Bulletin Boards |Shopping & Classifieds |Calendar |About Us

Front page

Behavior Management

Conflict Resolution

Early Intervention

For Educators

For Families

Internet & Assistive Technology

Recreation & Sports

Specific Disabilities

State By State

Transition

Washington Watch

Site Map

FEDERAL SPECIAL ED CHIEFS EXHORT STATE DIRECTORS TO WORK, LOBBY HARDER

May 16, 2000

WASHINGTON -- Better teachers and state compliance with federal special education law will drive better learning and, ultimately, more promising futures for students with disabilities, the U.S. Department of Education's special ed chiefs say. But reaching those goals will require a complex combination of reforms at the local level, more support from state legislatures and more federal money, Assistant Secretary of Education Judy Heumann and Office of Special Education Programs Director Ken Warlick told state special ed directors earlier this month.

The state directors, and many of their staffers, spent a week here in early May comparing notes and examining new ideas for how to tackle some of the toughest issues in special education, not the least of which is how to fund the reforms they are required to make. In fact, in conferences sponsored by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education and OSEP, one of the resounding themes among the state directors was the state improvement grants OSEP awards each year under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

NINE STATES GET NEW GRANTS UNDER IDEA May 10, 2000

Attitude Shift Needed

Though federal funding is central to improving special ed programs at the local level, Warlick and Heumann argued an overall shift in attitudes at every level of government is equally important. For example, Heumann lamented the short shrift special education issues receive even within general education discussions in Washington.

"Our ability to work collaboratively between special education and regular education is more important than ever," she said. It is especially frustrating for OSEP, Heumann added, "when priorities are being put forward on issues that clearly should be integrating disabilities and we're kind of like running after the train on a regular basis. But one thing I have to say for my staff is they have learned to run well. We catch that sucker train all the time. It may however be almost out the door, but we do our best to jump on and get a ride."

Similar effort is needed from the state directors of special ed to help state legislators understand how important special ed programs are, Heumann said. "The bigger picture is education leads to work," she said, arguing states must recognize their "constitutional obligation to educate all children."

State legislatures must demand not only more money for special ed programs but also accountability for how that money is spent, she added. "I've seen too few state legislative bodies get really grasping the fact that, in order for all of you to do your jobs well, because it's the same for us, in order for us to do an effective job at monitoring and enforcement, elected representatives have to recognize that disabled children can do better than they are doing, that principals should no longer be given the right to decide whether or not disabled kids are going in their schools and that classroom teachers have no right to decide whether or not a special ed kid is coming in their class," Heumann said.

"If we have to worry about whether or not an elected representative is going to back us up when we identify problems when we are doing monitoring, it makes our job more difficult," she said. "As we are fighting for more money, the more money is for one purpose and that's to get kids in school, staying in school, benefiting from school, graduating, moving into higher education and into the world of work. And that is a message that people are still not talking about effectively enough."

Part B Funds Take Center Stage

OSEP is not deaf to the states' pleas for more money to accomplish all of these goals, Heumann and Warlick said, noting they continue to spend substantial amounts of time lobbying Capitol Hill for full funding for IDEA's Part B state programs and additional money to improve the law's Part D federal programs. In this election year, Warlick said, fully funding the Part B programs is taking precedence, as members of Congress focus on winning for their states the 40 percent funding promised in the original special ed law many years ago. As reported, no federal budget has included in its state disbursements more than 14 percent of the cost of educating students with disabilities, even though providing all the services they need costs 40 percent more than the cost of educating a student without disabilities. A pair of bills has been introduced in the House of Representatives this year to gradually increase Washington's contribution to those costs.

CALIFORNIA CONGRESSMAN MAKES FIRST MOVE TO FULLY FUND IDEA February 11, 2000

"The issue around funding for Part B is driving out any other dialog around any other educational issue at all," whether it relates to special ed or general ed, Warlick told the state directors.

Once that debate is over, education hands will turn their attention to getting more money for the Part D federal programs that provide technical support, research and training for all state special ed programs, he said. That battle will require better lobbying from parents and teachers all the way up the ladder to emphasize the importance of the Part D support programs, Warlick said.

"We will only be likely to get the [money] that we need if we can get, if we have people who are at the classroom level themselves who understand the value of those dollars," he said. "We are told that if we can change the dialog at the local level -- and also we can demonstrate not only how the Part D dollars are being spent but how the Part B dollars, and particularly the state improvement grants, are being spent -- that we may have the potential for getting more money there."

Teacher Training, Assessments Key

As the quest for political support for special education programs continues, state and local education agencies must keep trying to improve using the resources they have, Heumann and Warlick said. Among a handful of goals, they noted states need to pay particular attention to developing stronger teacher training programs and increasing their focus on post-secondary outcomes for students.

Teacher training can no longer consist solely of a couple of inservice days scattered through the school year, Warlick said. These programs must focus on continuously building both special ed and general ed teachers' knowledge and skills, to build their confidence in handling inclusive classrooms. It is not just the general ed teachers, many of whom lack understanding of specific disabilities, who are uncomfortable with inclusion, Warlick noted. Special ed teachers often feel isolated and unqualified to teach in inclusive classrooms because their training has been so focused on addressing disabilities and has generally left out curricular and academic achievement topics.

The new teacher training model should provide learning opportunities that are continuous, that are available on demand through the Internet or other sources and that include opportunities for teachers to talk to each other and evaluate their learning progress, Warlick said. Personnel training programs must be developed at the state level and implemented by supportive and committed local administrators, he added. The states can ensure school districts understand the law and their compliance requirements, he explained, but principals and superintendents must be responsible for addressing the specific issues -- such as teacher training -- that will promote compliance.

When looking at the ultimate results for students, Warlick argued the first step should be ending the debate over curriculum planning as a choice between developing functional skills or academic skills. "Whether it's a child with a disability or whether it's a gifted child, all children do need basic daily living skills," he said. Some students learn incidentally or within the context of the family, while others need to be taught directly.

But, he noted, all need to acquire those skills somehow. "For children without disabilities, those daily living skills or functional skills, if you wish, is a way for access to the academic program. If you don't have the combination of academic skills and the daily living skills, we are indeed denying many of our children the opportunity to make choices for themselves for the rest of school, as they do into adulthood. You really can't have true independence unless you have both opportunities," Warlick said.

Similarly, schools must address academic and behavioral issues simultaneously during the school years to steer children toward success after they leave school, he said. Academic failure breeds behavioral problems, which lead to higher dropout rates, truancy and delinquency, which breed academic failure, Warlick explained. "We need to end this vicious cycle."

Access to the general curriculum and participation in statewide assessments are critical for the academic achievement of students with special needs, Warlick and Heumann stressed. NASDSE data shows 70 percent of state directors of special education say their biggest challenge in creating professional development programs is ensuring educators understand assessments and accomodations and meet the goals laid out in individualized education plans, Warlick said.

While that is a legitimate concern, he added, state administrators must be careful not to view teacher training in the vacuum of assessments and schoolwide results. Training improvement must focus on more than just state testing outcomes, he argued. "You need to be certain that teachers understand that the linkage between standards, curriculum development, day-to-day instructional practice and assessments are one single unified approach. If you do not have teachers understanding those connections you will indeed have really serious problems," he said.8