[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15830-15834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8005]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY


Reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act

AGENCY: National Council on Disability.

ACTION: Request for written comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is 
scheduled to be reauthorized by Congress in 2002. The IDEA statute is 
made up of four parts, including the Part A General Provisions section, 
the Part B Grants to States Program (including preschool grants), the 
Part C Infants and Toddlers program, and the Part D Support Programs. 
Part B is permanently authorized. Congress must periodically review and 
reauthorize Parts C and D of IDEA (usually every 5 years) in order to 
ensure continuation of the activities included under these parts.
    The National Council on Disability (NCD) is seeking input from IDEA 
stakeholders on the reauthorization IDEA by responding to questions in 
NCD's new working paper on IDEA reauthorization (http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/reauthorizations/idea/idea.html). Specifically, NCD wants 
feedback on questions related to monitoring and enforcement, full 
funding, discipline, and, eligibility and over-representation of 
students from culturally diverse backgrounds.

DATES: NCD would like to receive your written comments on IDEA 
reauthorization by June 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Please send your responses to Martin Gould, Senior Research 
Specialist, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 
850, Washington, DC 20004, or 202-272-2022 (fax), or [email protected] (e-
mail).
    People with disabilities may obtain a copy of this notice in an 
alternative format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the previous 
paragraph.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Gould, Senior Research 
Specialist, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 
850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (Voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 
202-272-2022 (Fax) [email protected] (E-mail).
    Agency Mission: NCD is an independent Federal agency composed of 15 
members appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. 
Its overall purpose is to promote policies, programs, practices, and 
procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all people with 
disabilities, including people from culturally diverse backgrounds, 
regardless of the nature or significance of the disability; and to 
empower people with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, 
independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of 
society.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

IDEA Reauthorization--An NCD Working Paper

Background

    The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent Federal 
agency making recommendations to the President and Congress on issues 
affecting 54 million Americans with disabilities. NCD is composed of 15 
members appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. 
NCD's overall purpose is to promote policies, programs, practices, and 
procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with 
disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability; 
and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-
sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all 
aspects of society. NCD makes recommendations to the President, 
Congress and Federal agency officials concerning ways to better promote 
equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities. In addition to 
our statutory mandates, NCD's mission is to provide a voice in the 
Federal government and to Congress for all people with disabilities in 
the development of policies and delivery of programs that affect their 
lives. This was the direction that we received from over 300 disability 
advocates that convened in Texas in 1996 for a disability policy 
summit; NCD was charged by these people to investigate their concern 
regarding the shortcomings in the Federal enforcement of disability 
civil rights laws. One of those civil rights laws involves public 
special education.
    In 1975, when Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped 
Children Act, P.L. 94-142--now known as the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act IDEA--it found that the special education 
needs of more than eight million students with disabilities were not 
being met. Some students were entirely excluded from school; others 
were not receiving an appropriate education; still others had 
unidentified disabilities or were misclassified. Of those who did 
receive educational services, many were educated far away from their 
local schools (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(b)(1)-(6)). Still, Congress 
recognized that educators had the ability to instruct these students 
(20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(b)(7)).
    In that vein, Congress crafted a statute in 1975 that, if 
faithfully implemented, is designed to consistently produce quality 
outcomes for students with disabilities. The United States Code defines 
special education as ``specially designed instruction'' to meet the 
``unique needs'' of these students; each student's individualized 
education program (IEP) is to set forth his or her unique needs and 
individually designed instruction; and, each student's placement is to 
be based on the IEP and no more restrictive than necessary (20 U.S.C. 
1402(25); 34 CFR 3000.552(a)(2)(b)). If IEPs are based on the unique 
needs of students, if instruction is individually designed, if IEPs are 
faithfully implemented, and if the LRE requirements are followed, 
students will achieve quality outcomes while enjoying maximum 
interactions with their nondisabled peers. Compliance with, and 
enforcement of, these IDEA requirements is a sufficient condition for 
quality outcomes.
    In fact, in the more than two decades since its enactment, IDEA 
implementation has produced important improvements in the quality and 
effectiveness of the public education received by millions of American 
children with disabilities. Today almost 6 million children and young 
people with disabilities ages 3 through 21 qualify for educational 
interventions under Part B of IDEA. Some of these students with 
disabilities are being educated in their neighborhood schools in 
regular classrooms. These children have a right to have support 
services and devices such as assistive listening systems, braille text 
books, paraprofessional supports, curricular modifications, talking 
computers, and speech synthesizers made available to them as needed to 
facilitate their learning side-by-side with their nondisabled peers. 
Post-secondary and employment opportunities are opening up for 
increasing numbers of young adults with disabilities as they leave high 
school. Post-school employment rates for youth served under Part B are 
twice that of older adults with disabilities who did not benefit from

[[Page 15831]]

IDEA in school, and self-reports indicate that the percentage of 
college freshmen with a disability has almost tripled since 1978.
    During the course of five studies on the IDEA, from 1989 to 2000, 
NCD consistently learned that parents of children with disabilities are 
enthusiastic supporters of the law. They think it's a good law.
    As part of its advisory work during the 2002 calendar year, NCD is 
interested in securing input from people in preparation for the 
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. NCD 
is using a variety of mechanisms to secure this input: (a) through 
testimony at quarterly Board meetings; (b) via the Internet and NCD's 
Web site (http://www.ncd.gov); and (c) as a result of teleconferences, 
to name just a few ways.
    This working paper is designed to frame some of the major policy 
issues that are likely to be addressed during IDEA Reauthorization 
activities this year. It is intended to be used to outline these 
issues, and provide a set of questions which NCD is most interested in 
receiving responses to at this point in time.

Introduction

    IDEA is the most far-reaching aspect of the Federal involvement in 
public education. Rich or poor, urban, suburban, or rural, all schools 
and districts are affected by special education. IDEA is scheduled to 
be reauthorized by the US Congress in 2002. The IDEA statute is made up 
of four parts, including the Part A General Provisions section, the 
Part B Grants to States Program (including preschool grants), the Part 
C Infants and Toddlers program, and the Part D Support Programs. Part B 
is permanently authorized. Congress must periodically review and 
reauthorize Parts C and D of IDEA (usually every 5 years) in order to 
ensure continuation of the activities included under these parts.
    Nevertheless, judging from the level and intensity of IDEA-related 
activity in the 107th Congress during the debates on H.R. 1, the No 
Child Left Behind Act (reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act), it is clear that two IDEA amendments (i.e., full 
funding and discipline of students with disabilities) which occupied a 
great deal of attention during ESEA debates, but ultimately failed to 
make it out of a Congressional joint conference, will make their way 
into the 2002 IDEA reauthorization schedule.
    Some of the key policy issues and provisions of the law that are 
likely to be taken up during IDEA reauthorization during 2002 include: 
monitoring and enforcement; full funding; discipline; and, eligibility 
and over-representation of students from culturally diverse 
backgrounds. The following pages provide an outline to the selected 
issues.

Monitoring and Enforcement

    In January 2000, NCD released its evaluation of nearly two and a 
half decades of Federal enforcement of IDEA. Entitled Back to School on 
Civil Rights this report analyzed the data contained in the Department 
of Education's state monitoring reports from 1975 to 1998 to determine 
what has been happening over time. The study measured adherence to, or 
compliance with, IDEA requirements in the areas of free appropriate 
public education (FAPE), least restrictive environment (LRE), 
individualized education plans (IEP), transition services, general 
supervision, procedural safeguards and protection in evaluation of 
students with disabilities. The findings of that study indicate that 
every state and the District of Columbia were found to be out of 
compliance with IDEA requirements to some degree. This study confirmed 
what children with disabilities have repeatedly told NCD, namely, that 
too many students: did not receive FAPE, were not educated in the LRE, 
had not been able to access critical transition services, did not 
receive the benefits of procedural safeguards and protections in 
evaluation in some states over many years, placing enormous burdens on 
children and families.
    NCD's findings of 25 years worth of chronic noncompliance translate 
into real and significant problems for eligible children and their 
families, including: lack of IEPs for students; non-provision of 
critical services and supports, such as psychological counseling for 
students with mental health needs; an absence of procedural safeguards 
for parents; a lack of any transition planning for students aging out 
of special education services systems; and, a lack of general 
supervision by SEAs of LEAs. These types of compliance problems cut to 
the core of what a special education entitlement is supposed to mean.
    For example, students with disabilities must be provided with 
related services such as occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical 
therapy, and psychological counseling based on their individual needs 
as reflected in their IEPs. This requirement recognizes that without 
these related services, some students with disabilities cannot 
adequately access and learn their curricular materials.
    On pages 93 to 94 of Back to School on Civil Rights NCD's January, 
2000 education report, data indicates that:
    ``* * * OSEP found that 34 states (68%) had failed to ensure 
compliance with the related services requirements, as shown in the 
following examples:
    In Florida,* * * OSEP was informed in interviews with district and 
building-based administrators, teachers, and related services personnel 
in Agencies F, G, and H that psychological counseling, as a related 
service, is not available to students with disabilities, regardless of 
need. A building-based administrator in Agency E indicated that many 
students need psychological counseling but it is not available as a 
related service.* * * OSEP was informed by two related service 
providers in Agency G that they were instructed not to list individual 
therapy on their caseload(s). They stated that they will provide the 
service informally, but it is not reflected on the student's IEP (there 
are no goals and objectives) * * * A special education teacher in 
Agency H told OSEP that students may have to go to a center-based or 
day program if they need more intense counseling services.
    In one agency in Minnesota, OSEP found that psychological 
counseling was not considered for inclusion in any student's IEP.
    An administrator from an agency in Arizona confirmed ``that related 
services (speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy) 
are not based on the individual student's needs but are based upon the 
availability of the service provider.
    Administrators and teachers from two agencies in Oklahoma stated 
that psychological counseling services are not provided based on an 
IEP, even if a child needs such services to benefit from special 
education.
    In one district in California, an administrator told OSEP that 
there were 42 students whose IEPs called for speech services, but who 
were not receiving the services; in another district, an administrator 
reported that students whose IEP teams believed they needed mental 
health services to benefit from special education were referred to 
outside agencies for the services, rather than receiving the services 
free of charge through their IEPs.''
    These are only very recent examples of what has been a long-
standing problem (i.e., the lack or absence of provision of related 
services and supports) in the successful implementation of IDEA for 
some of the nation's most vulnerable students with disabilities. When a 
student does not have an IEP or receive the support

[[Page 15832]]

services he or she is deemed eligible for, he or she cannot achieve 
educational outcomes Those children are destined to be left behind.
    NCD needs to hear from stakeholders in response to the following 
questions:
    1. To what extent do existing Federal monitoring and enforcement 
activities support efforts to provide effective special education and 
related services to improve results for children and youth with 
disabilities?
    2. To what extent do existing Federal monitoring and enforcement 
activities inhibit efforts to provide effective special education and 
related services to improve results for children and youth with 
disabilities?
    3. What, if anything, should be changed to improve Federal IDEA 
monitoring and enforcement of SEAs and LEAs? What would that/those 
changes look like?
    4. To what extent does local capacity building need to occur for 
effective monitoring and enforcement of IDEA to be assured? How is 
local capacity building designed, implemented, and achieved?

Funding

    In 1975, when Congress originally enacted the Federal special 
education law, it authorized the Federal government to pay 40 percent 
of each state's ``excess cost'' of educating children with 
disabilities. That amount--often called ``IDEA full funding''--is 
computed by taking 40 percent of the national average per pupil 
expenditure (APPE) multiplied by the number of children with 
disabilities served under IDEA in each state. Federal funding for Part 
B has significantly increased over the last several years. Initially, 
the Federal share was about 7 percent; the Federal share is currently 
at 15 percent, which is the highest Federal contribution to date.
    IDEA authorizes a Part B grants-to-states program (accounting for 
most IDEA funding), state preschool grants, and state grants for 
infants and families together with various national programs (e.g., 
funds for research and improvement). Total funding in FY2001 ($7.4 
billion) increased by 40 percent over FY1999 and by nearly 25 percent 
over FY2000. Virtually all of these increases went for grants to states 
under Part B of IDEA. An ongoing controversy surrounding IDEA funding 
concerns whether the Federal government is living up to its ``promise 
to fully fund'' IDEA.
    The Part C Infants and Toddlers Program and the Preschool Program 
under IDEA are critical components of state's efforts to assist young 
children with special needs in developing to their potential. The 
importance of the early years in ensuring that children succeed later 
in school and life has achieved bipartisan recognition in the U.S. 
Congress and the Administration (See, for example, Congressional Record 
on No Child Left Behind Act).
    Appropriations for the Part B Preschool Grants (for children with 
disabilities ages 3 through 5, inclusive) and the Part C Infants and 
Toddlers Program (ages birth through 2 years of age, inclusive) have 
received virtually no increase over the past several years and have not 
kept pace with inflation.
    The IDEA Part D Support Programs provide the critical 
infrastructure necessary to drive improvements in all aspects of 
special education practice. The support programs provide critical funds 
for professional development, technical assistance, and dissemination 
of knowledge about promising practices, to improve results for children 
with disabilities. Funds for these vital programs have remained 
stagnant for a number of years.
    An estimated $16.9 billion would be required to provide states the 
maximum allotment allowed per student served, about 2.7 times more than 
the appropriation of $6.3 billion for FY2001. Others argue that the 40 
percent figure is an upward limit of funding and as such is a target or 
goal for Federal funding meant to assist states and local school 
districts to meet their obligation to serve students with disabilities, 
not an obligation or an unfulfilled promise.
    NCD needs to learn from the community:
    1. What, if any, changes should be considered in Federal special 
education funding formulas?
    2. Is the current distribution of the total Part D appropriation 
appropriate?
    3. Should any new Federal funding be linked to particular student 
outcomes? If so, what should those outcomes be and how would this work?
    4. Should any new funding be linked to state/local school 
districts' compliance with, and enforcement of, IDEA statutory 
requirements? If so, how would this work?
    5. Should funds be used for prevention strategies to reduce the 
number of referrals to special education? If so, how might this work?

Eligibility and Over-Representation of Students From Linguistically 
and Culturally Diverse Backgrounds

    In its 1993 report entitled Educating Students with Disabilities: 
Progress and Prospects NCD addressed the issue of over-representation 
of students from diverse backgrounds. At that time, NCD noted that some 
school districts had difficulty delivering appropriate services to 
their increasingly diverse student populations.
    ``School enrollment trends suggest that some school districts are 
having difficulty delivering appropriate services to their increasingly 
diverse student populations. In some states, the percentage of students 
enrolled in special education has increased while the general school 
population has declined. For instance, a 1991 report issued by the 
Massachusetts Department of Education, A Review of the Eligibility 
Criteria for Children with Special Needs, noted that 17 percent of 
students ages 3 to 21 were taught in special education classes during 
the 1990-1991 school year. The report acknowledged that ``over 
referrals'' to special education are a direct result of imprecise 
eligibility definitions, nonexistent or ineffective prereferral 
processes, and untrained or undertrained school personnel.''
    In addition, NCD noted that:
    ``Disproportionate overrepresentation and underrepresentation of 
culturally and racially diverse student groups in special education 
programs may be caused by inaccurate perceptions of students' 
competencies and behaviors. The results of such a set of circumstances 
could be devastating to those children and youth who are 
inappropriately placed. * * * a survey of 51 urban school districts in 
25 states reported percentage enrollment patterns for students in the 
special and general education populations (National School Board 
Association, 1990) * * * disproportionate special education enrollment 
patterns exist for certain racial groups. These kinds of enrollment, 
ability-grouping, and/or academic tracking patterns, and the apparent 
lack of Americans. Once again, it seems that there may be a 
relationship between school systems' implementation of least 
restrictive environment mandates--reflected in Table 3--and the 
disproportionate placement patterns represented in Figures 6A, 6B, and 
7. Such a relationship is also suggested by findings from other Federal 
education research studies. For example, a 1987 study of high school 
juniors reported that among special education students 66 percent were 
Caucasian, 25 percent were African American, and 8 percent were 
Hispanic American, while comparable figures among non-special education 
students were 72 percent Caucasian, 15 percent African American, and 
8.5 percent Hispanic American.''

[[Page 15833]]

    In the most recent IDEA reauthorization in 1997, the U.S. Congress 
called for greater efforts to ensure that children from culturally and 
linguistically diverse backgrounds are classified accurately and 
appropriately placed.
    Based on its own research for Back to School on Civil Rights 
(2000), the National Council on Disability reported that:
    ``In addition to the testimony of parents, special education 
advocates attest that inappropriate placement in separate settings and 
a lack of services for children with disabilities served in regular 
classrooms persist in many areas. Testimony of parents at public 
hearings, consultation with special education advocates serving rural, 
Native American, and other minority communities around the country, as 
well as studies by various government and advocacy organizations 
indicate that minority students are disproportionately represented in 
separate educational settings.[fn. 82]
    ``* * * there is a very big need on our reservation to have 
monitoring of our school districts. We've made it very clear to them 
that we have a need, that there are problems in our education system, 
and our children are not getting IDEA implemented there. And we're told 
by our district people that `yes, we agree there is a problem.' Well, 
where do we go after we get the acknowledgment and there's nothing done 
about it?''--a Native American parent from Montana[fn 83]
    Other studies find that minority children are over-represented in 
institutions such as detention and correctional facilities where access 
to appropriate educational services is inadequate to nonexistent. That 
is especially problematic considering that 40 percent of youth held in 
detention are estimated to have some form of learning disability.[fn 
84]''
    In October 2001, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
conducted a hearing on Over identification Issues Within the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Need for Reform. 
According to the Chair of that Committee ``It has become increasingly 
evident that the IDEA system allows far too many students to be wrongly 
or mistakenly classified as in need of special education services. As 
we will learn shortly, this problem strikes particularly hard at 
minority students. The issue of over identification has prompted great 
concern in Congress. It is the issue that led our colleague * * * to 
request this hearing last spring. Whether the subject is the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act or IDEA, improving our nation's education 
system starts with believing that every single American child can 
learn. To presume that any student is incapable of achieving academic 
success simply on the basis of race, ethnicity, or special needs is 
inconsistent with the principles upon which our nation is built.''
    According to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Paige who 
testified during this October 2001 hearing, ``Our third concern is that 
when you look at State data, you find that the proportion of minority 
students identified in some disability categories is dramatically 
greater than their share of the overall population. More specifically, 
African-American students are labeled as mentally retarded and 
emotionally disturbed far out of proportion to their share of the 
student population. Department of Education national data show that 2.2 
percent of all black students, but only 0.8 percent of all white 
students, are identified as mentally retarded. Similarly, 1.3 percent 
of all black students, and only 0.7 percent of all whites are 
identified as emotionally disturbed * * * This problem of 
disproportional identification of some minority groups in some 
categories of special education occurs in many other States. For 
minority students, misclassification or inappropriate placement in 
special education programs can have significant adverse consequences, 
particularly when these students are being removed from regular 
education settings and denied access to the core curriculum. Of 
particular concern is that, often, the more separate a program is from 
the general education setting, the more limited the curriculum and the 
greater the consequences to the student, particularly in terms of 
access to postsecondary education and employment opportunities. The 
stigma of being misclassified as mentally retarded or seriously 
emotionally disturbed, or as having a behavioral disorder, may also 
have serious consequences in terms of the student's self-perception and 
the perception of others, including family, peers, teachers, and future 
employers.'' It is useful to note that the most recent 2001 report of 
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled, Minority Students in 
Special and Gifted Education, echoes these themes and findings.
    NCD needs input from the community in response to the following 
questions:
    1. What policies, procedures, and/or practices can be established 
related to prevention or early intervention that can contribute to the 
elimination of the problem of over-representation?
    2. What strategies and/or policies should school districts create 
or adopt related to culturally and linguistically sensitive and 
appropriate family centered services?
    3. What strategies and/or policies should state systems of higher 
education implement to prepare, recruit, and retain qualified 
professionals from culturally and linguistically diverse groups?
    4. What strategies and/or policies should state and local school 
districts adhere to to ensure that students with disabilities from 
diverse backgrounds are included and accommodated in new statewide and 
district-wide assessments of student performance?
    5. How can we preserve the protections afforded students and 
parents under Federal and state special education regulations and 
correct the problems of unnecessary over-referral of students from 
diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds for special education?
    6. Are there additional policy or implementation barriers that 
should be considered in order to eliminate problems related to over-
representation?

Discipline

    In 1997, Congress made significant changes to IDEA and attempted to 
strike ``a careful balance between the LEA's [local educational agency] 
duty to ensure that school environments are safe and conducive to 
learning for all children, including students with disabilities, and 
the LEA's continuing obligation to ensure that children with 
disabilities receive a free appropriate public education.'' This 
current law does not immunize a student with a disability from 
disciplinary procedures but these procedures may not be identical to 
those for children without disabilities.
    In brief, if a student with a disability commits an action that 
would be subject to discipline, school personnel have the following 
options: (a) Suspending the student for up to 10 days with no 
educational services provided; (b) conducting a manifestation 
determination review to determine whether there is a link between the 
student's disability and the misbehavior. If the student's behavior is 
not a manifestation of a disability, long term disciplinary action such 
as expulsion may occur, except that educational services may not cease. 
If the student's behavior is a manifestation of the student's 
disability, the school may review the student's placement and, if 
appropriate, initiate a change in placement; placing the student in an 
interim alternative education setting for

[[Page 15834]]

up to 45 days (which can be renewed) for situations involving weapons 
or drugs; and (c) asking a hearing officer to order a student be placed 
in an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 days (which 
can be renewed) if it is demonstrated that the student is substantially 
likely to injure himself or others in his current placement. School 
officials may also seek a Honig injunction as discussed previously if 
they are unable to reach agreement with a student's parents and they 
feel that the new statutory provisions are not sufficient.
    On January 25, 2001 the General Accounting Office (GAO) submitted a 
report entitled Student Discipline: Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 
Following the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA), there was a perception of a double standard for 
student discipline for students with disabilities. As a result, 
Congress directed the GAO to conduct a study to determine how the IDEA 
Amendments of 1997 affect the ability of schools to maintain a safe 
environment conducive to learning. Some of the results of the GAO 
study, which primarily involved a survey of principals of 272 middle 
and high schools from around the country, indicate, for example, that 
(a) students with disabilities are receiving the same punishments as 
their general education peers for violent acts they commit in school, 
contrary to what some lawmakers stated in legislation last year; (b) 
the same proportion of each group of students who commit violence, 
about one in six, is expelled from school or placed in an alternative 
educational setting as a consequence of their actions; (c) 74 percent 
of responding principals generally regarded their overall special 
education discipline policy, which is essentially a combination of IDEA 
and local policies, as having a positive or neutral effect on their 
schools' levels of safety and orderliness; and (d) the remaining 26 
percent of responding principals rated the policies as having a 
negative effect.
    During the 2001 calendar year, two ``discipline'' amendments 
relating to children with disabilities were offered and accepted during 
Congressional debates on H.R.1 (107th Congress), the No Child Left 
Behind Act. Both amendments would have altered the scope of protection 
and procedural safeguards for certain IDEA eligible students. These two 
amendments did not survive the joint House-Senate Conference on H.R.1 
but are sure to make their way into IDEA Reauthorization debates.
    NCD needs to hear from the community:
    1. Are the discipline procedures under IDEA clear and 
understandable?
    2. To what extent is the current IDEA discipline policy properly 
implemented?
    3. What are challenges and obstacles to implementing the IDEA 
discipline policy?
    4. To what extent are resources available to school districts, 
educational personnel, and parents to ensure implementation of the IDEA 
discipline policy?
    5. Should changes be considered to the current IDEA discipline 
policy?
    6. To what extent are state and local school districts not 
complying with the current IDEA discipline policy? How can this policy 
be enforced?

Conclusions

    One of the nation's best tools in promoting education equity and 
excellence is a public education system that is focused directly on 
accountability, achievement, and enforcement. To deal with the existing 
realities when it comes to Federal education policymaking, during IDEA 
reauthorization, NCD will use a variety of forums and mechanisms to 
solicit stakeholders' input to advise the Administration and Congress 
regarding a range of critical policy issues. These policy issues and 
suggested policy options for reauthorization go to the heart of 
education reform for over 6 million students with disabilities and 
involve: (a) Accountability in Federal education spending, (b) 
achievement and progress in the K-12 arena, and (c) fidelity of 
implementation in all aspects of the IDEA entitlement program.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2002.
Ethel D. Briggs,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 02-8005 Filed 4-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P