[Senate Hearing 107-526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-526
THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE
IN SPECIAL EDUCATION REGARDING THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF
1997 (IDEA)
__________
JULY 9, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-787 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
TOM HARKIN, Iowa BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Townsend Lange McNitt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Tuesday, July 9, 2002
Page
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 1
Branstad, Terry E., Chairman, President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education, Washington, DC................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Gill, Douglas H., Chair, Finance Task Force, President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, Washington, DC.. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Huntt, Douglas C., Chair, Transition Task Force, President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, Washington, DC.. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Gregg, Hon. Judd, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire. 16
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa.......... 18
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas....... 22
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 25
DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio......... 27
Reed, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island... 29
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 31
Additional Material
Response to questions of Senator Reed from Governor Branstad..... 36
Response to questions of Senator Clinton from Governor Branstad
and Douglas Gill............................................... 39
Response to questions of Senator Clinton from Douglas Huntt...... 42
Response to questions of Senator Wellstone from Governor Branstad 44
THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002
United States Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Kennedy
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Murray, Reed, Clinton,
Gregg, Roberts, Sessions and DeWine.
Opening Statement of Senator Kennedy
The Chairman. We will come to order. This afternoon we will
hear testimony on the President's Commission on Special
Education recommendations to strengthen the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, so that all children with
disabilities in all parts of the country will receive the best
possible education.
The enactment of the Education for the Handicapped Act in
1975 and the alter passage of IDEA began a period of needed
progress in opening schoolhouse doors to millions of students
with disabilities, providing children with opportunity to learn
alongside their nondisabled peers and live independent and
productive lives. Before 1975 more than a million children with
disabilities received no educational instruction at all and
countless others remained unaccounted for. IDEA has worked well
to reverse long-standing and unacceptable policies and
practices that denied opportunity for so many children with
disabilities.
As our committee considers the reauthorization of IDEA and
the progress made under this important act, we all recognize
that much remains to be done in order to achieve the goals of
the act. As the commission report points out, children with
disabilities now have access to education but they do not
always have access to the quality of education they deserve to
succeed in school and in later life.
It is clear that improving the level of academic support
and instruction available to children with disabilities
requires adequate funding.
For many years the Federal Government has failed to live up
to the promise it made when IDEA when enacted to fund 40
percent of the cost of meeting its requirements. As a result,
students, parents, teachers and schools across the nation
continue to be cheated on the resources that the Federal
Government promised them almost 30 years ago. Clearly we can do
better and we need to do better.
We want to thank all of our witnesses here this afternoon
for being with us. We want to welcome former Governor Branstad.
Terry Branstad is the chairman of the President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education. Before serving on the
commission Mr. Branstad was governor of Iowa for four
consecutive terms. Education was a top priority of his
administration. One of his accomplishments was building
fiberoptics networks so that children across Iowa had distance
learning opportunities.
Mr. Branstad has demonstrated his leadership capabilities
in several contexts. He has been chairman of the National
Governors Association and Republican Governors Association and
the Education Commission of the States.
We have been joined by Senator Murray and I understand she
would like to introduce our next witness.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my
pleasure this afternoon to welcome Doug Gill to this hearing.
Dr. Gill brings a wealth of experience and insight to both the
President's Commission and this hearing as a former special
education teacher, professor of education, educational
consultant and State and local administrator. He currently
serves as the State director of Special Education for my home
State of Washington and has been a valuable member of
Washington's Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
since 1990.
During his tenure as our State director, Dr. Gill has led
the effort to revise Washington's funding formula for special
education and create a safety net that supplements funding when
district costs for special education exceed available revenues.
Before becoming our State director, Dr. Gill was the
director of a cooperative in Pierce County, Washington. Under
his leadership that cooperative was so effective in improving
post-school outcomes for special education students in
vocational education programs that he received a national award
for exemplary research.
Dr. Gill has consulted in 28 States and British Columbia,
has served on several State and national panels and has
authored numerous articles and publications on special
education. He received a bachelor of science in special
education from Augusta College in Georgia, a masters degree in
education from the University of Georgia, and a doctorate in
educational leadership from Seattle University.
Doug, I really want to thank you for joining us today and
for all your work on the presidential commission but most
importantly, I want to thank you today for your many years of
ensuring that all of the children in our home State of
Washington receive a quality education. I think your service
and commitment really exemplify the reason we have come so far
in improving education for children with disabilities and your
leadership is going to help us continue that progress. So thank
you very, very much for traveling all the way out here today
and for your testimony and willingness to help us work through
a very complex issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We are joined by Senator DeWine, who I know wants to
introduce Douglas Huntt and we will be glad to hear from him.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I really
appreciate your giving me the opportunity to introduce my good
friend and fellow Ohioan, Doug Huntt. Doug is a nationally
recognized leader in disability policy and the employment of
people with disabilities. With his education, his experience,
his first-hand knowledge of disability issues, he is really an
invaluable presence, Mr. Chairman, on the President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education.
So it is a privilege for me to introduce Doug to the
committee and tell my colleagues a little bit about Doug's
background and his experience. He received his undergraduate
degree in secondary education from Ashbury College, his masters
degree in social service administration at Case Western Reserve
University and his doctorate in social work from the Ohio State
University.
Additionally, Doug served as the chair of the Ohio
Governor's Special Council on People with Disabilities from
1991 to 1999. He has five years experience as director of the
Family Mental Health Service in Wooster, Ohio and served as
chairman of the Transition from School to Work Task Force on
the President's Commission.
Doug currently serves as a commissioner for the Ohio
Rehabilitation Service Commission. In this position he helps
facilitate the transition from school to work for people with
disabilities. Doug also currently is serving as the executive
director of Assistive Technology of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this is
a federally funded agency devoted to promoting policies and
programs to ensure increased availability and affordability in
technologies to people with disabilities.
Ultimately Doug brings hands-on experience and unique
perspectives to the President's Commission in his professional
role and personal experience with his disability. Therefore,
Mr. Chairman, I know he brings a great insight to the
Commission and will be very helpful to our committee today.
Doug, thank you very much for joining us and I thank all
our other members, as well.
The Chairman. We have been joined by Senator Gregg. We
would welcome any comments that he might have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would really like
to hear from the Commission. I have had a chance to read their
work and I just put a candy in my mouth so I am not going to
talk.
I would like to listen to you. I think you did a good job.
What I have read is excellent and I look forward to having your
input. It is nice to see Governor Branstad again.
Mr. Branstad. Thank you.
The Chairman. We are joined by Senator Harkin. We have had
a formal introduction of Governor Branstad but we know that you
wanted to extend a word of welcome and I recognize you for that
purpose.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize for being a little late.
And to our distinguished panel who is here, I did want to
welcome all of you but I especially wanted to welcome my long-
time friend and colleague, even though we are on opposite sides
of the aisle, Governor Branstad. I don't know how he was
introduced but Governor Branstad has spent the better part of
his adult life in public service. He served as a State
representative from 1972 to 1978 and as lieutenant governor and
then as the longest-serving governor in Iowa's history, for
four terms.
Senator Gregg. I think in any State's history, actually.
Senator Harkin. Well, I do not know. I have never been in
every State. I have not lived in every State.
Senator Gregg. When I became governor he had been governor
forever and when I left he was still governor.
Senator Harkin. Well, he certainly set a record. I can tell
you that. But I say publicly to Governor Branstad we worked
together on getting what I think is the best state-of-the-art
technology in education in the Iowa Communications Network. It
continued Iowa's long-time role as a leader and innovator in
education. We linked all of Iowa's schools, high schools,
colleges, all together with the latest in interactive
technology. It was no small feat and I thank you, Governor, for
taking the lead on that and I was proud to work with you on
that.
So Mr. Chairman, I am just pleased that President Bush
chose a fellow Iowan to head this Commission on Special
Education. As you know, special education has been a long-time
personal interest of mine. And while I may not agree with some
aspects of the commission's recommendations, I look forward to
working with you and with Governor Branstad and the Bush
administration on a bipartisan basis to do what is right by our
children with special needs.
So again, Governor Branstad, we welcome you and I thank you
for this latest public service that you have performed.
Mr. Branstad. Thank you, Senator Harkin.
The Chairman. Commissioner Branstad, we would be glad to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR TERRY E. BRANSTAD, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S
COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Branstad. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you,
Chairman Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Senator Harkin, all of the
senators, Senator Roberts, who I worked with back on
agriculture debt restructuring many years ago, Senator DeWine,
Senator Murray.
It is an honor and a privilege for me to be here today to
testify before this distinguished committee and to tell you
about the work of this commission. This commission had a very
talented and diverse group of people and I am very proud of the
detail and quality of work that the commission has done.
I am pleased to report to you that the President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education has finished its
work. The commission met its July 1 deadline for transmitting
its report to President Bush. This afternoon I will outline for
you the commission's major findings and recommendations.
On October 2, 2001 President Bush ordered the creation of
the commission. In his executive order he made the following
statement and I quote: ``The education of all children,
regardless of background or disability, while chiefly a State
and local responsibility, must always be a national priority.
One of the most important goals of my administration is to
support States and local communities in creating and
maintaining a system of public education where no child is left
behind. Unfortunately, among those at greatest risk of being
left behind are children with disabilities.''
The President charged the commission with studying issues
related to Federal, State, and local special education programs
in order to improve the educational performance of students
with disabilities. The commission's effort represented the most
expansive review of special education in the 27-year history of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The 24-member
commission held 13 open hearings and meetings across the
country. At those meetings and hearings we heard from 109
expert witnesses and more than 175 parents, teachers, students
with disabilities, and members of the public. Hundreds of other
individuals provided the commission with letters, written
statements, and their research.
Our report is entitled ``A New Era: Revitalizing Special
Education for Children and their Families.'' There are three
broad recommendations that form the foundation of the report. I
am just going to hit on those and then move on to the other
witnesses.
Major recommendation number one: focus on results, not
process. IDEA must return to its educational mission--serving
the needs of every child. While the law must retain the legal
and procedural safeguards necessary to guarantee ad free and
appropriate public education for children with disabilities,
IDEA will only fulfill its intended purpose if it raises its
expectation for students and becomes results-oriented, not
driven by process, litigation, regulations, and confrontation.
In short, the system must be judged by the outcomes and the
opportunities that it gives to each child.
Recommendation number two: embrace a model of prevention,
not a model of failure. The current model guiding special
education focusses on failure, not prevention. Reforms must
move the system toward early identification and swift
intervention, using scientifically based instruction and
methods. This will require changes in the nation's elementary
and secondary schools, as well as reforms in teacher
preparation and recruitment and professional development.
And I want to just give an example of what we have done in
Iowa because I think we are the only State that has done this.
We have eliminated the IQ discrepancy test as a determination
of eligibility. What that has been is a system where kids have
to fail that test before they are eligible for special
education. We did that about five years ago and it has worked
well. This report recommends that be eliminated throughout the
country. Put the focus on really the kids' needs.
The third recommendation is consider children with
disabilities as general education children first. Special
education and general education are treated as separate systems
but, in fact, share responsibility for children with
disabilities. In instruction, the systems must work together to
provide effective teaching and ensure that those with
additional needs benefit from the same strong teaching and
instructional methods being offered to every child through
general education.
Funding arrangements should not create an incentive for
special education identification or to become a tempting scheme
for isolating children with learning or behavioral problems.
Each special need must be met using the school's comprehensive
resources, not relegating students to a separate funding
program. Flexibility in the use of all educational funds,
including those provided through IDEA, is essential to meet the
needs of every child.
I am out of time so thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Branstad follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry E. Branstad
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Kennedy for that introduction. I
thank the Chairman, Senator Gregg, and all members of this Committee
for the opportunity to testify before your Committee today.
I am pleased to report to you that the President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education has finished its work. The Commission
met its July 1 deadline for transmitting its report to President Bush.
This morning I will outline to you the Commission's major findings and
recommendations.
On Oct. 2, 2001, President Bush ordered the creation of the
Commission. In his Executive Order, he made the following statement.
``The education of all children, regardless of background or
disability, while chiefly a State and local responsibility,
must always be a national priority. One of the most important
goals of my Administration is to support states and local
communities in creating and maintaining a system of public
education where no child is left behind. Unfortunately, among
those at greatest risk of being left behind are children with
disabilities.''
The President charged the Commission with studying issues related
to Federal, state, and local special education programs in order to
improve the educational performance of students with disabilities. The
Commission's effort represented the most expansive review of special
education in the 27-year history of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act.
The 24-member Commission held 13 open hearings and meetings across
the country. At those meetings and hearings we heard from 109 expert
witnesses and more than 175 parents, teachers, students with
disabilities, and members of the public. Hundreds of other individuals
provided the Commission with letters, written statements, and research.
three broad recommendations form the foundation of this report.
Major Recommendation 1: Focus on results-not on process.
IDEA must return to its educational mission: serving the needs of
every child. While the law must retain the legal and procedural
safeguards necessary to guarantee a free and appropriate public
education to children with disabilities, IDEA will only fulfill its
intended purpose if it raises its expectations for students and becomes
results- oriented-not driven by process, litigation, regulations, and
confrontation. In short, the system must be judged by the outcomes and
opportunities it gives each child.
Major Recommendation 2: Embrace a model of prevention not a model
of failure.
The current model guiding special education focuses on failure, not
on prevention. Reforms must move the system toward early identification
and swift intervention, using scientifically based instruction and
methods. This will require changes in the nation's elementary and
secondary schools as well as reforms in teacher preparation, and
recruitment, and professional development.
Major Recommendation 3: Consider children with disabilities as
general education children first.
Special education and general education are treated as separate
systems, but in fact share responsibility for the child with
disabilities. In instruction, the systems must work together to provide
effective teaching and ensure that those with additional needs benefit
from the same strong teaching and instructional methods being offered
to every child through general education. Funding arrangements should
not create an incentive for special-education identification or become
a tempting scheme for isolating children with learning and behavior
problems. Each special need must be met using a school's comprehensive
resources, not by relegating students to a separately funded program.
Flexibility in the use of all educational funds, including those
provided through IDEA, is essential.
In closing, I want to briefly revisit the remarks President Ford
made upon the signing of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
of 1975. He made the following statement:
``It contains a vast array of detailed, complex, and costly
administrative requirements which would unnecessarily assert
federal control over traditional State and local government
functions. It establishes complex requirements under which tax
dollars would be used to support administrative paperwork and
not educational programs.''
More than a quarter century later, we know that IDEA has sadly met
the expectations that President Ford set forth in 1975. At the same
time, this Commission is optimistic our Nation can revitalize special
education for children and their families. However, we will do so only
through a focus on educational achievement, teacher quality, and
rigorous research. Only then can the promise of no child left behind
truly be fulfilled.
Thank you. I will be happy to take your questions.
The Chairman. We will ask our guests to summarize but I
would ask the staff to turn this off. This is an important
matter and we will hear from all of them.
Please, Commissioner.
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS H. GILL, CHAIR, FINANCE TASK
FORCE, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL
EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Gill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the
committee, and a special hello to Senator Murray, who used to
sit on our Special Ed Advisory Council in the State of
Washington.
My name is Dr. Douglas H. Gill and I am the State director
of Special Education in the State of Washington. I was
appointed to the President's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education in October 2001. Upon my appointment I was
also asked to chair the Finance Task Force component of the
commission. Although our special task force hearing and public
input session was held in Los Angeles on March 21, 2002, I can
assure the committee that the topic of special education
finance generated much discussion over the relatively short
time line associated with the commission. I believe special
education finance, or at least some implications for special
education finance, occurred in every meeting and task force
hearing held by the commission.
The Special Education Finance Task Force recommendations to
the president are based on five fundamental principles. These
five principles were the result of distilling the often-
overwhelming volume of information we received and consequently
served as filters for the finance recommendations included in
the commission's report.
The first fundamental principle of the Finance Task Force
recommendations is that special education is a shared
responsibility that should be proportionately shared by the
community, the school district, State and Federal Government.
However, crucial to sharing the fiscal responsibility for
special education is a reliable calculation of what constitutes
excess cost. Excess cost is a proportional share of the total
cost for special education which can only be determined by a
full and thorough accounting for all available revenues against
all legitimate expenditures.
The second fundamental principle is that students eligible
for special education and related services are first and
foremost, students in general education. As such, a student's
basic right to special education does not in any way dilute,
displace or diminish their basic right to general education
revenues at the State and local level. The commitment of
equivalent shares of State and local general education funding,
as well as any local enhancements, should be adequately
accounted for in the commitment of supplemental State, local
and Federal funding associated with the provision of special
education to eligible students.
The third fundamental principle associated with the task
force recommendations is that cost accountability is integral
to program accountability. Reimbursement for past practice will
simply reinforce past performance. Compensation for what most
people would agree has been historical underfunding of special
education is necessary but only represents a single step in a
series of financial steps that need to be taken to ensure that
indeed no child is left behind.
The fourth fundamental principle is that financial
constraints imposed by the Federal Government in the
establishment of special education nearly 30 years ago may now
serve to restrict the implementation of the program in an era
of educational reform and increased accountability for results.
If we expect more in terms of accountability for results, we
should allow more in terms of the financial flexibility
necessary to achieve those results.
The fifth fundamental principle of the Finance Task Force
recommendations is that there are growing percentages of
children with complex medical, educational and service delivery
needs who are not evenly distributed in the population.
Enrollments of these children in local school districts,
especially those in districts that are in rural and remote
settings, present a significant disproportional financial
impact for the district. The disproportional financial impact
of such students should be recognized and compensated in such a
way that it does not adversely compromise the local district
budget or force local communities to choose between providing
services to some at the expense of others.
Over the past 30 years our nation has been witness to many
medical, educational and social changes yet the delivery of
special education services at the Federal level through IDEA
has remained in a virtual vacuum. We have been so vested in
maintaining that we forgot to grow and mature as a discipline.
Procedural compliance has become an inconsistent and unevenly
applied surrogate for accountability. Increased litigation,
both founded and unfounded, threatens to dismantle the system
that many of us have fought to create and leave both winners
and losers bitter from the conflict.
While financial recommendations cannot singularly save the
system, significant conceptual revisions aimed at the
improvement of special education finance can and will have a
positive impact on establishing and maintaining excellence in
special education. When taken in aggregate, the financial
recommendations outlined in the commission's report should
enable us to move the financial date in special education from
one of underfunded mandates to one of reimbursement for
results. The development and implementation of these
recommendations over time will also identify and require other
fiscal adjustments that will periodically need to be made so
that special education remains the vital and viable program it
was intended to be.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas H. Gill
introduction
Good afternoon Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. My name is
Dr. Douglas H. Gill I am the State Director of Special Education in the
State of Washington I was appointed to the President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education in October of 2001. Upon my
appointment, I was also asked to Chair the Finance Task Force component
of the Commission Although our specific task force hearing and public
input session was held in Los Angeles on the 21st of March 2002, I can
assure the Committee that the topic of special education finance
generated much discussion over the relatively short timeline associated
with the Commission. I believe special education finance, or at least
some implications for special education finance, occurred in every
meeting and task force hearing held by the Commission. In addition, the
Commission as a whole, and myself in particular, have received many
copies of various position papers, letters, expert testimony, public
testimony, e-mail, phone calls and voice messages during the course of
our appointment. Synthesizing the volume and variety of input was
clearly a formidable task. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
share my thoughts, and the thoughts of many others with you today.
The special education finance task force recommendations to the
President are based on five fundamental principles. These five
principles were the result of distilling the often-overwhelming volume
of information we received, and served as filters for the finance
recommendations included in the Commission's report.
The first fundamental principle of the finance task force
recommendations is that special education is a shared responsibility
that cannot and should not be bourn solely by the family, community,
school district, State or Federal Government. However, critical to
sharing the fiscal responsibility for special education is a reliable
calculation of what constitutes ``excess cost.'' Excess cost is a
proportional share of the total cost for special education, which can
only be determined by a full and thorough accounting for all available
revenues against all legitimate expenditures.
The second fundamental principle is that students eligible for
special education and related services are first and foremost, students
in general education As such, a student's basic right to special
education does not, in any way, dilute, displace or diminish their
basic right to general education revenues at the State and local level.
The commitment of equivalent shares of State and local general
education funding, as well as any local enhancements, should be
adequately accounted for in the commitment of supplemental state, local
and Federal funding associated with the provision of special education
services to eligible students.
The third fundamental principle associated with the task force
recommendations is that cost accountability is integral to program
accountability. Reimbursement for past practice will simply reinforce
past performance. Compensation for what most people would agree has
been historical under funding of special education is necessary, but
only represents a single step in a series of financial steps that need
to be taken to ensure that indeed, no child is left behind.
The fourth fundamental principle is that financial constraints
imposed by the Federal Government in the establishment of special
education nearly 30 years ago, may now serve to restrict the
implementation of the program in an era of educational reform and
increased accountability for results. If we expect more in terms of
accountability for results, we should allow more in terms of the
financial flexibility necessary to achieve those results.
The fifth fundamental principle of the finance task force
recommendations is that there are growing percentages of children with
complex medical, educational and service delivery needs who are not
evenly distributed in the population. Enrollments of these children in
local school districts, especially those in districts that are in rural
and remote settings, present a significant disproportional financial
impact for the district. The disproportional financial impact of such
students should be recognized and compensated in such a way that it
does not adversely compromise a local district budget, or force local
communities to choose between providing services to some at the expense
of others.
These five fundamental principles guided the discussions and
deliberations of our task force, and resulted in the final
recommendations for special education finance that were proposed and
ratified by the Commission on May 31, 2002. Hopefully, the
recommendations will serve to stimulate some of the thinking
surrounding the on-going quest for excellence in special education, and
more importantly, the overall provision of special education and
related services to more than 6.5 million school age children sometimes
struggling, but always striving to succeed in our nation's schools.
discussion of recommendations
There are six specific finance recommendations for special
education included in the report. The recommendations could be viewed
independently, but if so, would only represent temporary improvements
to the current system of special education funding and finance. The
recommendations are not intended as single steps. They are intended as
a comprehensive set of investment strategies, that when taken together,
result in meaningful financial reform. Coupled with meaningful program
reform, financial reform can guide improved delivery of services to
students well into the next decade without compromising the basic
provisions of Public Law 94-142 and the subsequent revisions to the law
over the past 30 years.
The first specific recommendation of the Commission in the context
of finance involves a two-step approach. Almost everyone who provided
input to the Commission expressed a need for increased Federal funding
in IDEA. However, most people also agreed that increased funding should
be conditional. That is, conditional upon their perception that the
Federal Government has reneged on their commitment of 40 percent of
excess costs in 1975, and therefore they are entitled to more,
conditional upon improved academic and post school results for
students, and therefore they deserve more, or conditional upon the fact
that simply because states and districts report spending more, they
should get more. The finance task force concluded that the fiscal
reality of special education is probably somewhere in the midst of
those positions and therefore recommended that (a) Federal
discretionary funding for special education should continue to
increase, and (b) IDEA should establish a definable threshold of
``excess cost'' funding based on current research regarding total cost,
before artificially inflating the cost of special and general education
with an additional infusion of new money. Unconditional infusion of new
money into the special education system without any definable
parameters will: (1) institutionalize current practice, (2) influence
growth rates in special education, and (3) encourage states and
districts to serve children with marginal needs through special
education rather than general education programs and classrooms.
The second recommendation in the finance portion of the
Commission's report is that future funding increases beyond the
definable threshold in the first recommendation, be linked to improved
accountability for results. Implementation of this recommendation would
unify special education with other recently re-authorized Federal
education legislation, and more importantly, enable parents and
families of children with disabilities to have more confidence in the
academic and post school progress of their children toward definitive
standards of success.
The next two recommendations involve-changes in the use of federal
IDEA funds available to states and local districts. The third
recommendation is that Part B funds be targeted to direct services.
This includes directing 90 percent of available Part B funds to local
districts: The remaining 10 percent of Part B funds should be set-aside
at the State level consistent with a set of national priorities and
other important considerations necessary to achieve increased measures
of excellence in special education It is important to note that the
percentage expressions in the use of IDEA Part B funds be expressions
of the total grant amount, and not be tied to the 1997 base plus
inflation. The 1997 base plus inflation calculations are cumbersome and
do not add any value to the distribution of funds that could not be
accomplished within a generic percentage allocation.
In addition to changes in the use of funds component of Part B, the
Commission also recommends that funding for Part C and Section 619 of
IDEA be proportionately increased in a concerted effort to consolidate
and target early intervention efforts between the ages of birth and 6.
Current research in a number of arenas underscores the effectiveness of
early intervention efforts. These efforts should be acknowledged and
reinforced in IDEA regardless of whether or not a state educational
agency or a social services agency has been designated as the lead
agency in a given state. A seamless system of early intervention is
critical in the achievement of meaningful results.
During Commission hearings, both invited and public witnesses
reaffirmed many of the perceptions associated with escalating
expenditures in special education: the greatest concerns about cost for
local districts are derived from complex or high need children
requiring expensive placements both within and outside the district.
Critical shortages of qualified staff exacerbate this dilemma
Presently, there are very limited provisions under IDEA that would
provide State educational agencies with targeted resources to offset
the fiscal impact on local districts of providing a free, appropriate
public education to high need children with disabilities who are not
evenly distributed in the population States and local districts may
often choose not to expend their entire allocation of federal funds in
a given year for fear that unanticipated expenditures may suddenly
arise and implode an already tight budget with no legitimate avenue for
relief. Therefore, the final two recommendations of the Commission
regarding special education finance involve the creation of models that
allow local districts to proactively prepare for incurring
unanticipated fiscal obligations associated with the provision of
special education, and funding the costs of exceptionally high need
children.
First, IDEA should allow local districts to retain a portion of
their unspent Federal funds, and earmark a fixed percent of Part B
flow-through funds at a local or regional level for the purpose of
creating risk management pools. Second, IDEA should formalize the
opportunity to develop a safety net process for high need children
either as a ``first dollar'' obligation for states within existing Part
B allocations, or as a required use of State level discretionary
funding. The combination of risk management pools and safety net
processes could have a profound impact on the world of special
education finance. The opportunity to develop and implement risk
management pools, and develop and implement safety nets for complex
needs children, will allow special education to finally get ahead of
the financial curve, and focus their efforts on providing services
based on need, not negotiating services based on cost.
Inherent in the discussions of altering the finance structure in
special education is the need for valid and reliable research
surrounding the-impact of the changes that are made. It is crucial that
the Federal government initiate strenuous research that can clearly
explain the complex and often confusing relationship between program
and budget. Perhaps the most critical of these research questions
involve the determination of the costs and necessary resources for
student achievement of identifiable outcomes, and the impact of fiscal
reforms in special education on the general education program and
budget.
summary
Over the past 30 years our Nation has been witness to many medical,
educational and social changes. Yet, the delivery of special education
services at the Federal level through IDEA has remained in a virtual
vacuum. We have been so vested in maintaining that we forgot to grow
and mature as a discipline. Procedural compliance has become an
inconsistent and unevenly applied surrogate for accountability.
Increased litigation, both founded and unfounded, threaten to dismantle
the system of services many of us have fought to create, and leave both
``winners'' and ``losers'' biter from the conflict. While financial
recommendations cannot singularly save the system, significant
conceptual revisions aimed at the improvement of special education
finance can and will have a positive impact on establishing and
maintaining excellence in special education When taken in aggregate,
the financial recommendations outlined in the Commission's report
should enable us to move the financial debate in special education from
one of under funded mandates to one of reimbursement for results. The
development and implementation of the recommendations over time will
also identify and require other fiscal adjustments that will
periodically need to be made so that special education remains the
vital and viable program it was intended to be.
The Chairman. Commissioner Huntt.
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS C. HUNTT, CHAIR, TRANSITION
TASK FORCE, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL
EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Huntt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today. I am honored to present these recommendations
to a committee and chairman who continually advance the public
policy cause of Americans with disabilities. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for all that you have done on behalf of people with
disabilities.
I also want to thank Senator DeWine for your very kind
introduction. I have the opportunity, being a Buckeye, to see
all that you do on behalf of people with disabilities in Ohio
and across the country and I thank you for that.
It is my hope that we look back at this reauthorization of
IDEA as a defining moment for increasing outcomes that include
higher graduation rates and competitive employment for people
with disabilities.
I did not initially choose to become involved with the
disability community. During my enlistment in the U.S. Marines
I received a head injury that left me with a seizure disorder.
My life was literally turned upside down. Although it was a
time of turmoil, as I look back I am thankful that I did not
have to deal with disability through the public education
system. I know that I would not be before you today had that
been the case. The stigma, lack of expectations, outcomes, and
insufficient educational opportunities would have left me
unable to attend college and work in the field that I have
chosen.
Because of IDEA, we have made significant strides in
providing a public education accessible to people with
disabilities. However, the door to successful educational
outcomes and transition to competitive employment has remained
inaccessible and tightly closed. There is an obvious high
correlation between low graduation rates and high unemployment
among people with disabilities. I believe that transition
services provide the nexus between the two. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, transition planning and services promote an outcome-
oriented set of services to facilitate a child's movement from
school to post-school activities, including post-secondary
education and vocational training.
The committee's first recommendation is to simplify Federal
transition requirements in IDEA. School personnel must be
provided clear and concise rules and regulations outlining how
to provide effective and relevant transition services to
students with disabilities seeking to enter the workforce
immediately following high school, as well as planning for
college. The IDEA's current requirements are too complex and do
not adequately meet this need. These provisions should provide
clearer steps for integrating school and nonschool transition
services and closely link transition services to goals in each
student's individualized education plan.
While some may argue that transition is already part of the
IEP, our reading of the transition language in the Federal
regulations leave us confused about what is required, when it
is required, and who must be involved. Teachers, parents and
students should not have to waste time interpreting terms and
concepts.
Second, the commission found that the overriding barrier to
effective transition is the fundamental failure of Federal
policies and programs to mandate interagency collaboration and
funding. Multiple Federal agencies, policies and programs must
be required to work together to improve competitive employment
outcomes and increase access to higher education for students
with disabilities.
The funding for more focussed transition services now
exists. Unfortunately, these funds are spread across multiple
agencies. The question of who pays is the overriding barrier to
transition services at the IEP level. States must be allowed to
coordinate Federal funds from the various agencies into
specific transition services that best serve each State's
students with disabilities.
Lastly, an executive order mandating existing agency
coordination and pooling of existing funds will improve
transition services.
Given the correlation between vocational rehabilitation and
special education, the commission's third recommendation for
transition is the creation of a Rehabilitation Act
Reauthorization Advisory Committee. The Secretary of Education
should create an advisory committee modeled after the
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, to
examine reauthorization of the Rehab Act.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe the standard is
clear. Special education is a failure if we do not prepare our
children with disabilities to live independently in adult life.
It is not only special education that fails but also we as a
nation when children with disabilities leave public education
for a life of dependency and poverty, imprisoned by the lack of
necessary skills to live freely as an adult. Mandated
interagency transition services will bring a wealth of
resources to ensure that no child will be left behind.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your work and the work
of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on
behalf of people with disabilities.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huntt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas C. Huntt
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the recommendations from the President's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education's Transition from School to Work Task Force. I am
honored to present these recommendations to a committee and chairman
who continually advanced the public policy cause of Americans with
disabilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all that you have done and
continue to do on behalf of people with disabilities.
I also want to thank President Bush for the opportunity to serve on
this Commission and for his un-relenting and productive New Freedom
Initiative and No Child Left Behind vision for Americans with
disabilities. It is my hope that we will look back at this re-
authorization of IDEA as a defining moment for increasing outcomes that
include higher graduation rates and competitive employment for people
with disabilities.
I did not choose to become involved with the disability community.
During my enlistment in the US Marines, I received a head injury that
left me with a seizure disorder. My life was literally turned upside
down. Although it was a time of turmoil, as I look back, I thank God
that I did not have to deal with disability through the public
education system. I know that I would not be before you today had that
been the case. The stigma, lack of expectations, outcomes, and
insufficient educational opportunities would have left me unable to
attend college and work in the field that I have chosen.
I am privileged to appear before you today to discuss specific
recommendations made by the President's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education's Transition from School to Work Task Force. Because
of IDEA, we have made significant strides in providing a public
education system accessible to people with disabilities; however the
door to successful educational outcomes and transition to competitive
employment has remained inaccessible and tightly closed. We must not
ignore the fact that the drop out rate among children with disabilities
is twice that of children without disabilities and that over 70 percent
of adults with disabilities are unemployed. We must not ignore the fact
that people with disabilities remain the poorest of the poor, leaving
public education unprepared for a life of unemployment and/or
underemployment, limited to work in the food and filth industry or
collecting monthly social security checks. There is an obvious high
correlation between low graduation rates and unemployment among people
with disabilities. I believe that transition services provide the nexus
between the two.
transition services
As you know, Mr. Chairman, transition planning and services promote
an outcome-oriented set of services to facilitate a child's movement
from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary
education and vocational training.
The Committee's first recommendation is to simplify Federal
transition requirements in IDEA. School personnel must be provided
clear and concise rules and regulations outlining how to provide
effective and relevant transition services to students with
disabilities seeking to enter the workforce immediately following high
school as well as planning for college. The IDEA's current requirements
are too complex and do not adequately meet this need. These provisions
should provide clear steps for integrating school and non-school
transition services, and closely link transition services to goals in
each student's individualized education plan. While some may argue that
transition is already part of the IEP, our reading of the transition
language in the Federal regulations leave us confused about what is
required, when it is required, and who must be involved. Teachers,
parents, and students should not have to waste time interpreting terms
and concepts.
Secondly, the Commission found that the overriding barrier to
effective transition is the fundamental failure of Federal policies and
programs to mandate inter-agency collaboration and funding. Multiple
Federal agencies, policies, and programs must be required to work
together to improve competitive employment outcomes and increase access
to higher education for students with disabilities. The funding for
more focused transition services now exists. Unfortunately, these funds
are spread across multiple agencies. The question of ``who pays'' is
the overriding barrier to transition services at the IEP level. States
must be allowed to coordinate Federal funds from the various agencies
into specific transition services that best serve each state's students
with disabilities. For example, The Social Security Reimbursement
Program should allow for reimbursement to State vocational
rehabilitation agencies for transition workers in the school. Lastly,
an Executive Order mandating existing agency coordination and pooling
of existing funds will improve transition services. Further, the bridge
between Federal special education policy and rehabilitation policy must
be strengthened.
Given the correlation between vocational rehabilitation and special
education, the Commission's third recommendation for transition is the
creation of a Rehabilitation Act Reauthorization Advisory Committee.
The Secretary of Education should create and advisory committee,
modeled after the President's Commission of Excellence in Special
Education, to examine the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act.
Finally, the Commission's Task Force on Transition recommends that
higher education faculty, administrators, and auxiliary service
providers receive support to effectively provide and assist students
with disabilities to complete a quality post-secondary education.
Federal policies should support and hold accountable all post-secondary
institutions receiving Federal funding for using evidence-based, best
practice programs.
conclusion
In conclusion, I believe the standard is clear: special education
is a failure if we do not prepare our children with disabilities to
live independently in adult life. -It is not only special education
that fails but also we as a Nation when children with disabilities
leave public education for a life of dependency and poverty, imprisoned
by the lack of necessary skills to live freely as an adult. Mandated
inter-agency transition services will bring a wealth of resources to
ensure that no child will be left behind.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your work, and the work of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on behalf of America's
54 million people with disabilities.
The Chairman. Thank you very much and we will have six
minutes for the members to inquire of the commissioners.
First, Governor, I would like to ask you about how we are
going to get the high quality teacher, educator, for the
special needs children. This is a key element in the No Child
Left Behind, trying to get a well qualified teacher in every
classroom in the country, and we have had a number of ways that
we have tried to, both in terms of recruitment and professional
training.
Could you elaborate a little bit about what you think we
could learn from the commission that might be of value to us as
we look at this?
Mr. Branstad. Chairman Kennedy, I would also point out the
report is now on line at the Department of Education website
and there are many ideas and recommendations in here that I
think will help us both recruit, train, and retain quality
teachers.
One of the problems we heard from teachers was paperwork
and the excess of paperwork and the recommendations that we are
making in that area we think can help. We have heard that, for
instance, the average special ed teacher is spending five hours
a week on paperwork that could better be spent on working with
kids.
There needs to be a better job done in training general ed,
as well as special ed teachers, about the needs of kids and
this, I guess, would also go not just to teachers but to
principals and administrators, as well, to understand the needs
of children with disabilities, kids with emotional
disturbances, and things like that, and how that can be
effectively worked with.
There are many good recommendations. We had some
outstanding researchers on the commission and we heard from
some outstanding researchers with ideas on how we can improve
the preparation and retention of teachers but there is a
tremendous turnover. There is a big shortage, as you know, of
special ed teachers, and one of the reasons for it is because
of the paperwork and the demands and we just have a high burn-
out rate in this area and we are losing too many good teachers.
The Chairman. Well, it is about twice as high as it is for
regular teachers and that is too high. So we will look forward
to looking through those recommendations.
Commissioner Gill, I wanted to ask you about the reading.
The commission felt very strongly about the need to increase
reading skills of those children who might otherwise be
incorrectly identified as needing special education. Could you
elaborate a little bit about what the commission recommended
doing to increase the reading skills of children in special
education?
Let us take, for example, children that are mentally
retarded. How do you see this recommendation actually impacting
and affecting those children?
Mr. Gill. Well, I do not know necessarily that the reading
initiative, for example, would have a huge and significant
impact on every child but I think there is certainly a
significant number of children in special education who may, in
fact, have benefitted from instructional interventions prior to
their eligibility determination for special education, and I
think that is the group that this is primarily targeted at.
Obviously reading is an essential skill for everyone but I
think the concern that I heard expressed as a commission is
that there are significant numbers of kids who we might
describe as curriculum casualties in the context of educational
reform and increased accountability and high stakes testing, et
cetera, that might be better served through general education
classrooms and through reading support programs, as opposed to
eligibility determination and entry into special education.
The Chairman. What was your sense about the receptiveness
about the increasing focus on reading generally? We have
important provisions obviously in the No Child Left Behind. We
have some interventions, a very limited but important program
in terms of preschool children. What can you tell us as a
result of the hearing that you had about reading generally and
the kind of recommendations that you have with regard to
special needs children?
Mr. Gill. I think that the hearings we had and the
information that we processed in this regard said that there
are clearly research-based practices regarding reading
improvement strategies for all kids that kids could certainly
benefit from. And I think the issue that most of us were
concerned about and quite a number of parents were concerned
about in their public testimony is that sometimes kids in
special education were not given the benefit of those
preintervention strategies before they were automatically put
in a special education program or determined eligible. So they
felt like, and I would tend to agree with them, that at least
we ought to try as best we can research-based preinterventions
prior to determination of special education.
The Chairman. Mr. Huntt, on the recommendations to give
greater focus on the outcomes, on a culture of outcomes rather
than a culture of compliance, this is obviously an important
civil rights law as well as an education law. How did the
commission balance between recognizing the protections which
are necessary as a civil rights bill, as well as to try to deal
with the education? What can you tell us about your
conclusions?
Mr. Huntt. I think that hits at the heart of what we were
about, Mr. Chairman. Fundamentally there was no suggestion that
we ever remove any civil rights whatsoever or any entitlement
whatsoever, but the focus on outcomes really protects, I think,
the child, ultimately his or her civil rights. We want to see
that special ed works. If I had a child in special ed I would
want that child to be able to succeed and to excel beyond the
public education system.
So the focus on outcomes is a way to measure that special
ed is really working and to be able to tell parents and that
child yes, this system is working and this benefits you and it
does fundamentally ensure your civil rights.
The Chairman. Senator Gregg.
Opening Statement of Senator Gregg
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again I want to congratulate the commission for your work.
I think you have contributed significantly to our base for
making a decision here on how we reauthorize this very, very
important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation I
have a personal interest in, having been for many years head of
a very large special education institution called the Crotched
Mountain Rehabilitation Center in New Hampshire.
So I find your emphasis on education to be excellent and
your emphasis on outcomes to be excellent. I think that is
exactly the right tone to set and hopefully we can accomplish
that in the reauthorization.
The issue--there are a lot of issues. There are so many
issues it is hard to know where to start but one of the issues
that I have always found difficult was alluded to, I think, by
Mr. Gill, which is when the small towns have a child who is
very involved and that child has to go outside the local school
system or even stay inside the local school system if he or she
can be mainstreamed, which is sometimes very difficult to do,
the cost really is astronomical.
Under present law you cannot pool--there is no risk pooling
allowed with the Federal dollars but some States are doing risk
pooling with their local dollars and I am wondering if you
think we should create some language here which gives some
flexibility to the funds coming back, as long as we maintain
the integrity of those funds and we do not allow them to be
skimmed off for administration, that would allow the Federal
funds to create risk pools for communities that get hit with a
child who has real serious involvement and high costs?
Mr. Gill. Actually, those are two of the recommendations of
the commission and I think two of the recommendations that
speak to the notion of financial flexibility. I think we have
to create scenarios in local districts and States where we can
actually get ahead of the financial curve in special education,
as opposed to always looking at a reimbursement model for past
practice or whatever. And I think risk management pools create
an opportunity to do that, as well as safety net pools, if you
will, for extraordinarily high cost students that, in fact,
have the outcome, if you will, of almost devastating a local
district budget that is already pretty tightly wound by the
time the school starts.
So when you have unanticipated enrollment increases in a
small district or even a large district, or you have an
unanticipated student who shows up and requires a free and
appropriate public education, sometimes local districts with
very small revenue bases are not able to compensate for that
without somehow reducing services to other kids somewhere in
the system and I do believe the Federal Government has a role
there and I believe they should exercise that role.
Senator Gregg. Good, and I hope we incorporate that.
Now present law has a 20 percent--once we hit the $4
billion, you allow the local districts to use 20 percent of the
money that is coming back to them for activities which they
determine they need to use it for with total flexibility
essentially.
I notice your report did not comment on that 20 percent
flexibility to the local communities. Did you have any input on
that?
Mr. Gill. Well, we did not really discuss that specifically
as far as the 20 percent use of Federal funds where they can
use that against their maintenance requirements, et cetera. I
think the general feeling was that did not result in enough
money to have much of a significant impact on the local
district of any size.
Senator Gregg. Well, it does free up some dollars, though.
Mr. Gill. Yes, it does.
Senator Gregg. One of the issues we have is what I call the
infinity issue, which is that we have 40 percent that we have
locked in, which is sort of like our college programs. Every
time we increase our Pell grants or increase our student loans,
we find all the colleges across the country increase their
tuitions and we never catch up.
How do we get to the point where when we get to 40 percent,
which hopefully we will in the near future, we just do not find
that next year we are back down to 35 because there have been
such an explosion in costs as a result of all this new money
flowing in?
Mr. Gill. Well, I think that is clearly a concern that we
as commissioners had. I do not think we had anyone who
testified before us who even alluded to the fact that there
should be a decrease in Federal funding. I think everybody
was--that is one area upon which everybody agreed.
But I think----
Senator Gregg. I think everybody agrees on that.
Mr. Gill. But what they also agreed is that increased
funding was conditional. I think some people felt like the
increased funding was conditional upon their perception that
the Federal Government reneged on their promise of 40 percent
of excess cost in 1975 and therefore they are entitled to more,
conditional upon improved academic and post-school results;
therefore, they deserve more. Or contingent upon the fact that
they spend more; therefore they should get more.
And I think it is the impact of all of those issues that if
you go to a number, whatever it happens to be, 40 percent,
without any parameters associated with that increase, I think
you will get exactly what you have described. You will get an
institutionalization of current practice, you will influence
the growth rates in special education, and I think you will
also encourage districts and States to serve kids with marginal
needs through special education, rather than the general
education programs and classrooms.
Mr. Branstad. That is precisely what will happen.
Senator Gregg. So you are saying we should do the reform
before we lock in the spending?
Mr. Gill. Well, I think those are things that have to be
done in concert. I do not think you can do one without the
other. That is why I think in my opening remarks I wanted to
make the statement if I was not clear that fiscal
accountability is integral to program accountability. I do not
think you can separate those two issues. That is why I think we
have, at least in our recommendations, linked those two things
together in the first recommendation.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Harkin.
Opening Statement of Senator Harkin
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all of you for your public service in this
endeavor, for all the hearings you had and the input that you
gained from across the country. It will help us a great deal in
our moving ahead toward the reauthorization next year of IDEA.
I guess I have a couple of questions. First I want to say
off the top that having worked for so long with parents and
families with kids who are disabled and getting them into
school and watching what they had to go through and everything,
I do not think there would be one parent out there who would
disagree that with the recommendation that special education
students are general education students first and they must be
looked upon that way, as part of our general education
population out there.
Second, I do not think any parent would ever disagree with
the recommendation that we should look at results and results-
oriented. But therein lie some problems and I will get to that
in a second.
First of all, I want to get to the financing of it. Last
year Senator Hagel and I sponsored an amendment to fully fund
IDEA. We basically passed it in the Senate and it had an
overwhelming vote, I think 60 some votes if I am not mistaken
in the Senate. But we went to conference and it was dropped
because the House objected and the administration objected. But
the idea was to make it a mandatory funding.
Again for too long, and I talk about my own State of Iowa,
Governor Branstad, for too long these local communities have
assumed a disproportionate share of the cost. It has a terrible
impact on property taxes and property taxes are in many cases
unfair taxes. They are not proportionate to a person's income.
Especially if you have an elderly population, they may have
older homes and they may pay more in property taxes but their
income may not be very high. Then what happens is that that
creates divisions in the communities and that has a negative
impact on families of kids with disabilities who have to then
fight in their local jurisdictions to get the funding necessary
for their kids. So it creates a lot of friction out there.
So we looked at the commitment that was supposed to have
been there by the Federal Government to provide up to 40
percent of the average per pupil expenditure, so we propose
that we make it mandatory, that we put it on the mandatory
budget side. We got support for this from governors. I think--
well, the National Governors Association supported it. I cannot
say that every governor supported it but the National Governors
Association, both Republican and Democrat, supported making it
mandatory. We had support from the National Association of
State Legislatures to make it mandatory. We had support from
the National Association of School Boards to make it mandatory,
and most education associations and families with kids. We had
a broad spectrum of support to make it mandatory.
So I guess I need to understand why this commission, what
its rationale is, that we should not make it mandatory but
should leave it discretionary.
Mr. Branstad. Senator, I think the main reason why the
commission did not recommend mandatory funding is we think this
is a very important priority and we made a lot of
recommendations that will require additional funding and
addressing some of the concerns you expressed, like school
school districts that have a child with a significant medical
and special ed need and that can really cause real problems in
that school district's budget, and we have, I think, specific
solutions for those things.
But on the issue of just mandatory funding, and I guess
this comes from my experience of 16 years as governor, I
remember when we had the State budget on auto pilot and
basically we had more mandatory funding than we had funds
available and we had to unravel that situation. Sometimes there
is a situation where there is a need to set priorities and when
you have a growing share of your budget on auto pilot mandatory
funding, you do not have the flexibility to be able to do that.
So we thought there were important issues to address. We
did not--the commission did not feel that it is something we
should advocate mandatory funding for. We thought we would be
in a better position to make specific recommendations on trying
to address some of the areas where IDEA could be improved.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that, Governor, but again here
we get into that battle all the time, too. I mean how much goes
for this part of education, how much goes to that part of
education, and we struggle every year to try to get this up to
the 40 percent level and we have not succeeded in doing so yet.
Mr. Branstad. Well, you have made significant progress in
recent years compared to what it was like before that.
Senator Harkin. Yes, we are up to about 20 percent now. We
are about halfway there. At this present rate we will get to 40
percent, I think, sometime in the next 12 years, which for many
people with kids with disabilities, is too long to wait.
Mr. Branstad. And it could even be longer than that because
of the costs to get the 40 percent keep going up, too. So you
are right.
Senator Harkin. What was the input that you received as you
went around the country from other governors or State
legislatures? Did you have input on this at all, on the
mandatory versus discretionary? And what was the bulk of the
testimony you received?
Mr. Gill. Senator, the bulk of the testimony we received
regarding the discretionary versus mandatory nature of special
education was certainly a concern that I recall from testimony
that if we look at the increased growth rate of special
education, it correlates pretty well with the increased rate of
funding for special education. So lots of people were
concerned, and I think rightfully so, that as you again
increase funding in special education without any kind of
parameters, what you actually do is inflate the number of kids
in special education.
So the issue becomes are you reimbursing for what you
should have done before or are you creating some sort of
unintended consequence in what you are reimbursing for now, and
I think that the decision and the discussion of the task force
was to leave it as discretionary and let you folks determine
whether you think it should be mandatory or not.
Senator Harkin. Here again we have a chicken-and-egg
discussion.
Mr. Gill. That is true.
Senator Harkin. It is chicken and egg. We say to people
they need to hire special assistants for kids that are in
public school that have disabilities. They need a special aide
there. The poor teacher cannot cope with that. They are not
trained to do it. And the school district says but we do not
have the money. So they do not hire and we say to them do that
and then we will provide the funding. That is chicken and egg.
I mean if we provide the mandatory funding, then they are
going to have the wherewithal to hire those special assistants
to give the teachers the assistance they need in the classroom
but if we do not provide the mandatory funding every year they
do not know what the next year is going to be like.
Mr. Branstad. I think there is also, and we talk about this
in the report, a difference between high incidence disability
and low incidence disabilities. The high incidence disabilities
are not affected by the funding that Doug was talking about,
whereas the low incidence disabilities, which would be more
specific learning disabilities and whatever, when the funding
goes up, the enrollment and participation in that tends to go
up.
So we talk about addressing that. I guess it is not a
simple issue. It is one where we are basically saying the high
incidence one, we think there needs to be essentially--I do not
know if mandatory funding is the right term but there ought to
be the Federal Government assuring that the funding is there so
that local school districts do not get hit with a cost that
they did not anticipate, but that in the area of the lower
incidence, that just providing more money may not solve the
problem because it may just drive up the participation in that
and we need to be more specifically working on that to meet the
needs of the individual student.
Senator Harkin. But just one question, Governor Branstad.
What recommendations did the commission make regarding schools
accessing Medicaid funds? There we run into problems. I know in
Iowa we run into problems all the time with schools
participating in health services under the Medicaid program.
That has to do with certain--different States have different
laws on accessibility to those Medicaid funds.
Mr. Branstad. Honestly, Senator, I do not think we
addressed--we addressed a lot of issues. I do not think that
that specific area of the interaction between--and maybe there
is one--
Mr. Gill. Could I respond to that?
Senator Harkin. Sure.
Mr. Gill. I think that is a very good question. I think one
of the things that we did not put in because we did not really
get beyond IDEA but I think that it is possible that Medicaid
reimbursement dollars could, in fact, be a seed source for
individual high-cost students or a possibility of a way in
which to increase fiscal flexibility. We did not really feel
comfortable getting into the Medicaid discussion at that point
in time but I agree with you that certainly reimbursement for
high-cost students who are Medicaid-eligible is, in fact, a
funds source that could be used to offset the cost of complex
needs kids, as well.
Mr. Branstad. We did recommend improved coordination. There
needs to be improved coordination in that area. We did not
probably have the time to get into it. That in and of itself is
a very complicated issue that could take a lot of time but
there is clearly a need for additional improved coordination
there so that Medicaid funds are available to meet the needs of
those kids that are eligible.
The Chairman. Just on this issue, would it be too much to
ask your people at the commission to try to take a look at
this? Because this really is an enormous problem and the
communities have to go through extraordinary lengths to get
these kinds of reimbursements and its put an incredible burden
on all of them. We hear from so many. You have 40 or 60 percent
who are Medicaid-eligible and it would be very helpful if you
could--you have a lot of very good people and we would ask you
to give us some guidance on this because this is a very, very
important issue.
Maybe we could see if you would be good enough to do so,
Governor. We would ask the commission if you could give us at
least some ideas.
Mr. Branstad. On the coordination of Medicaid benefits.
The Chairman. Yes, because you obviously listen to a lot
and if you could give us just some general guidelines, as
specific as you can but we will take anything you have.
Senator DeWine.
Senator DeWine. Senator Roberts.
The Chairman. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement I
would like to insert in the record as a general statement,
typically referring to your leadership and thanking the
commissioners, thanking the president for the focus on the
report. I would like to make it for the record if I might.
The Chairman. It will be so included.
Senator Roberts. I thought maybe ``without objection''
would be appropriate.
Senator DeWine. He wants to read it first.
The Chairman. I will have to check it out over here.
Senator Roberts. I mentioned the name of Senator Kennedy 18
times here. I thought maybe--
The Chairman. It will be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Roberts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roberts
Mr. Chairman, Senator Gregg, thank you for holding this hearing to
review the results of the report compiled by the President's Commission
on Excellence in Special Education. I would first like to thank all of
the members of the commission for their hard work and dedication to the
field of special education. Second, I would like to sincerely welcome
the members of the commission who are here to testify today,
Commissioners Terry Branstad, Douglas Gill and Douglas Huntt. Your time
and effort is greatly appreciated.
The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is most
certainly responsible for many of the significant gains and
achievements made in recent years by children with disabilities. With
the passage of this landmark legislation, children with disabilities
are guaranteed equal education as their peers. IDEA has made it
possible for all children to achieve academic success and transition
into life after school.
However, while IDEA has produced incredible results, some areas are
in need of significant reform. First of all, federal funding for IDEA
must be increased. With over 6 million students served under IDEA,
schools are qualified to receive over $17 billion in federal funding in
Part B. Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2001, schools received only $6.34
billion, far short of the 40 percent full funding we promised to
schools almost three decades ago. While we did increase funding for
fiscal year 2002 to approximately $7.5 billion, it is still not enough.
I am also concerned about the large amount of paperwork that is
producing a major burden for teachers and schools. I cannot count on my
hands the number of teachers, parents, and administrators who are
discouraged by the amount of unnecessary paperwork that takes away from
time spent with students. Many feel bogged down and request that
paperwork be focused on the development and success of the child and
not merely on compliance. I look forward to hearing the panelists'
ideas for paperwork reduction, funding for IDEA, and other areas, such
as teacher preparation and recruitment.
In October of last year, I am pleased that President Bush made his
commitment to special education public by establishing the President's
Commission on Excellence in Special Education. After 9 months, 13
public meetings, and hundreds of letters and written comments, the
Commission compiled and produced ``A New Era: Revitalizing Special
Education for Children and Their Families.''
This report shares with all of us recommendations for necessary
changes and improvements to IDEA. The combined experience of the
members of the Commission is impressive and I look forward to hearing
from the panelists.
Again, I would like to thank Mr. Branstad, Mr. Gill and Mr. Huntt
for coming here today to share their experiences with the President's
Commission and their recommendations for the future of special
education.
Opening Statement of Senator Roberts
Senator Roberts. This reminds me of the TV ad some years
ago where you have a fellow sitting in front of the table and
about 25 telephones behind him. One rings, he picks up the
phone and says, ``Yeah, I can do that. Thank you, sir.'' Then
another ring and he says, ``Yeah, I can do that,'' and another
ring, ``I can do that.'' Pretty soon all 25 are ringing and he
looks the audience in the eye and says ``How am I going to do
this?''
I have been, along with staff, going over all of your
recommendations, which are good ones, very comprehensive, nine
findings, seven dozen recommendations of the findings, and for
the life of me I do not know how you do this, unlike Senator
Harkin, with the amount of money that we provide you and all of
the paperwork burdens.
I wrote down some concerns that I remember when I had the
privilege of serving in the other body and we called this the
granddaddy of all unfunded mandates. Obviously it was a
responsibility and we have that obligation and had some real
success but in too many cases it seems to me that local school
administrators, especially the administrator, looks upon the
idea knowing that it is the responsible thing to do and that
they want to do it in an adversarial way.
I do not know how many States are in deficit financing. I
think there are 41. We are here, as well, but we have the
printing press. They have cut teachers. They have cut programs.
Our State tuition has gone up 25 percent. Much of that could be
answered, it seems to me, with at least us honoring our
obligation, our promise 30 years ago that we were going to fund
this by 40 percent.
So I just listed the things I was concerned about then and
now. This is a long story. Funding, regulations, paperwork, the
lack of quality teachers, although we do have some very fine
teachers, but what happens down the road, and the
paraprofessionals. We have a situation where some have
indicated that in terms of the paraprofessionals we ought to
raise the criteria obviously or the training. What happens is
you give them training and they do not stay. They find other
jobs because the pay is too low.
Then something called trying to get the administrators
involved. And then what on earth do we do with the liability
question? My distinguished colleague to my right, Senator
Sessions, has been very helpful in this regard on what happens
when we get into liability questions and you have recommended
something called voluntary binding arbitration. I sort of think
that is an oxymoron. I do not know how you do voluntary binding
arbitration. If that works, that is great.
So now I have sort of read you my concerns here and I
credit the report but I am worried here that if we do the 40
percent and we tie in what I think Mr. Gill has indicated, a
threshold of excess cost, tying those future funding increases
beyond the threshold to improve accountability. We already have
a mandate. I do not want son of mandate. I know we want the
accountability; I think that is a very noble goal, a very
necessary goal, but if we just add in more regulatory demands
on top of that.
And I note, Terry, you are talking about focussing on
results, not on process. Then you get into the IEP, the
individualized education plan. I am wondering what an effective
IEP really might look like in Iowa and Kansas, really what it
would be.
Then I think it was Commissioner Huntt who said they were
having some problems here and we might need some legislation.
So after my rambling rose here in regard to my concern
about IDEA, what role would Congress play in reducing the
paperwork burden and getting the IEP straightened out and
making sure that this is not mandate number two on top of
mandate number one, knowing that I think every person on this
committee at least supports the 40 percent? In a rare moment I
supported a Harkin amendment. Tom is not paying attention to me
right now but he will when he hears me say that. I voted for
100 percent because I think it is an unfunded mandate but what
specific role are you asking us to do to clear up some of the
many recommendations that you have suggested? What is the top
thing that you want us to do? Let us just go down the list.
Terry, why do you not go first, other than the funding?
Mr. Branstad. And you are keenly aware of the funding
issue. I think what we want to do is we want to see the focus
moved from process to results. We want the focus on the kids.
We want to get the best result for every kid. We have come a
long way in this country from 1975 in terms of providing access
to education but what we are concerned about is what happens to
these kids when they get out of school?
Senator Roberts. Exactly.
Mr. Branstad. Are they prepared for the world of work? Can
they go on to higher education? And we are saying not enough of
them. We can do a better job in that. And by focussing more on
results, that is what we think you ought to be doing, is as you
look at the reauthorization, how can we change this focus where
it is on results and getting the very best for each kid,
knowing each kid comes at it with different abilities but
nevertheless, let us work with that kid to challenge them to
achieve at the very highest level possible. That is what we
want for every kid.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. I think you brought up a very interesting point
when you mentioned that you thought maybe 41 States were in a
deficit spending pattern and you could print more if you needed
it. I think there is a very complex financial dynamic that
exists in schools today, as opposed to 1975, and I think that
is why we did not just want to focus on 40 percent, as if that
is some battle flag that is going to particularly cure this
issue. I personally do not believe it is. I think all of the
financial recommendations need to be taken in aggregate to
begin to fix the system, as opposed to patch the system.
And I think 40 percent, without any particular parameters
associated with that which create flexibility and deal with the
very real problem that Senator Harkin already mentioned of an
increase in complex needs kids, an increase in accountability
and expectations for local school districts, and a decrease in
the number of qualified staff out there to provide those kinds
of services. I think that is a very volatile situation in which
we need help from you, I think, in terms of giving us and
districts some direction, some flexibility, some latitude to
really begin to solve the problems in special education, as
opposed to admire them.
Senator Roberts. So it is not 54-40 or fight so much as it
is take a look at the results and the specific funding
increases that you have recommended here that produce the
results.
Mr. Huntt, I do not want to ignore you.
Mr. Huntt. That is okay, Senator. Feel free to ignore me. I
have been uncharacteristically quiet.
Senator Roberts. You are a former Marine. Semper fie. Go
ahead.
Mr. Huntt. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Branstad. As chairman of the commission I was accused
of ignoring him many times.
Mr. Huntt. That is right.
Thank you, Senator Roberts. First of all, I would agree
with Governor Branstad that the major issue we would like to
see you take up is to tie funding with outcomes.
Second, I think we need to maximize our resources. There
are all kinds of great pieces of legislation out there that are
actually increasing barriers rather than removing them. We need
to tie in Ticket to Work. We need to tie in WIA,
reauthorization of the Rehab Act and IDEA to maximize those
resources, to streamline the resources, to have a seamless
point of entry and wrap-around services for kids. Maximize
those resources, get rid of the barriers. That is what I would
like to see you take up.
Senator Roberts. I want to thank all three of you. Thank
you very kindly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin (presiding). Senator Murray.
Opening Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you to all of our witnesses for the excellent testimony
and really for the tremendous amount of effort you have put
into this report.
I appreciate many of the commissioners' recommendations. I
have some concerns about others. Some of the things that are
labeled bureaucratic or burdensome in this report may actually
serve a critical role for our students, so I think we need to
be very careful about judging that. I have not seen any
evidence that shows compliance by schools hinders success for
children and I think we need to remember that the civil right
to a free and appropriate education is paramount in this
conversation and we have to do our part to make sure schools
provide that for all students with disabilities.
One issue that your report emphasizes is the importance of
general education in ensuring a high quality education for
students with disabilities. Many of you know that I have been a
strong supporter of smaller class sizes, especially in the
early grades, and the research proves what teachers and parents
and students tell us, that smaller classes provide better
behaved, more successful classrooms.
I wonder if any of you would like to comment on the role
that smaller class sizes in our general education classes might
play in improving outcomes for children with disabilities.
Mr. Gill. I guess I will certainly respond to that. I think
one of the research findings, and I think we mentioned it
earlier regarding in terms of the research-based interventions,
it seems to certainly indicate that what you are saying is
true. It is the intensity of the intervention in a reduced
class size environment that seems to produce the greatest
results in terms of reading gains, et cetera. I think it is
that kind of practice or that kind of intensity that might, in
fact, reduce the number of kids in special education and give
them the opportunity to participate fully in a regular
education environment and classroom.
Mr. Branstad. In Nashville we heard from a researcher named
Sharon Vaughan from I think Vanderbilt University, Peabody
College of Education at Vanderbilt University, who has done, I
think, some really outstanding research in this area. Basically
her recommendation was before a child is put in special
education we ought to be working in intensive programs with
smaller class sizes or even pull out individual situations to
help them get up to speed in reading. And a lot of kids can
indeed catch up to their grade level in that kind of an
approach and that approach ought to be used in kind of a
seamless way.
Senator Murray. So it would be preventive, actually.
Smaller class sizes in our general education population could
prevent misidentification for special education for some
students.
Mr. Branstad. Yes. But I think again not just smaller class
size. Some kids need more than just a smaller class size. They
need some specific special intervention to help them, as well,
and we ought to go through that whole continuum before we say
that this kid has to be in special education because it may be
just with that kind of help and some kids it takes more help
than others because different kids learn at different rates.
Senator Murray. Commissioner Huntt, I understand you have
worked to give children with disabilities the opportunity to
use technology. The commission's recommendations touch on the
need for tests developed using the principles of universal
design and I appreciate that recommendation but I wonder why
you addressed assessment only. I am concerned that student
access to educational materials in general needs to be
addressed. Maybe if you could comment, or any of our
commissioners could comment on how our schools can or should
use educational materials and technologies that are universally
designed.
Mr. Huntt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator. We briefly
touched on the universal design question. We did not get much
more specific on that. I think the use of assistive technology
is extremely important to the success not only in school but in
post-school activities.
So whatever it takes then to increase access to assistive
technology I think most people on the commission, if not all,
would agree to that.
Senator Murray. Any others?
Mr. Gill. As I recall--I have not read the report obviously
in its entirely and I was not on that particular task force,
but as I recall it, universal design had a lot to do with the
research to practice issue, as I recall, and I think the
research to practice issue in terms of universal design is that
you are not really focussing on a particular issue as a way in
which technology could be enhanced but you are talking about
universal access to technology, as well, so that when
technology is designed, it is designed with a large variety of
issues and abilities as part of the contextual design of that.
That is my recollection of the conversation.
Senator Murray. Dr. Gill, one other question. In your
testimony you suggested that the States should retain no more
than 10 percent of Part B funds and should be required to pass
the rest on to local districts.
Could you elaborate on why you recommended that change and
how you see the States using their part of that fund?
Mr. Gill. Well, one of the reasons I recommended that
change, in concert with the other members of the task force,
was that we felt like services should go to where the kids are
first. And since they are in the local districts, I think the
local districts would get the 90 percent----
Senator Murray. I appreciate that, coming from someone who
works at the State level.
Mr. Gill. The other reason that we sort of recommended flat
percents, as opposed to what is current in that you have the
1997 base plus inflation, that, to me, I think is a very
unnecessary calculation that you do not need to do. You could
accomplish that with generic percentage application. Say we are
going to flow 90 percent to local districts of all available
funds. Two percent, let us say, would be held for State
administrative purposes, 3 percent for some sort of safety net
process, and 5 percent for State discretion, consistent with a
set of national priorities identified in IDEA. I mean that
would be one way to do it and not force States--when we look at
the increases that we have had in our State of Washington,
which is an 85 percent flow through State right now, and we are
restricted to the 1997 base plus inflation, you know what I
would say is give me 2 percent and I am going to wind up with
more money than you are giving me now.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Harkin. Senator DeWine.
Opening Statement of Senator DeWine
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This committee, our committee, of course, was directly
involved in writing the WIA bill, the Workforce Investment Act,
and I would like to maybe comment and start with you, Mr. Huntt
because you have already mentioned it, and ask you a question
about that and how that interfaces with IDEA.
The commission report states, in part, ``The Workforce
Investment Act limits adult education to individuals who are
not enrolled or required to be enrolled in a secondary school.
Thus a student cannot be enrolled in a secondary school and
also be enrolled in adult education under WIA. Many students
with disabilities who left high school before earning a regular
high school diploma but who are still entitled to a free,
appropriate education under IDEA are barred from receiving the
services they need.''
Do you want to elaborate on that? What is barring them and
what do we do to fix it? Do we have a problem with IDEA? Do we
have a problem with WIA? Do we have a problem with funding?
Where are we?
Mr. Huntt. Senator DeWine, I think that is an excellent
question. If there is one term that I have learned in
Washington, it is unintended consequences. I think that with
some of the Federal legislation we have increased barriers that
we wanted to remove.
The fact is that we have a 30 percent success rate on
graduating kids with disabilities from high school but then
even though we want to see them employed afterwards, WIA comes
in and they have indicated that there is a barrier now, that if
the child leaves, drops out of school, that they are not
eligible then for certain WIA services, and that is where that
particular issue comes in.
Senator DeWine. So it is a WIA problem.
Mr. Huntt. It is a WIA problem but I think that there
really needs to be a translation on what WIA really means with
regard to transition from school to work, what IDEA means, and
what the Rehab Act means. There is not a real clear
understanding from people in the field on where the boundaries
are, where the guidelines are.
Senator DeWine. What do you mean there is not a clear
understanding?
Mr. Huntt. Mr. Chairman, Senator DeWine, we mentioned in
the report several places where there is inconsistency on who
does what. There was discussion in IDEA where transition
services begin at 14 and certain requirements are there but
then there is a different set of circumstances when a child
reaches the age of 16. So which is it? And I think we just need
to have a clear understanding of what the expectations are,
especially in my committee, which is the transition from school
to work. What is the requirement? And I think you fix it
through this reauthorization process here, through IDEA.
Senator DeWine. It may also be, though, that we have to fix
part of it through WIA.
Mr. Huntt. That is correct.
Senator DeWine. Maybe it is both. Maybe it is one or the
other.
Any other comments from any other members on that? If not,
I will move on.
Mr. Gill. Okay, move on.
Mr. Huntt. No, if you had a comment, that is fine.
Mr. Gill. The only comment I wanted to make is that so much
of this is all interactive and you do not touch one piece
without the whole thing changing shape at times and I think
sometimes we lose sight of the fact that these things do
interact. They certainly interact at the local level in terms
of policy, in terms of practice.
Senator DeWine. It is the unintended consequences, as
Commissioner Huntt said.
Mr. Gill. Absolutely.
Mr. Huntt. And Senator, it also brings up the
recommendation of creating another task force to look at
reauthorization of the Rehab Act because it plays into IDEA or
it should play a greater part into IDEA, as well.
Senator DeWine. More to come. Thank you very much. That is
great.
Let me ask another question. Your task force on transition
recommends that higher education institutions need to provide
assistance to students with disabilities to help them complete
post-secondary education. Specifically you state that Federal
policy should support and hold accountable all post-secondary
institutions that receive Federal dollars. What does that mean?
How would you specifically do that?
Mr. Huntt. Mr. Chairman, Senator DeWine, we heard testimony
from professionals in the field of higher education who felt
that there was not a very good transition from school to post-
secondary education. There was not a tie of funding to
outcomes. A student would leave high school and go into post-
secondary education and not have the support services that he
or she may need to succeed and there was no tie to outcomes
then from the Federal funding that that institution of higher
ed would have.
So this is a recommendation that provides for more training
for professors in the university setting, for instance, on how
to educate and work with people with disabilities but also ties
outcomes to the funding. We want to see kids succeed in post-
secondary education.
Senator DeWine. But you are talking about actual
withholding of dollars?
Mr. Huntt. Senator, I think it is more of an incentive
rather than a withholding. We want to increase dollars where it
is appropriate.
Senator DeWine. Carrot as opposed to a stick?
Mr. Huntt. Yes, sir.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed (presiding). Thank you, Senator DeWine.
Opening Statement of Senator Reed
Let me thank the commissioners and your colleagues for an
exhaustive and very thorough report which will be very valuable
to all of us as we consider reauthorization. I particularly
want to recognize Commissioner Huntt, who is also the CEO of
Enable America?
Mr. Huntt. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. We had a visit by Enable America up in
Warwick, Rhode Island and it was a great event. Thank you,
Commissioner Huntt.
Let me raise a general question. The theme of the report is
results, not process. I frequently observe, and not just in the
context of special education but in many different areas, that
we lock onto process when we have a hard time defining what the
results should be. If you do not know what you want, develop a
process and that will be what we measure, what we insist upon.
And Governor Branstad, you have suggested the uniqueness of
children in the system.
We can talk about results but essentially what results are
we talking about and who will set those results? Is it a
measure of performance on a general test? Can you elaborate?
Mr. Branstad. There is supposed to be an individualized
education plan for each child and really if that works like it
should, and what we found is that it works in some places
better than others, but what we think is we really need to make
sure that that is indeed what it is supposed to be--
individualized to meet the needs of that child and there are
clear goals and outcomes that you want to achieve and you are
measuring that. You cannot do that with one test and it has to
be done in a collaborative way. The student and their parents
need to be involved, as well as the teachers and administrators
and the other specialists that are involved in the school.
Everybody needs to be involved in that.
And I think our concern is in some cases you get a conflict
situation between the parents and the school and then what
happens is it becomes overfocussed on the process so that the
school district can defend itself in court, saying well, we
went through and did all of these things that we are supposed
to do, so we are okay, as opposed to really sincerely looking
at are we achieving the very best we can for this child? And if
what we are trying is not working, we had better try something
different.
Senator Reed. So you are not at all recommending or
suggesting that we move away from the structure of IEPs?
Mr. Branstad. No. We are just saying that process needs to
be improved and there needs to be more clear outcomes. And I
think in the transition area we are saying that there needs to
be an involvement in setting employment goals and what happens
after they graduate.
It is a sad situation when we hear from school districts
they have no idea what has happened to their kids after they
have left school, and that is unacceptable.
Senator Reed. Many times when the system has been
criticized for too much paperwork it is the IEP. Then the
second part of it is the adversarial relationship.
Mr. Branstad. Right.
Senator Reed. It seems again, from talking to educators and
parents back in Rhode Island, that usually it comes down, the
adversarial part, to either professional disagreements--a
special education professional thinks that a different approach
should be taken from the parent--or financial considerations,
subtle, perhaps, that we just do not want to spend this money.
It might be better for the child but second best will do.
We all recognize that good parents are the best advocates
and are the most knowledgeable about their children and they
want the best for their children. Do you have any proposals to
try to reconcile this difficulty if there is a professional
disagreement or a financial situation and it is just the system
cannot afford to send the child to the school a parent wants?
Mr. Branstad. I think what we found is that some States
have--I think we need to look at best practices and some have
really developed some pretty good practices to really include
and involve the parents in the process from the very beginning.
In other instances the parents feel like they are an
afterthought and they get invited to the meeting but there has
been a premeeting that has decided everything and we have to
get away from that kind of situation so that they really, truly
are involved.
We heard from a man who had been a principal in New York
City who had done a tremendous involvement of his parents and
even before school started when they went to the
prekindergarten round-up thing in giving them basically this is
what we expect your child to know when they start school, so
that they involve the parents from the very beginning and this
is what we are expecting from you and then what you can expect
from us.
So what we are saying, that collaborative involvement
process and interaction between the school leadership and the
parents is critically important for this to succeed.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Governor.
Dr. Gill, and my time is dwindling rapidly, the commission
recommended increased funding for Part B, Part C and Section
619 but there was no suggestion for Part D, which funds State
improvement grants, professional development, and other
activities that will, we hope, make the system better. Any
rationale for not recommending?
Mr. Gill. Actually, I think that was a recommendation that
is included under professional development and was not
incorporated under the finance structure per se because we felt
like it was kind of an internal issue, but we certainly do and
would support Part D funding. And I think as part of our
finance recommendations, as a matter of fact, we strongly
suggested that the research component of the financial changes
that are contemplated or made in the system need to be
evaluated, as well, to determine the impact not only on special
ed but on the general education budget, as well.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Gill.
And a very, very quick question, Commissioner Huntt. You
have talked a lot about transition of teenagers from high
school to the workforce or to postsecondary education. What
about those transitions for young kindergarten students with
Head Start coordination, with coordination with private
preschool? Is that something the commission thought about?
Mr. Huntt. Mr. Chairman, we really did not talk too much
about transition from different school age children except for
the fact that we believe that early intervention is very key to
success.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.
Senator Sessions.
Opening Statement of Senator Sessions
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am so glad that you have done this report. I think it is
one of the biggest challenges we face in education. I have
traveled Alabama extensively, been in probably 30 schools in
the last two, two and a half years, and I try at each school to
have some time with a group of principals, teachers, school
superintendents, board members come by, and we come back to
this issue almost every single time. It is on the front burner
of school and education issues.
And you know the thing that is particularly important about
it for us is this is Federal. This is a problem we in the
Federal Government cannot wash our hands of because we have
required it, fundamentally. So it is incumbent on us if we care
about education to improve IDEA. It will require more funding
to try to meet the commitment we made to schools but in
addition to that, teachers and principals are telling me the
system is not working.
One wonderful special education teacher with a masters
degree, 14 years in the business, she said, ``Jeff, I am
telling you what we are doing is every day trying to comply
with regulations and avoid lawsuits. We have lost sight of what
is important for the school and the children and education.''
And you have said that in your number one point. I would
just like to read it. I think it is important. ``IDEA is
generally providing basic legal safeguards and access for
children with disabilities.'' I agree. This is finding number
one. ``However, the current system often places process above
results.'' Exactly what I am hearing. ``And bureaucratic
compliance above student achievement, excellence and outcomes.
The system is driven by complex regulations, excessive
paperwork, and ever-increasing administrative demands at all
levels for the child, the parent, and the State education
agency. Too often simply qualifying for special education
becomes an end point, not a gateway to more effective
instruction and strong intervention.'' One of the things you
did not discuss is the discipline problem and I will not go
into that today but that is on the front burner with teachers.
But Commissioner Gill, I just saw the Washington Education
Association survey of problems with IDEA and I thought they
were pretty significant and made some real points that are
consistent with what I am hearing. The Washington Education
Association there, that is your teachers association, released
the results of a survey of 4,000 special ed teachers and it
reported that nearly two-thirds of the special education
teachers in Washington State said they plan to stop teaching
disabled students within the next five years. Sixty-eight
percent said meeting the needs of Federal law is more difficult
than three years ago. The teachers complained of personal
safety concerns, massive paperwork requirements, endless
meetings and uncompensated overtime. A third of the teachers
reported they had been assaulted by students and have been
concerned for their safety. When asked if a student poses a
threat to themselves or others what is most likely to occur,
there were many answers but 12 percent said nothing is done at
their school. Only 29 percent of teachers reported receiving
immediate support under the current system when they had
students that were continually disruptive.
So the challenge here is big. We had a superintendent from
Vermont that said 20 percent of his school system's budget went
to special ed. So I am glad you have challenged the system.
Governor Branstad, you have been governor and had to deal
with this at the high supervisory level, I am sure, in the
State. Am I far off base? Do not we have a crisis? Can we not
do better in Washington that would help the schools in every
county and system in America?
Mr. Branstad. Senator Sessions, you are right on target
absolutely. And incidentally, I am impressed with the amount of
people out there that really care and want to do something
about it. We went all over the country, we held meetings of
full commissioner task forces and we heard from a lot of
sincere, caring people, many of whom were very frustrated with
the system and with what it has meant to their kids or the
impact that it has had on their school district.
We had a short time frame but I think there are some very
good recommendations that the commission has been able to come
up with in this period of time and we hope this is a catalyst
to really try to put more focus on results and improve the
special education program for all the kids in this country.
Senator Sessions. Commissioner Gill, do you think that this
thing is sort of reaching a boiling point among the
professionals in the business, that there is a growing
frustration and that we are really going to lose a lot of good
teachers if we do not do something better?
Mr. Gill. Well, I think one of the issues and certainly one
of the groups that I met with first and foremost upon my
appointment to the commission was the Washington Education
Association, as well as the Washington Association of School
Administrators, and sometimes got a competing agenda but that
is okay.
I think the issues are real. People have asked me about
well, is it a recruiting issue of teachers in special education
or is it the fact that we are not producing enough? And I guess
when I look at data in the State of Washington there are enough
certificated staff in the State of Washington to provide
special ed-related services for the 122,000 kids we have in our
State receiving services, but the fact is they are not choosing
to teach special education. They get their degree in special
education, they get a certificate in special education, and the
first opportunity they get they will jump to a regular fourth
grade or regular fifth grade class because they feel absolutely
overwhelmed.
That may have a lot to do with their professional training
and background. It may have a lot to do with the surrogates for
accountability that you mentioned, such as paperwork, et
cetera, or substitutes for real accountability. It may also
have to do with the growing frustration, but I do not think we
can renege on our commitment to students with disabilities; nor
do we want to do that. But I think we have to begin to think a
little differently about the provision of special ed-related
services, as opposed to thinking the way we thought about it
before.
And I guess that is kind of the point that I was trying to
make in my opening statement, that we have sort of become a
system that has been so focussed on maintaining that we have
not grown and matured as a discipline and realize that we are
not in an initiation of services mode anymore that we were in
1975; we are in an implementation of services mode now and
things are a little bit different than they used to be and the
dynamic is a little more complex.
So I would agree that our teachers have very serious
issues.
Senator Sessions. It is very frustrating. I remember
distinctly in September visiting a school that was an award-
winning elementary school and the principal was just superb and
he told me about the first day of school they had made a
decision that a child was in the main classroom, normal
classroom, it had been 30 minutes a day the previous year and
they decided that the child was not benefitting from the normal
classroom, had a severe disability. There was an objection and
the first day of school beginning at 4:00 till 7:00 there were
15 people meeting in the conference room--lawyers, parents,
teachers, counselors, educational experts--wrestling with
whether this child--and the final result was that the child
would stay in the regular classroom a quarter an hour a day. He
did that, he said, to avoid litigation. They just could not
afford to litigate this thing.
So we have created regulations that empower and further
litigation and we are often not reaching a best judgment about
individually what is best for a child. Frankly, I think
principals love children, teachers love children, special ed
administrators and teachers love children and they want to do
what is best.
Governor, you mentioned voluntary, binding arbitration. Is
that something you think could reduce the millions, the tens
and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent a year in
America on litigation over this act?
Mr. Branstad. I think some school districts, some States
have had success in that, some kind of mediation where both
sides volunteer to submit it to arbitration. So I think it is
important to look at best practices out there and what works in
some places. As we went around the country, in my State we do
not have as big a problem as I heard in some other places and I
do not know why that is. I think has more to do with the fact
that people have really tried to work things out and they have
not had the big problems.
Senator Sessions. I think sometimes there is a cottage
industry of lawyers. In D.C., we passed some laws that
curtailed it and it saved them $12 million in one year in the
District of Columbia in legal fees.
Mr. Huntt. Senator, if I may, we heard testimony that
parents were actually having to take out second mortgages to
get their kids the quality of education that they felt they
needed. The fact is that most people who testified before our
committee said that it is an adversarial environment when you
go in for the IEP.
So the idea of the binding arbitration was that both sides
realize we are not going to try to out-spend one another but
that we are going to come to the table to do what in the best
interest for the child. I think as soon as we get to that
point, the better off we will all be.
Mr. Gill. And another suggestion was that mediation be
available to parents and districts at any time, not simply as a
prelude to a due process hearing. Here again I think what you
are looking at is dispute resolution, which interestingly
enough, one of the parents who had quite an impact on me at one
of the hearings came up to me at a break and said, ``You know
what? I would give up some of the procedural protections and
safeguards afforded to me because I am not sure I understand
them all, anyway, and I am not sure that when they give me
notice four or five times a year that I ought to be getting it,
but what I do understand is if they would guarantee me and show
that my child is progressing from year to year in terms of
academic achievement, I would give them back some of those
procedural safeguards.''
So I do not think it is a question that the parents are
always intent on being adversarial but I think sometimes that
adversarial nature has been forced upon them by a system that
has failed to respond to the needs of their child. So I do not
think it is an either/or question but I think it is both of
those things interacting together, and that is probably the
most enlightening point of this whole report and if we could
have done it in a single recommendation we probably would have.
It took a series of recommendations because it is going to take
a series of fixes. There is not one thing wrong, there are
multiple things wrong, but they can be fixed.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your report. It is time for us now under this
reauthorization process to do what we are paid to do and this
is a Federal rule, it is a affecting every school in America
and I think we can make it better.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony this afternoon and
for your excellent work on the report.
Let me note that the record will be left open for two weeks
for additional questions from members of the committee. And
again thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Response to Questions of Senator Reed From Governor Terry Branstad
Question 1. Given your testimony and the Commission's emphasis on
accountability, what is the Commission's position on how a parental
choice system would be structured to ensure that private schools, if
selected by parents, provide the same level of services, ensure the
same civil rights, and measure and report outcomes as required under
IDEA?
Answer 1. The question of whether systems of parental choice meet
the service, civil rights, and outcomes requirements of IDEA appears to
presuppose that IDEA currently requires that IDEA funds be used
exclusively to provide services that are consistent with the service,
civil rights, and outcomes requirements of IDEA. That is not the case.
For example, IDEA clearly provides that a child may be placed by their
parent in a private school at the parent's own initiative with public
payment for that tuition under IDEA section 612(a)(10)(C)(ii). Such a
private school is not required to meet any of the service, civil
rights, or outcomes requirements of IDEA. While this only occurs where
the school has failed to provide a free appropriate public education
for the child, it is a clear instance where IDEA currently pays for
private school tuition without the school being required to meet those
service, civil rights, or outcome requirements of IDEA.
The same is generally true of children referred to private schools
by local education agencies (LEA) under IDEA section 612(a)(10)(B).
While the LEA must still assure a state that it is providing services
to all children in a manner that is consistent with IDEA (including
children placed in private schools), those private schools, as a
technical matter, are not bound by the service, civil rights, or
outcome requirements of IDEA, even thought the LEA may well be using
federal IDEA funds to pay that tuition.
IDEA also clearly intends for states and LEAs to pay for services
that benefit children in private schools without the service, civil
rights, or outcomes measures of IDEA applying to those private schools.
The ``child find'' requirement under IDEA section 612(a)(3) applies to
all children, including those in private schools. A state must ensure
that all children with disabilities, ``are identified, located, and
evaluated and a practical method is developed and implemented to
determine which children with disabilities are currently receiving
needed special education and related services.'' This, in some
instances, may require states to provide identification and other
services in private schools. Those services can be provided using
federal funds but would not create an obligation on the private school
to comply with IDEA's service, civil rights, or outcomes requirements.
Finally, in 1997 Congress reaffirmed the obligation of states to
serve children in private schools in a manner that is ``consistent with
the number and location of children with disabilities in the state who
are enrolled by their parents in private elementary and secondary
schools.'' IDEA sec. 612(a)(10)(A)(i). IDEA requires that, ``[a]mounts
expended for the provision of those services by a local educational
agency shall be equal to a proportionate amount of Federal funds made
available,'' under Part B, and that ``[s]uch services may be provided
to children with disabilities on the premises of private, including
parochial, schools, to the extent consistent with law.'' In these
instances, IDEA clearly requires states to pay for or provide services
to children in private schools without those schools being subject to
the service, civil rights, or outcomes requirements of IDEA.
In light of these current requirements in IDEA and other provisions
relating to charter schools and other choice programs, the Commission
made several comments on how private schools providing services with
IDEA funds should operate. In its report, the Commission stated as
follows:
``One way to increase choices for students with disabilities is
simply to give states more flexibility to use IDEA funds for this
purpose. For states that choose to provide more options for students
with disabilities, IDEA should make it possible for IDEA funds to
follow students to the schools their families choose.'' The No Child
Left Behind Act takes an additional step, requiring states to offer
choices for students in schools that do no make adequate progress. IDEA
should include parallel requirements, mandating that states allow IDEA
funds to follow students with disabilities when they choose to opt out
of chronically failing schools or districts. As funding follows
students, so should accountability. States should measure and report
outcomes for all students benefiting from IDEA funds, regardless of
what schools they choose to attend.
This statement is generally consistent with current IDEA private
school choice language under section 612(a)(10)(C), but obviously
expands the number of children eligible for private services than under
that subparagraph. However, the Commission states that all children,
regardless of what schools they attend, must have their outcomes
measured and reported by states. This recommendation would apply to all
children receiving services under 612(a)(10) or any other private
service delivery provision of IDEA. In addition, the Commission's
report states as follows:
``The Commission recommends greater flexibility in using federal
funds to allow states to create parental choice programs while
preserving the student's basic civil rights. However, we recommend that
any such program also require schools and programs to be held to the
same accountability requirements for public schools, assuring that
students achieve excellent results.''
IDEA clearly contemplates that ``preserving a student's basic civil
rights'' does not require the application of all of the obligations of
IDEA on a private school. The existence of the IDEA sections noted
above which do not require application of all IDEA requirements to
private schools receiving federal funds demonstrates that Congress does
not equate the application of IDEA requirements with the preservation
of a student's basic civil rights. Instead, IDEA created a more
flexible model, where civil rights are preserved through other means
than regulatory compliance, including the ability of a parent to choose
an alternative placement for their child. The Commission supported this
architecture by supporting civil rights through a flexible model.
The Commission then reaffirmed its view that accountability
requirements apply to all children, including those in private schools.
In light of the other recommendation that states, ``should measure and
report outcomes for all students benefiting from IDEA funds,'' the
reference to accountability requirements here after recommending
greater flexibility in application of IDEA to all choice schools meant
that states should measure and report outcomes for students in private
schools.
Question 2. As you may know, an existing program in Florida, the
McKay Scholarship for Students with Disabilities Program, does not have
to comply with these requirements [those outlined in question 1]. Would
such a program be acceptable under the Commission's recommendations?
Answer 2. At its April 9-10 hearing in Coral Gables, Florida, the
Commission heard from Diane McCain, Director, Choice Office for the
Florida Department of Education and John Winn, Assistant Secretary for
the Florida Board of Education. They testified to the Commission about
the McKay program and other choice programs in Florida.
Based on that testimony, it is our understanding that some schools
receiving McKay scholarship funds must comply with IDEA, as they are
public schools. According to Ms. McCain, ``[t]he program provides . . .
both public and private choices.'' (See Commission Hearing Transcript,
April 9, 2002, page 205, lines 9-10.) Further, ``the majority of the
students who participate in this program are choosing the public school
option.'' (See Transcript page 204, lines 6-8.) Florida is a recipient
of IDEA Part B funds. Any public agency receiving McKay scholarship
funds for a child whose parent has chosen that agency instead of the
LEA to which the child otherwise would have been assigned currently
must comply with IDEA. Therefore, if most children receiving McKay
scholarships are using them to attend other public schools, the
assertion in the question that the McKay scholarship program does not
comply with IDEA appears to be inaccurate for most recipients of McKay
funds.
Setting aside this apparent disagreement of the applicability of
IDEA to the McKay program, the Commission did have some recommendations
that would indicate whether the program would ``be acceptable under the
Commission's recommendations.'' Based on testimony by Ms. McCain and
Mr. Winn, the McKay program's major accountability measure is
individual student and parent choice. When parents are dissatisfied
with a private school, they can leave that school and select another
public or private school. Parents can obtain data from a private
school, but that school is not obligated to have its students
participate in the Florida public school testing and accountability
system and so may not have the same outcome and accountability data
available for the parent.
As noted above, the Commission recommended that all programs
receiving public funds participate in state student accountability
systems. Since Florida relies on parent choice as the ultimate measure
of accountability and does not require private schools receiving McKay
scholarships to participate in these systems, the Commission's
recommendations can properly be read as a recommendation to the state
of Florida that its McKay program incorporate such measures into its
operations.
Question 3. Does the Commission endorse allowing private schools to
charge more than the amount of the voucher (with parents making up the
difference) as is the case in Florida, or would tuition be limited to
the amount of the voucher? Did the Commission consider how to prevent
their recommended program of parental choice from evolving into a
subsidy for middle-class and affluent parents, given that less affluent
parents likely would not be able to pay additional costs?
Answer 3. Governor Branstad: As to the first question, the
Commission's report does not directly address the issue of the amount
of a private school tuition or voucher. However, when discussing choice
programs generally, the Commission made the following statement:
``The Commission heard testimony from Harvard University Economics
Professor Caroline Hoxby suggesting that in order to work properly for
students with disabilities, choice programs must provide schools with
appropriate resources. Otherwise, schools and districts will not be
sufficiently eager to educate students with disabilities especially
those with the most significant needs. Consequently, while federal
policy should not require them to do so, the Commission recommends that
in designing optional choice programs, states allow all available
revenues to which the student would have otherwise been entitled not
just IDEA funds to follow students to the schools their families
choose.''
The Commission's discussion on this point addressed choice programs
broadly. Professor Hoxby's statements clearly included all forms of
choice, such as public school choice, magnet schools, and charter
schools. Having all available funds follow a child would not address
whether the services purchased with these funds from public school, a
charter school, or a private school actually reflect the costs of
services. ``All available funds'' could be more than the cost of
private school tuition, or less than a public school's actual average
per pupil costs (such as districts who receive supplements from
nonprofit foundations in addition to local, state, and federal tax
funds). The Commission did not address the issue of private school
tuition or vouchers.
Question 4. Did the Commission analyze the consequences of and the
extent to which a parental choice system would deprive public schools
of resources that are needed to provide and improve special education?
How can we afford to develop a robust parental choice system and
continue to meet our obligation to support public special education
programs in states and LEAs?
Answer 4. As noted in the response to question three, the
Commission recommended that, ``in designing optional choice programs,
states allow all available revenues to which the student would have
otherwise been entitled not just IDEA funds to follow students to the
schools their families choose.'' The implicit presumption behind this
statement is that the funds shifted under a choice program from one
public school to another public school, to a charter school, or to a
private school, should reflect the costs of educating that child.
Public education finance systems should presumably reflect the costs of
educating children. If a number of children leave a school system, that
school system should have a marginal decrease in costs that would have
gone to serving those students. While public school systems typically
have other fixed costs related to serving students, the receiving
school system, charter school, or private school also have fixed costs.
In a reasonably run state and local education system, the cost savings
of children leaving one system should be proportionally offset by the
reduced funding received by that district from federal, state, or local
funds.
For these reasons, it is not possible to answer the first question
based on the presumption that a, ``parental choice system would deprive
public schools of resources that are needed to provide and improve
special education.'' Presumably, any system that ``deprives'' a system
of ``needed'' resources is one that simply has set funding mechanisms
that do not reflect costs properly. Further, the Commission's
recommendation that ``all available funds'' follow the child likely
reflects an assumption that many of the fixed costs of general public
schools are subsidized through other means, such as bond issues.
As to how ``we'' can afford to develop a robust parental choice
system and continue to meet our obligation to support public special
education programs in states and LEAs, the Commission apparently saw no
conflict between increased choice and improved public schools. From the
Commission's standpoint, choice includes public choice systems such as
the free right to transfer to the general or magnet public school of
one's choice, or to select a charter school. In those instances, there
is no difference between the ``obligation to support public special
education programs'' and to support choice because both are in fact
public special education programs.
Further, although not expressly stated in the Commission's report,
one of the basic premises of choice programs is that competition
improves the quality of public schools. The ability of parents to chose
schools other than that to which their children are assigned by a local
district encourages those same schools to improve their services or
offer new services to children. Choice improves the quality of public
schools. To the extent that the Commission supports choice programs, it
supports public special education programs by improving their quality
through competition. And therefore, the Commission believes that public
schools can afford to support choice and public special education to
the limited extent that those two things are not actually both public
education.
Response to Questions of Senator Clinton From Governor Terry Branstad
Question 1. One of the areas that I have become very interested in
is the connection between exposure to environmental toxins, such as
mold and lead, and students' cognitive development. I worked to include
a study of this issue in the No Child Left Behind Act, which will
increase our understanding of this connection and make recommendations
for addressing the problem. It is critical that we understand this
issue for the health and safety of all of our children, but
particularly for those with disabilities. As you cite in your report,
there is evidence that environmental hazards may lead to disabilities,
a problem that is particularly acute among minority students.
Do you have specific recommendations for how we might tackle this
issue or are there studies or experts that you recommend that I talk
with to better understand the connection between environmental health
and disabilities?
Answer 1. The Commission did not hear specific testimony on
environmental health issues and did not have any specific
recommendations regarding it. I would suggest that you review the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences report:
Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education and contact the
National Academy of Sciences that discusses these topics in depth.
Question 2. The 1997 IDEA amendments delineated under what
circumstances Interim Alternative Educational Settings could be used as
an alternative to the ``stay put'' provision. These settings are
designed for short-term placements with the goal of ensuring that
students are making progress towards meeting their academic and
behavior goals written in their IEP's and functional behavioral
assessments. Yet the current regulations fail to define and describe
exactly what these settings should look like and what standards they
should meet.
To what extent does the Commission believe we should seek to
improve the quality of these programs by ensuring that students have
access to the full range of related services and high quality
behavioral intervention services so that they can return to the
classroom and perform their best along with their non-disabled peers?
Answer 2. The Commission was not charged with looking into the
discipline provisions of the IDEA. Additionally, because of the
complexity and breadth of the issue and the short time the Commission
was in operation, we did not take up the discipline issue.
Question 3. Special education teachers are in short supply and
growing scarcer by the year. In fact, an alarming 98 percent of school
districts across the country say that one of their top priorities is to
meet the growing demand for special education teachers. Increasingly,
districts are looking to people who do not have expertise in special
education to fill these vacancies, often resorting to hiring people who
are not even certified. According to a Department of Education survey,
37,000 people without appropriate qualifications are providing
instruction to students with disabilities and an insufficient number of
faculty are being hired to train special education teachers. Last year,
over 30 percent of special education faculty positions at universities
across the country went unfilled. Until we address this problem, our
children, with or without special needs, are going to pay the price as
class sizes increase and quality of instruction declines. We just
succeeded in providing opportunities for recruiting and retaining
qualified teachers and administrators in the No Child Left Behind Act.
The Commission's report addresses this issue briefly, I am
interested to hear from you in more detail what the Commissioners
believe we should do specifically to remedy this growing problem.
Answer 3. I would refer you to the section of the Report entitled,
``Teacher and Administrator Preparation, Training and Retention,''
which contains the Commission's recommendations on these topics. Also,
the Research and Finance sections discuss personnel preparation and
training issues. For further information you may also wish to read the
transcript from the Professional Development Task Force hearing in
Denver, Colorado on March 6, 2002.
Response to Questions of Senator Clinton From Commissioner Douglas Gill
Question 1. I am pleased that your Finance Task Force has examined
the difficulty in determining how ``excess'' costs should be measured.
As you point out, special education is a shared responsibility, one
that falls on the shoulders of families, communities, school districts,
states and the federal government. However, the current calculation of
the federal government's share of excess costs relies on a national
average that falls far below the real costs of educating a child with a
disability in New York. As a result, the formula provides New York with
far fewer dollars than it takes. I believe that any definition and
distribution mechanism should recognize the cost differentials across
states. The amount that each state receives should be based on the
amount that it costs to educate a child with special needs in that
state, rather than an average of New York and Mississippi, which
results in New York getting less than true excess cost and Mississippi
getting far more than there true excess cost.
How do you propose we address these cost differentials across
states to ensure a fair, equitable and reliable formula?
Answer 1. Cost differentials across states are in relationship to
the determination of the Annual Per Pupil Expenditure (APPE). The APPE
is the first factor in the formula for determining (a) total cost and
then (b) excess cost. Currently I believe APPE is constructed as a
national average. This actually has some advantages for determining a
Congressional appropriation, but of course, any system based on
averages creates potential inequities.
A proxy for the determination of both total and excess costs that
would differentiate by both state and even to the district level is
included in the Commission report on page 31. This determination of
both total, and subsequently excess cost is important because it may
allow states and districts to differentiate between costs on a variety
of levels. For example, if you assume the APPE in to be $7000, the
second step in the formula is to multiply the APPE by the assumed cost
of special education in relationship to the applicable APPE. The most
recent research shows that expenditures in special education across a
variety of settings in a variety of states and regions is 1.9 times
whatever the APPE is in that state, setting or locale. So, if we assume
a APPE of $7000, the total cost of special education would be 1.9 times
that APPE, or $13,300. A higher or lower APPE would increase or
decrease total cost correspondingly. The next step in the proxy
calculation is to deduct the applicable APPE. This step is to ensure
that students eligible for special education are fully entitled to
their basic or general education revenue prior to the assignment of
excess costs. Therefore, using the current example of a total cost of
$13,300, a deduction of $7000 leaves an excess cost of $6300. This is
the amount upon which proportional share assignments should be made. It
is also extremely important to note that there should be some specific
guidelines and calculations used to determine APPE so that accounting
consistency is ensured and there is no unfair advantage created in the
determination of the APPE by a state or local district. Accounting
inconsistencies would result in manipulation of the formula since the
APPE represents the core element.
Question 2. I was also interested in your proposal to tie increases
in funds to improvements in student performance. As this Committee
recognized when it passed the No Child Left Behind Act, accountability
is crucial to improving student outcomes. I want to ensure however,
that we encourage true improvements in meaningful outcomes rather than
encouraging states to lower their standards so that students can meet
the bar. The last thing we want to do is to reward states for giving
out more diplomas, for example without guaranteeing that getting a
diploma is a challenge for all students.
Which indicators would you recommend using to measure
accountability? Would you favor using multiple indicators? How would we
account for differences in standards between states and if so, how do
your recommendations account for these differences?
Answer 2. Currently under IDEA states are required to develop,
submit and report on a variety of performance indicators in the area of
special education. These performance indicators should represent the
starting point for accountability incentives tied to increased funding
beyond a prescribed threshold amount. While almost everyone would agree
that increased academic achievement against a set of statewide
standards is critical, it is also important to note that increased
academic achievement outside the context of increased post school
results has little meaning. Students ability to obtain and retain
employment, enroll in postsecondary educational programs and link up
with out of school agencies and support programs is of paramount
importance.
Therefore, the use of multiple indicators across multiple
dimensions is obviously the preferred approach. Accounting for
differences in standards between states is analogous to differentiating
funding amounts. It would be difficult, if not inconsistent, to argue
for standardizing outcomes but differentiating funding amounts. It
seems to me that if we intend to recognize that the cost of providing
services is variable, it is hard to argue that the results or outcomes
will not also be variable. One notion might be to establish a threshold
of funding and a similar threshold of expected results. Differences
above either threshold would then be applicable on a state by state
basis.
Question 3. I believe that your recommendation to create a pool of
money to help districts deal with very high cost students, particularly
when they arrive in a district after budgets have been enacted, is a
good one. I am deeply concerned, however, that this solution will not
have any meaningful impact if it is not accompanied by new dollars. New
York State is struggling with deep budget cuts and has already cut
significant chunks from its education budget.
Did you examine the finances of states to see whether pooling the
high-cost students will truly have a meaningful impact?
Answer 3. There are a series of financial recommendations included
in the Commission's report, all intended to grapple with the
multiplicity of financial concerns presented by special education in
2002 and beyond. As you are aware, the Commission has recommended an
infusion of new dollars into special education. However, that infusion
is limited to some extent by discrepancies in the current excess cost
calculation and the need to link funding increases above a definable
threshold amount, up to an exceeding 40% if necessary to increased
accountability. In addition, there are two approaches that the finance
task force favors, and believes will allow states and districts to get
ahead of the escalating financial curve in special education. A simple
infusion of new money will, in and of itself not allow special
education to get beyond the financial curve, for the basic reason that
when you ``get there,'' the financial target will have moved, and we
will left the really difficult financial decisions and strategies in
special education to another generation of legislators, states, local
districts and families.
My best guess is that there are three sources of ``new'' money in
special education. The first source of ``new'' money is of course,
federal funding increases up to the threshold amount, and incremental
amounts above that threshold based on increased performance. With
respect to the complex or high need student we can set aside a
foundation amount of that ``new'' money to specifically address the
issue of a safety net process.
The second source of ``new'' money would be the investment income
generated from the risk management pool concept discussed in the
recommendations. As risk management pool funds growth potential
increases these funds can be returned to districts to offset escalating
costs in the provision of special education.
The third potential source of ``new'' money in special education
could be Medicaid recovery funding. Currently, Medicaid recovery funds
are used to replenish general fund dollars at the state or local level.
This particular issue was raised by Senator Kennedy at the hearing of
July 9. It would seem practical and in fact, prudent to allow Medicaid
dollars generated by eligible students to serve as a pool of funding to
supplement safety nets, and/or as a revenue stream for risk management
pool development. Either way, the recoverable funds should be directed
towards cost reimbursement or leverage for investment in risk pool
management.
It is my opinion based on the results of our deliberations and
expert testimony, that the combination of these options presents the
most viable approach to helping to solve the current financial crisis
in special education.
Question 4. As you know, when Congress enacted IDEA back in 1975 it
pledged to school districts it would help shoulder the burden of
guaranteeing a free, appropriate, public education to all students with
disabilities. Districts must meet their obligation regardless of the
help they get from the federal government. So essentially we have
imposed an unfunded mandate on our school districts which are already
facing significant budgetary challenges.
Answer 4. Due to the volatile nature of special education funding
and the lack of implementation of any specific remedies at this point
in time, the move from discretionary to mandatory funding was not
recommended by the finance task force. While the suggestion of
mandatory funding is laudable, it appears premature, and perhaps a bit
shortsighted. Before endorsing a mandatory funding approach for special
education the task force believes that most, if not all, of the finance
recommendations need to be implemented and evaluated. Without a clear
and thorough understanding of excess cost, establishing benchmarks for
accountability and increased funding above a definable threshold, or
fiscal flexibility and investment strategies in place, mandatory
funding does not seem prudent. While mandatory funding could be viewed
as financial fix to some extent, or the fulfillment of a ``promise'' of
sorts, it would likely create a number of unintended consequences such
as reducing, not increasing state and local flexibility, accelerating
and inflating growth rates in special education and possibly mortgaging
the future of special education without the benefit of solid and
reliable projections.
Response to Questions of Senator Clinton From Commissioner Douglas
Huntt
Question 1. I agree that this reauthorization will provide an
opportunity to improve transition planning and services so that all our
students graduate prepared to move on to college and employment,
becoming productive citizens. In New York, under the leadership of
Deputy Commissioner Lawrence Gloeckler, who is our State Director for
Special Education and Vocational Rehabilitation, we have been looking
closely at the relationship between early and effective transition
planning and supports to students and post-secondary success. We know
the connection is solid and convincing, as we have witnessed graduation
rates increase with earlier and more comprehensive transition planning.
How can we strengthen and improve transition services so that
students with disabilities are receiving them as early as their non-
disabled peers? What do you believe is the appropriate age to begin
this process?
Answer 1. One way to ensure that students with disabilities receive
transition services as early as their non-disabled peers is to
implement research-based, early identification and intervention
programs. We should provide early screening, prevention and
intervention practices to identify academic and behavioral issues in
young children. I believe that the key to having any successful
disability program is early intervention. The fact is that people with
disabilities learn a dependency model from birth. They also learn very
early discrimination, low self-esteem, and failure. Therefore,
successful transition strategies should be available to a child at age
12.
Question 2. I agree that we must strengthen interagency
coordination to improve employment outcomes. Commissioner Gloeckler
testified before this committee and he too recommended pooling existing
funds to improve transition services. Dr. Gloeckler suggested pooling
monies from IDEA, Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), Higher Education Act,
Ticket to Work, Medicaid and others to support the services necessary
for independent living, education and employment.
Specifically, which pots of money does your vision of pooled funds
encompass?
Answer 2. As you noted, the Transition Committee recommended that
Congress mandate federal inter-agency coordination of resources through
``pooling'' funds. Your question of ``which pots of money'' should be
utilized is very important to the success of the recommendation. I
believe that there are several agency pockets to be picked. First, if
IDEA funding is increased, I believe a portion of the new money should
be specified for transition services. It is one of the best long-term
investments the Congress can make. We are either going to spend a
relative little now or significantly more later. Secondly, through the
reauthorization of the Rehab. Act, the Congress should provide for
specific rehabilitation dollars to the transition pool. Thirdly, Social
Security would benefit the greatest from an effective transition
program. More people with disabilities who graduate to competitive
employment equates to less people receiving social security disability
income; therefore, I would suggest that the SSA allow for reimbursement
to VR for transition FTE's within the schools. I don't believe that
this would increase the amount of money expended by SSA because there
are many states that return unused federal money within the program.
Fourthly, one other federal agency that doesn't participate in
transition that should is the new Office of Disability Employment
Policy at DOL. Last year they received over $20 million in ``new''
money. I believe a portion should be given to the federal transition
pool. Finally, there are four or five more obvious programs that should
be pooled and I believe that they will be discussed more fully as this
issues moves forward.
Question 3. What role do you believe independent living centers and
community rehabilitation providers should play in the transition
process? To what extent and how do you believe federal legislation can
improve community programs and independent living services involvement
in the school?
Answer 3. One of the suggestions that I have made to VR in Ohio,
and should be introduced federally, is that we pay independent living
centers to provide mentors, as advocates, to participate in the IEP and
transition planning process. It would be a great resource to have
people with disabilities who have already navigated through school to
work as models to young people experiencing the same problems and
issues. Young people can see, first hand, that even though times may be
tough, there are others just like them that have made it.
Question 4. To what extent do you believe we should provide states
with the resources to develop data systems to track students' progress
as they transition from school to postsecondary education and/or
employment?
Answer 4. Your next question relates to the extent that Congress
should provide states with the resources to develop data systems to
track student progress. I believe the ultimate indicator of success for
special education is the employment rate of people with disabilities.
We need to prepare students for adult life; therefore, if we don't know
how successful transition from school to post-secondary education or
competitive employment is, then we don't know how successful our
special education program is either. Congress should ensure that
schools have the resources and the requirement to track graduation and
post-graduation success.
Question 5. For students with severe disabilities, there is a need
for assistive technology, accommodative services and individualized
supports in community, postsecondary education and workplace settings.
How do you recommend we address these needs?
Answer 5. Your last question is another very important issue for
me. I believe that advances in assistive technology will ultimately
provide the answer to low graduation and employment rates for people
with significant disabilities. As in my response to question 2, I
suggest that, if there is an increase in the IDEA funding, a portion
should be earmarked for assistive technology. In addition to the
possible increase in funding for AT, I would suggest that a child own
whatever technology the school provides for her/him. Technology is
normally tailored to meet the needs of the individual; therefore, when
a child leaves school the technology becomes useless. In other words,
the technology is stored in a closet somewhere. I believe that the
child should own the equipment and take it with them wherever they
transfer. I also believe that the Tech Act should have the sunset
provision removed and that each state program should become more
involved with the transition process within the schools.
Response to Questions of Senator Wellstone From Governor Terry Branstad
Question 1. Your report shows that more than 12,000 special
education positions were left vacant or filled with substitutes in
1999-2000. 600,000 students are being taught by uncertified teachers.
By 2008, we will need to hire an additional 200,000 special education
teachers. Yet, colleges and universities are expected to prepare only
\1/2\ the number of teachers needed to fill these vacancies. Special
Education teachers leave the field at twice the rate of regular
education teachers.
Your report recommends expanding alternative routes to
certification. It urges districts to pay teachers more and to improve
working conditions so teachers will stay in the field. It says that we
need to invest in more experiential training and it wisely and rightly
says that professional development needs to be a career long activity.
These are critical recommendations that address a critical problem.
Yet, despite the daunting tasks you have laid at the feet of states,
districts and universities, your report never recommends increasing
funds for IDEA Part D. How do you explain this?
Answer 1. On pages 68 and 71 of the report, the Commission
specifically recommends supporting continued investments in IDEA Part D
research activities as well as encouraging a ``significant increase in
Part D funding.'' Additionally, the sections on Professional
Development and Finance make it clear that the Commission favors
increases in IDEA Part D. The Commission did stop short of a specific
recommendation because those decisions are contingent on competing
priorities within the Federal budget..
Question 2. You mention that states and districts could waive
certain paperwork requirements as part of a pilot project. What
paperwork requirements would you permit a state to waive? What
paperwork requirements would you not permit a state to waive? How would
you choose which states would be able to get these waivers? How would
you determine whether their plan actually led to improved student
outcomes?
Answer 2. On page 18 of the report, the Commission recommended that
the Secretary of Education ask the states that desire to participate in
a paperwork reduction pilot project to submit proposals. While the
Commission did not have a specific proposal in mind when making the
recommendation to support a pilot project for States to waive paperwork
requirements, it was anticipated that the Department would review the
strength of the plans and select ten states for a trial run. The
Department would implement a thorough monitoring process to make sure
that the students were being well served and that successful outcomes
were being achieved.
[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]