Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation
of Federal Disciplinary Provisions (20-MAY-03, GAO-03-550).
In the 2000-01 school year, more than 91,000 special education
students were removed from their educational settings for
disciplinary reasons. Under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), schools are required to provide educational
services to special education students who are removed from their
educational settings for more than 10 days in a school year.
Congress asked GAO to determine where disciplined special
education students are placed, the extent to which local school
districts continue educational services for these students, and
how the U.S. Department of Education provides support and
oversight for special education disciplinary placements. To
address these objectives, GAO conducted a study, using surveys
and site-visits, of special education disciplinary placements in
three states--Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-550
ACCNO: A06933
TITLE: Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance
Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Provisions
DATE: 05/20/2003
SUBJECT: Education program evaluation
Federal legislation
Internal controls
Special education
Strategic planning
Dept. of Education Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring
System
Dept. of Education Continuous
Improvement Monitoring Process
Illinois
Maryland
North Carolina
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-550
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, U. S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
May 2003 SPECIAL EDUCATION
Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary
Provisions
GAO- 03- 550
In the districts and schools in the three states GAO studied, disciplined
special education students were primarily placed in in- school suspension
rooms or out- of- school suspensions at home, according to survey
respondents. These short- term settings were used most frequently because
most of the special education students in these schools and districts were
removed from their regular educational settings for periods of 10 days or
less, according to respondents. Special education students who were
removed for longer than 10 days were primarily placed in alternative
schools or homebound placements. In addition to considering the length of
the student*s removal when deciding where to place disciplined special
education students, school and district officials considered the cost and
availability of placement options and the nature of the student*s offense
and corresponding disciplinary action.
Schools and school district officials in the three states reported that
they provided a range of services to disciplined special education
students. However, how the schools and school districts provided these
services varied significantly. For example, some school districts used
self- paced instructional packages to provide educational services to
disciplined special education students. Other school districts, however,
used tutoring by special education instructional personnel to provide
educational services for similar students. In addition to educational
services, some disciplined special education students had access to other
services such as counseling.
The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states and
school districts for special education disciplinary placements by
providing information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-
assessments, improvement plans, and data and conducting on- site data
collection visits in selected states. However, according to some state and
local officials, this guidance has not been specific enough. In
particular, the regulations do not provide illustrative examples
specifying whether the days of in- school suspension should be counted as
days of removal under the 10- day rule. In addition, Education*s IDEA
oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance because it relies
on state monitoring efforts, including state self- assessments and
discipline data that have been shown to contain some inaccuracies.
Education*s next generation of its oversight system has recently been
approved by the department and will be implemented in calendar year 2003.
This new oversight system includes a component to validate data used by
the system to make federal oversight decisions. In the 2000- 01 school
year, more than 91, 000 special education
students were removed from their educational settings for disciplinary
reasons. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
schools are required to provide educational services to special education
students who are removed from their educational settings for more than 10
days in a school year. The Committee*s Ranking Minority
Member asked GAO to determine where disciplined special education students
are placed, the extent to which local school
districts continue educational services for these students, and how the U.
S. Department of Education provides support and oversight for special
education
disciplinary placements. To address these objectives, GAO conducted a
study, using surveys and site- visits, of special education disciplinary
placements in three states* Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. GAO
recommends that the
Secretary of Education issue supplemental guidance to state and local
education agencies to assist them in implementing IDEA's disciplinary
provisions. www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 550. To view the
full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact
Marnie Shaul at (202) 512- 7215 or shaulm@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO-
03- 550, a report to the
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, U. S. Senate
May 2003
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary
Provisions
Page i GAO- 03- 550 Special Education Letter 1 Results in Brief 3
Background 5 Disciplined Students Were Primarily Placed in In- School
Suspension Rooms and Out- of- School Suspensions at Home 7 Schools and
School Districts Provided a Range of Services to
Disciplined Special Education Students 9 Education*s Guidance and
Oversight of Disciplinary Placements Has Been Limited 12 Conclusions 17
Recommendation for Executive Action 18 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
18 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20
State Selection 20 Site Visits 21 Surveys 21 Appendix II Comments from the
Department of Education 23
Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 27 GAO Contact 27
Staff Acknowledgments 27 Tables
Table 1: Most Commonly Available Services and Providers by Short- and
Long- Term Placement Type in Selected Schools and Districts in Three
States 11 Table 2: Local School Districts Selected for Site Visits 21
Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 550 Special Education Abbreviations
CIFMS Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System CIMP Continuous
Improvement Monitoring Process IDEA Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act IEP Individualized Education Program
This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.
Page 1 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
May 20, 2003 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions United States Senate
Dear Senator Kennedy: In the 2000- 01 school year, education officials
removed more than 91,000 special education students, including students
with serious emotional disturbance and specific learning disabilities,
from their current school settings for disciplinary reasons. This was
approximately 1.4 percent of all special education students who received
public educational services that year. Little is known, however, about
where local school districts and schools placed these disciplined special
education students or the extent to which these students continued to
receive services during their removal.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) enacted in
1990, special education students are entitled to specific rights and
services. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow the removal of
special education students from their current educational settings for any
violation of school rules, but imposed limitations on how long these
students could be removed without educational services. Specifically, IDEA
requires schools to provide educational services to special education
students who are removed from their current educational settings for more
than 10 cumulative days in a school year. Schools are required to provide
these students with the educational and related services outlined in the
student*s individualized education program (IEP). 1 In 1999, the U. S.
Department of Education issued federal regulations that implemented the
new IDEA special education discipline requirements; states and local
school districts have also added their own disciplinary policies.
1 The term *individualized education program* refers to a written
statement that is developed for each student with a disability that
specifies the goals and objectives for the student, describes the services
the student will receive, and specifies the extent to which
the student will participate in the regular education settings with
nondisabled peers and/ or in the general curriculum adopted for all
students.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
Because little is known about the disciplinary placements of special
education students, you asked us to determine: (1) where special education
students are placed when they are removed from their educational settings
for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent local school districts in
selected states continue educational services for special education
students who are placed in disciplinary settings while they are
disciplined, and what types of services are provided; and (3) how
Education provides support and oversight for disciplinary placements used
for special education students.
Because there were limited national data about where special education
students were placed when they were removed from their educational
settings for disciplinary reasons, we conducted an in- depth study of the
use of disciplinary placements for special education students in the
middle and high school grades in three states* Illinois, Maryland, and
North Carolina. We used national data on the number of students served
under IDEA and the extent to which these students were disciplined to
determine the states, school districts, and schools to be included in our
study. These states were selected because they differed in the number and
percent of special education students who were disciplined and the number
of disciplined special education students who were removed from their
educational settings on a short- term or long- term basis. We collected
data for school year 2001- 02, the most current data available. In these
states, we surveyed a total of 36 district special education
administrators and 78 school principals from school districts representing
a range of demographic characteristics. We had response rates of 83
percent (30 school districts) for our district special education
administrators* survey and 63 percent (49 schools) for our survey of
school officials. 2 Some respondents to the district and school surveys,
however, did not
answer or provide complete information for all of the questions contained
in their respective surveys.
Therefore, for some issues, we report on a subset of the total responses.
Additionally, while we did not verify the reported data, the information
collected during the site visits to selected districts and schools was
consistent with information collected though the surveys. Our results are
2 School district special education directors, student service directors,
and other staff, or a combination of these district personnel responded to
GAO*s survey of school district special education directors. School
principals, assistant principals, special education coordinators, and
other staff, or a combination of these school personnel responded to GAO*s
survey of middle and high school officials.
Page 3 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
not generalizeable to the population of districts and schools in these
three states or nationally. We also reviewed agency documents to determine
the federal role in providing oversight and guidance for disciplinary
placements and examined agency databases for national data regarding the
discipline of special education students. In addition, we
interviewed federal officials, national education organizations*
representatives, and special education experts concerning disciplinary
placements for special education students. We conducted our work between
May 2002 and April 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Appendix I explains our methodology in more detail. In
the districts and schools in the three states selected for our study,
disciplined special education students who were removed from their regular
educational settings were primarily placed in two short- term suspension
settings: in- school suspension rooms or out- of- school suspensions at
home, according to survey respondents. The length of a student*s removal
was a key consideration in placement decisions. Because most special
education students were removed from their regular educational settings
for periods of 10 days or less, in- school suspension
rooms or out- of- school suspensions at home* short- term disciplinary
settings* were the most frequently used placement settings, according to
respondents. Special education students who were removed for longer than
10 days were primarily placed in alternative schools or homebound
placements. Several other factors affected placement decisions, including
the cumulative number of days a student had been removed during the school
year, the cost and availability of placement options, and the nature of
the student*s offense and corresponding disciplinary action.
School and school district officials in the three states we studied
reported providing a variety of services in different settings to
disciplined special education students. However, the degree to which the
service included
active instruction and the qualifications of the service provider varied
significantly. For example, some school districts used self- paced
instructional packages to provide educational services to disciplined
special education students. But, others used more active instruction, such
as tutoring by special education instructional personnel. A disciplined
special education student may also have access to other services such as
counseling, though the availability of these services varied from district
to district. School district officials reported that they generally did
not provide any services to assist returning special education students in
Results in Brief
Page 4 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
acclimating to their regular educational setting after a disciplinary
placement, and the provision of such services is not required by law.
The Department of Education provided guidance and oversight to states and
school districts for disciplinary placements of special education students
by providing information on federal requirements and reviewing state self-
assessments, improvement plans, and data, and conducting on- site data
collection visits in selected states. However, according to some state and
local education officials, this guidance was not specific enough. In
particular, the regulations do not provide illustrative examples
specifying whether the days of in- school suspension should be counted as
days of removal under the 10- day rule. Some state and local education
officials also said that the information contained in the regulations was
difficult to access. In addition, Education*s oversight system, called the
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, may not detect possible
noncompliance because it relies on state monitoring efforts, including
state self- assessments and discipline data that contain some
inaccuracies. According to Education, some state monitoring systems were
not effective
at identifying compliance issues with federal requirements and the
information that the states subsequently reported to Education may have
contained inaccurate information. States* discipline data contain some
inaccuracies because of inconsistent data collection, entry, and
verification within and across school districts. Education*s next
generation oversight system, known as the Continuous Improvement and
Focused Monitoring System, has been recently approved by the department
and will be implemented during calendar year 2003, according to Education
officials. This new system was designed to focus the attention of the
department*s monitoring efforts on the states that need the most support
to improve their performance. In addition, Education plans to conduct site
visits to selected states to validate data used by the system to make
federal
oversight decisions. In this report we are recommending that the Secretary
of Education issue supplemental guidance on IDEA*s disciplinary provisions
to state and local education agencies to assist them in implementing the
provisions, particularly on determining whether a day of in- school
suspension should be counted as a day of removal under the 10- day rule.
Education indicated that it provided sufficient guidance and did not see
the need for supplemental guidance. However, some of the school and school
district officials we interviewed indicated that additional guidance on
this topic is needed.
Page 5 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the unique needs of
children with disabilities, including specific learning disabilities,
speech and language impairments, mental retardation, and serious emotional
disturbance. The law mandates that a free appropriate public education be
made available for all eligible children with disabilities, ensures due
process rights, requires an IEP for each student, and requires the
placement of children with disabilities in the least restrictive
environment. In school year 2002, more than 6 million children aged 3
through 21 received education services under the act at a federal cost of
approximately $8 billion. In addition, state governments provided more
than $48 billion in additional funding to implement the act*s
requirements.
Under IDEA and the 1999 implementing federal regulations on discipline,
schools must follow certain procedures to remove a student from his or her
educational setting for disciplinary purposes. Specifically, schools may
suspend a special education student for up to 10 school days in a given
school year without providing educational services. 3 Under the
regulations, school personnel in consultation with the child*s special
education teacher are required to determine the educational services
needed to enable the child to appropriately progress in the general
curriculum and appropriately advance toward achieving the goals set out in
the child*s IEP. 4 In addition, schools may repeatedly suspend a special
education student on a short- term basis (not more than 10 days) even if
the suspensions cumulatively total more than 10 school days, so long as
educational services are provided to the student after the tenth
suspension day in a given school year. The regulations also allow schools
to remove a special education student for up to 45 days to an interim
alternative educational setting if the student commits a weapons or drug
violation at school or is determined by a hearing officer to be a danger
to self or others. Additionally, if school officials request an extension,
a hearing officer may extend this 45- day removal period.
3 Where a special education student*s misconduct is not a manifestation of
the student*s disability, the student is subject to the same disciplinary
procedures applicable to children without disabilities, including long-
term suspensions (more than 10 days) and expulsions. However, the school
must still provide educational services that enable the child to progress
appropriately towards the student*s IEP goals.
4 It is important to note that for students removed for behavior that is
not a manifestation of their disability, the IEP team determines the
extent to which services are necessary to enable the child to
appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately advance
toward achieving the goals set out in the child*s IEP. Background
Page 6 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
Because school districts are provided considerable leeway in determining
disciplinary placements, they choose many settings to function as
disciplinary placements including, for example, in- school suspension
rooms, alternative schools, out of school suspensions at home, and
homebound placements. The difference between homebound placements and out-
of- school suspensions at home is that homebound placements were generally
used for extended periods and involved service provisions, while out- of-
school suspensions at home were used for short periods of under 10 days
and generally did not include the provision of instructional services.
School personnel and the student*s IEP team 5 are responsible for making
decisions regarding the appropriateness of disciplinary settings. A
hearing officer or court may also make the decisions.
In 2001, we studied how IDEA regulations affected the ability of schools
to maintain a safe learning environment and whether regular and special
education students are disciplined in a similar manner. 6 We found that
IDEA regulations played only a limited role in affecting schools* ability
to properly discipline students and that in cases of serious misconduct,
regular and special education students were disciplined in a similar
manner. Although the study briefly touched upon the role alternative
placements play in the disciplinary process for special education
students, a description of the characteristics of these settings and the
extent of their use fell outside of the study*s scope. Moreover, the study
focused on serious student misconduct (drugs, weapons, assault, rape,
sexual assault, and robbery) and did not focus on less serious offenses.
5 The term *individualized education program team* refers to the group of
individuals, including school administrators, regular and special
education teachers, and parents, who are responsible for developing,
reviewing, or revising an individualized education program for a student
with a disability. 6 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Student
Discipline: Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act, GAO- 01- 210 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 25, 2001).
Page 7 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
Disciplined special education students were primarily placed in one of two
short- term disciplinary settings: in- school suspension rooms or out- of
school suspension at home, according to survey respondents in three
selected states. The length of a student*s removal was a key consideration
in placement decisions. Because most disciplined special education
students were generally removed for short periods of time, these two
short- term disciplinary settings were the most frequently used. Students
removed for longer periods (exceeding 10 days) were more likely to be
placed in settings with greater access to service providers, such as
alternative schools or homebound placements. Other factors affecting
placement decisions included the cumulative number of days a student had
been removed, the cost and availability of placement options and the
nature of the student offense. Our survey results indicated that the
placements of disciplined special education students were similar to those
of disciplined regular education students.
Of the 32 school officials who responded to our survey and could provide
student removal rate data, 31 reported that either in- school suspension
rooms or out- of- school suspensions at home were the most frequently used
placements for disciplined special education students. 7 While district
special education administrators and school officials primarily used
shortterm placements, such as in- school suspension rooms and out- of-
school suspensions at home, to discipline special education students, they
also reported placing special education students in longer- term
disciplinary placements such as alternative schools and homebound
placements. 8 According to survey respondents, about two- thirds of the
districts and
one- quarter of the schools used these types of placements; they were used
much less frequently than short- term settings. In addition to the length
of the student*s removal, school and district administrators reported
considering several other factors when making placement decisions,
including the cumulative number of days the student
7 Seventeen of the 49 respondents to the survey of middle and high school
officials did not provide removal rate data for disciplined special
education students. The extent to which districts officials were
knowledgeable of schools* use of in- school suspension settings varied. As
a result, we were unable to collect reliable information about the use of
inschool suspension rooms from district administrators.
8 Short- term disciplinary placements refers to those placements that are
used to discipline special education students for 10 days or less. Longer-
term disciplinary placements refers to those placements that are used to
discipline special education students for more than 10 days. Disciplined
Students
Were Primarily Placed in In- School Suspension Rooms and Out- of- School
Suspensions at Home
Page 8 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
had been removed during the school year, the cost and availability of
placement options, and the student*s offense. First, because federal law
provides that special education students may not be removed for more than
10 days in a school year without the provision of services, schools and
districts considered the cumulative number of days a special education
student had previously been removed when making placement decisions for
special education students. If a special education student was about to
exceed or had already exceeded the 10- day limit, schools and districts
generally placed the student in settings with access to service providers,
such as alternative schools or homebound settings with services.
Second, due to cost and administrative concerns, most schools and
districts in the states we visited only placed disciplined students in
those placements to which they had readily available access. Under special
circumstances, such as unique student needs or court orders, schools would
remove students to placements that they did not normally use such as
residential schools that may be located outside of the school district. If
a placement with greater access to service providers was not available or
was too costly, some school and district officials reported that they
reduced the length of the student*s removal or eliminated the removal all
together. In addition, the schools that we visited in our study sometimes
used the practice of *banking* removal days, or allowing them to be
*saved* and served later, to make sure that the total number of days a
student was removed did not exceed 10 for a given school year. According
to national education organization officials, *banking* removal days is
not an uncommon practice because it allows school officials to ensure that
disciplined students do not reach the 10- day limit early in the school
year. Finally, students* offenses and required disciplinary actions were
also
considerations in placing a disciplined student. The schools districts we
visited operated under a student conduct code that required specific
disciplinary action for various offenses. The student conduct code
therefore often dictated placement decisions. For example, a weapons or
drugs offense might require placement at an alternative school, whereas a
lesser infraction, such as being disruptive, might require an in- school
suspension.
Disciplinary placements of special education students were similar to
those of other students, based on our survey results. In addition, schools
and districts generally used the same criteria in determining where to
place students. However, administrators reported considering cumulative
days that a student had been removed when placing special education
Page 9 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
students but not when making placement decisions for regular education
students. In the 2001- 2002 school year, schools and school district
officials in the three states that we studied reported providing a range
of services to disciplined special education students. However, how
schools and school districts provided educational and other services
varied significantly. School district officials reported that they
generally did not provide any services to assist returning special
education students in acclimating to their regular educational setting
after a disciplinary placement, and the provision of such services is not
required by law. The educational services provided to students in
disciplinary settings
varied considerably by the degree to which the service included active
instruction. For example, in one school, educational services for a
disciplined student consisted of an academic packet, which was generally
the material the student would miss when he or she was away from the
regular educational setting. When presented with a packet, it was up to
the student to work through and complete the packet. In another district,
educational services in disciplinary settings included active instruction,
such as tutoring by special education instructional personnel. However,
the amount of time spent giving the disciplined student this instruction
varied considerably. For example, in one district, a special education
student in a disciplinary setting received 6 hours of active instruction
per day, while in other schools they received no instruction. Further,
according to the district officials we surveyed, the qualifications of
instructional staff varied widely across placements and disciplinary
settings. For example, the survey respondents in our study reported that
educators at alternative schools were more likely to be certified, while
instructional staff in in- school suspension rooms and homebound
placements ranged in qualifications from fully certified to uncertified.
Schools and School
Districts Provided a Range of Services to Disciplined Special Education
Students
Schools and School Districts Provided Educational Services, but These
Services Varied Significantly
Page 10 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
Special education students in disciplinary placements may have access to
other services in addition to educational services, although the
availability of these services varied. The type of service provided
usually depended on the needs of the student as defined in the student*s
IEP as well as the
availability of services 9 within the school district. In addition to
educational services, other services could be made available during
disciplinary placements to meet the requirements of the IEP, according to
survey results. These services could include: counseling and other related
services. Counseling by a guidance counselor was also commonly made
available to disciplined students. Related services such as speech
pathology and occupational therapy were less available. The availability
of services and providers was in large part determined by where a student
was placed
while being disciplined. For example, students placed in alternative
schools generally had access to most services and providers, whereas
disciplined students placed in out- of- school suspensions at home rarely
had access to services other than educational services. See table 1 for
services and providers by placement type.
9 We define services as being available when they are available to
disciplined special education students 50 percent or more of the time in a
given disciplinary placement. Services Other Than
Educational Services Were Sometimes Available, though Their Availability
Varied by Placement
Page 11 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
Table 1: Most Commonly Available Services and Providers by Short- and
LongTerm Placement Type in Selected Schools and Districts in Three States
Placement type Services available in majority of placements a Providers
available in majority of placements b
Short- term placements
In- school suspension Remediation/ tutoring and counseling. Teacher. c
Out- of- school
suspension at home Services other than educational rarely available in
this setting. Long- term placements
Alternative school Remediation/ tutoring, counseling, substance abuse
counseling, related services, and employment transition services.
Teacher, guidance counselor, psychologist/ psychiatrist, related service
provider, and teacher*s aide. Homebound placement Remediation/ tutoring
and related
services. Teacher and related service provider.
Nonpublic or private school placement Remediation/ tutoring, counseling,
related services, and employment transition services.
Teacher, academic specialist, psychologist/ psychiatrist, related service
provider, teacher*s aide, one- toone crisis intervention specialist,
social worker, and employment transition specialist. Residential program
Remediation/ tutoring, counseling,
related services, and employment transition services.
Teacher, psychologist/ psychiatrist, related service provider, teacher*s
aide, social worker, and employment transition specialist. Source: GAO
school and district survey data in three selected states. a We define
services as being available when they are available to disciplined special
education
students 50 percent or more of the time in a given placement. For example,
38 of 49 respondents indicated *in- school* suspensions were used, and 28
of that 49 reported that *related services* were available in that type of
placement.
b We define providers available as being available to special education
students 50 percent or more of the time in a given placement. c Teacher
includes certified regular education or special education teachers.
School districts generally did not provide reintegration services for
disciplined special education students returning from long- term
placements. Education*s regulations do not require the provision of
reintegration services for students with disabilities, and only about
onethird of school districts we surveyed indicated that they provided
them. While such services are not required, national education
organizations* School Districts Generally
Did Not Provide Services to Assist Students Transferring from a Long- Term
Disciplinary Placement
Page 12 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
officials agreed that the provision of reintegration services helps
students make a successful transition back to their regular educational
setting.
When reintegration services were provided, they varied greatly. For
example, in one school district, school officials allowed students to
transition slowly from their long- term disciplinary setting, gradually
increasing the amount of time per day that students spent in their regular
educational settings. However, in some instances, reintegration services
were limited. For example, in one district, officials said that
reintegration services consisted of receiving a folder of information
about the students experiences at the alternative school, and in other
schools these services consisted of a meeting, prior to the student*s
return to the regular educational setting, between the school
administrators, the disciplined student, and his or her parents.
Education provided guidance and oversight to states and school districts
for disciplinary placements of special education students by providing
information on federal requirements and reviewing state self- assessments,
improvement plans, and data, and conducting on- site data collection
visits in selected states. However, the guidance on certain aspects of
disciplinary placements was limited. In addition, Education*s oversight
system may not detect possible noncompliance. The system relies on the
results of state monitoring efforts that are not always reliable and
discipline data that contain some inaccuracies. Education*s next
generation oversight system, known as the Continuous Improvement and
Focused Monitoring System, has been recently approved by the department
and will be implemented in calendar year 2003, according to Education
officials. This new system was
designed to focus the attention of the department*s monitoring efforts on
the states that need the most support to improve their performance. In
addition, Education plans to conduct site visits in selected states to
validate data used by the system to make federal oversight decisions.
Under its responsibilities for IDEA implementation, Education provided
general guidance to state and local education officials on disciplinary
placement issues. However, according to some state and local education
officials, this guidance was not specific enough. For example, while the
department provided assistance in the form of information and technical
assistance concerning the general implementation the act*s disciplinary
requirements, the assistance generally did not include enough details on
disciplinary placement questions, such as how to determine whether the
days of in- school suspension should be counted as days of removal under
Education*s Guidance
and Oversight of Disciplinary Placements Has Been Limited
Education Provided General Guidance on Special Education Disciplinary
Placements
Page 13 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
the 10- day rule. Further, national education organization officials also
cited the limited federal guidance on in- school suspension.
According to some district officials, while Education*s regulations
describe IDEA*s 10- day rule, the guidance is limited because the
regulations do not provide illustrative examples concerning how the 10-
day rule could be applied to a range of circumstances at the local level.
Under the 10- day rule, schools can discipline special education students
for up to 10 days in a school year without providing educational or other
services specified in their IEPs. However, some school and district
officials indicated that being provided with examples that illustrate how
to determine whether the days of in- school suspension should be counted
as days of removal under the 10- day rule would assist them in ensuring
that
disciplined special education students are not without their IEP services
for more than 10 cumulative days in a school year.
Education officials suggested that state and local education officials who
need clarification of the 10- day rule refer to the disciplinary section
of the preamble to the regulations and the discussion of comments on the
act*s
disciplinary requirements. The information that Education identified
concerning in- school suspension as it applies to the 10- day rule is not
in the federal regulations. Rather, the discussion of in- schools
suspension appears only in a 1999 Federal Register notice, 10 a document
that is less accessible to the public than departmental regulations. As a
result, some school officials may have been unaware that the Federal
Register notice accompanying the IDEA discipline regulations contained
criteria to be used in determining whether days of in- school suspension
should be counted as days of removal under the 10- day rule. In this
notice, Education provided general criteria for determining whether a day
in inschool suspension should be counted as a day of suspension, but it
does not provide details and examples to assist schools and districts in
applying the criteria. 11 Our findings regarding the limited guidance
available and
10 See 64 Fed. Reg. 12619 (1999). 11 According to Education*s criteria, an
in- school suspension would not be considered a day of suspension as long
as the child is afforded the opportunity to continue to appropriately
progress in the general curriculum, continue to receive the services
specified on his or her IEP, and continue to participate with nondisabled
children to the extent they would have in their current placement.
Page 14 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
accessible on in- school suspensions are consistent with the findings of
the 2002 President*s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. 12
Education*s oversight system may not detect possible noncompliance
because it relies on state- submitted information that may not be
reliable. Therefore, Education may be unable to identify the appropriate
level of oversight for particular states. According to Education
officials, Education*s next generation oversight system* known as the
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System* was recently
approved by the department and will be implemented during calendar year
2003. This
new system was designed to focus the attention of the department*s
monitoring efforts on the states that need the most support to improve
their performance. In addition, Education plans to conduct site visits in
selected states to validate data used by the system to make federal
oversight decisions.
Under IDEA, states have oversight responsibility for monitoring the
implementation of a broad set of requirements under the act, including
disciplinary placements. States have responsibility for monitoring
districts* implementation of IDEA requirements and preparing reports for
Education, documenting the results of their oversight efforts. States
generally fulfill this responsibility by engaging in activities such as
gathering discipline data and by requiring districts to complete reports
documenting compliance with requirements.
Education has responsibility for overseeing state compliance with IDEA
requirements. In 1998, Education implemented an oversight system known as
the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP). The oversight system
relies on the administrative review of information obtained primarily from
two sources: (1) state monitoring efforts and (2) state discipline data.
Education uses information obtained from these two sources to determine
the appropriate amount of federal oversight that a state will receive,
such as whether or not a site visit to the state will be conducted. If the
information submitted indicates that the state is in
12 The President*s Commission found that Education*s regulations
implementing IDEA are unreasonably complex and burdensome for state and
local agencies to comply with. For more information on the President*s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, see
A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families,
U. S. Department of Education, President*s Commission on Excellence in
Special Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(July 2002). Education*s Oversight
System May Not Have the Necessary Information to Determine if Disciplinary
Requirements Were Met
Page 15 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
compliance with IDEA requirements or has proposed strategies to come into
compliance, Education officials continue to track IDEA implementation but
generally do not visit the state. However, if the department*s
administrative review determines that the state did not effectively
identify areas of noncompliance and other areas needing improvement,
Education officials will conduct one or more site visits to the state to
assess the situation and assist the state in developing improvement
strategies.
Under the CIMP oversight system, states are expected by Education to
undertake a number of monitoring activities to demonstrate their
compliance with IDEA requirements. It is the responsibility of each state
to work with a diverse group of stakeholders, including state and local
education officials, parents, and advocacy groups, to evaluate the state*s
effectiveness in achieving compliance with IDEA. This generally involves
conducting a self- assessment and developing an improvement plan to
correct any deficiencies. According to Education officials, states were
strongly encouraged to document state performance, as part of the
selfassessment process, by submitting an analysis of their monitoring
findings of the school districts. States were also encouraged to document
corrective actions taken by districts to address the findings and any
enforcement activities undertaken by the state to ensure correction.
Education used this information to document state performance and to
determine if states were meeting their general supervisory
responsibilities.
According to Education, some state monitoring systems were not effective
at identifying compliance issues with federal requirements, and the
information that the states subsequently reported to Education may have
contained inaccurate information. During the period July 1, 1999 through
February 25, 2003, Education officials conducted federal IDEA monitoring
site visits to 12 states and the District of Columbia. In 6 of these
locations, Education officials noted that the state IDEA monitoring
systems were not effective in identifying and correcting noncompliance
with federal requirements. For example, in a site visit to one state,
Education officials found that despite the fact that psychological
services are supposed to be offered, five school districts that they
visited were not providing them
unless they were required to by a due process hearing. However, the state
education officials had identified four of these five districts as
compliant. Further, Education*s 2001 Twenty- third Annual Report to
Congress on the
Page 16 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 13 noted
that many states still do not have effective systems for identifying
noncompliance, or, when they do identify noncompliance with federal
requirements, they do not have effective follow- up or enforcement
strategies to ensure that public agencies correct the noncompliance.
In addition to relying on state monitoring systems, Education also relies
on state- collected discipline data as a source for its administrative
review of states* compliance with IDEA requirements. However, the
discipline data used by the oversight system contain some inaccuracies,
although according to Education officials, its accuracy is improving. For
example, Education has taken steps to validate the accuracy of the data
through the regular application of data checks by its contractor and by
providing technical assistance to state special education data managers on
the collection of discipline data of the semiannual meeting at the
Education Information Advisory Committee of the Council of Chief State
School Officers. Some reasons for inaccuracies in the data included:
unclear definitions; inconsistent data collection, entry, and verification
within and across school districts; and poor response rates from schools
and districts. The 2002 President*s Commission on Excellence in Special
Education also identified data quality issues, including inconsistent
reporting and data formats. 14 While Education officials acknowledged that
the special education discipline data contain some inaccuracies, they
indicated that states were taking measures to improve the accuracy of the
data. In addition, Education officials reported that they expect the
accuracy of the discipline data to improve as school officials become more
familiar with the data collection process. At this point, these data are
the only discipline data available, so Education still is relying on them,
although the agency recognizes their limitations.
Education is planning to implement the next generation of its CIMP
oversight system known as the Continuous Improvement and Focused
Monitoring System (CIFMS), which was approved in April 2003. According to
Education officials, the new system will implement an integrated, four
13 See To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children
with Disabilities: Twenty- third Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U. S.
Department of Education (Mar. 2002).
14 For more information on the President*s Commission on Excellence in
Special Education, see A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for
Children and Their Families, U. S. Department of Education, President*s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2002).
Page 17 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
part accountability strategy, with an emphasis on targeting those states
most at risk for being out of compliance. This strategy includes (1)
verifying the effectiveness and accuracy of states* monitoring,
assessment, and data collection systems; (2) focusing more oversight and
monitoring attention to states at high risk of compliance, financial, and/
or
management failure; (3) supporting states in assessing their performance
and compliance and in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement
strategies; and (4) focusing Education*s intervention on
states with low ranking performance on critical performance indicators.
This focused approach is aligned with the recommendations of the
President*s Commission on Excellence in Special Education and was designed
to focus the department*s monitoring efforts on the states that need the
most support to improve their performance. 15 In addition, because
Education*s monitoring relies so heavily on state- reported data regarding
performance and compliance, Education has developed plans to ensure the
effectiveness of states* data collection systems. To this end,
Education officials told us that Education staff would visit 20- 30 states
in the next year to meet with state officials to verify the effectiveness
of their data collection and monitoring systems.
Each year, the federal government makes a considerable investment to
ensure that a free appropriate public education is available for children
with disabilities. In 1997, the Congress amended IDEA to allow the removal
of special education students from their current educational settings for
any violation of school rules, but imposed limitations on how long these
students could be removed without educational services. District and
school officials in our survey reported that they are providing a range of
services in different settings to disciplined special education students.
However, they reported that additional guidance, especially more
specificity concerning whether the days of in- school suspension
should be counted as days of removal under the 10- day rule, would be
helpful. Education*s current guidance concerning how these provisions
should be implemented is broad, thus leaving local school and school
district officials flexibility in interpreting how these requirements
should be implemented. Because state and local school district officials
may not have the specific information that they need to comply with
federal
15 For more information on the President*s Commission on Excellence in
Special Education, see A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for
Children and Their Families, U. S. Department of Education, President*s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (July 2002).
Conclusions
Page 18 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
requirements, disciplined special education students may not receive
timely protections and services. We recommend that the Secretary of
Education issue supplemental guidance to state and local education
agencies on IDEA*s disciplinary provisions that includes examples to
assist states and local education agencies in implementing the provisions
in the law related to disciplinary placements. In particular, the guidance
should include examples for applying IDEA*s 10- day rule, including
illustrations on how to determine whether a day of in- school suspension
should be counted as a day of removal.
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
Education officials indicated that they provided sufficient guidance on
IDEA*s disciplinary provisions and did not see the need for supplemental
guidance. Education cited four existing documents that discuss IDEA
discipline issues. In addition, Education officials provided new
information in their comments on the draft that indicated that they plan
to validate state discipline data as part of their newly approved
monitoring
system. Consequently, we modified the report to reflect Education*s
validation plans. Education officials also provided technical comments
that we incorporated into the report where appropriate. Education*s
comments are reproduced in appendix II.
We continue to believe that additional guidance is needed; however, we
modified the report to reflect that clarification of how to count in-
school days under IDEA*s 10- day rule was the primary area in which
guidance was needed. Education officials also noted that any guidance
should be provided after IDEA has been reauthorized. We concur with
Education*s proposal to issue any additional guidance after the
reauthorization has been completed.
Education included in its comments new information concerning the data
verification aspect of its IDEA monitoring systems and, as a result, we
withdrew a recommendation on data validation. We reviewed the information
provided* Office of Special Education Programs Memorandum 03- 05, dated
April, 8, 2003* as well as technical comments that described Education*s
plans to implement a process to verify state monitoring, assessment, and
data as part of its focused monitoring system. We acknowledge Education*s
efforts in this regard and encourage the Recommendation for
Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Page 19 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
department to continue to periodically validate the information that is
used by its IDEA monitoring systems.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of the report until
30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees,
and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge
on GAO*s Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. Please contact me on (202)
512- 7215 or Harriet Ganson on (202) 512- 7042 if you or your staff have
any questions about this report. Other contacts and major contributors are
listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours, Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 20 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions asked GAO to determine: (1) where special education
students are placed when they are removed from their educational settings
for disciplinary purposes; (2) to what extent local school districts in
selected states continue educational services for special education
students who are placed in disciplinary settings while they are
disciplined and what types of services are provided; and (3) how Education
provides support and oversight for disciplinary placements used for
special education students. In our review of disciplinary placements, we
focused on middle school and high school students and their placements,
but did not include information about disciplinary placements for
elementary school students. Elementary school information was excluded
because National Center for Education Statistics data indicated that
elementary schools experienced fewer disciplinary problems than middle
schools or high schools. Our study collected information about
disciplinary placements from the 2001- 2002 school year, the most current
full year data available.
To respond to this inquiry, we conducted an in- depth review of the use of
disciplinary placements for special education students at middle and high
schools in three states* Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. These
states were selected because they represented different levels of
disciplinary activity, such as the number and percent of special education
students who were disciplined and the number of disciplined special
education students who were removed from their educational settings on
either a short- term (10 days or less) or long- term (more than 10 days)
basis. In these states, we surveyed a nonprobability sample of 36 district
special education administrators and 78 administrators from school
districts of varying characteristics. In addition, we reviewed U. S.
Department of Education documents to determine the federal role in
providing oversight and guidance for disciplinary placements and examined
Education databases for national data regarding the discipline of special
education students. We also interviewed federal officials, national
education organizations* representatives, and special education experts
concerning disciplinary placements for special education students.
We selected three states in which to conduct our study of disciplinary
placements based on several criteria. To ensure sufficiency of data to
analyze, we identified 19 states that disciplined 1,000 or more special
education students during the 1999- 2000 school year. These 19 states were
divided into three categories, (above average, below average, and average)
depending upon the percent of special education students disciplined per
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology State Selection
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 21 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
year, with the national average being 1.12 percent. We then chose
candidates from each category and spoke with state administrators to
determine the extent to which these states collected discipline data. On
the basis of these criteria, we selected Maryland (above average: 1. 80
percent), Illinois (below average: 0. 55 percent), and North Carolina
(average: 0.89 percent) for analysis.
In each state, we visited two school districts of varying characteristics.
The districts were selected for variance in the number of special
education students served, their geographic location* urban, suburban, or
rural* and when possible, their overall rate of free and reduced school
lunches (with the objective of gathering information from schools and
districts serving a range of family incomes). During these visits, we met
with district administrators; high school, middle school, and alternative
school principals; administrators; and teachers when they were available.
We also toured disciplinary placements.
Table 2: Local School Districts Selected for Site Visits State Local
school district City
Illinois City of Chicago School District 299 Chicago Illinois Wesclin
Community Unit School District 3 Trenton Maryland Allegany County Public
Schools Cumberland Maryland Baltimore City Public School System Baltimore
North Carolina Guilford County Schools Greensboro North Carolina Wake
County Schools Raleigh Source: GAO analysis of Education*s data.
Additionally, we visited state Departments of Education and spoke with
special education directors about their state*s policy and procedures for
disciplinary placements. We distributed 2 survey questionnaires* one to
selected school district
special education directors and one to middle and high school
administrators* in Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina. These surveys
focused on the use of disciplinary placements for special education
students during school year 2000* 2001. The school district survey was
sent to 12 selected school district special education administrators in
each state for a total of 36 surveys. The surveyed districts were selected
using
criteria similar to that used in determining the sites to be visited*
variance in the number of special education students served, their
geographic Site Visits Surveys
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 22 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
location* urban, suburban, or rural* and when possible, their overall rate
of free and reduced school lunches. We received 30 responses to the survey
(83 percent). A second survey obtained information concerning special
education disciplinary placements from selected middle and high school
administrators. Using similar selection criteria to the school district
survey, we distributed surveys to 26 middle and high school administrators
in each state for a total of 78 school surveys. We surveyed one middle
school principal and one high school principal from schools located within
the 12 districts selected for the district survey. We also selected an
additional two principals from large, urban districts to address size and
diversity issues. We received 49 responses to the survey (63 percent).
This nonprobability sample review of schools and districts in three states
does not allow us to draw conclusions about all schools and districts
covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorization.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
Page 23 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education Appendix II: Comments from the
Department of Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education Page 24 GAO- 03-
550 Special Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education Page 25 GAO- 03-
550 Special Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education Page 26 GAO- 03-
550 Special Education
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 27 GAO- 03- 550 Special Education
Arthur T. Merriam Jr., (617) 788- 0541 Tamara Fucile and James Kim made
significant contributions to this report, in all aspects of the work
throughout the assignment. In addition, Katherine Bittinger contributed to
the initial design of the assignment, Ronald La Due Lake assisted in the
design of the school district and school surveys; Lise Levie assisted in
the management of the school survey; George Quinn, Jr., conducted the data
analysis for both surveys; Behn Miller provided legal support; and Corinna
Nicolaou assisted in the message and report development. Appendix III: GAO
Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments
(130155)
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000
TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800
U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***