FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 25, 2003 For more information, please contact: Paul Marchand (202) 783-2229 Katy Beh Neas (202) 347-3066 Leslie Jackson (301) 652-2682 Jane West (202) 289-3903 Stephen Spector (301) 306-7070

S. 1248, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003

The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities is a coalition of approximately 100 national disability organizations working together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the self determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003, S. 1248, is a drastic improvement over The Improving Educational Results for Students with Disabilities Act, H.R. 1350, thanks to the leadership of Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). The Education Task Force applauds the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for developing bipartisan legislation that seeks balanced compromises for many complex issues.

CCD believes S. 1248 makes several improvements to IDEA that will result in students with disabilities meeting higher standards and achieving greater educational results. These provisions include:

• POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORTS: The bill takes pro-active steps so that students receive the supports they need to manage their behavior. The bill also provides funding to schools to expand behavior supports and whole school behavior interventions.

• ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS: The bill successfully addresses the need for states to do more around alternate assessments by creating Section 662(b)(3). 

• SCHOOL TO LIFE TRANSITION: The bill includes several provisions to increase the success of special education students who transition from school to the rest of their life. Specific requirements are added to the Rehabilitation Act and the bill strengthens the transition provisions of the Individualized Education Plan.

• PERSONNEL:  The bill considers the “highly qualified” provisions of No Child Left Behind and applies them to special education teachers. It strengthens and expands personnel preparation and personnel development authorities for both special education personnel and general educators.

• NO CAP ON ATTORNEYS FEES: The bill does not cap the amount of fees a court may award parents who prevail in due process proceedings or allow the State (which is sometimes a defendant in these actions) to determine the rate that parents’ attorneys are paid. 

• NO WAIVER PILOT: The bill does not include a pilot that would allow states to waive any IDEA requirement that might result in a real or perceived paperwork burden.

Despite these improvements, the bill contains several provisions of concern. They include:

• SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES:  The bill removes short-term objectives from a child’s Individualized Education Plan and replaces them with a statement of the child’s progress toward annual goals that includes quarterly reports. This new provisions will make it more difficult for parents and schools to measure student progress. Moreover, this provision may actually increase the paperwork requirements of IDEA.

• LIMITATIONS ON DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS:  The bill limits due process protections for students with disabilities.  Specifically, the bill’s opportunity to cure provisions are unnecessary and will in some, if not many, instances be used to coerce parents into giving up their children’s due process rights, (especially as parent’s attorneys will most likely not be present at the meeting.)  The provision is unnecessary because current law already gives districts opportunities to resolve the problem.

• The bill also establishes a statute of limitations that limit the amount of time parents have for filing a due process hearing request and also for appealing a due process decision to court. This provision will leave those children who have experienced the most egregious and long-standing denials of FAPE without a remedy. The short statute creates incentives for parents to rush to litigation rather than trying to work with their school districts to solve problems. For example, ninety days (or less if the state so chooses) for parents to file an action in court at the conclusion of administrative proceedings is woefully insufficient for un-represented parents since, unlike plaintiffs in other civil rights cases, parents cannot file a civil action in court under IDEA without a lawyer. By restricting the authority that hearing officers have to remedy procedural violations, the bill creates incentives to fail to provide proper notice and makes the short statute even more unfair to parents. Even more concerning, the Senate bill allows states to set their own, very short statutes of limitations.

·         Finally, the bill makes several changes that allow the same rights to schools and parents but does not take into account those instances where local education agencies may be policing themselves. While the Senate language is better than provisions that applied only to parents, as exist in the House bill and current law, simply saying that a provision applies to both parties does not rectify the inherent and serious power imbalance that exists between parents and schools.  Parents need better access to legal information and advice about their rights. 

• DISCIPLINE:  S. 1248 alters the process by which students with disabilities can be disciplined for various violations of school code of conduct. While a stark improvement over the House bill, the Senate bill permits schools to remove certain students from their current placement for specific violations even if the violation was a result of the child’s disability.

• MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT:  Among the most important issues to parents and disability advocates is the effective implementation and enforcement of IDEA. While the Senate bill makes improvements in these areas, it leaves too many major decisions to the U.S. Department of Education. For example, the bill does not define what constitutes substantial non-compliance, nor does it set specific benchmarks that are the same from state to state. The bill does not include Part C in the monitoring and enforcement activities. Finally, the bill does not set sanctions that cannot be influenced by policymakers.

• RESEARCH: The bill redirects the research function from the Office of Special Education Programs to the Institute for Education Science. IES has no track record in special education research.  Moreover, this move will increase the disconnect between research and practice and will seriously jeopardize research on the needs of children with significant disabilities and low incidence disabilities. 

• PERSONNEL STANDARDS: The "highly qualified" definition for special education teachers needs clarification to ensure that all teachers new to the profession are trained in state-approved special education preparation programs. In addition, an appropriate definition of “highly qualified” for related services personnel should be included in S. 1248.

• FUNDING:  Parents and disability advocates support mandatory full funding of IDEA. However, they are concerned with the provisions in S. 1248 that enable local education agencies to funnel IDEA funds to non-IDEA activities when states have never effectively met their obligations to students with disabilities.  

CCD looks forward to continuing to work with the Senate to improve educational opportunities for all students, including students with disabilities.

1331 H Street, NW, Suite 300 • Washington, DC  20005 • PH 202/783-2229 • FAX 467-4179 • Info@c-c-d.org • www.c-c-d.org