|
House Education
and Workforce Committee to Unveil IDEA Reauthorization Bill
by Debbie Brown
For more articles like this
visit
https://www.bridges4kids.org
The House Education and Workforce Committee for the 108th
Congress,
http://edworkforce.house.gov/members/108th/mem-fc.htm, was
expected to unveil its proposed bill for the reauthorization of
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on
Wednesday, March 19, 2002. (Michigan members of the committee
are Vernon Ehlers, Peter Hoekstra, Dale Kildee, and Fred Upton.
)
IDEA was first enacted into federal
law in 1982 to protect the provision of a free, appropriate,
public education to students with special needs which may affect
their ability to be educated without special education and
related services.
There has been much discussion of
the various recommendations to the reauthorization but the time
of speculation has concluded. The IDEA reauthorization will
include the following changes and additions:
1) NO MANDATORY FEDERAL FUNDING
WILL BE PROVIDED TO STATES. Federal funding is optional and
discretionary.
Point(s) to consider:
Since IDEA was first passed, federal funding has been an issue.
Once promised at 40% funding to assist states, this will
continue to be a state to state problem. Federal funding for
IDEA would alleviate the increasing financial burden upon the
States to comply with IDEA. States, in turn, assist our local
school districts' special education programs. Though unspoken,
the difficulties that parents encounter obtaining appropriate
educations for their children are the result of budgetary
constraints. Without mandatory federal funding, these issues
will continue to persist.
Though the federal laws protect our
children, implementation on a local level is difficult to
achieve without adequate funding for our children's programs.
2) ELIMINATION OF SHORT-TERM
OBJECTIVES FROM IEPS.
Point(s) to consider:
Currently, IEPs are required to have measurable annual goals and
short-term objectives (benchmarks). Goals and objectives outline
a student's educational needs and are crucial for the ability to
measure the progress of our child. Progress reports currently
are based upon the goals and objectives from the IEP and are
scored against these outlined needs.
While annual goals give parents an
overall picture for a particular instructional need, it is the
short-term objectives, the stepping stones toward the goal,
which allows parents to determine the child's actual progress.
For example, an annual goal may be:
Goal: John will improve receptive language skills.
The proposed elimination will generate a progress report that
will not indicate anything beyond that goal. In other words, a
progress report may read mastered, progressing, introduced, etc.
at a stated criteria attainment level (80% accuracy) but will
not state specifically how John improved his receptive language
skills.
For example, currently IDEA
requires the use of measurable annual goals and short-term
objectives.
Goal: John will improve receptive
language skills.
Objective: John will receptively identify objects as
demonstrated by touching, pointing and giving object on command.
Objective: John will receptively
identify pictures by pointing.
Objective: John will receptively
identify body parts by pointing. Objective: John will
demonstrate actions when requested.
Objective: John will demonstrate
function of objects.
Currently, each objective is measured for progress reports. In
the example above, there is a natural progression of
skill-building and meaningful information is collected and
shared. The student works from physical objects to
representations to self-awareness to abstract receptive skills
like actions and functions. The elimination of short-term
objectives may results in the lack of knowledge of the child's
actual progress in the instructional area.
3) IEPS WILL BE REVIEWED ONCE
EVERY THREE YEARS.
Point(s) to consider:
While parents will be able to advocate for an annual IEP review
and also retain the right to request additional IEP reviews, the
annual review will no longer be automatic or mandatory. Each
parent must individually advocate for additional IEP reviews
above the pre- designated three year interval. It will be
difficult to say how cooperative districts will be when annual
reviews are at a higher standard than the law requires. Our
children's educational needs are constantly changing based upon
progress or newly found challenges. While the door remains open
for additional reviews, it may become more confusing to newer
parents entering the process to understand their rights to
additional reviews. An annual review holds the districts at a
higher standard of accountability.
4) STATES ARE REQUIRED TO OFFER
VOLUNTARY BINDING ARBITRATION HEARINGS.
Point(s) to consider:
While existing procedural safeguards such as mediation, due
process and complaint investigation remain available recourses,
this fourth option will be offered.
Voluntary binding arbitration
hearing is not in a court and is not presided by an
administrative law judge. The hearing will be presided by a
three person panel consisting of one party selected by the
school, one selected by the parent, and one agreed upon by both.
Unlike mediation, where the
mediator is an impartial third party who is there is facilitate
negotiation and does not impose their opinions upon the matter
to be adjudicated, this panel will make a final and binding
decision. There is no appeal process. Once a decision is handed
down, the decision cannot be reviewed by due process or any
higher courts.
While this option may be a court
time-saving measure, it does not allow for the natural legal
process. Without the right to appeal to higher authority, it is
unclear why parent or school would opt for this measure.
5) 15% OF PART B IDEA SPECIAL ED
FUNDING TO BE USED BY PRE-REFERRED STUDENT (STUDENTS W/O IEPS
AND/OR SECTION 504 PLANS)
Districts will be allowed to utilize funds earmarked for the
provision of special education and related services for students
who do not have an IEP or even a Section 504 plan. Educators
have argued that this is preventive measure so that students who
may not yet require an IEP or Section 504 plan can receive
special education services to prevent them from officially
entering special education, to have their needs met without
letting them slip through the cracks.
Since IEPS and Section 504 plans do
exist, these students should have full use of this system with
its safeguards and accountability and therefore it is
unnecessary utilize special education much needed funds for
children with existing IEPs. As parents, we know first hand how
difficult it is to obtain the services our children need but
this problem will persist if conceivably only 85% of the
earmarked funds will be utilized for students with IEPs.
Just a quick note about Section 504
plans. A section 504 plan is for student who has a disability
that may require accommodations and modifications to the general
education but does not require special instruction. Section 504
plans do not draw from IDEA funds. This would not change based
on this measure. The basis of Section 504 is the student is
entitled to access to an appropriate education regardless of
disability and schools must make exceptions to assist the
student learning.
Further, there is no procedure or
safeguards for a student receiving services in this method. No
guidelines to protect the rights of the student or the parent.
6) DUE PROCESS TIMELINES AND
PROCEDURE CHANGES
Currently, due process decisions are to be handed down within 45
days from receipt of filing. Exceptions are granted by an
administrative law judge so that parties can submit evidence or
obtain witnesses. These exceptions to the timeline are at the
discretion of the judge with ample representation by parties
interest (either by an advocate, attorney, or
self-representation). The judge listens to both parties and
decides whether extensions will be granted.
The change to the due process
procedure will have automatic built-in delays to the hearing.
The district will now have 15 days to reconvene a final IEP
meeting to clear up issues and another additional 15 days to
resolve these problems.
Point(s) to consider:
It is unclear whether the 45 days to final decision will remain
in effect. In other words, 15+15=30 days and therefore the final
remaining 15 days the court will hear the case and render a
final decision.
It seems more likely that the 45
day clock will begin ticking after the districts 30 days so due
process will be delayed by a month.
In the meantime, the student
remains in need. Parents could possibly be retaining and paying
for professionals an additional 30 days during this process.
Further, while extensions are
available in due process, the additional safeguard is the
administrative law judge. The judge allows both parties to
advocate their position for and against extension and it is the
judge who decides whether extensions are granted. While this may
be legal formality, the procedure is common to all legal
proceedings. Special education legal issues should be no
exception and should be treated with the same respect as other
legal proceedings.
7) DISTRICTS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE PROVISION OF EDUCATION TO STUDENTS WHO ARE SUSPENDED OR
EXPELLED.
Currently, IDEA has provisions for
students who have a disability who may come under disciplinary
action.
When a student is removed 10 days
or more, or expelled, the district remains responsible for the
provision of education in an interim education setting. Also, a
manifestation determination review must be done to determine if
the behavior was a manifestation of the disability. If not, the
student is disciplined according to the guidelines set forth for
typical students. However, if it was disability-related, the
district must work towards conducting a functional behavior
assessment and a subsequent behavior intervention plan. But all
along this process, the district remains responsible for the
education of the student in an interim setting (home program,
etc). Also, parents have the additional procedural safeguard of
expedited due process hearing to possibly stop a district from a
disciplinary action (such as removing them from a school).
The proposed change regarding
discipline is that when a child is suspended or expelled, the
district is no longer responsible for education of the student.
There will be no manifestation
determination, behavior assessment, behavior plans or even
expedite due process because the student will simply no longer
be the responsibility of the district.
It is unclear who is responsible
for the student. It would appear that parents will then have to
seek out alternative placement for their children.
Information on contacting House Education Committee members may
be found at: http://congress.org
or
https://www.bridges4kids.org/ConLeg.html
Members include:
John A. Boehner, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
(Vice Chairman)
George Miller, California
(Ranking Minority Member)
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Major R. Owens, New York
Howard "Buck" McKeon, California
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania
Rubén Hinojosa, Texas
Charlie Norwood, Georgia
Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Fred Upton, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Jim DeMint, South Carolina
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Johnny Isakson, Georgia
David Wu, Oregon
Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Susan Davis, California
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio
Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Ric Keller, Florida
Danny Davis, Illinois
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Ed Case, Hawaii
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Raúl M. Grijalva, Arizona
Thomas Cole, Oklahoma
Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Jon C. Porter, Nevada
Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
John Kline, Minnesota
Timothy J. Ryan, Ohio
John R.Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia | 