School Administrators Offer Tempered Enthusiasm for Anticipated Release of Special Education Commission Report

7/9/2002

From: Bruce Hunter of the American Association of School Administrators, 703-875-0738

ARLINGTON, Va., July 9 -- Strengthening the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) creates a win-win situation for students with disabilities and the public schools that provide their educational services, according to the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). But AASA Executive Director Paul Houston said any recommendations that delay mandatory congressional full funding for IDEA or create special education vouchers are "bad public policy."

Congress today kicked off the first round of discussions on reauthorizing IDEA at a Senate education committee hearing. Former Gov. Terry Branstad, chair of the Commission on Excellence in Special Education, discussed the commission's upcoming report on ways to improve the educational performance of students with disabilities.

Houston said that until the commission's final report is issued, school administrators offer "tempered enthusiasm" to Branstad's outline of the commission's recommendations. "We like most of what we hear regarding policy," he said. "Recommendations that emphasize outcomes vs. procedural compliance and earlier identification of students for special education services are supported by both administrators and teachers. The commission has indicated that its accountability recommendations will translate into meaningful paperwork reductions. This would eliminate an enormous burden for our teachers and allow them to better focus their attention on providing improved educational services for children with disabilities."

Houston added that reforms to the current process for identifying students with learning disabilities would be a "welcome change" for school administrators. "We agree with the commission that using the discrepancy between a student's IQ and his or her performance on norm-referenced tests has no basis in scientific fact. Earlier identification is needed because intervention is not only more effective but also more cost-effective in the long run," he said.

But Houston noted that the commission's recommendations for a study to estimate the actual cost of providing special education services represents "yet another federal government delaying tactic on providing the critical funds necessary for school administrators to implement this law."

"School administrators don't need another federal government study to tell them what they already know: that they are forced to divert money from programs serving non-disabled kids to pay for mandated services under IDEA. Congress' failure to provide its fair share of the cost for nearly three decades has created an educational divide and it needs to end," Houston said. When Congress enacted IDEA in 1975, it promised that it would contribute up to 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for each special education student. In the 26 years since IDEA was enacted, Congress has never fully funded its commitment. If IDEA had been fully funded, state and local governments would have saved an estimated $311 billion. Funding for FY2002 alone is $10.5 billion short of the Congressional commitment.

AASA recently commissioned a bipartisan poll that shows Americans believe Congress should pay for its share of IDEA. Seventy-five percent believe that the government should fund the program to the level authorized in the original legislation.

Houston added that the poll also shows 84 percent of Americans oppose having opportunities denied to non-disabled children because of the lack of funding. Because funding of IDEA is mandatory, the shortfall in funds has typically been made up from other education funding and has forced state and local governments to cut funding and eliminate programs for non-disabled students.

Mandatory congressional full funding is not an issue that needs further study; rather, it needs immediate congressional action, Houston said. "States are facing a second straight year of budgetary cutbacks, a significant piece of which comes from the education budget. More funding discussions are not needed, action to correct this decades-old unfunded mandate is." Houston added that "it's ironic that the commission would recommend further study on funding, especially when one of its members, Jay Chambers, senior research fellow and a managing director in the education program at the American Institute for Research, was one of the principle investigators in a recent Department of Education study that examined how much is being spent to educate children with disabilities."

"Delays in funding do nothing but deny educational opportunities to one child at the expense of another," Houston said. "When is Congress going to stop pitting disabled children against their non-disabled peers?"

School administrators are not happy with the commission's recommendation that states offer vouchers. Houston said a voucher recommendation would "drain scarce resources away from the public schools without mandating accountability of the funds and guaranteed educational services. At a time when local, state and federal governments are in agreement that school systems must be held accountable for the educational services they provide, creating a voucher program with no guarantee of mandated educational services seems like a colossal waste of taxpayer money," Houston said.

Another area of concern with the commission's final report surrounds the document's lack of disciplinary recommendations. School administrators also are "scratching their heads in disbelief" that the commission chose to sidestep the discipline provisions in IDEA rather than make meaningful recommendations, Houston said.

"After holding hearings across the country for the past six months to glean insight to the changes needed to IDEA, we are baffled that the commission did not consider changing the current discipline provisions. After full funding, school superintendents place discipline as their No. 2 unresolved special education issue," he said. "School administrators need a single code of conduct for all students that can be easily applied. The law's current provisions are confounding, complex and result in special education students who commit the same offenses receiving radically different punishments from non-special education students."