[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        IDEA DISCIPLINE POLICIES

                                 ______


                          HON. CASS BALLENGER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 30, 1994

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the agreement 
that was adopted by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
conference regarding students with disabilities that bring weapons to 
school or engage in violent behavior.
  As everyone in this Congress knows, for effective learning to happen 
in America's schools, classrooms must be free from violence and the 
threat of danger to students and their teachers. Unfortunately, in 
certain circumstances, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
[IDEA] seems to work at cross-purposes in creating a safe learning 
environment.
  I want to make it clear that I support the important procedural 
safeguards in the IDEA that protect the educational rights of a 
disabled student. These safeguards require that each disabled student 
receive an individualized education program that defines the 
educational setting in which the student will be taught. The law, and 
its subsequent interpretations, allow a disabled student to be 
suspended according to regular school discipline policies when the 
student's behavior is not related to his disability. However, if the 
student's behavior is not related to his disability, the law provides 
that he may be removed from the educational setting for a maximum of 10 
days. And if the parent objects to the school's proposed permanent 
change in placement, once the 10 day suspension is completed, the 
student must be returned to the current educational placement until the 
completion of due process proceedings.
  In general, I believe the so-called stay-put provision correctly 
protects a disabled student from being randomly removed from the 
educational setting called for by his individualized education program. 
However, we must also admit, that when the stay-put provision was 
written, no one envisioned a disabled student bringing a gun to school 
or violently attacking another student. Although rare, some disabled 
students have engaged in this type of behavior. Because of the 
uncertainty of the law, especially when it is unknown if the student's 
behavior is related to the disability, school administrators have been 
forced to keep students in the classroom they fear may be dangerous
  I believe that it is high time to update the stay-put provision.
  Of the two provisions in the Senate bill, I generally preferred the 
Gorton amendment, because it not only dealt with students bringing 
weapons to school, but also with those students engaging in life 
threatening behavior.
  During Senate floor debate, some Senators argued that the term ``life 
threatening behavior'' was unclear and could be easily abused by 
teachers and school administrators to remove disabled students from the 
regular classroom. But in my reading of the Gorton amendment, the 
definition clearly indicates that it means violent, life-endangering 
attacks by one student against another. There is no way that this 
carefully written definition could be construed to apply to minor 
occurrences like hitting or shoving or looking at another student in a 
threatening manner. Opponents also argued that this term could have 
been applied to accidental self-inflicted injuries, but a simple change 
could have clarified that it only means violent behavior against 
another person.
  The Jeffords amendment, which dropped all reference to life 
threatening behavior, clearly did not go far enough in addressing the 
issue of violence. Something more than the Jeffords amendment was 
needed.
  The compromise reached is not as decisive as the Gorton amendment, 
but I believe it moves us in the direction of serious action on this 
issue. I'd like to review the important elements of the compromise.
  First, the compromise requires the Secretary of Education to widely 
disseminate the IDEA's policy on discipline of students with 
disabilities. I believe that some of the furor over this issue is the 
result of the Education Department's unresponsiveness in issuing clear 
guidance to schools on ways to deal with disabled students who are 
violent. Lacking concise rules, school administrators have been 
reluctant to do anything with a disabled student who is violent, 
fearing they will violate the IDEA and incur some sort of Federal 
sanction. Clear communication from the Department of Education will 
help relieve some of the confusion that has built up.
  Next, the Department must issue a report to Congress by January 31, 
1995 on the prevalence of students with disabilities engaging in life 
threatening behavior and bringing weapons to school. The opponents of 
action on this issue complain that there is no hard evidence 
substantiating a problem of violence by students who are disabled. Yet, 
if opponents had their way and Congress had taken no action on the 
stay-put issue, during next year's reauthorization, Congress would 
still have no real information about the issue. This report will give 
Congress vital information it needs to make a informed decision on 
the issue during next year's reauthorization. It is crucial that the 
Department move expeditiously on this issue to meet the January 31 
deadline.

  The compromise also retains the Jeffords language allowing an 
extended removal from the current educational placement for a student 
that brings a weapon to school, and cross-references the definition in 
the Gun Free Schools Act so the term ``weapon'' means a firearm. There 
was a concern that the term ``weapon'' was not well defined, and since 
this amendment is only a 1-year provision, conferees felt it would be 
better to narrow the applicability of this provision to firearms. 
During the reauthorization process, I intend to work toward a workable 
definition of weapon because we know that a great deal of violence in 
school has to do with knives and other objects used in a dangerous 
manner.
  The compromise allows, but does not require, up to a 45-day placement 
in an alternative educational setting for the student, and could extend 
that alternative placement until the completion of due process 
proceedings. This ensures that, as long as there is a dispute among the 
parties about the permanent educational placement for the student, the 
student will remain in the alternative placement and not be returned to 
the previous setting, as current law requires. I believe that 45 days, 
or nine school weeks, provides an adequate time frame for the student's 
emergency removal from the classroom.
  I believe the arguments against the Gorton amendment were overstated 
and that the Gorton amendment should have been adopted by the 
conference. Short of that, however, I believe the compromise on this 
provision addresses the serious problem of a student bringing a gun to 
school, and also moves us further along to finding the correct approach 
to deal with disabled students that engage in life threatening behavior 
and bring other types of weapons to schools.
  I would like to thank Congressman cliff Stearns for his active 
involvement and helpful advice to me on this issue, and I look forward 
to working with him when Congress reauthorizes the IDEA in 1995. I 
would also like to commend Senator Gorton for his tireless efforts on 
this provision, and hope he knows that, because of his work, Congress 
is dealing with the issue of violence by disabled students in a much 
more comprehensive fashion than would have otherwise been the case.

                          ____________________