any one or all of 
these things. Unfortunately, from an analysis of the data 
collected so far (see Part D in the supplement), current 
education initiatives and school reform proposals may not 
translate into significant changes that involve students with 
disabilities and students who receive special education services. 
How this situation can be addressed requires careful, but timely, 
analyses and responses.
                              Table 5

                STATE EDUCATION REFORM INITIATIVES


       Academic      Instructional     Work         Quality
      achievement        time        readiness      of life


       Alabama         Alabama       Alabama       Arkansas
       Arizona         Arkansas      Arkansas      Connecticut
       California      Colorado      Connecticut   Delaware
       Colorado        D. Columbia   Delaware      Florida
       Connecticut     Indiana       Florida       Kansas
       Delaware        Iowa          Illinois      Massachusetts
       Dist. of ColumbiaMaryland     Kansas        Michigan
       Florida         Michigan      Maryland      Minnesota
       Indiana         Missouri      Massachusetts New Mexico
       Iowa            Nebraska      Michigan      North Carolina
       Kansas          Nevada        Minnesota     North Dakota
       Maryland        New Jersey    Nebraska      Oregon
       Massachusetts   New York      Nevada        Tennessee
       Michigan        North CarolinaNew Jersey    Texas
       Minnesota       Ohio          New Mexico    Vermont
       Missouri        Oregon        New York      Virginia
       Nebraska        South CarolinaNorth Carolina
       Nevada          Texas         North Dakota
       New Jersey                    Ohio
       New Mexico                    Oregon
       New York                      South Carolina
       North Carolina                Tennessee
       North Dakota                  Texas
       Ohio                          Vermont
       Oklahoma                      Virginia
       Oregon
       South Carolina
       Tennessee
       Texas


Source: State publications. In order for a state to be listed 
under any of the outcome variables, the state's publications must 
have made some reference to the outcome variable. Six contacts 
with each state were made. Data as of June 1, 1992.
          A LOOK AT THE PRESENT:  STUDENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                           AND OUTCOMES

     To understand the accomplishments and outcomes attained by 
students with disabilities in America, attention must first be 
focused on relevant data in OSEP's annual reports to Congress for 
the period 1986-1989. The chief source of annual national 
outcomes data from OSEP is the basis of exit data set which 
represents 5% of the country's special education population of 
4.54 million students. The basis of exit data set (Figure 8 and 
Part E in the supplement) includes the number and percentage of 
students who graduated with diplomas, graduated with 
certificates, reached maximum age of entitlement, dropped out, or 
used some other basis of exit.

     A review of Figure 8 indicates the following national trends 
during the years 1986-1989:

     ù  Students who graduated with diplomas increased from 42% 
        to 46%.

     ù  Students who graduated with certificates decreased from 
        18% to 10%.

     ù  Students exited public schools by reaching the maximum 
        age of service entitlement at a 3% annual rate.

     ù  Students who dropped out increased from 25% to 27%.

     ù  Students who left schools for undetermined reasons--or, 
        "other basis of exit"--increased from 12% to 18%.

     A review of the basis of exit graphs across student 
disability categories in Part E in the supplement reveals the 
following annual trends in the nation for the years 1986-1989:

     ù  Students with hearing impairments graduate with diplomas 
        at a higher percentage rate than any other student group, 
        ranging from 56% to 65%.

     ù  Students with mental retardation graduate with 
        certificates at a higher percentage rate than any other 
        student group, at a rate of about 20%.

     ù  Students with speech impairments have shown the highest 
        rates among all student groups of leaving schools for 
        undetermined reasons, ranging from 19% to about 43%.
                             Figure 8










































Source:  Westat Inc.  (1991)
     ù  Students with multiple disabilities have the greatest 
        likelihood of any student group to reach the maximum age 
        of their school entitlement, at an average rate of about 
        12%.

     ù  Students with serious emotional disturbances are at the 
        greatest risk among all student groups of dropping out of 
        school, at a rate of about 40%.

     When the basis of exit outcomes data are disaggregated 
across the sample of six states and across the ten student 
categories, the picture changes dramatically. The national trends 
reported above are not repeated across the six states. Possibly 
the "other basis of exit" category may be masking or skewing 
actual conditions. For example, in State 02, dropout rates have 
consistently decreased as other basis of exit rates have 
consistently increased--in a hydraulic-like fashion--over the 
period 1986--1989. Another possibility may be that changes in 
different states' graduation requirements account for differences 
in outcome trends. A third possibility might involve the 
effectiveness of differing secondary education programs for 
students with disabilities in the six states. A further 
possibility may be that changes and/or differences across the 
local-state-national outcomes data reporting system and factors, 
as yet unidentified, play a role. How data managers choose to 
present basis of exit data sets (see, for example, Figure 9) may 
affect readers' interpretations of annual student outcomes data.

     Apart from the annual basis of exit data set reported to 
Congress each year, What other national outcomes data are to be 
made available by OSEP in its annual reports to Congress? The 
National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) of secondary-age 
special education students, mandated by Congress in 1983, appears 
to be the only other source. The NLTS focuses exclusively on 
secondary school outcomes (absenteeism, course failure, school 
completion) and postschool outcomes (attendance at postsecondary 
vocational schools, competitive employment of youth not in 
postsecondary schools). Where are the national outcomes data for 
preschool- and elementary-age students who receive special 
education services?

     Data for the general education system are most often 
provided to Congress by the National Center for Educational 
Statistics (NCES) through publications such as the Annual Digest 
of Education Statistics. The few data tables in the Digest that 
report on students with disabilities are transposed from OSEP's 
Annual Reports to Congress. While the Digest incorporates 96% of 
the special education student population in its annual 
national-state enrollment tables and figures, it does not 
disaggregate its enrollment numbers for students with 
disabilities. However, through its Common Core of Data Survey 
system, the NCES has been able to identify student enrollment by 
state
                             Figure 9










































Source:  Westat Inc.  (1991)
and by grade for the last 25 years. A natural progressions 
analysis on these enrollment data shows the following:

     ù  Consistent and relatively large numbers of students who 
        are not moving in grade-to-grade fashion from 1st to 2nd 
        grade and from 2nd to 3rd grade; and

     ù  Large numbers of students entering and exiting public 
        education systems at the points of transition between 
        elementary and junior high/middle schools, and between 
        junior high/middle schools and high schools.

     These trends appear to correlate with trends reported by 
OSEP since 1985. A comparison of the two national enrollment data 
sets strongly suggests a predictable flow of large numbers of 
students from regular education grades 1-3 into special education 
service systems. The National Education Longitudinal Study of 
1988 (p. 9) shows that the largest percentages of at-risk 8th 
graders reported that they repeated 1st and 2nd grades most 
often. Other NCES documents and reports also provide unique, 
albeit one-time-only, information about progress and outcomes 
attained by students with disabilities.30

              A LOOK AHEAD: OUTCOMES AND EXPECTATIONS

     Other than the basis of exit data reported annually by OSEP 
to Congress, there appears to be little or no nationally 
representative information that annually reports the achievements 
of 96% of the special education population. While approximately 
91% of elementary and secondary public special education students 
are in graded placements, those students' academic achievements 
are not systematically documented, reported, or disseminated. 
This situation is especially puzzling when, according to the 13th 
Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1991), 93% of 
students aged 3-21 years with disabilities were served in regular 
school buildings.

     There are several compelling explanations that may account 
for this situation:

     ù    Many school system reforms tend to rely on management 
          information personnel and technicians as decision 
          makers and not on program personnel who know the 
          substantive data and research issues in school reform 
          processes. When this occurs, the predictable result is 
          less than a full and fair reporting of the 
          accomplishments and outcomes of students who receive 
          special education.31

     ù    Territoriality among and within federal and state 
          education agencies may contribute to what might be 
          referred to as an impoverished data and research system 
          regarding students with disabilities.32

     ù    There is little incentive or pressure to redesign the 
          annual federal special education data base beyond the 
          basic equity measures and indicators that have been 
          reported to Congress for the past 13 years.

     ù    Existing overlaps and redundancies in federally 
          mandated educational data collections may result in 
          superficial information systems.33

     The development of an integrated policy and research 
framework that accurately represents student accomplishments and 
outcomes in public education systems is justified on a number of 
grounds:

     First, there is a growing recognition of the 
     interrelatedness of education systems from kindergarten to 
     college, between education systems and school-based health 
     systems, between education and vocational rehabilitation 
     systems, and between education systems and corrections 
     systems, for example.

     Second, there is a growing awareness among federal 
     policymakers that existing data and student record-keeping 
     systems may be wholly outdated, such as the Migrant Student 
     Record Transfer System, which is 18 years old.

     Third, the demand for statistics and information about "new" 
     student populations is increasing (e.g., the population of 
     students identified with traumatic brain injuries), which 
     requires new information alliances between federal, state, 
     and local agencies such as the Center for Disease Control 
     and OSEP.

     Fourth, there is considerable duplication in federal data 
     collection activities across the range of educational 
     programs. Fifth, federal and state school performance and 
     accountability initiatives demand major design changes to 
     existing government data systems.

     The nation may be far from developing a sophisticated, 
overarching type of management information system. However, the 
need for improvements to intergovernmental education systems' 
internal controls and accounting systems is clear.34 Perhaps the 
President and Congress envisioned this as a mandatory task for 
the National Council on Education Standards and Testing. In the 
meantime, the possibility exists that agency- and 
program-specific frameworks can be integrated as a precursor to 
such an overarching federal-state data system.35

     The first step in achieving an integrated information system 
framework involves an analysis of the intersection between 
existing federal-state research or assessment systems with 
federal-state school reform programs. Some of the more frequently 
used research in the fields of special and general education is 
listed in Table 6, according to the four outcomes of interest for 
the National Council's study: academic achievement, school/work 
readiness, quality of life, and minimal instructional time lost. 
An inspection of Tables 5 and 6 suggests that there are few 
instances of common research or assessment or reform efforts 
across school populations.

     The second step in ensuring an integrated, reliable 
information system involves a reliance on a uniform set of 
educational data collection and reporting procedures. The 1991 
SEDCAR (Standards for Education Data Collection and Reporting) 
Report from the Department of Education represents best practice 
in the collection, processing, analysis, and reporting of 
education statistics. The principles enunciated in the 1991 
SEDCAR Report are intended to help improve the usefulness, 
timeliness, accuracy, and comparability of education data that 
inform key policy decisions at all levels of the U.S. education 
system, with the ultimate goal of improving education (p. xi).

     These standards for quality assurance were initially 
developed for use by the National Cooperative Education 
Statistics System. Do OSEP's data collection and reporting 
activities fall within the purview of the cooperative system? 
Given some of the fundamental problems identified with its 
educational data system, if OSEP and state education agencies are 
not members of the cooperative system, perhaps they should be.

                      MEASURES AND INDICATORS

     Federal and state agencies are working to improve the 
accountability of their education systems as well as the 
performance of their students. Agency officials and reform 
advocates face the ambitious task of identifying performance 
indicators and measurement systems.36 The following policy 
standards are being considered, to varying degrees: (1) equity in 
service provision and resource distribution across the area of 
programming; (2) excellence in service delivery across the range 
of diverse student populations; (3) responsiveness to local 
needs; (4) responsiveness to local political preferences; (5) 
responsiveness to student-consumer constituencies and the needs 
expressed by those constituencies; (6) coordination and
                                Table 6

               OUTCOME VARIABLES, MEASURES, AND RESEARCH





     OUTCOMES
                        SPECIAL EDUCATION
                                                GENERAL EDUCATION




ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

- Grade point averages


- Grades pass/promotions

- Graduation with diploma

- Graduation with certificate

- Competency tests

- School participation





- College entry




-                     High School Transcript Study (1987); 12th & 
                      13th Annual Reports
-                     National Longitudinal Transition Study 
                      (1991)
-                     National Longitudinal Transition Study 
                      (1991)
-                     9th-13th Annual Reports to Congress on the 
                      Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
                      (IDEA)
-                     9th-13th Annual Reports to Congress on the 
                      IDEA
-                     Alliance for Positive Youth Development 
                      (1991)




-                     National Center for Education Statistics 
                      (NCES) Postsecondary Student Aid Study of 
                      1987


-                                              National Education 
                                               Longitudinal Study 
                                               of 8th Graders 
                                               (1990)

-                                              National Education 
                                               Longitudinal Study 
                                               of 8th Graders 
                                               (1990)
-                                              National Education 
                                               Longitudinal Study 
                                               of 8th Graders 
                                               (1990)
-                                              National 
                                               Children's Report 
                                               Card, 1989

-                                              National 
                                               Children's Report 
                                               Card, 1989


-                                              Scholastic 
                                               Aptitude Tests; 
                                               American College 
                                               Tests; National 
                                               Assessment of 
                                               Educational 
                                               Progress
-                                              College Board 
                                               Report Profiles of 
                                               College Bound High 
                                               School Seniors
SCHOOL/WORK
READINESS

- Wages earned in school

- Job entry



- Presence in work study, work experiences, and cooperative 
  education



-                     High School Transcript Study (1987)
-                     Study of Programs of Instruction for 
                      Handicapped Children and Youth in Day & 
                      Residential Facilities (1990)




-                                              The Condition of 
                                               Education (1990)
-                                              The Condition of 
                                               Education (1990)


-                                              14th Annual Report 
                                               of the National 
                                               Commission on 
                                               Employment Policy 
                                               (1991)






                                Table 6

               OUTCOME VARIABLES, MEASURES, AND RESEARCH
                              (continued)



     OUTCOMES
                        SPECIAL EDUCATION
                                                GENERAL EDUCATION




QUALITY OF LIFE

- Satisfaction--job

- Opportunity for choice and decision making
- Self-determination skills
- Community utilization
- Adequate income/support
- Wellness
- Self-esteem


-                     National Council on Disability (1989)
-                     Forging a New Era (1990)

-                     Quality of Life (1990)
-                     Forging a New Era (1990)
-                     Forging a New Era (1990)

-                     Adolescent Health (1991)
-                     Adolescent Health (1991)


-                                              Kids Count Data 
                                               Book (1991)

-                                              Making the Grade 
                                               (1990)

-
-
-

-                                              Adolescent Health
-                                              Adolescent Health

MINIMAL INSTRUCTIONAL TIME

- Absenteeism

- Suspensions/expulsions


- Dropping out






-                     Special Analysis of the 1986 Elementary & 
                      Secondary School Civil Rights Survey Data 
                      (1988)
-                     9th-13th Annual Reports to Congress on the 
                      IDEA




-                                              School Dropouts in 
                                               the U.S. (1987)
-                                              School Dropouts in 
                                               the U.S. (1987)

-                                              School Dropouts in 
                                               the U.S. (1987)


integration of services and supports to students and families; 
(7) maximum efficiency; (8) and intra-agency and interagency 
coordination across local, state, and federal levels of 
government.

     The use of performance standards for federal and state 
education reforms in the 1990s is legion. For example, in the 
1988 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments, program improvement provisions 
require schools to be evaluated primarily on the basis of 
year-to-year gains in normal curve equivalents (NCEs). Each state 
sets a criterion, or standard, that constitutes an adequate NCE 
gain for its students. As a result of state and local efforts to 
improve public education, 47 states now test or require local 
school districts to test elementary and secondary school students 
and 45 states impose high school course work requirements.37 What 
are the performance standards for students who receive special 
education or related services? Do the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments 
of 1988 or the America 2000 reform initiative provide for 
performance standards for students who receive special education 
services? Although the current response to both questions would 
be negative, the efforts of NCSTE may break this cycle of 
educational separatism and uncertainty.

     A number of educational assessment measures--for example, 
Scholastic Aptitude Tests and National Assessments of Educational 
Progress--suggest that racial and ethnic group status is 
correlated with several other indicators, such as poverty, health 
status, and other factors.38 Figure 10 offers a comparison of 
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) performance between individuals 
with and without disabilities, which may raise additional 
questions for future study. The expected growth in the range and 
diversity of America's school population may require improvements 
in existing and planned student assessment programs. Perhaps 
NCEST's recent decision to support a "cluster assessment system" 
is a sensitive response to the changing nature of the student 
population in this country.

     In the absence of specific provisions for special education 
programs in current federal and state reform efforts, what 
existing measurement strategies and indicators can education 
policymakers and others rely on to determine and report the 
performance of students with disabilities? The National Center 
for Educational Statistics publishes an annual document entitled, 
The Condition of Education. Within that document are sections and 
chapters of indicators of education measures and outcomes 
attained by students. Page 66 depicts the percentage of high 
school students, 16 to 24 years old, by race and sex for the 
period 1970-1989.39 An additional item of data might be added to 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey to 
obtain comparable information regarding high school students with 
disabilities and students who receive special education services 
and who are employed at parttime jobs while in high school.
                             Figure 10










































Source:  Educational Testing Service  (1991)
     A second strategy might involve state rankings of key 
outcomes for students who are served by both the general and the 
special education system. Table 7 portrays differences in state 
rankings by comparing states' graduation rates using general 
education data (from the National Center for Educational 
Statistics and from the 1990 Census Bureau Report) and using 
special education data (from the 13th Annual Report on the 
Implementation at IDEA). A review of Table 7 indicates only a few 
cases where within-state rankings are similar when comparing 
special education and general education graduation rates for 
students. Any interpretations or conclusions drawn or inferred 
regarding within-state differences should be viewed with some 
caution.

     A third possible strategy might involve the enhanced use of 
existing longitudinal research or assessment initiatives to 
accommodate specific student populations. One example may involve 
the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988, which, 
until quite recently, had maintained a 5.7% exclusion rate for 
students with disabilities. In the past year, the NELS team 
reexamined its exclusionary practices and student sample and 
determined that one-half of the excluded sample of 8th grade 
students with disabilities were eligible for inclusion in the 
research. Unfortunately, the NELS did not present any data 
regarding the achievement of students with disabilities or 
students with IEPs in its April 1991 research report.

     After reviewing the 1990 NELS computer data base, there 
appear to be few instances in which students with disabilities 
who were included in the study sample significantly differed in 
their responses from their nondisabled peers. A second example 
may involve the NAEP longitudinal research data base, which 
maintains a 3% to 4% exclusion rate of students with disabilities 
and which does not report disaggregated test scores for students 
with IEPs. After reviewing a few of NAEP's computer data tapes, 
there also appear to be less than dramatic differences in 
proficiency scores attained by persons with disabilities and 
students with IEPs when compared with the scores attained by 
their nondisabled peers (see, for example, Figures 11a, 11b, and 
12).

     A fourth strategy might incorporate several of the outcome 
variables and measures listed in Table 6 of this report. This 
strategy could be easily adapted, by the National Education Goals 
Panel and could be nested within the measurement indicators 
system currently guiding the America 2000 initiative. For 
example, one quality of life measure could include "consumer 
satisfaction" with educational services. Satisfaction data from a 
nationally representative study involving 13,075 people with 
developmental disabilities, the 1990 Forging A New Era-National 
Consumer Survey, is presented in Table 8. Table 8 shows that 15 
to 25% of respondents were dissatisfied with current educational 
services, and provides explanations for consumers' (i.e., 
students' and their parents') dissatisfaction.
                              Table 7

             STATES RANKED BY STUDENT GRADUATION RATES


                     Special       General
                   Education*    Education**
   State             Rank           Rank          Difference


Puerto Rico            53             --             --
California             52              7            -45
Oregon51               25            -26
Louisiana              50             28            -22
New Hampshire          49             21            -28
Pennsylvania           48             41            -07
Rhode Island           47             48              1
Florida46               3            -43
Illinois               45             32            -13
Alaska                 44              4            -40
New York               43             50              7
Delaware               42             44              2
Michigan               41             39            -03
Washington             40             20            -20
North Carolina         39             12            -27
Missouri               38             35            -03
Maryland               37             40              3
Idaho                  36             14            -22
Kentucky               35             10            -25
Georgia34              18            -16
Arizona33               6            -27
North Dakota           32             37              5
Tennessee              31             17            -14
Iowa                   30             45             15
Alabama                29             24            -05
Maine                  28             19            -09
Wyoming                27              9            -18
South Carolina         26             12            -14
Indiana25              29              4
New Mexico             24             30              6
Arkansas               23             11            -12
West Virginia          22              8            -14
Kansas21               27             14
Vermont                20             34             14
Oklahoma               19             23              4
New Jersey             18             36             18
Utah                   17              2            -15
Colorado               16             21              5
                              Table 7

             STATES RANKED BY STUDENT GRADUATION RATES
                            (continued)


                     Special       General
                   Education*    Education**
   State             Rank           Rank          Difference


South Dakota           15             47             32
Nebraska               14             36             22
Dist. of Columbia      13             --             --
Minnesota              12             42             30
Montana                11             37             26
Mississippi            10             15              5
Virginia                9             16              7
Massachusetts           8             49             41
Texas                   7              5            -02
Ohio                    6             31             25
Hawaii5                26             21
Wisconsin               4             42             38
Nevada3                 1            -02
Bureau of Indian Affairs2             --             --
Connecticut             1             32             31



Note:These special education values are based on percents for 
     each state; therefore, they must be considered an unweighted 
     statistic that does not compensate for differences in state 
     population.

*    Derived from Basis of Exit data from the 13th Annual Report 
     to Congress on the Implementation of the IDEA State Rankings 
     by combined percents of graduated with Diploma, with 
     Certificate, and reached Maximum Age of entitlement for all 
     disabilities.

**   Source: Bureau of the Census Decennial Report, 1990, p. xiv.
                            Figure 11a










































Source:  Educational Testing Service  (1991)
                            Figure 11b










































Source:  Educational Testing Service (1991)
                             Figure 12











































   Note:   The NAEP Young Adult Literacy Test was used to gather 
        information from a national sample of 21- to 25-year-old 
        adults concerning their literacy proficiencies. The test 
        consisted of a pool of 105 items that contributed to the 
        various literacy scale scores. Matrix sampling techniques 
        were employed that required each participant to respond 
        to a representative 3/7's sample of the 105 items, which 
        provided a reliable estimate of the population's 
        performance. Under this procedure an individual answers 
        too few items to provide accurate proficiency estimates. 
        Therefore, based on the individual's responses to the 
        sample of items and the individual's background, it is 
        possible to estimate a proficiency scale score 
        ("plausibility value"). Because of the variability 
        associated with this procedure, the average of various 
        estimates of a proficiency value is probably the most 
        appropriate value to use.

   Source:National Assessment of Educational Progress, 
        Educational Testing Service (1987)
                                   Table 8

                       NATIONAL CONSUMER SURVEY (1990)

                              Total N = 13,075

             Item: Satisfaction with Services Currently Received
                                (Percentages)



Satisfied7274  63   53   63   71   67   55   66   62   67   68   59
Neutral   13   12   18   26   14   12   20   31   17   14   19   
14                                                                    26
Dissatisfied15 14   20   21   23   16   12   15   17   24   14   
18                                                                    15

                Sub-item: If dissatisfied with services, why?

          N=   N=   N=   N=   N=   N=   N=   N=   N=   N=   N=   
N=                                                                    N=
Reason   273  258  258  134  616  348  115   78  216  474  115  
234                                                                   81


Other     11   12    8   10   10    8   14   18   10   14   14   
15                                                                    16

Not receiving
enough    26   16    8   12   11   12   10   21   28   31   17   
22                                                                    11

Poor quality14 13   13   11   17   14   15   10   19   15   10   
10                                                                    11

Too expensive3  4    1    2   .2    2    2    2    9    2    4    
4                                                                     37

Not suited to
needs     30   41   55   46   47   46   41   31   19   24   37   
38                                                                    46

Does not
help       4    2    2    3    2    4    3    3    1    2    5    3   --

No respect for
dignity    4    4    9    6    3    3    7   --    4    1    5    
4                                                                      1

Transportation2 1   .5   --   .3    1    1    1    2    6    3    
1                                                                      4

Understaffed3   2    2    4    5    4    6    3   13    2    1    1   --

Not integrated3 7    3    8    6    6    2    5    3    2    4    
3                                                                      4


Source:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
       Administration on Developmental Disabilities
     A fifth strategy might include the adoption or adaptation of 
other existing and locally relevant youth indicators.40 For 
example, nationwide student and/or parent satisfaction and 
dissatisfaction with educational services could provide school 
officials and policymakers with the necessary data for 
educational reform efforts in the 1990s. Table 8 presents 1990 
data for a nationally representative sample of consumers with 
developmental disabilities. A second example might involve 
statewide data, such as the Vermont Post School Indicators for 
Program Improvement Project, which provides 
follow-up/follow-along data regarding students who exited special 
education. Follow-up data are used by school districts to 
increase employment levels, postsecondary education 
opportunities, friendships, and decision-making skills. Once it 
is refined, the follow-up/follow-along indicator system will be 
included in Vermont's educational evaluation system.

                           FINAL REMARKS

     Annual national reports on the achievement levels or 
competencies attained by preschool-, elementary-, and 
secondary-age students with disabilities and students who receive 
special education services have been extremely limited. Students 
with disabilities have been largely forgotten by the mainstream 
of our education system and by reformers of that system. America 
must fulfill the potential of all its citizens, including all 
students with disabilities, if it hopes to maintain world-class 
economic status in the next century.

     Current efforts to improve the nation's schools involve 
increasing the accountability of school systems to improve 
academic performance and to report competence attained by 
students. Public special education is premised on the use of 
individualized accountability reports on the progress of every 
student. Students with disabilities and their families demand the 
opportunity to be brought into the mainstream of the U.S. 
education system and to be among those for whom the system will 
be held accountable.
                               NOTES

1.  J.G. Chambers and W.T. Hartman (1983). Special Education 
      Policies: Their History, Implementation, and Finance. 
      Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA.

2.  Law Review Board (1989). Teaching inequality: The problem of 
      public school tracking. Harvard Law Review, 102, 1321.

3.  Office of Inspector General--Office of Audit (March 11, 
      1991). Stronger Enforcement of Program Requirements Could 
      Result in Greater Benefit to Handicapped Children. Regional 
      Inspector General, Dallas, TX. Audit Control #06-80260.

4.  Government Accounting Office (April 1991). Fact Sheet for the 
      Chair, Subcommittee on Disability Policy, Committee on 
      Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate. U.S. Department of 
      Education Monitoring of State Formula Grants by the Office 
      of Special Education Programs. (GAO/HRD-91-91FS). Compare 
      the April 1991 GAO Report with Government Accounting Office 
      Report (November 1989), Briefing Report to the Chair, 
      Subcommittee on Select Education and Labor, U.S. House of 
      Representatives. U.S. Department of Education Management of 
      the Office of Special Education and  Rehabilitative 
      Services (GAO/HRD-90-21BR).

5.  M.W., Kirst (1990). Policy Perspectives--Accountability: 
      Implications for State and Local Policy-Makers. U.S. 
      Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and 
      Improvement, Information Services, Washington, DC.

6.  O.D. Coffey, N. Procopiow, and N. Miller (1989). Programming 
      Mentally Retarded and Learning Disabled Inmates: A Guide 
      for Correctional Administrators. National Institute of 
      Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

    L.A. LeBlanc, and A. Ratnofsky, (1991). Unlocking learning, 
      Chapter 1 in Correctional Facilities. [Executive Summary p. 
      2-3]. U.S. Department of  Education,  Office  of  the Under 
      Secretary.

7.  Education Daily (1992). ED Rarely Investigates Special 
      Education Appeals, V.25, No.17.

8.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1989). 
      Projections of the Population of the United States, by Age, 
      Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2080. Current Population Reports, 
      Series P-25, No. 1018.

    National Center for Education Statistics (1990). Proceedings 
      of the Second Annual Federal Forecasters Conference, U.S. 
      Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and 
      Improvement, NCES 90-682. Office of Bilingual Education and 
      Minority Language Affairs (1990). Staffing the 
      Multilingually Impacted Schools
      of the 1990s. U.S. Department of Education, National Forum 
      on Personnel Needs for Districts with Changing 
      Demographics.

9.  The Center for the Study of Social Policy (1991). Kids Count 
      Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-Being [p.10]. 
      Washington, DC.

10. U.S. Office of Civil Rights (1988). The 1986 Elementary and 
      Secondary School Civil Rights Survey. U.S. Department of 
      Education, Washington, D.C.

    Council of Urban Boards of Education (1990). A Survey  of 
      Public Education in the Nation's School Districts 
      [pp.9-10]. National School Boards Association, Alexandria, 
      VA.

11. B.J Hayward (1989). Access and Quality. Report prepared for 
      the National Assessment of Vocational Education.

12. J. Oakes  and M. Lipton. (1992). Detracking schools: Early 
      lessons from the field. KAPPAN, 73(6), 448-454.

13. Lewin/ICF and Fox Health Policy Consultants (1991). Medicaid 
      Coverage of Health-Related Services for Children Receiving 
      Special Education: An Examination of Federal Policies. U.S. 
      Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. 
      Department of Education U.S. Government Printing Office, 
      1991-617-871(41102).

14. M.S. Knapp and B.J. Turnbull (Eds.)(1990). Study of Academic 
      Instruction for Disadvantaged Students, Better Schooling 
      for the Children of Poverty: Alternatives to Conventional 
      Wisdom. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, 
      Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation. (Contract No. 
      LC88054001.)
   
    J.M. McPartland and R.E. Slavin (1990). Policy 
      Perspectives--Increasing Achievement of At-Risk Students at 
      Each Grade Level. U.S. Department of Education, Office of 
      Educational Research and Improvement.

    B.A. Rudes and J.L. Willette (1990). Handbook of Effective 
      Migrant Education Practices, Volumes I & II. Prepared for 
      the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 
      Budget and Evaluation. (Contract 300-87-0133.)

    M.T. Moore and J. Funkhouser (1990). More Time to Learn: 
      Extended Time Strategies for Chapter 1 Students. Prepared 
      for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning,  
      Budget and Evaluation. (Contract 300-85-0103.)

    B. Means and M. Knapp (Eds.) (1991). Teaching Advanced Skills 
      to Educationally Disadvantaged Students. Prepared  for the 
      U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget 
      and Evaluation. (Contract  LC89089001.)

15. The National Diffusion Network (1990). Programs That Work for 
      Handicapped Students: A Collection  of ProvenExemplary 
      Education Programs and Practices. U.S. Department of 
      Education, The Recognition Division, Washington, D.C.

16. J.S. Coleman (1991). Policy Perspectives--Parental 
      Involvement in Education. U.S. Department of Education, 
      Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

    W.G. Demmert and T.H. Bell (1991). Indian Nations at Risk: An 
      Educational Strategy for Action, Final Report of the Indian 
      Nations at Risk Task Force, U.S. Department of Education.

17. ATE Task Force Report (1986). Visions of Reform: Implications 
      for the Education Profession. Association of Teacher 
      Educators: Reston, VA.

    ATE Special Journal Issue (Fall 1990). Diversity in Today's 
      Classroom: Teacher Education's Challenge. Action in Teacher 
      Education, 12(3).

18. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). 
      What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 
      2000. U.S. Department of Labor.

    Department of Adult Education and Literacy (1990). Defining 
      Literacy and the National Adult Literacy Survey. U.S. 
      Department of Education.

    F. Swoboda (March 29, 1992). A step toward setting national 
      job skill standards. Washington Post, H2.

19. Public Health Service (1991). Healthy People 2000. National 
      Health and Disease Prevention Objectives. U.S. Department 
      of Health and Human Services.

20. Public Law 102-62, The National Council on Standards and 
      Testing, a 32-member advisory panel to the National 
      Education Goals Panel.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science 
      (1989). Project 2061: Science for All Americans. 
      Washington, DC.

21. P.D. Forgione and M.E. Orland (Eds.) (1990). A Guide to 
      Improving the National Education Data System. Prepared by 
      the National Education Statistics Agenda Committee, 
      National Forum on Education Statistics. U.S. Department of 
      Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

22. G. Bush (1991). The National Education Goals: A Second Report 
      to the Nation's Governors. The White House. See the list of 
      statewide initiatives provided in Table 5 of this document.

    See series of editorials published in the Washington Post, 
      November 7, 17, and 21, 1991 by Ms. Iris Rotberg and Ms. 
      Diane Ravitch. These editorials debate some of the issues 
      surrounding international education assessments and the 
      comparative performance(s) of U.S. students with students 
      from other countries. Exclusion of students who have 
      disabilities is specifically discussed.

    See also, M. Jordan (February 6, 1992). U.S. students test 
      below average: In world, U.S. fares poorly in math, 
      science. Washington Post, Section A, pp. 1 and 4.

23. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1991) 
      Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade [p. 29]. 
      U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

24. National Center for Education Statistics (1991). The State of 
      Mathematics Achievement, NAEP's 1990 Assessmentof the 
      Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States. Prepared by 
      the Educational Testing Service for the U.S.Department of 
      Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 
      Report 21-ST-04, pp.440-441.

25. V. Deloria (1985). American Indian Policy in the Twentieth 
      Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 15-33.

26. G. San Miguel (1987). The status of historical research on 
      Chicano education. Review of Education Research, 57(4), 
      467-480.

27. R.C. Salomone (1986). Equal Education under Law: Legal Rights 
      and Federal Policy. St. Martin's Press: New York.

28. H. Levin (1986). The Educationally Disadvantaged Are Still 
      among Us. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.

29. National Governors' Association (1990). Consensus for Change. 
      Educating America: State Strategies for Achieving the 
      National Education Goals--Task Force Report on Education. 
      Washington, DC.

30. The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 
      Education Statistics (1989). Profile of Handicapped 
      Students in Postsecondary Education, 1987 presents 
      statistics for students with disabilities enrolled in 
      postsecondary institutions, by select student 
      characteristics (e.g., sex, age, race/ethnicity) andcontrol 
      and level of institution (e.g., public/private 2- year or 
      4-year college or university).

31. S. Parrino (July 17, 1991). Letter of Inquiry from the 
      National Council on Disability to the National 
      EducationGoals Panel, Washington, DC.

32. J. Button (April 1991). Draft listing of joint initiatives 
      between the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation 
      Services and other federal departments and agencies.

33. T. Tobin (1991). A Study of Availability and Overlap of 
      Education Data in Federal Collections. Prepared for 
      theNational Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 
      Department of Education, Contract No. RS880140.

34. J.R. Wright (1988). Model Framework for Management Control 
      over Automated Information Systems. Executive Office of the 
      President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC.

35. G.R. Bush and G.L. Cooper (1989). Strategies for Improving 
    Data Quality. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, 
    Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
    Report NCJ-111458.

36. A. Odden (1990). Educational indicators in the United States: 
      The need for analysis. Educational Researcher, 24-29.

37. R.J. Coley and M.E. Goertz (1990). Educational Standards in 
      the 50 States: 1990. Policy Information Center, Educational 
      Testing Service: Princeton, NJ.

38. National Center for Education Statistics (1990). The National 
      Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: Profile of the 
      American Eighth Grader (NCES 90-458). U.S. Department of 
      Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 
      Washington, DC.

39. Source of data: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
      Statistic. Derived from the Current Population Survey: 
      1940-1987.

40. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1988). Youth 
      Indicators 1988: Trends in the Well Being of American Youth 
      (IS 89-183). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.


           NATIONAL COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES


                     National Council Members

John A. Gannon, Acting Chairperson

     John Gannon of Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., 
founded John A. Gannon and Associates. His firm has offices in 
Columbus and Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and Washington, 
D.C. A fire fighter for more than 30 years, Mr. Gannon was an 
active leader of the International Association of Fire Fighters 
(IAFF) Local 93. Starting as a member of the local IAFF 
committee, he eventually became president, a position he held for 
10 years before being elected to national office.

     In September 1988, Mr. Gannon was elected IAFF President 
Emeritus. He had served as president of the 170,000-member 
organization since 1980. Under his leadership, the IAFF expanded 
its role in occupational safety and health. Concerned about the 
hazards of his profession, he guided and directed a series of 
programs to promote greater safety and health protection. One 
program sponsored research on safer garments and equipment for 
fire fighters. Mr. Gannon also fostered development of the IAFF 
Burn Foundation, which raises funds for research on the care of 
people who have experienced severe burns. In 1985, the 
Metropolitan General Hospital in Cleveland dedicated a John 
Gannon Burn and Trauma Center in recognition of his support for 
the hospital.

     Mr. Gannon was elected vice president of the AFL-CIO, with 
which the IAFF is affiliated. Within the AFL-CIO he is vice 
president of the Public Employee Department. On the Executive 
Council, he is a member of several committees. He serves on the 
board of the National Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations 
and in 1982 served as its chairman. He is a member of the board 
of the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Mr. Gannon attended Miami 
University in Ohio and Glasgow University in Scotland, and 
studied at Baldwin-Wallace College and Cleveland State 
University.

Kent Waldrep, Jr., Vice Chairperson

      Kent Waldrep has been involved with disability issues on 
the local, state, and national level since suffering a spinal 
cord injury in 1974 while playing football for Texas Christian 
University. Since 1981, Mr. Waldrep has served on the National 
Council by presidential appointment. He is National Council vice 
chairperson and chairman of the Research and Prevention 
Committee. He was instrumental in formulating the National 
Council initiative on preventing primary and secondary 
disabilities.

     Mr. Waldrep, one of 15 original drafters of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, gave the legislation its name. He has 
lectured nationwide on subjects ranging from national disability 
policy to medical research targeted at curing paralysis. He 
founded the American
Paralysis Association and the Kent Waldrep National Paralysis 
Foundation. He has appeared on Good Morning America, the Today 
Show, the NBC Nightly News, and CNN, and been featured in People, 
Look, USA Today, and other magazines.

     He was selected by the U.S. Jaycees as one of 1985's ten 
Outstanding Young Men in America and received a special award 
from the Texas Sports Hall of Fame and a sports/fitness award 
from the President's Council on Physical Fitness. Kent Waldrep 
Days have been celebrated in four Texas cities and Birmingham, 
Alabama. He serves on many boards, including the Texas 
Rehabilitation Commission. He is past chairman of the Texas 
Governor's Committee for Disabled Persons and the Dallas 
Rehabilitation Institute. He also is chairman of Turbo-Resins, 
Inc., a family-owned and -operated aviation repair business. He 
lives in Plano, Texas, with his wife Lynn and two sons, Trey and 
Charles Cavenaugh.

Linda Wickett Allison

     Linda Allison of Dallas, Texas, is a long-time advocate of 
people with disabilities. She is a board member of the National 
Paralysis Foundation and a trustee for the International Spinal 
Research Trust. Mrs. Allison, who grew up in Fort Worth, has 
three children. Her daughter Marcy was paralyzed from the waist 
down in a 1979 automobile accident. Marcy graduated from the 
University of Texas School of Law in 1986 and practices law in 
Austin. Mrs. Allison's late husband, James N. Allison, Jr., owned 
the Midland Reporter Telegram and other newspapers in Texas and 
Colorado and was former deputy chair of the Republican National 
Committee.

Ellis B. Bodron

     Ellis Bodron of Vicksburg, Mississippi, has been a 
practicing attorney since 1947. He served 36 years as a member of 
the Mississippi legislature, one term in the House of 
Representatives and eight terms in the Mississippi Senate. He 
also chaired the Senate Finance Committee from 1961 until 1983.

     Mr. Bodron, who is blind, is associated with several civic 
organizations, including the Vicksburg Lions Club, Vicksburg 
Chamber of Commerce, and the University of Mississippi Alumni 
Association. In addition, he is a member of the Advisory Board of 
Directors, Deposit Guaranty National Bank.

     Mr. Bodron has also been a member of the Agriculture and 
Industrial Board, which preceded the Board of Economic 
Development, and the Committee of Budget and Accounting and Board 
of Trustees of the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement 
System.

     Ellis Bodron graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and a 
Bachelor of Law Degree from the University of Mississippi. He is 
married with two children.

Larry Brown, Jr.

     Since 1981, Larry Brown of Potomac, Maryland, has been the 
Xerox business and community relations manager for the 
Mid-Atlantic Region, Coastal Operations, Custom Systems Division. 
In 1991 he became Government and Community Relations Manager with 
Integrated Systems Operations.

     Mr. Brown was a running back for the Washington Redskins for 
eight years. During that time he received many awards, including 
Most Valuable Player in the National Football League for 1972. He 
was inducted into the Washington, D.C., Touchdown Hall of Fame in 
1991.

     After retiring from football in 1977, he worked at E.F. 
Hutton as a personal financial management adviser. He has been 
special assistant to the director, Office of Minority Business 
Enterprise, Department of Commerce. He is involved with youth, 
people with disabilities, and senior citizens. Mr. Brown has 
spoken at schools, colleges, and universities on topics such as 
motivation, discipline, and camaraderie. He works with many 
organizations, including the Friends of the National Institute on 
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, the Deafness Research 
Foundation, and the Vincent Lombardi Foundation.

Mary Ann Mobley Collins

     A former Miss America who lives in Beverly Hills, 
California, Mary Ann Collins has a career in film and television 
and on Broadway. She has co-hosted the National March of Dimes 
telethons with her husband, Emmy-award-winning actor Gary 
Collins; she is a member of the National Board of the March of 
Dimes Foundation and is national chair of the Mother's March 
against Birth Defects. She is a member of SHARE, a Los 
Angeles-based women's organization that has raised more than $6 
million for the Exceptional Children's Foundation for the 
Mentally Retarded. She serves on the National Board of the Crohns 
and Colitis Foundation.

     Mrs. Collins helped raise funds for the Willowood Foundation 
in her native Mississippi, which provides homes for young adults 
with mental and physical learning disabilities. She has received 
many awards and honors, including the 1990 International 
Humanitarian Award from the Institute for Human Understanding, 
Woman of Distinction 1990 from the National Foundation for 
Ileitis and Colitis, and the HELP Humanitarian Award of 1985 from 
HELP for Handicapped Children. She has filmed documentaries in 
Cambodia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, and 
Bolivia on the plight of starving children and people with 
disabilities.

Anthony H. Flack

     Anthony Flack of Norwalk, Connecticut, is president of 
Anthony H. Flack & Associates. He has been a member of the board 
of Families and Children's Aid of Greater Norwalk and has worked 
with the Child Guidance Center of Greater Bridgeport, the Youth 
Shelter in Greenwich, Hall Neighborhood House in Bridgeport, and 
the Urban League of
Greater Bridgeport. Mr. Flack is a member of the Allocations and 
Admissions Committee, United Way of Norwalk, and received the 
Bell Award for outstanding service in the field of mental health 
at the Bridgeport Chapter, Connecticut Association of Mental 
Health.

John Leopold

     John Leopold of Pasadena, Maryland, has 18 years' experience 
in elected state office. He was elected to the Hawaii State House 
of Representatives in 1968 and was re-elected in 1972. In 1974, 
Mr. Leopold was elected to the Hawaii State Senate. In 1982, he 
became the first Republican in Maryland history elected from 
District 31 in Anne Arundel County to the Maryland House of 
Delegates, where he served until 1991.

     An advocate of people with disabilities, Mr. Leopold is a 
member of the Learning Disabilities Association of Anne Arundel 
County, the Anne Arundel County Committee on Employment of People 
With Disabilities, and the University of Maryland Hospital Infant 
Study Center Planning Advisory Board. He has served in other 
appointed and elected positions, including the Hawaii State Board 
of Education in 1968, the National Advisory Council for the 
Education of Disadvantaged Children in 1977, and the Maryland 
State Accountability Task Force for Public Education in 1974.

     Mr. Leopold has written and produced cable television 
commercials in Maryland, written a weekly interview column for a 
local publication, and hosted and produced a weekly radio public 
affairs program. He graduated from Hamilton College in Clinton, 
New York, with a B.A. in English.

Robert S. Muller

     Robert Muller of Grandville, Michigan, began his career with 
Steelcase, Inc., in 1966 and is now an administrator in human 
resources. He is an adjunct professor in the Department of 
Psychology at Aquinas College and in the Department of Education 
at Calvin College in Grand Rapids. He serves on the board of 
trustees for Hope Network and Foundation in Grand Rapids, which 
serves 1,700 adults with disabilities. In April 1981, he received 
an honorary degree in educational psychology from the Free 
University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

     Mr. Muller holds a B.S. in business administration from 
Aquinas College and in 1978 was voted Outstanding Alumnus of the 
Year. He has lectured at colleges and universities nationally and 
internationally. He is a board member for several national, 
state, and local organizations.

     In May 1987, Mr. Muller and his wife Carol hosted a 
first-time event at the White House with the vice president. The 
Celebration of Disabled Americans at Work was co-sponsored by 
several major corporations. Mr. Muller now serves as president of 
the National Roundtable on Corporate Development for Americans 
with Disabilities. In 1985, he received the Liberty Bell Award 
from the Grand Rapids Bar Association. In 1988, he was national
co-chair of the Disabled Americans for President Bush Campaign 
and in 1992 was an honorary national member of the Bush/Quayle 
Disability Coalition Campaign.  In November 1992, Mr. Muller was 
appointed to the Governor's Commission on Handicapped Concerns 
for Michigan.

George H. Oberle, P.E.D.

     Dr. George Oberle of Stillwater, Oklahoma, has more than 40 
years' experience in the field of health, physical education, and 
recreation. He began his career as a high school teacher and 
coach, and has been a professor and director of the School of 
Health, Physical Education and Leisure at Oklahoma State 
University since 1974. Dr. Oberle is a consultant to many 
organizations in the area of administration and adaptive physical 
education.  In 1988, he worked with the Kennedy Foundation to 
organize and direct a new program of Unified Sports for the 
Special Olympics.

     Dr. Oberle chaired the College and University Administrators 
Council (1980-82); was president of the Association for Research, 
Administration, Professional Councils and Societies (1984-87); 
and served as a board member of the American Alliance of Health, 
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (1985-89). Awards 
include the 1985 Centennial Award from the American Association 
of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance; and 
Meritorious Service Awards from Indiana and Oklahoma.

     He was selected for Men of Achievement in 1975 and 
recognized in Who's Who of the Southwest in 1977. Dr. Oberle 
received his doctorate from Indiana University in administration 
and adapted physical education. He lectures extensively about 
wellness promotion, adapted physical activity, sports, and 
recreation for people with disabilities.

Sandra Swift Parrino

     As a member and former chairperson of the National Council, 
Sandra Swift Parrino has played an active role in key issues 
affecting the lives of people with disabilities. Nominated by 
President Reagan in 1982, appointed chair by the President in 
1983, and reappointed by President Bush, Sandra Parrino has 
supported the rights of people with disabilities before Congress, 
in the media, and before groups nationwide. Under her leadership, 
the National Council has been a driving force to create public 
policies that affect the nation's people with disabilities.

     During her tenure as chair, the National Council worked for 
the creation and enactment of legislation for people with 
disabilities; issued a policy statement, National Policy for 
Persons With Disabilities; convened hearings nationwide to 
solicit comments and recommendations from people with 
disabilities about how to eliminate discrimination; issued a 
major report, Toward Independence, that outlines key components 
of a comprehensive civil rights law protecting people with 
disabilities; initiated the first national survey of attitudes 
and experiences of Americans with disabilities, in conjunction 
with Louis Harris and Associates,
Inc.; issued On the Threshold of Independence, a report outlining 
specifics of the Americans with Disabilities Act; created and 
developed the Americans with Disabilities Act; participated with 
President Bush at the signing of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act; conducted the first National Conference on the Prevention of 
Primary and Secondary Disabilities; issued reports on minorities 
with disabilities and personal assistance services; and planned 
reports on health insurance, financing assistive technology, and 
educating students with disabilities.

     Before becoming National Council chair, Sandra Parrino 
founded and directed the Office for the Disabled, in Ossining and 
Briarcliff Manor, New York, where she created a regional program 
for public and private organizations that focused on programs for 
people with disabilities and compliance with 504. She has more 
than 25 years' experience on boards, councils, commissions, 
committees, and task forces at the federal, regional, state, and 
local levels and as an expert witness, community leader, 
organizer, and activist.

     Mrs. Parrino has represented the U.S. government on 
disability issues in many countries. She has been invited by the 
Department of State to represent the United States at the 
Meetings of Experts in Finland and China, and represented the 
United States at the United Nations Center for Social Development 
in Vienna several times. In 1990, 1991, and 1992 she was a 
delegate at the Third Committee on Social Development of the 
United Nations. In 1991, she was invited by the People's Republic 
of China to assist them in their efforts to help people with 
disabilities. At the request of the government of Czechoslovakia, 
she and the National Council were invited to conduct the Eastern 
European Conference on Disabilities for participants from 
Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary.

     Mrs. Parrino graduated from Briarcliff College with a B.A. 
in history, and completed courses at Bennett College, GuildHall 
School of Drama in London, and the Yale School of Languages. In 
1992, Mrs. Parrino received an Honorary Doctorate of Humane 
Letters from St. John's University in New York. Her husband 
Richard is a rheumatologist. They have three children, two of 
whom have disabilities. Sandra Parrino was born in New Haven, 
Connecticut, and lives in Briarcliff Manor, New York.

Mary Matthews Raether

     Mary Raether of McLean, Virginia, is associated with St. 
John's Child Development Center, a nonprofit organization 
providing instruction, employment training, and independent and 
group home living skills for people with severe mental 
disabilities, especially autism. Mrs. Raether has been an officer 
and trustee of St. John's since 1985, has chaired the public 
relations committee, and participated on the executive, 
nominating, investment, and development committees.

     Mrs. Raether has been active in civic, educational, and 
religious organizations in the Washington metropolitan area. 
While community vice president of the Junior League of 
Washington, she developed emergency grant procedures and 
fund-raising information services for small and emerging 
nonprofit organizations. Mrs. Raether has 10 years' experience as
legislative assistant to Reps. George Bush and Barber Conable. 
She specialized in tax, social security, medicare/medicaid, and 
trade issues. She considers her efforts in clarifying the tax 
status of lobbying by nonprofit organizations an outstanding 
career accomplishment. She received a B.A. from the University of 
Texas at Austin in 1962. She is married and has two children.

Anne Crellin Seggerman

     Anne Crellin Seggerman of Fairfield, Connecticut, is the 
founder of Fourth World Foundation, Inc., a company engaged in 
the development of interfaith media.

     A member of the Bridgeport Urban Gardens and Youth at 
Risk/Breakthrough Foundation, Mrs. Seggerman founded and serves 
as the chairman of the board of the Fairfield County Chapter of 
Huxley Institute for Biosocial Research. She previously was a 
member of the President's Committee on Mental Retardation.

     Mrs. Seggerman is listed in Who's Who of American Women and 
has received numerous honors including an Honorary Doctor of 
Humane Letters Award from Sacred Heart University, the 
Association of Knights and Ladies of the Holy Sepulchre, and the 
American Association of the Order of Malta. She was previously 
appointed to serve on the Housing of Handicapped Families of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development.

     Mrs. Seggerman is experienced in providing care, treatment, 
and rehabilitation to people with schizophrenia and has extensive 
experience with alcoholics and children with learning 
disabilities. She is married and has six adult children.

Michael B. Unhjem

     Michael Unhjem of Fargo, North Dakota, is president of Blue 
Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota. He is the youngest person ever 
elected to the North Dakota House of Representatives, a member of 
the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 
and he served in 1988 as president of the National Mental Health 
Association.

     Mr. Unhjem has been involved in local and national 
organizations, including the Advisory Mental Health Council of 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the Governor's 
Commission on Mental Health Services; the National Alliance for 
Research on Schizophrenia and Depression; and the National Mental 
Health Leadership Forum. Awards include the 1989 Special 
Presidential Commendation from the American Psychiatric 
Association, the 1988 Distinguished Leadership Award from the 
North Dakota Psychological Association, and the National 
Excellence in Leadership Award from North Dakota.

     He has been recognized by Who's Who in American Politics, 
Who's Who in North Dakota, Who's Who in the Midwest, 
Personalities of America, and Men of Achievement. Mr. Unhjem 
graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in history and political 
science from
Jamestown College in North Dakota in 1975. In 1978, he earned a 
J.D. with distinction from the University of North Dakota School 
of Law in Grand Forks. He is married and has two children.

Helen Wilshire Walsh

     Helen Walsh of Greenwich, Connecticut, is a board member of 
the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, the largest U.S. 
rehabilitation center. She has been involved in disability 
advocacy for many years and has been associated with the 
Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine at the New York Medical 
Center, where she served as associate trustee. She has served as 
vice president, president, and chairman of the board of 
Rehabilitation International USA.

     Ms. Walsh has been a member of the President's Committee on 
the Employment of People With Disabilities, and was appointed by 
the President to serve as a member of the National Advisory 
Council of Vocational Rehabilitation. In 1976, Ms. Walsh received 
the Henry J. Kessler Award for outstanding service in the 
rehabilitation field. She has received the Rehabilitation 
International Award for Women and the Anwar Sadat Award for 
outstanding work in the field of rehabilitation.

                      National Council Staff

Andrew I. Batavia

     Andrew I. Batavia is executive director of the National 
Council on Disability.  He formerly served as research director 
for Disability and Rehabilitation Policy at Abt Associates.  
Prior to joining Abt, he was associate director of the White 
House Domestic Policy Council, where he was responsible for 
coordinating federal policy on health care, disability, housing, 
education, and veterans affairs.  He received his bachelor's 
degree in economics and sociology from the University of 
California, his master's degree in health services research from 
Stanford Medical School, and his jurisdoctorate degree from 
Harvard Law School.

     After law school, Mr. Batavia served for two years as an 
attorney for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  
He left that position in 1986 when he was awarded the Mary E. 
Switzer Distinguished Research Fellowship in Medical 
Rehabilitation Finance from the National Institute on Disability 
and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of 
Education.  He then served for four years as associate director 
for Health Services Research at the National Rehabilitation 
Hospital Research Center in Washington, D.C.  In that capacity, 
he wrote 2 books and more than 20 other publications on issues of 
disability and health care policy.

     In 1987, Mr. Batavia was made a Fellow of the Washington 
Academy of Sciences.  In 1988, he was awarded the Distinguished 
Disabled American Award from the President's Commission on 
Employment of People with Disabilities.  In 1989, he received an 
International Fellowship from the International Disability 
Exchanges and Studies (IDEAS)
Program of NIDRR, and conducted research on how the Dutch Health 
Care System affects people with disabilities.  In 1990, he was 
appointed a White House Fellow by President Bush and served as 
special assistant to Attorney General Richard Thornburgh at the 
U.S. Department of Justice.

     Mr. Batavia is the founding associate editor of the Journal 
of Disability Policy Studies and a cofounding board member of 
Independent Living Assistance, Inc.  He is an adjunct assistant 
professor at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and a 
member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bar of the 
District of Columbia, the State Bar of California, and 
Georgetown's Kennedy Institute of Ethics.

Billie Jean Hill

     Billie Jean Hill joined the staff of the National Council on 
Disability as program specialist in March 1992. Previously, Ms. 
Hill was director of communications and editor for the Blinded 
Veterans Association and earlier served as founding director of a 
statewide broadcast service for persons with reading disabilities 
with Mississippi Educational Television in her home state. She 
was appointed to work on a governor's commission in Mississippi 
to report on the needs of children and youth in rural Mississippi 
who are disabled. Ms. Hill studied journalism and education at 
Mississippi University for Women and at the University of London 
in England. She serves as chairperson of the Board of 
Publications for the American Council of the Blind.

Mark S. Quigley

     Mark Quigley joined the staff as a public affairs specialist 
in May 1990. He previously served as a consultant to the U.S. 
National Commission on Drug-Free Schools. He is a former program 
coordinator at the U.S. Interagency Council on the Homeless and 
former director of communications at the White House Conference 
on Small Business. Mr. Quigley graduated magna cum laude in 1979 
from Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia, 
with an A.A. in general studies. He received a B.A. in government 
and politics in 1983, and an M.P.A. in public administration in 
1990 from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Brenda Bratton

     Brenda Bratton, executive secretary for the National 
Council, was formerly employed as a secretary at the National 
Transportation Safety Board. Ms. Bratton graduated from Farmville 
Central High School and the Washington School for Secretaries.

Stacey S. Brown

     Stacey Brown is staff assistant to the chairperson and has 
been employed by the National Council since 1986. Prior 
experience includes employment as a receptionist and clerk
with the Board for International Broadcasting and with the 
Compliance and Enforcement Unit of the Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, where he was a student 
assistant. Mr. Brown is a graduate of Howard University in 
Washington, D.C., where he earned a B.A. in political science in 
1987.

Janice Mack

     Janice Mack, who serves as the administrative officer for 
the National Council, was formerly employed with the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Ms. Mack graduated from 
Calvin Coolidge High School.

Lorraine Williams

     Lorraine Williams is office automation clerk for the 
National Council. She graduated from Valdosta High School in 
Valdosta, Georgia, and attends Strayer College, where she is 
majoring in computer information systems science.

     * For example, the 1990 Math Proficiency scores for NAEP's 
Trial State Assessment reveal that the average score for all 
students was 261, and the average score for students with IEPs 
was 234.

     ** An analysis of all students' responses when compared with 
responses of students with disabilities shows few differences for 
most of the items on the 1990 NELS report.