Click here to return to OFCN's Main Index Page.
--- Friday --- April 19, 1996 --- Vol. 6 --- No. 36 ---
D #### ##### #### ### #### #### ##### ### #### ####
A ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
I #### #### #### ## ## #### ## ## ##### #### ## ##
L ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
Y ## ## ##### ## ### ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## ####
THE NATIONAL UPDATE ON AMERICA'S EDUCATION REFORM EFFORTS
A service of the National Education Goals Panel
__________ __________
VIDEO TIME | SPOTLIGHT |
Two new videoconferences on | |
the Learning Disabled are | READ THE LABEL |
scheduled for May and June. | |
The conferences are produced by | Labeling a child |
the Correctional Education | emotionally disturbed or |
Association and the National | learning disabled ensures |
Adult Literacy and Learning | that student placement in |
Disabilities Center. | special ed. An ongoing |
"Screening for Learning | debate among educators |
Disabilities in Correctional | centers on where a special |
and Adult Education Settings" | needs child should receive |
is set for 17 May 1996, from | an education -- assigned to |
12-2 p.m. EST. Topics | special ed or mainstreamed |
discussed include staff | in a regular class. |
training, screening methods | |
designed for incarcerated | Special ed is a rose with |
students, learning styles and | many thorns. A dispropor- |
cognitive preferences, and | tionate number of minori- |
where to send students with | ties are assigned to |
suspected learning disabilities | special ed. Some say the |
for diagnosis. | confluence of poverty and |
A second conference, | other environmental factors |
"Teaching the Learning Disabled | creates "signs of |
in Correctional and Adult | disabilities." (#1) |
Education Settings," is | |
scheduled for 7 June, from | In New York City, a new |
12-2 p.m. EST. Viewers will | policy is lambasted by some |
learn about: creating positive | as providing a financial |
classroom environments, various | incentive to label children |
instructional interventions, | as special ed students.(#4) |
and resources, including | And an emerging debate cen- |
national hotlines. For more | ters on how to discipline |
information, contact CEA at | a special needs child.(#5) |
800/783-1232. |_____________________________|
============== QUOTE OF THE DAY ==============
"This remains the single largest unfunded mandate in the plethora
of unfunded mandates." -- U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), on
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (#5)
_______________________________________________________________
| A service of the National Education Goals Panel |
| Published by the Education Policy Network |
| 1255 22nd Street NW; Wash, D.C.; 20037; 202/632-0952 |
| The DRC hereby authorizes further reproduction and |
| distribution with proper acknowledgement. |
| Publisher: Barbara A. Pape |
Staff Writer: Elizabeth Gage |
|_______________________________________________________________|
============== TABLE OF CONTENTS ==============
SPECIAL EDUCATION
OVER-REPRESENTED: Minorities in special ed. (#1)
A NEW DAWN: Calif. renews its special ed division. (#2)
SPECIAL ED REGS: Pa district fails to comply . (#3)
CITY HALL
WRONG INCENTIVES?: Steering students to special ed. (#4)
ON THE HILL
DISCIPLINE AND THE DISABLED: New get tough policy. (#5)
===== SPECIAL EDUCATION =====
*1 OVER-REPRESENTED: MINORITIES IN SPECIAL ED
Montgomery Country, Md., is hailed as a school district with
a "head start" on ensuring that minorities are not over-
represented in special education (Athans, BALTO SUN, 4/6). Five
Md. school districts -- Howard, Harford, Prince George's,
Baltimore and Montgomery -- all have been placed under review by
the U.S. DoEd's Office of Civil Rights. Federal officials
targeted the Md. school districts as part of a "national campaign
to end the over-representation of minority group members in
certain special education programs." (Beyers, WASH POST, 4/7).
Even before the federal government stepped in, Montgomery
officials initiated their own review of minority enrollment in
special education. According to the SUN, the district appointed
an officer to ensure that "everything possible to correct
learning and behavior problems before assigning labels to
children" was being done. Frieda Lacey, the district's equity
assurance officer, reported that general-education teachers
lacked the skills and training necessary to work with special
students. She also criticized tests for emotional disturbance as
culturally biased and said parents needed to be involved in their
child's placement. "When students are not successful in general
education, the preferred solution is to refer them to special
education," said Lacey.
The SUN reports that the U.S. DoEd's Office of Civil Rights
has initiated administrative action against four school districts
across the country and has sent six cases to the U.S. Department
of Justice for litigation. A DoEd spokesman said that two
districts over the past 15 to 20 years have decided not to
receive federal funds, rather than "correct violations," writes
the paper.
Civil rights officials explain that they have not determined
that the Md. districts are in violation of law; and "the
agreements being drafted reflect the agency's new collaborative
approach," which stresses working with districts rather than
traditional investigations, reports the paper. "They have all
been extremely cooperative and forthright," said Brenda Wolff,
deputy regional director of the agency's office in Philadelphia.
"We were able to piggyback on what they had already been doing."
However, the new emphasis on partnership between the federal
agency and the school district is under attack by some advocates
for minorities, writes the POST. "Their approach is too timid."
said James Robinso, a founder of the Citizens Minority Relations
Monitoring Committee in Montgomery County. "It is designed to
placate the powers that be. He added: "The truth is [civil
rights officials'] have never done much, and now they are going
to do less."
Specific measures taken by Montgomery County to counter the
inappropriate labeling of children as special education students
include: training teachers, improving monitoring, toughening
screening procedures for children suspected of being emotionally
disturbed, and assigning a volunteer to work with parents during
the child's special education screening process, writes the
paper. Yet, data shows only a slight drop in the proportion of
black students identified as learning disabled in Montgomery.
According to some experts, "the debate gets thorny where
poverty and other environmental factors create signs of
disabilities," writes the paper. Philip Burke, chairman of the
special education department at the U of Maryland points to
research that suggests medical and prenatal care, language
skills, family support and readiness for school also affect a
child's performance in school. Burke: "... deficits in those
areas are some of the key factors that cause children to be
referred to special education."
Sandra Marx, special education director in Howard County,
expressed concern over the lack of options for children -- white
or minority -- who exhibit learning problems. "There's quite
often no other place they can go other than special education,"
she said.
*2 A NEW DAWN: CALIF. RENEWS ITS SPECIAL ED DIVISION
The Calif. DoEd Special Education Division has decided to
overhaul its special education services for students, ages birth
to 22 years old. The new approach involves "a multi-level,
results-based approach to instructional improvement," according
to a Calif. DoEd press release (4/4). Services will be
coordinated with state Superintendent of Public Instruction
Delaine Eastin's Challenge School District Reform Initiative
"which seeks to achieve high levels of learning for all
students," writes the release.
The goals of the new system are to provide: "a structure for
flexibility and local control; accountability measures for
quality instruction and services; integration of special and
general education; and compliance with federal law with a basis
for changes in state law if necessary," according to the release.
The Calif. DoEd is circulating a draft of the Service
Delivery Document throughout the state via the Internet, by mail
and in person. Input from teachers, parents, students, school
administrators and service providers will be welcome at 19 public
input sessions. Feedback from these groups will be used to
revise or reshape the new service delivery system which will be
implemented in the 1997-98 school year.
To access the document electronically check the Calif.
bulletin board at (CA.ACCESS.NET.) or the Internet at
(http://goldmine.cde.ca.gov). A video explaining the service
delivery system also is available; to request the video call
Resources in Special Education at 1-800-894-9799.
*3 SPECIAL ED REGS: PA DISTRICT FAILS TO COMPLY
The Pa. state DoEd found that the Wilkinsburg School
District is not "in compliance with special education
regulations," (Haynes, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE,3/19). The state
decided to step in and train teachers and administrators in the
district adjacent to Pittsburgh. "We want to work with the
district to enhance the training provided to district teachers
and administrators," said Sean Duffy, a DoEd spokesman.
Bill Penn, director of the Pa. DoEd's Bureau of Special
Education, visited the district last February in response to
complaints by parents whose students attended Turner Elementary
School. He found that paperwork was not being completed and that
there seemed to be a lack of understanding regarding certain
regulations, according Duffy.
Teachers and administrators now will be trained to fill out
individual education plans for each student and they will be
informed of deadlines, because special education evaluations must
be completed within 45 calendar days after the district has
received parental permission, the paper writes.
Duffy tried to deflect attention on Turner Elementary
School, which is managed by a Alternative Public Schools Inc., a
private company based in Nashville, Tenn. The firm has hired
nonunion teachers. "There are people that want to make this a
Turner issue, and this is not a Turner issue. This is a
districtwide issue," Duffy said.
=== CITY HALL ===
*4 WRONG INCENTIVES?: STEERING STUDENTS TO SPECIAL ED
New York City's Board of Education and Human Resources
Administration has "aggressively steered thousands of poor
students classified with learning difficulties or emotional
problems off municipal welfare and onto Federal disability
payments, saving the city and state $5.2M," (Richardson, N.Y.
TIMES, 4/6). However, children's advocates and special education
experts charge that the move to save money is damaging to
children by "encouraging families and officials to keep children
in dead-end special education programs" just because they are
low-income, writes the paper.
Financial incentives are strong: families with children in
special education get far more welfare per child from federal
programs than from municipal welfare.
The Board of Education's official policy is that students
with learning disabilities should be placed in regular classrooms
because they are more likely to thrive in that environment.
Despite that policy, special education has become a "dumping
ground for students who teachers find bothersome," writes the
paper. A disproportionate number of Hispanic and black boys in
the system are classified as attention deficit disorder,
emotionally disturbed or challenged by reading difficulties,
reports the paper.
School officials prefer to see a decline in the special
education rolls; reserving the program for the approximately 10%
of seriously disabled now in the system. However, the city's
push to save money by bumping families off welfare and onto
federal benefits is an incentive to keep more children in the
special education system, notes the paper.
In 1990, a Supreme Court ruling made it easier for mildly
disabled children to receive federal benefits through Social
Security Insurance. Special education programs have helped
qualify children for the program. The city and families have
incentives to label children as disabled because they can receive
up to $470 per month for a child through S.S.I.
"It raises a whole host of questions about what's best for a
child and what's best for the purse strings of the schools," said
Galen Kirkland, executive director of Advocates for Children, a
non profit organization. "There's no doubt it's good for some
kids. But the history of dysfunction in public education in the
city of New York - if it teaches us anything, it teaches us to be
extremely skeptical and rigorous in our questioning of programs
predicated on financing streams that could retard the educational
development of children."
Some experts are concerned that mildly disabled students
signed up for S.S.I. will never reach their potential. "It could
lead them to be dependent for the rest of their lives," said
Pamela Loprest, an economist at the Washington, D.C.-based Urban
Institute, a bipartisan social policy research center.
School officials and the city claim they are "simply making
parents of disabled children aware of their entitlement," the
paper writes. They also say the city's fiscal crisis has forced
them to cut welfare costs by seeking more federal benefits for
those who are eligible. More than 11,000 children have been
shifted off of welfare and onto S.S.I. under the guidance of the
city and school.
Blossom Richards, a Brooklyn parent, was approached by a
caseworker who said Richard's son Shawn qualified for S.S.I. "He
told me that Shawn would be getting S.S.I. for the rest of his
life," said Richards. "I told him that Shawn is not handicapped,
that Shawn can work, but the guy said that doesn't matter. He
could sit at home and get money and it would be increasing
instead of decreasing."
==== ON THE HILL ====
*5 DISCIPLINE AND THE DISABLED: NEW GET TOUGH POLICY
U.S. Senator Bill Frist, (R-Tenn.) sponsored a revision of
the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that will
make it easier for schools to discipline students with "learning
problems or physical disabilities," (Brosnan, WASH TIMES, 3/22).
Frist's provision maintains current law that requires
placement in the least restrictive environment and calls for a
reduction in the amount of "paperwork and redtape" necessary for
special education services, reports the paper. However, his
proposals on discipline and funding issues were more
contentious.
Currently, school officials can not discipline a student if
the disruption "is related to the handicap of the student,"
writes the paper. If a weapon is involved in the disruption, a
school must have a hearing with the parent of the disabled child
before officials can suspend the child or place the student in
another school. If parents object to a school official's
actions, proceedings can continue for up to one year.
Under Frist's plan, a student with minor violations could
be suspended up to 10 days, writes the paper. For continuous
violations, a school could suspend the child for 10 days
initially, "during which time parents, teachers and school
officials could decide what to do," according to the paper.
However, if a student violates school policy against dangerous
weapons or drug possession, causes bodily injury or engages in
"serious disruptive behavior," school officials would be allowed
to "place the child somewhere other than the old school for an
additional 35 days for further evaluation," writes the paper.
Weapons and drug violations, under the Frist provision, could
result in the student being expelled without follow-up services
if the behavior was deemed unrelated to the disability.
The TIMES also reports that the new law unequivocally states
that school officials are not prohibited from referring criminal
behavior to juvenile authorities or the police.
According to the paper, funding the bill will be a
challenge. When IDEA was initially established in 1975, the
federal government planned to provide 40% of the funds. Today
the federal government funds less than 7% of the cost. "This
remains the single largest unfunded mandate in the plethora of
unfunded mandates," declared Sen. Judd Gregg, (R-N.H.).
One option for funding the proposed changes would be to
allow school systems "to bill-back certain special education
services to other agencies that have a responsibility to be sure
those services are provided," said American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) Executive Director Paul Houston (AASA press
release, 3/4). Senator Frist's proposal also suggests
eliminating payment of attorney fees during the process of
developing Individual Education Plans (IEPS).
"Unfortunately, the federal government has never fully
funded these mandates, and school systems have had to dig deeply
into their pockets, namely pulling funds from general education
programs, to pay for them. These provisions, if passed, will be
an enormous help to school systems and will lead to an even
better education for all students," Houston said.
Click here to return to OFCN's
Academy Program
Click here to return to OFCN's Main Index Page.
John Kurilecjmk@ofcn.org