D
|
|
D
|
|
|
Bulletin Boards |
Front page |
IDEA FUNDING, WITH MORE STATE CONTROL, IN PLAY AS CONGRESS FINISHES ED BILL
|
|
|
The committee of 18 Democrats and 20 Republicans is working to reconcile numerous differences in S.1 and H.R.1, the elementary and secondary education reauthorization bills that passed the Senate and the House, respectively, earlier this year. In addition to the full-funding plan, H.R.1 contains a provision that, if passed unchanged, would remove some of the protections added to IDEA in 1997 for students who break discipline rules on school property.
The discipline amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.), would allow state and local education agencies to draft their own discipline rules, to apply to all students whether they have a disability or not, for cases involving weapons, assault or drugs. Introducing the amendment on the House floor in May, Norwood argued it will make schools safer by applying the rules to all students. "A special needs student receives preferential treatment when it comes to being punished for outrageous behavior," Norwood said. "My amendment…gives schools the authority to have a consistent discipline policy for all students. It allows special needs students to be disciplined under the same policy as non-special needs students in the exact same situation."
Though the Sessions-Norwood amendment passed the House as part of H.R.1, some in the House and Senate oppose the measure, and lobbyists in the disability community say it could still be defeated in conference. Among those against changing IDEA's discipline protection is Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a member of the conference committee and an original author of the federal special ed law in the mid 1970s. Speaking against the measure during House debate, Miller rejected Norwood's suggestion that kids with disabilities get preferential treatment.
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS GET IDEA DISCIPLINE HELP |
"What we do under the law is recognize that children with handicaps, with disabilities, in many instances, must be treated differently because of those disabilities," Miller argued. "What we do in this is suggest that we cannot, under the federal law, deny them continued education if they are suspended, because we understand the problems of educating some of these children, many of whom have multiple handicaps, multiple disabilities; that if we stop the educational services, in many instances, it is very difficult to start or to have that child catch up."
As the conference committee continues to meet, the disability community is lobbying hard to defeat the Sessions-Norwood amendment. The National Mental Health Association cautions against "the proposed abandonment of current law protections, because a disproportionate number of youngsters involved in school disciplinary proceedings are children with serious emotional disturbances." According to the NMHA, "Adoption of either of the proposed disciplinary amendments would set back the clock to a period when thousands of students were denied special education by school systems."
The NMHA and other special ed advocates, including the Council for Exceptional Children, argue any revision or reconsideration of IDEA's discipline policy belongs in the IDEA reauthorization process, which is slated to begin next year.
The Hagel-Harkin funding plan, on the other hand, has won widespread endorsement from the disability community and education organizations. Eight groups sent conferees a letter last week to nudge the committee toward approving the plan. "At the state level, and most importantly at the local level, the full federal commitment for IDEA is crucial to education reform," the groups argued. "Given the overall economic uncertainty facing our nation and declining revenues available at the state and local level, it is imperative that Congress provides the funding promised for children with disabilities."
Critical to ensuring passage of some kind of IDEA funding measure is the support of the states as well. The National Governors' Association has not specifically endorsed the Hagel-Harkin plan, but at its annual meeting in August the group passed a resolution supporting "enactment of legislation that makes IDEA funding a mandatory expenditure with incremental increases and eases the current federal restrictions for offsetting the costs to states."
The CEC, the National Education Association, the National PTA and others say they are willing to accept such an easement of the federal rules -- including allowing states to spend less than the total amount of federal aid allocated for special education each year -- if the states do a better job of providing services to students with special needs.
NCD WANTS STATE IDEA OVERSIGHT SHIFTED FROM PARENTS TO DOJ |
Under the Hagel-Harkin plan, school districts would be allowed to spend as much as 55 percent of the extra federal funds they receive starting in fiscal year 2002 on non-special ed projects. For example, the state of Wisconsin received $108.45 million in federal funds for special ed programs in 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Under the Hagel-Harkin plan, it would receive an additional $83.45 million, according to estimates by the American Association of School Administrators, as the first step toward meeting the federal government's 40 percent commitment by 2007. School districts in Wisconsin could use up to $45.9 million of the extra $83.45 million on general education programs.
Over 10 years, the CEC estimates, that could yield an extra $77.2 billion in money for other school programs, while at least $104.06 billion would always be reserved for special ed. With flexibility comes accountability, however. If a school district fails to meet IDEA's requirements, it would lose that spending freedom and could be required to put the special ed funds into specific programs as dictated by the Department of Education. On the flip side, local school districts that can already demonstrate they fully comply with all of IDEA's rules could apply for permission to use all of its extra special ed allocation on other projects. Linking increased spending flexibility to state compliance with IDEA could delay the redirection of extra special ed funds to non-special ed programs in many states. As previously reported, all 50 states have consistently failed to meet most of IDEA's requirements in recent years.8
