[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 50 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E567-E568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E567]]


            INTRODUCTION OF THE IDEA IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996

                                 ______


                     HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 18, 1996

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the renewal of 
America's special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act [IDEA] Improvement Act of 1996.
  This measure is the product of 16 months of work, building consensus 
to improve this law that has transformed the lives of children with 
disabilities. For 20 years, children with disabilities have been 
assured a free, appropriate public education. But as one of my Democrat 
colleagues said in one of our IDEA hearings, we no longer question 
whether children should be educated, but how well their education is 
being done. We see and know that education transforms individuals who 
were once thought to be helpless into productive, working, taxpaying 
citizens.
  This legislation, which I will summarize, is based upon certain 
foundational principles.
  First, we need to improve IDEA because children with disabilities can 
and should have a fighting chance to achieve the American dream. We 
need to make the system work better for children and their families, 
for teachers and schools, and for the taxpaying citizens who work hard 
to pay the bill. We want quality education for children, not just a 
process.
  Second, where we recognize that resources are tight, we direct more 
money to schools to provide services to children. We also reduce 
paperwork and other administrative burdens, freeing more resources to 
educate young people.
  Third, where we find unnecessary and costly conflict and discord, 
this legislation renews a focus on education and cooperation.
  And fourth, where we have identified confusion in the process of 
educating children with special needs, we have sought to provide 
certainty and understanding, based upon consensus and common sense. The 
area of this law that has probably drawn the most attention is the area 
of discipline. The IDEA Improvement Act of 1996 contains clear 
procedures for removing dangerous students from the classroom, with 
instructions to determine whether the behavior is a manifestation of a 
student's disability. If a child's wrongdoing has nothing to do with 
his or her disability, schools should have authority to discipline in a 
manner consistent with the way they discipline other children. Schools 
need authority to maintain safe classrooms, and children with 
disabilities need protections against arbitrary discipline.
  Let me say a few words about the process which has brought us to this 
point, and where we go from here. For 16 months, through three staff 
drafts, numerous hearings and public and private meetings, we have 
sought to find agreement in the many difficult issues affecting renewal 
of our Nation's special education law. This bill represents much of 
that consensus, but not all of it, and certainly not the end of it. And 
while I believe this is an excellent bill, no individual or 
organization will wholeheartedly support it all. That is the nature of 
this process. But the process thus far has given me, and should give 
all Americans, hope for a successful conclusion.
  For the past several weeks, my friend from Michigan, Representative 
Dale Kildee and I have been negotiating on many issues in this bill. We 
have come to many agreements which are reflected in this legislation. 
There are some issues reminding. Between today and the House 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families markup, scheduled 
for Wednesday, April 24, Members and committee and personal staffs from 
both parties will continue seeking to resolve issues. Some may be 
completed in time to be included in a chairman's mark. Others will be 
held for possible bipartisan amendments, in subcommittee or full 
committee.
  In the interest of citizens and Members who wish to review this bill, 
its text will be available most quickly on the House Opportunities 
Committee World Wide Web site, which is ``http://www.house.gov/eeo/'', 
and soon through the Thomas service of the Library of Congress. I 
welcome comments and cosponsors, encourage citizens to understand that 
this is a work in progress, and urge Members to support the bill.
  Following is a summary of how the IDEA Improvement Act of 1996 
addresses key issues of interest:

 Overview of The IDEA Improvement Act of 1996 As Introduced April 18, 
                                  1996

       The following are the major improvements to the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act in the IDEA Improvement Act 
     of 1996:
       1. Funding Formula (Sec. 611). The bill makes a ten-year 
     transition from a ``head-count formula based on the number of 
     children with disabilities counted in the State, to a 
     population-based formula with a factor for child poverty. The 
     new formula would be based 85% on number of children in the 
     State and 15% on State poverty statistics. Transition years 
     would use a declining fraction (90% in FY 1997 to 0% in FY 
     2006) under the current formula and an increasing fraction 
     (10% in FY 1997 to 100% in FY 2006) under the new formula.
       2. Least Restrictive Environment and State Funding Formulae 
     (Sec. 612(a)(4)). The bill requires States to use ``placement 
     neutral'' funding formulae for distributing funds within the 
     State.
       3. Discipline/``Stay-Put'' (Sec. 615). Under current law, a 
     school cannot suspend or expel a disabled student for more 
     than 10 days except where the student has brought a gun to 
     school. With guns, the school may remove a student from 
     school for 10 days, and then may place the student in an 
     ``interim alternative placement'' for up to 45 additional 
     days. During that period, the student's Individual Education 
     Program (IEP) team must agree on a new placement. If the 
     parents and school disagree, the student will remain in their 
     interim alternative placement for the pendency of any due 
     process proceedings. This bill addresses the classroom safety 
     issue, but maintains protections against arbitrary placement 
     changes.
       The student's IEP will include behavior management 
     techniques to help avoid disruptive, dangerous, and 
     inappropriate behavior.
        The bill adds the following categories to the ``firearms'' 
     category in current law, permitting removal from the 
     classroom to an alternative educational placement for up to 
     45 days:
       Bringing weapons to school;
       Bringing illegal drugs to school or illegally distributing 
     legal drugs;
       Engaging in an assault and battery (striking another person 
     with the intention of bringing about harmful or offensive 
     contact which is not legally consented by the person); or
       By proof of substantial evidence, representing a danger to 
     oneself or others.
       These terms and, in the case of the first three categories, 
     which school official would have the discretion to remove the 
     student would be defined through State law or policy.
       The bill requires a review by the IEP team of whether the 
     child's action was a manifestation of the disability. The 
     team will consider the implementation of behavior management 
     strategies in the child's IEP, the appropriateness of the 
     placement, and other information presented by the parents. 
     Where an action is not disability related, any school 
     discipline policy applied to nondisabled students may be 
     equally applied to the disabled student.
       4. Mediation (Sec. 615(d)). Three-fourths of the states 
     have established mediation systems on their own accord and 
     have been successful in reducing the number of formal 
     disputes. The bill requires states to offer voluntary 
     mediation to parents prior to any administrative or judicial 
     dispute. Attorneys would not be permitted to participate for 
     either side in mediation, and attorney's fees would not be 
     available for mediation proceedings.
       5. Categorization/Eligibility (Sec. 602(3)(B)). The bill 
     permits States to extend use of the ``developmental delay'' 
     definition for children aged 3 to 5 (current law) up to age 
     9, but otherwise maintains the current categories.
       6. Discretionary Programs (Part D). The bill reorganizes 
     and consolidates the existing discretionary programs 
     (currently Parts D-G), and I). Subpart I grants broad 
     authority for national projects to the Secretary of 
     Education. Subpart 2 permits State grants for reform and 
     improvement of their special education and early intervention 
     systems, with an emphasis on in-service and preservice 
     professional development for general educators and special 
     educators. Subpart 3 maintains the current Parent Training 
     Center program.
       7. Reduction of State Education Agency Funds Reservation 
     (Sec. 611(c)). Current law only requires that at least 75% of 
     IDEA funds flow through to local schools. The bill would 
     require states to pass at least 90% through to LEAs, with the 
     remainder reserved for administrative and statewide 
     activities, unless the State seeks a waiver permitting 
     retention of an additional 15%.
       8. Restructuring of Parental Notice Requirements 
     (Sec. 615(c-d)). IDEA currently promotes the use of 
     consolidated notices that notify parents of a host of 
     procedural and

[[Page E568]]

     other rights under the act. The prior written notice and the 
     notification of procedural safeguards requirements in current 
     law have been separated for the purpose of clarity. The prior 
     written notice will only address actions proposed or refused 
     by the local education agency (LEA). The new procedural 
     safeguards notice provision details the frequency and content 
     of the notice to be given to parents.
       9. Attorney's Fees (Part B). The bill maintains the current 
     law on attorney's fees by permitting them for parents who 
     prevail against the school. Parents are required to have 
     notified the school district of their concerns at some point 
     prior to filing to obtain attorney's fees. In cases where 
     there are multiple issues in dispute, the judge will be 
     permitted to award fees only on the issues upon which the 
     parents prevailed.
       10. Policy Letters (Sec. 605(c)). Currently, many U.S. 
     Dept. of Education ``policy letters'' are treated as having 
     regulatory authority without being submitted to public 
     comment or without having underlying regulatory authority. 
     The bill limits the applicability of such letters to the 
     parties to whom they have been addressed.
       11. Parent's Right of Refusal for Initial Evaluation and 
     Consent for Evaluation Not Construed as Consent for Services 
     (Sec. 614(a)(1)(C)). The bill clarifies that the parents of a 
     child who has been referred for an initial evaluation have 
     the right to refuse that evaluation placing the onus of 
     making an administrative appeal on the school district where 
     it believes that a child needs special education services. 
     This provision would also clarify that parental consent for a 
     child's evaluation shall not be construed as consent for 
     delivery of special education services based on that 
     evaluation.
       12. Commingling of Funds (current Sec. 613(a)(9)(A)). The 
     bill maintains the requirement that funds must be expended 
     for the benefit of special education students, but removes 
     the prohibition on commingling of funds. This provision will 
     only permit commingling of Federal and state special 
     education funds. This change will not permit consolidation of 
     Federal special education funds with other Federal funds or 
     with other non-special education funds.
       13. Personnel Standards and Personnel Development. The bill 
     maintains the current requirement that States establish and 
     enforce personnel standards (Sec. 612(a)(15)). In the bill's 
     newly configured discretionary programs, the State 
     Improvement Grant program will dedicate 75% of appropriated 
     funds to personnel development (Sec. 674).
       14. Narrow Exceptions for Maintenance of Local Education 
     Agency (LEA) Effort (Sec. 613(a)(2)(B)). The bill permits 
     school districts to reduce special education expenditures in 
     the following limited circumstances: replacement of higher 
     cost staff with lower cost staff, such as with retirement; 
     departure of particular high-cost students from the LEA; 
     decreases in special education enrollment; and one-time 
     expenditures of funds by the LEA.
       15. Payment for Placement of Students in Private Schools 
     without the Consent of or Referral by the Public Agency 
     (Sec. 612(a)(9)(C)). This change would prevent tax-payer 
     financed private school education where the public schools 
     have never been given the opportunity to determine if the 
     child can be served in public schools. This section would 
     require parents to give 10-day written notice to receive 
     reimbursement private, special education school tuition 
     without LEA consent.
       The bill would establish that local schools must be 
     permitted to conduct an initial evaluation of a student prior 
     to publicly-funded private school placement. Exceptions would 
     include: (1) where parents are illiterate or cannot write 
     English; (2) where providing notice would result in delay 
     that would likely result in physical or serious emotional 
     harm to the child; (3) where the school prevents the parent 
     from providing notice; and (4) where parents did not receive 
     notice of this requirement.
       16. Disclosure of Evaluations and Recommendations 
     (Sec. 615(f)). This provision would require schools and 
     parents to disclose to the other party any evaluations and 
     recommendations based on those evaluations 15 days prior to 
     any due process proceeding. This change will ensure that both 
     parties are given the opportunity to review evaluations of a 
     child's special education needs that the other party intends 
     to use in a due process hearing.
       17. Modification of Requirements to Achieve Innovative 
     Delivery of Services (Sec. 613(g)). This provision will apply 
     to 10 LEAs or groups of LEAs selected by the Secretary of 
     Education who have demonstrated excellence in providing 
     services to students with disabilities and who have obtained 
     the cooperation of parents of students with disabilities in 
     the area. Selected LEAs will be permitted to modify existing 
     Part B requirements for improving services to disabled 
     students and for improving the operation of the local special 
     education system. Analytic instruments will be developed to 
     quantitatively determine the effectiveness of the 
     modification, and determine the ability for replication of 
     successful changes.
       18. State Application for Part C (formerly Part H) (current 
     Sec. 678). The bill essentially maintains the current Part H 
     program as Part C. The bill will enable Part C funding 
     applicants to reduce application process paperwork by 
     eliminating the requirement that all State policies and 
     assurances pertaining to Part C be filed with every 
     application to the U.S. Department of Education. This 
     language corresponds to the language in Part B.

                          ____________________